Spilling of Innocent Blood: Moral Madness, Depravity of the Left

The stories are piling up faster than I can write about them, but as I was telling a friend earlier regarding Newt Gingrich's comment that the GOP needs to come up with an alternative to Obamacare, my response was, "The liberal left is populated by a people that have departed from what is moral, ethical or sane.  The Demoralization of the liberal left has become so complete that the scales over their eyes disable them from seeing the truth of their sickness.  They are morally bankrupt, and it is more than just a disease. . . it is out and out madness.  An absolute mental sickness that has blinded them in a way that is indescribable.  We don't need to offer alternatives to their policies. . . we need to defeat their policies.

As the abortion debate in America is being waged, and infanticide is acceptable to Obama and his minions, around the world the sickness is even worse.  Here is what I mean:

Canadian Medical Association: Babies Not Human Until Birth

Concerned about the renewal of an abortion debate in Canada, the delegates to the Canadian Medical Association’s annual general council meeting yesterday made a head-scratching determination: babies are not human beings until after birth.

Seemingly following the warped and twisted thinking of philosophers like Peter Singer, who supports infanticide, the doctors supported keeping the standard in place in Canada that doesn’t regard unborn children as people until birth.

What this means is, in Canada, according to the Canadian Medical Association, you can spill the innocent blood of your baby the day before its due date.

And don't forget, in Britain they have determined:

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

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’.

In ancient times the most wretched, evil civilizations sacrificed their babies to gods they created, and in Rome, at one point, it was legal to leave your child on the roadside to die from the elements if you didn't want the child up to the age of two.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary