“We have to get rid of the idea of evil”

[markomalley]

Princeton University sponsored a conference last weekend, [A Conference on Life & Choice in the Abortion Debate (http://uchv.princeton.edu/Life_Choice/). This was an attempt to bring pro-abortion and pro-life speakers together in the attempt to find common ground.

C-FAM had a report on the conference.

Comments from the pro-abortion side included:

• “An infant has no moral status because he is not self-aware,” said Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics.
• “We have to get rid of the idea of evil,” said Frances Kissling, an abortion rights advocate turned bioethics scholar, who also organized the conference.

My comment: there is no common ground with those who would brazenly murder the young. The view must be utterly repudiated from our culture.

As the old yarn goes, when you compromise with the devil, the devil always wins.

 

[Impertinens]

An infant has no moral status because he is not self-aware,

That objection never made any sense to me. A person in deep coma, or even simply someone in NREM sleep, isn’t self-aware either, but no one in his/her right mind would conclude that he/she has no moral status and can be legitimately killed…

 

[markomalley]

That objection never made any sense to me. A person in deep coma, or even simply someone in NREM sleep, isn’t self-aware either, but no one in his/her right mind would conclude that he/she has no moral status and can be legitimately killed…

Really?

No offense, friend, but you need to get out more. There are many who advocate just that thing. Have you ever read up on the Groningen Protocol or the Liverpool Care Pathway?

 

[Impertinens]

There is a difference between coma and irreversible coma. I am aware that there is an ongoing debate about persistent vegetative states, but not all states of unconsciousness are such: most comas last only a few days, as a matter of fact, and as far as I know no one is advocating killing all comatose patients - that would make no sense whatsoever, since many of them recover quite easily.

And, of course, NREM sleep occurs every night.

What I was getting to was simply that temporary loss of self-awareness is a very common phenomenon, that it does not imply loss of personhood, and that the only difference between the non-self-awareness of an embryo and that of a sleeping person is that the embryo will take a few months to “wake up”

 

[markomalley]

There is a difference between coma and irreversible coma. I am aware that there is an ongoing debate about persistent vegetative states, but not all states of unconsciousness are such: most comas last only a few days, as a matter of fact, and as far as I know no one is advocating killing all comatose patients - that would make no sense whatsoever, since many of them recover quite easily.

And, of course, NREM sleep occurs every night.

What I was getting to was simply that temporary loss of self-awareness is a very common phenomenon, that it does not imply loss of personhood, and that the only difference between the non-self-awareness of an embryo and that of a sleeping person is that the embryo will take a few months to “wake up”

Does one lose personhood status when one is in a persistent vegetative state?

See the following cases cited in this article. (the article cites numerous cases in medical journals about cases of long term PVS patients who have recovered after months and years)

The point I’m arguing is that there are those who are evil enough to advocate termination of the ill, the handicapped, and anybody else who is inconvenient.

 

[Impertinens]

Does one lose personhood status when one is in a persistent vegetative state?

Almost certainly not. At the moment, there is no clear criterion to distinguish between persistent vegetative states and recoverable ones except time passed, so there is not a clear cutoff as in the brain death case.

The point I’m arguing is that there are those who are evil enough to advocate termination of the ill, the handicapped, and anybody else who is inconvenient.

I would not call them evil, just mistaken.

I am sure that most, perhaps all, “pro-choice” people would be absolutely horrified if they understood what they are advocating: they are not monsters, they simply are horribly, tragically wrong.

It is definitely possible that the very kids that have been killed are saying

Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.

 

[markomalley]

Almost certainly not. At the moment, there is no clear criterion to distinguish between persistent vegetative states and recoverable ones except time passed, so there is not a clear cutoff as in the brain death case.

I would not call them evil, just mistaken.

I am sure that most, perhaps all, “pro-choice” people would be absolutely horrified if they understood what they are advocating: they are not monsters, they simply are horribly, tragically wrong.

