quote:

But I’m not sure the interviewer knew the difference either because “also known as …” indicates she may have thought they were the same herself and just wanted to use a more well-known term. If she was going to interrupt and correct him, why not say, “What you mean is that they were slaves, not indentured servants”?

The object of the fake news media wasn't to tear Northam down, but to gently walk him through his faux pas so he could quietly correct himself. Now, a Republican... well, out would come the torches and pitchforks.

This article is from 2012 and people scoffed that it would never happen, We are quickly headed this way.

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...ion-experts-say.html

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.



The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

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’.
Related Articles


“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."

Well at least now the experts admit that abortion is killing babies.

Staffers to Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax resign following second sexual assault allegation

https://www.richmond.com/news/...58-67c16220ab85.html

Two of the three government staffers to Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax and two employees of his political action committee resigned following news Friday of a second sexual assault allegation against him.

The PAC employees who left are Dave Mills, who was the executive director of We Rise Together, and Courtney McCargo, a fundraiser for the PAC.

Mills is the husband of state Sen. Jennifer McClellan, D-Richmond, who is considered a strong contender to replace Fairfax as lieutenant governor should Fairfax resign.

On the government side, Adele McClure, the policy director, resigned, as did Julia Billingsly, the scheduling director.

Lauren Burke, Fairfax's communications director, remains employed by his PAC and Larry Roberts, his chief of staff, remains on as a state employee.

The job of lieutenant governor is part time. Fairfax is a lawyer at the firm Morrison & Foerster, which has placed him on paid leave.

quote:

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.”

So just what in hell are those attributes/properties that "justify" the right to life?

These lunatics (am I being unkind to lunatics?) have no concept of what actually constitutes a person.

Culled from the same herd that insists on aborting (murdering) a new born simply because "mom" has decided she doesn't want that baby boy (or girl).

These assholes will find out the harsh reality when they come face to face with GOD!

Using abortion as a form of birth control should be classified as murder, given that there are many ways for a female to avoid getting pregnant.

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:

quote:

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.”

So just what in hell are those attributes/properties that "justify" the right to life?

These lunatics (am I being unkind to lunatics?) have no concept of what actually constitutes a person.

Culled from the same herd that insists on aborting (murdering) a new born simply because "mom" has decided she doesn't want that baby boy (or girl).

These assholes will find out the harsh reality when they come face to face with GOD!

Using abortion as a form of birth control should be classified as murder, given that there are many ways for a female to avoid getting pregnant.

Tyrants and murderers always justify their activities by denying the humanity of their victims. These people are ghouls. Northam should not be removed for wearing black face. He should be incarcerated for accessory to murder.

The joke here is the concept of "moral status" as defined by amoral, secularist, post-modern, relativist, self-serving leftist assholes.

quote:

“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.”

But wait... there's more:

Andrew Cuomo's Pro-Infanticide Abortion Law Spares a Murderer an Additional Charge of Also Killing His Girlfriend's Unborn Baby
The second charge was not for murder; New York law, I guess, never allowed for that.

But they did have a law against "second-degree [unlawful] abortion," a law violated by this guy when he deliberately murdered his pregnant girlfriend.

But that charge has been dropped now, because New York no longer has any laws against abortion at all, even inflicting one on a completely unwilling party.

https://nypost.com/2019/02/08/...paign=site%20buttons

quote:

Tyrants and murderers always justify their activities by denying the humanity of their victims.

You wonder how human beings could think their way to a conclusion like, say: an entire ethnicity needs to be eliminated, slaughtered....

And then you think such people must be from some other planet....

Well, say hello to Governor Ralph Northam, who has no compunctions about exterminating members of an enormous category, babies. Make them comfortable while you decide to murder them.

"Ghoulish" is the right word.

Ralph Northam, and the rest of the baby-butchers have no idea. They wage war on the most innocent. They have no idea what is ultimately in store for them.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

But I’m not sure the interviewer knew the difference either because “also known as …” indicates she may have thought they were the same herself and just wanted to use a more well-known term. If she was going to interrupt and correct him, why not say, “What you mean is that they were slaves, not indentured servants”?

