Abortion On Demand For The Fourth Trimester

It is now official policy of MSNBC to promote the implementation of postpartum or 4th trimester abortion.  This call for Infanticide is being led by that paragon of motherhood, Melissa Harris-Perry.

Today Natural News denounces Melissa Harris-Perry, the latest talking head "death worshipper" to publicly imply that she supports the murder of living, breathing newborn children. According to Harris-Perry, life begins when the parents feel like life begins. And together with some twisted new "ethics" arguments from the radical left, this can include months or years after a child is born.

That's why I need to premise this article with a disclaimer: This article is not about abortion. It's about the murder of children after they are born. Because once a child is born alive, terminating that life is no longer a "choice" … it's murder by every legal and moral standard. Because while abortion friends and foes can argue about when life begins in the womb, no one disagrees that a child born alive is, well, ALIVE… do they?

Indeed, they do. MSNBC talking head Melissa Harris-Perry insists that life only begins when the parents have a "feeling" that it begins. "When does life begin? I submit the answer depends an awful lot on the feeling of the parents. A powerful feeling -- but not science," Harris-Perry said to nationwide astonishment on her July 21 MSNBC show.

And in one stroke, she simultaneously condones the murder of newborn infants (i.e. "post-birth abortion") while attacking the science of biology which unambiguously states that a living, breathing infant with a heartbeat and brain function is alive, not dead.

But don't tell that to the radical abortion whackos. Far beyond arguing for the "right" to abort a baby in the first or second trimester, many abortion advocates who run in the same circles as Melissa Harris-Perry are now publicly arguing that it is okay for parents to kill their children up to age three. This is now being promoted as a "post-birth abortion."

It was also called a "fourth trimester abortion" by a clever pollster who recently took to the streets of George Mason University to find out if summertime college students would sign a petition legalizing fourth-trimester abortions. Nearly all who were asked to sign the petition did so! One of the college students even asked whether the procedure would "cause harm to the child."

"Well the child wouldn't be there anymore," responded the pollster, after which the college student then proceeded to sign the petition.



Click here if the video doesn't load.

And yes, this is how incredibly stupid many of today's college students really are. Then again, I remember a guy back in college who walked in on a group of us watching a football game and asked, "How many quarters are there in a football game?" His lack of mathematical prowess would have made him a ripe target for the "fourth trimester abortion" gimmick, I'll bet.

Murdering live babies under the label of "abortion"

Let's be clear about where all this is headed. This is not about arguing over a woman's right to have a first- or second-trimester abortion. This isn't even a debate about a third-trimester abortion, the kind of abortion that was recently outlawed in Texas, much to the despair of late-term abortion advocates across the country, some of whom actually chanted "Hail Satan" in unison at the Austin abortion rally.

This is really about the zealous desire of the radical left to legalize the "aborting" of babies after they are born alive so that parents can have the legal right to kill living babies they suddenly decide they don't want to raise.

Getting back to Harris-Perry, according to her radical brand of death culture ideology, a parent can "decide" that a baby born alive isn't really alive yet. That parent can wait to see whether the baby is well-behaved, or cute, or has the right skin color, or whatever, before deciding whether to keep it or kill it. If such an ideology were fronted by someone like George Bush, it would be wildly derided as barbaric and anti-human, but because the idea of murdering newborn babies is being pushed by liberals, it is met with silence instead of outrage.

"When a pregnancy is wanted . . . It is easy to think of the bump as a baby," says Melissa Harris-Perry, implying that when a pregnancy is not wanted, that bump isn't a baby at all. Somehow it's just a mass of dead tissue that you can dispose of at will. The fact that the "bump" results in a live childbirth is never admitted by people like Harris-Perry. The baby isn't "alive" until you decide it is!

Recently, two black parents were shocked to find that the woman gave birth to a white baby. According to Melissa Harris-Perry, these two black parents can now "decide" their white baby isn't alive at all and therefore commit infanticide that's rephrased as a "post-birth abortion."

This is the position embraced by the radical left: babies are not humans, and it is okay to murder them even up to age three.

Newborn babies have no "moral right to life"

A study published in the Journal of Medical Ethics argues that newborn babies have no Alberto Giubilini, from The University of Milan, and Francesca Minerva, a post-doctoral fellow at The University of Melbourne's Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, are heroes of the radical left. They argue that infanticide should be legal but renamed "post-birth abortion."

"moral right to life," and are thus not actually "persons."