It is definitely possible that the very kids that have been killed are saying

Understand…we fight not against flesh and blood…

Remember this, though:

Isa 5:20-21 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!​

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Princeton University sponsored a conference last weekend, [A Conference on Life & Choice in the Abortion Debate (http://uchv.princeton.edu/Life_Choice/). This was an attempt to bring pro-abortion and pro-life speakers together in the attempt to find common ground.

C-FAM had a report on the conference.

Comments from the pro-abortion side included:

• “An infant has no moral status because he is not self-aware,” said Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics.
• “We have to get rid of the idea of evil,”

said Frances Kissling, an abortion rights advocate turned bioethics scholar, who also organized the conference.

My comment: there is no common ground with those who would brazenly murder the young. The view must be utterly repudiated from our culture.

As the old yarn goes, when you compromise with the devil, the devil always wins.

I would say that they are succeeding pretty well, in the secular world. Moral relativism has indeed made great inroads in destroying the idea of evil. Pretty neat trick, considering how evil its proponents are. Oh, Satan…you’re going to LOSE!

 

[Julian0404]

Almost certainly not. At the moment, there is no clear criterion to distinguish between persistent vegetative states and recoverable ones except time passed, so there is not a clear cutoff as in the brain death case.

I would not call them evil, just mistaken.

I am sure that most, perhaps all, “pro-choice” people would be absolutely horrified if they understood what they are advocating: they are not monsters, they simply are horribly, tragically wrong.

It is definitely possible that the very kids that have been killed are saying

**No, we have been there and done that i.e. “…not…evil, just mistaken.” And it was called the Nuremberg Trials wherein the nazi officers who supervised the holocaust as well as the mercy killing or ethnic cleansing of “others” were put on trial. Their defense was “just following orders” - not judging the orders “just following”.
Human nature is well ordered to “know” evil. It is intrinsically evil to kill another human who is not attempting to kill you. The invitro infants, the infirm, the handicapped - humanity cannot claim ignorance when we can see “life exists”. **

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Oh, okay. Peter ‘humans-are-a-cancer-on-the-planet’ Singer.

Nuff said.

Besides, I think this society has done very well already in abolishing even the concept of sin and evil in favor of ‘bad choices.’

Heading to Hell? No. We’re already knee-deep in it.

 

[Cat_Herder]

What’s at the root of this is a denial of the existence of objective evil.

It’s common for progressives to say they want to get rid of “the concept of evil.” But this doesn’t prevent evil itself, which does in fact exist objectively and not just in the subjective mind of the observer.

Decades of interfaith dialogue didn’t prevent 9/11.

If the Atheists had their way and had removed all religion from the public square, that still wouldn’t have prevented 9/11.

Likewise, Princeton’s “tolerance summit” is not going to change the fact that the unborn are dying at the hands of “physicians” and that this is objectively evil.

 

[taylor2]

I would not call them evil, just mistaken.

I am sure that most, perhaps all, “pro-choice” people would be absolutely horrified if they understood what they are advocating: they are not monsters, they simply are horribly, tragically wrong.

No, they are evil and they are monsters. Just like the cowardly Nazi’s who massacred without any sympathy whatsoever.

It is definitely possible that the very kids that have been killed are saying

Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.

Or they might also be saying, “do not weep for me but weep for yourselves and your children”.

 

[JimG]

Comments from the pro-abortion side included:

• “An infant has no moral status because he is not self-aware,” said Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics.
• “We have to get rid of the idea of evil,” said Frances Kissling, an abortion rights advocate turned bioethics scholar, who also organized the conference.

Just wanted to note that Frances Kissling was the original founder of the pro-abortion organization “Catholics for a Free Choice,” which of course was never Catholic but found the title useful in being able to get attention from news organizations.

(Perhaps Ms. Kissling should have argued for the defense at the trial of the BTK serial killer; she could have urged the jury to get rid of the idea of evil. The killer simply made some bad choices.)

 

[edwest2]

Oh, okay. Peter ‘humans-are-a-cancer-on-the-planet’ Singer.

