To the surprise of exactly no one, after decades of normalizing abortion, “ethicists” have decided that, hey, it’s ok to kill a baby after it’s born too:
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.
What qualifications do you have to have to be an “ethicist,” anyway? Can I call myself an ethicist and start collecting a check for saying a bunch of crazy-ass stuff? I can do as well as those guys:
Ethicist Jason Anderson says, “Russet potatoes should receive voting rights.”
“Given the innumerable contributions of these organisms to our society, justice demands their equal participation in the political process.” Asked if the same applied to Red Gold potatoes, Anderson grew visibly angry and referred to them as “the painted whores of the tuber world.”
Ethicist Jason Anderson says, “Mixing chocolate and mint is a hate crime.”
“A sub-set of the chocolate-lovers culture has been fooled into believing that the taste of chocolate goes well with the taste of toothpaste. The subsequent damage to dental hygiene goes without saying.”
Ethicist Jason Anderson says, “Adam Sandler forfeited his moral right to life after making ‘Jack and Jill’”
“I mean, come on. Did you see the commercials? I think we can all agree that the guy’s fair game now.”
Scholarly journals, I await your inquiries.