When The United States Government Acts Like Obama's/Clinton's & President Bush's ISIS Terrorist

 ISIS Orders Mass-Murder Of Babies Born With Down’s Syndrome, ISIS have issued a fatwa to kill all newborn babies and children who have Down’s Syndrome and other disabilities. In a horrific Nazi-Like statement the ISIS Shar’ia Board issued an “oral fatwa” to it’s members urging them to “kill newborn babies with Down’s Syndrome and congenital deformities and disabled children”. 


ISIS orders fatwa against all children and newborn babies with down's syndrome

 Mirror.co.uk reports:

 The reports from the war-torn region are difficult to verify – it means ISIS has taken a leaf from the Nazis, who murdered disabled children it perceived to be a “burden on the state”.

 Mosul Eye monitored the deaths of children with Down’s Syndrome and other congenital deformities and discovered the fatwa was issued by one of Islamic States’s Shar’ia judges, a Saudi judge named ” Abu Said Aljazrawi.

 Their information indicates that most of the children born with Down’s Syndrome are those of foreign fighters who married Iraqi, Syrian and Asian women.

 The activists recorded more than 38 confirmed cases of killing babies with congenital deformities and Down’s Syndrome, aged between one week to three months. They were killed by either lethal injection or suffocation.

 Some of those killings took place in Saudi, Syria and Mosul.

 A statement from the activist group said: “As if it is not enough for ISIL (another name for ISIS) to kill men, women and the elderly, and now, they kill children.”

 One Facebook user said: “I have just shed tears for these babies. I have two children with special needs, my heart is breaking.

They are worse than the Nazis !!!!!

Richard Dawkins on Babies with Down Syndrome: “Abort it and try again”

 From an article in The Independent: “Budding atheists wondering whether Richard Dawkins is in need of a little time away from Twitter to reflect on the past few weeks are about to have their (lack of) prayers answered.

 The philosopher has managed to go one step further than his controversial comments on ‘date rape versus stranger rape’ to voice his opinions on what it would be ethical for a mother who is informed that her unborn child has Down Syndrome to do.

 He started off his conversation with followers ethically enough, highlighting the plight of women in Ireland, where abortion is illegal, in light of the recent reports of the country’s refusal to provide a safe abortion to a suicidal rape victim. She was forced to give birth.

“Ireland is a civilised country except in this 1 area,” he tweeted, adding “You’d think the Roman Church would have lost all influence,” to caption a link to a similar article. But after engaging in conversation with a number of users, his ethical values appeared to come a little unstuck.

“994 human beings with Down’s Syndrome deliberately killed before birth in England and Wales in 2012. Is that civilised?” @AidanMcCourt asked.

“Yes, it is very civilised. These are fetuses, diagnosed before they have human feelings,” Dawkins responded.

“I honestly don’t know what I would do if I were pregnant with a kid with Down Syndrome. Real ethical dilemma,” @InYourFaceNYer chimed in.

“Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice,” he tweeted back.

 Naturally, his reasoning prompted a slew of further comments – and subsequent commentary:

 Including this musing on aborting Down Syndrome children versus aborting. Obama's Hitler American Health Care System/ Obama Care.

Oxford University: Murdering Newborn Babies Should Be Legal

Oxford University say murdering newborn babies is no worse than abortion

 Oxford University claims that parents should be allowed to kill newborn babies because their lives are “morally irrelevant” and killing them is no different to an abortion.

According to a group of medical ethicists at the prestigious University, newborn babies are not “actual persons” and they have “no moral right to life.”

Telegraph.co.uk reports: The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article’s authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

 They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

 Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “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.”

 As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

 The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

 They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

 Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

 However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

 They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.

 Both Minerva and Giubilini know Prof Savulescu through Oxford. Minerva was a research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics until last June, when she moved to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University.

 Giubilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, gave a talk in January at the Oxford Martin School – where Prof Savulescu is also a director – titled ‘What is the problem with euthanasia?’

 He too has gone on to Melbourne, although to the city’s Monash University. Prof Savulescu worked at both univerisities before moving to Oxford in 2002.

Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not new”.

 What Minerva and Giubilini did was apply these arguments “in consideration of maternal and family interests”.

 While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”

 Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” – a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”

 He said the journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal.

 Dr Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary’s University College, said: “If a mother does smother her child with a blanket, we say ‘it’s doesn’t matter, she can get another one,’ is that what we want to happen?

“What these young colleagues are spelling out is what we would be the inevitable end point of a road that ethical philosophers in the States and Australia have all been treading for a long time and there is certainly nothing new.”

 Referring to the term “after-birth abortion”, Dr Stammers added: “This is just verbal manipulation that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide.”

Views: 33

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

This 100% Tea Party News !!!

President Bush's ISIS Terrorist

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AL Goodwyn

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

ALERT ALERT

 Rush Limbaugh: Hillary Just Admitted To Everything
I’ve Been Trying To Warn People About The Democrats!ll  

(TeaParty.org) – Rush Limbaugh, the godfather of conservative punditry, has a hait of being right.

And he’s well aware of this.

During a recent show, the commentator pointed out that Hillary Clinton had recently confirmed everything he’s been saying about Democrats for years.

Clinton, whose recent interview with CNN journalist Christiane Amanpour made headlines for many of the stunning things she said, also made a call for non-civility because the Democrats are not in power.

“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” she said. “That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.”

“(Hillary) pretty much admitted everything I have been trying to warn people of about the American left and the Democrat Party!” Limbaugh responded on his show.

“She went out and in her best Maxine Waters impersonation,” he continued. “She was encouraging people to be uncivil, and she was saying that it was justified being uncivil, given the opposition, the Republicans.”

Rush is well-aware that Democrats have only been feining civility whenever it suits their desperate pursuit of power.

“(I)f they win the House, then they can go back to being civil. If they win the Senate, then they can return to civility,” he summed up Clinton’s position.

“I mean, they’re making the case, they’re proving the point .… In all of this crazy, deranged, unhinged behavior of left-wing activists, I haven’t heard one elected Democrat denounce it,” he explained. “I haven’t heard one elected Democrat attempt to distance himself or herself or the party from it.”

The behavior he speaks of has been on full display in the attempt by an angry mob to disrupt Ted and Heidi Cruz’s dinner last month, and the angry mob that tried to knock down the 30-ton doors to the Supreme Court when Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in.

This is not a change in the tenor of Democrats, Limbaugh explained, but only them showing their true colors.

“They are all encouraging it. My point is: This is who they all are — and with Hillary Clinton now advocating this incivility,” he said.

“What did I tell you yesterday? We’re not in a battle of ideas anymore. We’re not in an argument over ideas,” he continued. “They don’t… They’re not even looking at any of this as about ideas.”

He explained that the right and the left vary not just in ideology, but in their fundmantal view of America.

“They see America today as flawed and illegitimate and, therefore, in need of a new set of defining values that will serve to unify the people who want to be part of America,” he continued.

“Not anything to do with our founding. Not the Constitution. Not the Declaration. That’s out the window ’cause all that’s tainted,” he said, explaining the way the left sees things. “All of that was written by a bunch of privileged white guys who were setting up a system for themselves and their families and their descendants.”

But we don’t even need Limbaugh to explain this…this comes right from the horse’s mouth:

Sarah Palin    @SarahPalinUSA

Rush Limbaugh: Hillary Literally Just Came Clean on Everything I’ve Been Saying About the Left

Rush Limbaugh: Hillary Literally Just Came Clean on Everything I’ve Been Saying About the Left -...

There are few people who can call out the empty […]

chicksonright.com

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo recently declared that “America was never great.”

Michelle Obama claimed to have never been proud of her country until they elected her husband.

Her husband openly admitted he wanted to “fundamentally transform” our country.

Maxine Waters refuses to backtrack on her call to harass GOP lawmakers in public.

All this while Antia wages war on anyone they disagree with, armed with whatever makeshift weapon the can scrape together.

They’re telling is what they’re up to. It’s time to start listening.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service