Nuff said.

Besides, I think this society has done very well already in abolishing even the concept of sin and evil in favor of ‘bad choices.’

Heading to Hell? No. We’re already knee-deep in it.

I suggest a little perspective here. At one time, the media gave the spotlight to the good and decent, today it’s been turned on those who love sin, who are slaves to the flesh and who look for opportunities to eliminate life.

Don’t lose heart or hope. God has promised us the victory.

God bless,
Ed

 

[faithfully]

Hmmmm… Getting rid of the IDEA? of Evil.

Like getting rid of the IDEA? of abortion?

How about we get rid of the IDEA of Good? or Charity, or well meaning. Or wrong-doing? In fact we should not define an act at all. It just is! And since all acts ARE, then none can be right or wrong just equal. We don’t need laws, therefore lawyers or jails or anything. Because why would slamming into a family of 5 while drunk be WRONG? Wrong would be bad, bad could be evil. evil doesn’t exist it equals 0, and so you just move backward and realize that wrong = 0. Which is = to Good.

Evil isn’t an idea. It’s a noun. It’s in the dictionary. Hello??? This man will have to identify what the holocaust and genicide of the world is. I’m totally confused by this. What about terrorism in the name of any relgion. What’s that? A Bad IDEA??? Let’s get rid of the Idea of BAD…

However, It would be cool to get rid of EVIL… don’t you think? I mean if EVIL was gone, not just the IDEA of evil but the actions that we identify as evil, then we wouldn’t have this debate now would we?

Jeez… Why didn’t we think of that.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I suggest a little perspective here. At one time, the media gave the spotlight to the good and decent, today it’s been turned on those who love sin, who are slaves to the flesh and who look for opportunities to eliminate life.

Don’t lose heart or hope. God has promised us the victory.

God bless,
Ed

Indeed. I totally agree with you.

 

[Impertinens]

No, we have been there and done that i.e. “…not…evil, just mistaken.” And it was called the Nuremberg Trials wherein the nazi officers who supervised the holocaust as well as the mercy killing or ethnic cleansing of “others” were put on trial. Their defense was “just following orders” - not judging the orders “just following”.
Human nature is well ordered to “know” evil. It is intrinsically evil to kill another human who is not attempting to kill you. The invitro infants, the infirm, the handicapped - humanity cannot claim ignorance when we can see “life exists”.

The matter is more complicated than that, I think.

The act of killing an unborn child is intrinsically and seriously evil, this is not in discussion.

But this fact is not obvious, and can be known only by recourse to somewhat philosophical arguments or by recourse to the teachings of the Catholic Church. But the latter are not easy to fully understand, and if one’s philosophy starts from incorrect premises then they may even be unreachable, and the latter are not available to anyone who does not have received the gift of Faith.

The fact that Jews are human beings is more immediate to the senses than the fact that a single-celled, brainless organism is also a human being, and hence - even if the acts are equally grave - I do not think that the moral culpability of a Nazi can be compared to the moral culpability of an abortionist.

It does not take an evil person to do an evil action. The world would be a much happier place if that were the case…

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

While we’re at it why don’t we get rid of the idea of gravity?

 

[edwest2]

The niece of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. had an abortion. She was led to believe it was a blob of tissue.

youtube.com/watch?v=JzTsrMTmRcY

In all wars, deception is used. The truth is hidden. Pro abortion groups are against women knowing what is going on.

God bless,
Ed

 

[TheRealJuliane]

The niece of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. had an abortion. She was led to believe it was a blob of tissue.

youtube.com/watch?v=JzTsrMTmRcY

In all wars, deception is used. The truth is hidden. Pro abortion groups are against women knowing what is going on.

God bless,
Ed

And it’s all about money. It’s always been more about money than anything else. The pro-aborts pretend to be so principled and altruistic, and they pretend they are helping women, all the while ignoring the fact that 50% of those babies they kill are future women! Do they care? Not really, it’s just money to them.