The object of the fake news media wasn't to tear Northam down, but to gently walk him through his faux pas so he could quietly correct himself. Now, a Republican... well, out would come the torches and pitchforks.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Groveling during an interview about "white privelige", no backbone , what you stated is 200% correct..add tar and feathers to the torches and pitchforks..

The LT Gov of Virginia is a part time job.

Justin Fairfax is employed by a law firm, Morrison & Foerster

Washington, D.C.-based Morrison Foerster "has retained outside counsel to conduct an investigation"

During the investigation, Justin Fairfax has taken a leave of absence from Morrison & Foerster.

Justin has agreed to cooperate with the firm’s investigation," Larren M. Nashelsky, chairman of the firm, said in a statement.

Outside employment is common for Virginia lieutenant governors. Other than serving as presiding office — and potential tiebreaking vote — in the state Senate, the lieutenant governor has only a smattering of other official duties. The job pays $36,321 annually.

https://www.washingtonexaminer...fter-rape-allegation

Northam to attend race discussion at Virginia Union University

https://www.richmond.com/news/...ad-b06d88919621.html

Embattled Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam will attend a social justice event at Virginia Union University next week.

The governor, who has resisted calls to resign since a racist photo was discovered on his medical school yearbook page Feb. 1, will attend the “Faith, Identity & Social Justice” discussion at the historically black university next week. In a news release, VUU said Northam’s attendance is part of the governor’s “apology tour” in the aftermath of the blackface scandal.

“It is important to bring the community together to begin to develop a plan to reach healing and reconciliation,” the university said in the release.

Northam has made just one public appearance since the Feb. 2 news conference in which he said he did not appear in a photo on his page in his 1984 medical school yearbook that featured one person in blackface and another in a Ku Klux Klan outfit.

Northam had apologized on Feb. 1 for appearing in the picture before backtracking a day later and saying the photo is not of him, while admitting to wearing blackface on a different occasion.

The governor and first lady attended the funeral of Virginia State Police trooper Lucas B. Dowell in Smyth County on Saturday.

The event Feb. 21 at VUU is scheduled to start at 11 a.m. in the Allix B. James Chapel in Coburn Hall. Former Richmond Mayor Dwight C. Jones will be the speaker.

Last week, Jones attended a VUU event at which Al Sharpton called for Northam and Attorney General Mark Herring to resign. Herring has said he wore blackface while dressing as a rapper at a college party in 1980.

Afterward, Jones said he felt Northam should resign but that Herring, who came forward publicly in a statement, shouldn’t.

“There’s no excuse for blackface, but he didn’t do the two-act dance that the governor did,” he said.

The Feb. 21 event is free to the public.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Northam to attend race discussion at Virginia Union University

This idiot is a one man traveling circus.

But...but...he's now become a warrior in the "good fight" to make all things right again...so he is now useful to the left meaning they will guide him through his self-sown mine field.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

This idiot is a one man traveling circus.

Indeed.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I see:

Ralph came out supporting very late term abortion, and took some heat over it.

Then, "the photograph" was revealed, and Ralph apologized.

Then, Ralph recanted and denied that he was in the pic, and went on to admit blacking his face for an MJ imitation.
(And then we narrowly missed seeing his Moonwalk.)

And then, in an interview with Gail King on CBS, Ralph denied having "those pants" -- the plaid pants shown in the yearbook page photo.

Now... um... if I add up the photograph plus the apology plus the "pants denial," does that mean Ralph was the one under the hood?

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
These people are ghouls.

Agreed, this guy is, the left is, and the media is double for covering him on this. They all bow to the altar of abortion and it is disgusting.

The Dems are now starting to circle the wagons around this fool. Well he feels bad. He realizes his mistake . Just another bag of crap liberal. If he was a Kavanaugh...…………

...then the Dems wouldn't have circled their wagons around him and put themselves in a position to take all the arrows. Heh, heh, heh.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
...then the Dems wouldn't have circled their wagons around him and put themselves in a position to take all the arrows. Heh, heh, heh.

As others have said, The best chance for Republicans in Virginia may be for this clown to remain governor. Every single member of the House of Delegates and the Senate are up for re-election in November of this year.
Hopefully, the Republicans in Virginia have learned something and will defeat a substantial number of Democrat socialists.