They insist that newborn babies have no right to life and that parents can simply "decide" to kill their children for all sorts of reasons, including feeling like the child will be too expensive to raise, or suddenly discovering the fact that newborn babies cry a lot.

"Rather than being actual persons, newborns were potential persons," write the study authors. They don't really count as human beings until the parents decide they do.

This appears to be the same argument being made by MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry, who expressed extreme outrage over the murder of Trayvon Martin but seems to openly embrace the murder of countless black infants who are born alive and healthy but are "unwanted" by their parents. Life begins based "on the feeling of the parents," she submits. So it's utterly unscientific and subject to (liberal) interpretation, which in this case seems to favor infanticide and even eugenics. (By far most aborted babies in America are Black and Hispanic. If post-birth abortion is openly embraced, most of the murdered infants will also be Black and Hispanic.)

And so the violent contradiction of radical leftist ideology is exposed in the raw: Liberals claim to support "equality" but then they consider living babies to be "non-persons." Liberals claim to support racial minorities, yet they endorse and even encourage the murder of the young babies of their own minority race. Liberals claim that all life is sacred, but their glaring exception is the life of a newborn child, which should be the most sacred of all but is instead considered worthless.

When it comes to taking a life, pro-abortion liberals are all for it. But when it comes to defending your life with a legal firearm, liberals are aggressively opposed to it.

So let me get this straight: Murder is okay but self defense is evil?

Or better yet, if Trayvon Martin had been an "unwanted" newborn just six months old, would his murder have been celebrated by the left instead of mourned? Help me figure this out, please, because I'm trying to understand at what age, exactly, the murder of a young black baby invokes racially-charged marches across the nation vs. receiving applause from people like Melissa Harris-Perry. Apparently if Trayvon Martin had been murdered by his own parents 16 years earlier, that would have been perfectly acceptable to these people.

Melissa Harris-Perry is a modern-day holocaust denier

At the risk of being accused of making sense, let me state the obvious here: People like Melissa Harris-Perry are the new holocaust deniers. They are anti-human agenda pushers who literally inspire others to murder their own children.

I don't know about you, but I cannot accept, as a spiritual human being and a responsible member of society, the legalization of the murder of babies who are born alive and breathing. Yet that is precisely what the radical left is pushing for: the "right" to murder their own children up to the age of three. (Oh yeah, they're also pushing for the "right" to kill elderly people, but that's another article altogether.)

Such an agenda is despicable, if not downright demonic. And the fact that people like Harris-Perry spew this death cult violence on MSNBC -- the propaganda branch of the White House -- only further proves that MSNBC has lost all credibility and is now being run as a Hitler-style holocaust support network that tolerates hosts who effectively endorse the mass murder of babies all across America.

There is evil in this nation, and wicked women like Harris-Perry are steeped in it. Mainstream media networks like MSNBC thrive on it, and the destructive forces that currently occupy the White House gain power from it. Everywhere you turn, there are efforts under way to sow racial hatred, murder innocent babies, poison the food supply, chemically lobotomize children with vaccines and enslave the masses medically and economically.

I hereby denounce this wickedness, on the record, as a statement of principle for the world to witness. I will forever oppose these merchants of death and their sick, demented eugenics schemes. I will fight to protect the lives of the innocent for as long as I am alive, even if those innocent lives include two-day-old black babies who have just been brought into this world through the miracle of gestation and childbirth. I call for all Natural News readers and supporters to take steps each and every day to resist evil and overcome the forces of death and destruction that now dominate our society through witch-hearted minions like Melissa Harris-Perry, a traitor to humanity and an endorser of the murder of children.

This woman should be immediately blackballed by the entire media and yanked off the air to return to her own little world of tampon earrings and dead newborns. Or maybe she will murder her own baby in the near future and feature it on the set of MSNBC in a special celebration broadcast complete with pentagrams etched on the desk and a chorus of hooded Satan worshippers drinking the blood of the dead fetus while Melissa Harris-Perry reads the names of sponsors. Sadly, it would probably get record ratings and be heralded by the death culture media as "pioneering television." And it would most certainly be cheered by the radical left as a "choice."

SOURCE

Melissa Harris-Perry is a the best example of liberal thinking in this nation.  I expect ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN to all jump onto this bandwagon and promote Postpartum Abortion on demand.

You can contact Melissa Harris-Perry directly here.
You can contact MSNBC here. 

While MSNBC will never fire Melissa Harris-Perry, we can discover their advertisers, write to both the Network and the Advertisers calling for a nation-wide boycott until she is fired.

