baby names

Gosnell medical assistant admits cutting the spines of 10 babies born alive |

Posted on

Gosnell medical assistant admits cutting the spines of 10 babies born alive |

This really needs no words.

“The grand jury report includes the account of another of Gosnell’s employees, Kareema Cross, describing the moment of Baby A’s birth:

After the baby was expelled, Cross noticed that he was breathing, though not for long. After about 10 to 20 seconds, while the mother was asleep, “the doctor just slit the neck,” said Cross. Gosnell put the boy’s body in a shoebox. Cross described the baby as so big that his feet and arms hung out over the sides of the container. Cross said that she saw the baby move after his neck was cut, and after the doctor placed it in the shoebox. Gosnell told her, “it’s the baby’s reflexes. It’s not really moving.”

A neonatologist who testified on behalf of the grand jury said that Gosnell’s explanation for the baby’s movements was false, and that in all likelihood Gosnell failed immediately to kill the baby, and that his “few moments of life were spent in excruciating pain.”

The neonatologist also estimated the baby’s age as around 32 weeks gestation.”

May God forgive America for the transgressions of our country.

Killing Newborn Babies No Different To Abortion | Huffington Post

Posted on

Killing Newborn Babies No Different To Abortion | Huffington Post.

The ‘After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?’ paper argues that the act wouldn’t be classed as euthanasia because the best interest of the foetus or newborn being killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. The authors state that after-birth abortion should be made legal and it should be permitted on the same grounds as abortion. They added that it wouldn’t be the same as infanticide.”

…. Are you reading this?  Can you believe what they just said?

It “wouldn’t be euthanasia” because they are not seeking the best interest of the newborn being killed. OBVIOUSLY.

Are you reading this?!?!?!

Thanks, mum (BABY NAMES) | The Economist

Posted on

Baby names: Thanks, mum | The Economist.

“LUCIFER, V8, Anal, Christ: these are among the baby names rejected by New Zealand’s department of internal affairs, who recently released a comprehensive list of those disallowed by registrars in the past ten years. Though no name is banned outright, says Ross McPherson, the deputy registrar-general, some applications were not even words. Disappointed parents included those wishing to christen their offspring with numbers (89), letters (J, I, T) and punctuation marks (*).”

What you name your kids is pretty dang important … just as important as what you don’t name them, apparently.

“Governments argue that these rules prevent children being saddled with preposterous names (Sinbin) that may cause them problems in later life. They also aim to block names that might cause offence to others (Jesuswept). Even where registrars have no power of prohibition, worrisome choices can be referred to judges or to child-protection agencies. In 2009 a couple in New Jersey lost custody of a boy they had named Adolf Hitler.”

Read the article for more.