[Nang]

*Headline from the London Daily Telegraph (March 4, 2012)

In Britain, two medical ethicists, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, associated with Oxford University, have published an article in the "Journal of Medical Ethics" contending that, "Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are 'morally irrelevant; ad ending their lives is no different than abortion."

The journal article's authors maintain that new-born babies are not actual "persons" and do not have a "moral life to life." The authors maintain that "killing a newborn should be permissable in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."

Understandably, they preferred to use the phrase "after-birth abortion" rather than "infanticide," to "emphasize the moral status of the individual killed with that of a fetus."

. . . The Telegraph story quotes Giubilini and Minerva: . . . "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 life.'" As to personhood, they answer, "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." (Excerpted from "Life is Cheap" by Rev. Michale De Vries, in The Standard Bearer, June 2012)

Please note my yellow emphasis, and wonder along with me, where all this wickedness might lead!

To Judgment Day, I am most sure!

God have mercy upon the little children . . .

Nang