I wonder if we have enough power to do it?  Shall we try?

We Believe It Is Okay To Murder The Child If The Parent Doesn't Want It!

Is basically the statement given by Planned Parenthood's lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow when asked if a child is born alive during a botched abortion what should be done with it.  This goes along with the teachings of Planned Parenthood and the writings of Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourn.  Professors (and I use the word loosely) Giubilni and Minerva believe that a parent has the right to murder her child until the child reaches the age of 2.  They claim the child is NOT a human and there is no soul.  Now it seems that Planned Parenthood is spouting this idea.

A representative from Planned Parenthood is raising some eyebrows for her response to questioning on Florida legislation that would require baby's born alive during a botched abortion to receive medical care.

Alisa LaPolt Snow, a lobbyist with the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified this week at a committee hearing on the bill, sparking expressions of disbelief when she underscored that such matters be left to the woman, her family and her physician.

"Planned Parenthood condemns any physician who does not follow the law or endangers a woman's or a child's health, but we don't believe that politicians should be the ones who decide what constitutes the best, medically appropriate treatment in any given situation," she said in a prepared statement.

One of the lawmakers asked her what Planned Parenthood's position would be if a baby is born as a result of a botched abortion.

"We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family and the physician," she said.

When another lawmaker asks her specifically what Planned Parenthood does when such a scenario happens at its clinics, she said simply, "I do not have that information."

Another lawmaker made the point that the baby born alive would become a patient as well, not just the mother.

"That's a very good question," Snow said. "I really don't know how to answer that."

She had said earlier that Planned Parenthood's primary objection to the legislation is that it doesn't include a "neutrality clause" that would make clear it does not change the legal status of a baby before being born alive.

Source

Has anyone else noticed that this debate is going from aborting children before birth to now murdering children after they are born?  And at what age do we consider the child "Human"?At what age does their murder become a crime?    2? 12?  21?  50? A week ago a pair of teens shot a 13 month old little boy in the head, killing him.  Today they are charged with murder.  If Alisa LaPolt Snow and Planned Parenthood have their way, they would be given medals and a monetary reward.

I fear this is the next "right" that the Sandra Flukes and Planned Parenthood cronies will impose upon us.  And I can just hear Satan laughing his head off.

Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After Birth Abortions

Hat tip to Iggymom

When is a child a person?  At conception?  Viability?  Birth?  In the last case it is none of the above.  According to Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne if you don't want the child and give birth, you have the right to kill it.

Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.

Alberto Giubilini

Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

Francesca Minerva

The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.

The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.” On this point, the authors write:

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.


Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

Giubilini and Minerva believe that being able to understand the value of a different situation, which often depends on mental development, determines personhood. For example, being able to tell the difference between an undesirable situation and a desirable one. They note that fetuses and newborns are “potential persons.” The authors do acknowledge that a mother, who they cite as an example of a true person, can attribute “subjective” moral rights to the fetus or newborn, but they state this is only a projected moral status.

The authors counter the argument that these “potential persons” have the right to reach that potential by stating it is “over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.”

And what about adoption? Giubilini and Minerva write that, as for the mother putting the child up for adoption, her emotional state should be considered as a trumping right. For instance, if she were to “suffer psychological distress” from giving up her child to someone else — they state that natural mothers can dream their child will return to them — then after-birth abortion should be considered an allowable alternative.

The authors do not tackle the issue of what age an infant would be considered a person.

Read the full story here

I suppose this is the next step by the left to "empower" a woman. Why should anyone be "burdened" or "saddled" with a child.  The child has no value.  It cannot ask work, dress itself, feed itself.  It is nothing to these so-called ethicists.  Ethics?  These two don't know the meaning of the word.  They feel as long as the "mother" doesn't want the child, she should have the right to kill it.

The American Declaration of Independence states this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

Have we forgotten those words?  Have we forgotten the simplest commandment of G-d:

Deuteronomy Chapter 5


16.  Thou shalt not murder.

Why should a child, born into the world, be MURDERED for the reason that it is inconvenient for the woman.  She should have thought of the consequences of her actions 9 months earlier when she decided to engage in sexual activity.

How a society treats the least and most helpless of its citizens shows how civilized, how mature it is.  This goes against all the rules of society.  But I fear it will be forced on us by those on the left.  First the "mother" choosing to kill her child, then the government forcing women to kill their children.  Especially those children who do not measure up to the government's idea of perfection.