Monday, August 5, 2013

MSNBC host says newborn infants don't count as 'alive' unless parents decide they do; infanticide is the new abortion

NaturalNews) 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.

Watch this video yourself at:


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 unisonat 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 "moral right to life," and are thus not actually "persons." 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 thatinfanticide should be legal but renamed "post-birth abortion."

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."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041398_post-birth_abortion_infanticide_Melissa_Harris-Perry.html#ixzz2b73Fet4B

18 comments:

  1. Where did you think that abortion wold lead to..... step by step.......

    We are no longer a Christian country and have not been for some time as a Christians country would not allow such things.

    Isa 5:20 KJV Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "We are no longer a Christian country and have not been for some time as a Christians country would not allow such things. "

      Why are Christians assumed to have some kind of lock on morality? Plenty of Christians are bigots and react bitterly when they believe they are about to lose something they believe they deserve solely based on where they were born. I'm not a fan of Harris-Perry and my views on abortion certainly are not in line with hers, but authors of the material above are just screaming propagandists. Everything is "WAR" and a holy one at that wherein the forces of Satan, (abortion) must be defeated.

      Many Christians and liberals for that matter, cherry pick the bible for their agenda. Christ also said what you do unto the least among you, you do unto me also. Is abortion truly the only horrible thing we do in this country to the helpless?

      Delete
    2. right is right wrong is wrong and sin is sin.... avoid the real issue all you want but ignorance will not save you....

      Delete
    3. No, I don't avoid the real issue. You and I, however, disagree on what the real issue is. Abortion, to me, is a symptom and I'm interested in fixing the problems that compel abortions. Where I believe the majority of conservatives are dead wrong is in their desire to simply outlaw everything they disagree with because it is easier then some other path. In some ways, they are just as bad as the people they criticize for having abortions because they don't want to be subjected to any consequences.

      Delete
    4. Max,

      In your view, of what is abortion a symptom?

      Jean

      Delete
    5. I've commented on this before, no? Here are some stats http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

      I keep starting and deleting Jean because I feel like you are jerking my chain and ultimately don't really care what I have to say about it. I keep picturing a response that has plenty of rhetorical sentences that end in , no? or yes?. If you really want to hear my spiel again and discuss it, I will post a serious response.

      Delete
    6. Max,

      Thank you for the link. Interesting statistics and information. No, I was not 'jerking your chain', I was really curious as to your thoughts on the problem or issue symptomized by abortions. Didn't have to be a long answer, by the way. I intend to pore over that report.

      Jean

      Delete
    7. Well then, here goes. I believe that economics plays a huge role in the discussion. According to that page, 41% of the women having abortions are below the poverty line. That's a big number. Next, women in their 20's account for over half the abortions. 45% are unmarried and not cohabitating. 60% of the women have already had one child.

      I've spewed quite a bit about the economics. Part of the problem is that we have sent our jobs away. But for those who do work, the disparity in income is pretty ridiculous. Somewhere between each according to his need and 10k to 1 income gap has to be something better. I remember what it was like in my mid 20's to not have a college degree after I had dropped out of high school and not be making much money. I never went through an unintended pregnancy drama without anyone I dated, but I knew friends who did. My thinking at the time is that I would have just stuck to whatever shitty job I could find as long as it had benefits.

      One answer, of course, is to simply not have sex. That's not realistic. Pushing contraception is another controversial topic. I think many on the right claim that doesn't work. However, teen pregnancies have gone down and according to that link, the teenager demo is not where the bulk of abortions are occurring.

      If you are single and in your 20's and aren't in a relationship with someone you are pretty sure is going to be a life partner, what do you do? Having an abortion can be seen as a selfish act, but suppose you have the child and you don't have a decent job? What if you are at that poverty level line? White babies find good homes quickly, but what about black babies?

      To the symptom question- I believe it's part economics and part desire to not be held in place by the demands and burdens of having a child. But I think there is another factor not really discussed much and that is that men have it much different. If a man fathers a child, it is very difficult to make him accountable if he chooses not to be. It is on the mother to chase him and garnish his wages. When you are young and starting to feel the walls closing in, I'm not surprised that so many would make that choice.

      I'll leave it there for now

      Delete
    8. Max,

      You haven't said anything that I can't respect, or for that matter, disagree with, with the connotation behind 'we have sent our jobs away.', but that is a different discussion, different road. I'm a bit busy, but I'll try to give my thoughts on this issue later, I hope.

      jean

      Delete
    9. "If a man fathers a child, it is very difficult to make him accountable if he chooses not to be. It is on the mother to chase him and garnish his wages."

      Max, why has this changed over the decades? Why has the age at marriage migrated to the upper vs the lower 20's? Why have women become a substantial majority of college attendees? Why are men portrayed in popular media as lame, laughable, or demented?

      The "war on women" was a heralded campaign tactic during the 2012 election. Perhaps we have experienced a "war on men" for scores of years.

      Whatever the reasons, whatever the causes, it is obvious that we have been doing something wrong. Abortion and unwed mothers are signposts. Lack of respect for life from the first trimester, to the deadly mean streets, to the childless middle agers,,,to the large numbers of the divorced,,,to the over 50 million lost souls since Roe,,,basic lack of respect for life itself.

      Delete
    10. Jean, fair enough. I'll check back.

      William,
      Your third sentence in your second para, IMO, answers your questions there. But it's also a societal shift. In part, women demanded to be let out of their subservient role to men and in part, the collapse of our economy pushed women into the workforce to help ends meet. Women today have so many more choices open to them then they did pre mid 60's. I believe this is a fair question to ask, "If you are a smart 20 something woman who wants to succeed, why would you put that on hold to get married and have kids while the guy you marry is under no such pressure?"

