Liberals Are the Most Intolerant

Who says so? The Pew Research group. Check out their findings here and see commentary about it here. Frankly, anyone who's ever "debated" with a liberal won't be surprised. First of all, they often don't debate. They make statements without evidence. Then if you reply with facts, they call them opinions and repeat their unproven statement. I used to find it interesting when I talked with pro-aborts in front of abortion mills where I was sidewalk counseling. Here's a sample conversation:

Me: The baby in the womb has a heartbeat about 21 days after conception. Often the mother doesn't even know she's pregnant yet. 

Pro-abort: That's your opinion. Nobody knows when life begins. 

Me: It's not an opinion; it's a medical fact. The baby has brain waves that can be measured  six weeks after conception. His body is completely formed at ten weeks. At twelve all the organ systems that you have are working in the baby's body. He even has finger prints. 

Pro-abort: It's just potential life. 

Me: No, it's a life with potential. When do you think life begins? 

Pro-abort: I don't know, but it's the mother's right to choose. If she doesn't want to be pregnant she has the right to an abortion.  

Me: Is there any limit? Can she abort the baby during the eighth month. 

Pro-abort: It's her body, she can do whatever she wants.  

Me: It's not her body. The baby has his or her own body separate from hers. We all started like that baby.  

Pro-abort: It's a parasite and if she doesn't want to be pregnant she has the right to an abortion. 

Me: So, when your mother was carrying you, you were just a parasite and she had a right to kill you? 

Pro-abort: Yes.

Me: So she could kill you any time before birth? How about a minute after birth? 

Pro-Abort: I don't want to talk about this anymore. You have your truth and I have mine.

Well, the fact is that a couple of "ethicists" (Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva)  support the same "truth." (Their article here.) They argue that after-birth abortion is okay too for any reason. Dave Andrusko at National Right to Life describes the argument by these so-called ethicists:

"This genetically ill person will cost our people's community
 60,000 marks over his lifetime."

Remember the basic—and I do mean basic—premise that undergirds the Giubilini and Minerva case for death is, “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.” Put another way, whatever reasons, however morally unserious, we use to justify killing the unborn apply just as well to newborns. Why? 

“Neither fetus nor baby has developed a sufficient sense of his own life to know what it would be like to be deprived of it,” Ferguson writes. The kid will never know the difference, in other words. A newborn baby is just a fetus who’s hung around a bit too long.

Reread their argument and ask yourself how many mentally disabled individuals and patients with dementia fall into that same category. How many people with advanced Alzheimers have a "sufficient sense of [their] own [lives]? Will they be next on the list for "after-birth abortion?" No question in my mind. Euthanasia is next. The left will offer it as a solution to our economic problems. We've heard it before: the "useless eaters" have to go.

Do You Favor "After-Birth Abortion?"

From California Catholic:

“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,” Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argue in their paper entitled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” ...The authors say the practice should be called “after-birth abortion, rather than infanticide,” in order to “emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus – on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed – rather than to that of a child.” ... 

According to Giubilini and Minerva, both an unborn fetus and a newborn child can be legitimately killed because “both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.” 

“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,’” they state in their article. 

Let's see...permissible in "all the cases where abortion is." Since abortion is allowed for any and all reasons, does that mean the parents who wanted a boy can kill the little girl? Can parents who don't like the looks of the kid, kill the one they consider ugly? If the baby has a cleft palate or a deformed foot or any other disfigurement do they call the "after-birth abortion squad" to off the little non-person?

What kind of "ethicists" suggest this? Logical ones who realize (as pro-lifers do) that there is no difference between the baby waiting to born and the little one in the delivery room.

There are monsters among us who look like normal human beings. They believe pigs have more rights than babies; they support the murder of children up to birth; and now they think that same right should be extended after birth.

When does the right end, I wonder? Are teenagers fully human?