      Your last sentence in that para, however, sounds really insecure. If we are being remotely honest, William, we both have to admit that men have had it pretty good for quite a long time and have not remotely had to put up with the shit women have. Admittedly, my attitude is biased. After my parents divorced and I lived with my Mom and my two older sisters, I watched a lot of shit they had to put up with from assholes they worked with or went out on dates with. Whatever "war on men" you believe is occurring now is nothing compared to what women have been through.

      Your last para is something I can sympathize with. We are doing something wrong. But if abortion is the only thing you believe shows a lack of respect for life in this country, then you and I are looking at two very different worlds. I lived through my parents shitty divorce as a kid, I watched both of my sisters get divorced and it took me until age 40 to finally have some confidence that I wouldn't repeat the pattern. Undoubtedly, this had enormous impact on my not having kids of my own. You should be grateful for that, less liberals :)

      Our discussions here and your epithet to me the other day to put a label on my forehead that says "asshole" is the start of lack of respect that for some leads to violence. AT the least, are you helping the world with that? As a nation, we are kind of a point right now where we can't even disagree respectfully. Why should that desire for dominance not be adopted by the young people today and applied to simply eliminating anything they believe is an obstacle to a life they believe they deserve to have?

      Delete
    11. I called you an asshole the other day simply because you want the government to take care of every little thing in your life. Look up your own information about what you put in your mouth. You're a big boy and the net can provide any answers you seek. Do you're own f___in work.

      Women got the pill and Roe and over the years found it more and more difficult to keep from spreading their legs before they married. This has morphed into all kinds of societal situations. Everything from coed dorm rooms to unisex submarines. Hey, be honest Max, we both know that most guys given the chance will turn into Weiner's with enough time and space. This hardly leads to stable family outcomes percentage wise.

      We both know all the numbers, all the shit that complicates everything from men walking, to women thinking they can raise children on their own. People have to grow the f___ up Max. Frankly I'm disgusted with so many out there.

      The Tea Party stands for limiting government in our lives. Giving us all breathing space to make our own mistakes, learn from them, and become better people. This is what will make our country better. Nothing short of this will do.

      Nothing personnel Max.

      Delete
    12. "I called you an asshole the other day simply because you want the government to take care of every little thing in your life."

      No, you called me an asshole because you were pissed off. Period. Your belief that to be non tea party is to want the government to wipe you ass is simply wrong. But you aren't going to let that go. Your bitterness over this GMO is really noticeable to the point it surpasses your general bitterness over everything else you deem liberal. There is a consistency I guess, in a Koch like way, in that you want to see a market place where the buyer assumes all responsibility and producer assumes none.

      Your second para, again, is the epitome of white conservative dude thinking. Women have found it difficult to keep their legs closed? Essentially you are saying we should leave the sport fucking to men who rightly deserve to fuck anything they want while women should only do it to bear men a child. People have to grow the fuck up, but what you really mean is women need to get their shit together.

      Your last para is the heart of the tea party message. The government has never saved me from any mistake I have made in life, but I'm sure you could show me where I'm wrong.

      Delete
    13. Max,

      I don't disagree that there's a strong case to be made for economics as a driving force for abortions. Not a justification for it, but then, I'm not saying you said that, either, just to be clear. That, of course, would open up a new discussion: why don't women (unwed or wed) with unwanted pregnancies go to term and give their babies up for adoption. God knows there are many people who would love to adopt.

      You contend white babies, (and children, by inference?) are more easily adopted than black. I'm just curious about supporting data on that. I don't question it, just curious.

      On the issue of not enough accountability of the father, I hope it doesn't surprise you that I find that behavior reprehensible. Simply reprehensible.

      Then there is the matter of abortions driven by nothing more than the desire to not want to be bothered with it. That's about as objectionable and unacceptable an excuse as I can imagine.

      The point about not having a decent job is on the path to a slippery slope, as it suggests that affordability can be used to decide. The slippery slope is that even tho the law does not currently permit it, the logic could apply to other situations which could foster a euthnasia of sorts, don't you think?

      The topic of abortions, in this context, rather skirts the issue of when life begins, as I think I've said before. Unfortunately, SCOTUS has not had to rule on that. As I'm sure I posted before, I'm one of those who happens to think life, aka a new human being, starts when the the little swimmer breaks through and causes the egg to start dividing. My notion of a compromise on the whole issue is that abortions should be limited to cases of rape or incest; where the life of the mother is jeopardized, I personally could go either way, although I'm sure the general concensus would be to sacrifice the unseen/unborn. I don't have a problem, religiously, with use of contraceptive devices that prevent the sperm from reaching the egg.

      I apologize for the late reply.

      Jean

      Delete
  2. THis goes back to the European method of counting survival rates of newborns. The United States does not rank near the top of infant mortality rates. But why? Liberals would have you believe that it's because our health care system is flawed. That is FAR from the truth. The truth is, every baby born in the United States with a heart beat is counted as a live birth. In Europe, a baby can die at the age of several weeks old and still not have it count against the mortality rate if the baby was born feeble to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Liberalism survives only because of the ignorent godless - well maybe not in that order ....

      Delete
  3. What is next.... "they" will choose who is worthy of life....

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Lives not worth living" It's been done. There is nothing new under the sun. And just like the Patriot Act was ostensibly about keeping tabs on Hadji, the government morphed it into watching Bobs and Joes.

    Boston and Hasan fly right under the radar, but by God they will not have another OK City.

    This same bureaucratic scum get to choose which lives are worthy. You know...like Pol Pot.

    The 2nd is the last boundary.

    ReplyDelete