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

[OrdinaryMelkite]

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.

Actually it’s Eugenic Population Control, pure and simple. Less of the Dirty, Filthy, Unwashed, Masses that are born, the more of the “Pure,” “White,” Races that will be encouraged to breed and overpopulate the Earth.

Planned Parenthood was founded by a Staunch Eugenicist-----never forget that.

 

[Cat_Herder]

According to the most recent census data, black women make up 12.3% of the female population in America, but account for 35% of all U.S. abortions – that according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The Guttmacher Institute (AGI) puts the percentage of black abortions at 37% of the U.S. total. Similarly, AGI tells us that Hispanic women account for 22% of all U.S. abortions, though they make up just 12.5% of the female population. Compare those numbers to non-Hispanic, white women, who make up 62.6% of America’s female population(1), but account for only 34% of all U.S. abortions.

Source

I do not understand how minorities can continue to vote for pro-choice candidates. Legalized abortion is what keeps the minorities from having the votes to be heard. It takes three children of African descent to account for one vote because they are aborted at 3x the rate of non-Hispanic White children.

And yet many of these pro-abort politicians say they “support” minority rights. Baloney.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

According to the most recent census data, black women make up 12.3% of the female population in America, but account for 35% of all U.S. abortions – that according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The Guttmacher Institute (AGI) puts the percentage of black abortions at 37% of the U.S. total. Similarly, AGI tells us that Hispanic women account for 22% of all U.S. abortions, though they make up just 12.5% of the female population. Compare those numbers to non-Hispanic, white women, who make up 62.6% of America’s female population(1), but account for only 34% of all U.S. abortions.

Source

I do not understand how minorities can continue to vote for pro-choice candidates. Legalized abortion is what keeps the minorities from having the votes to be heard. It takes three children of African descent to account for one vote because they are aborted at 3x the rate of non-Hispanic White children.

And yet many of these pro-abort politicians say they “support” minority rights. Baloney.

Their leaders have betrayed them, and they have been made passive by decades (generations) of taking welfare and other “helping” programs from the government. Not recognzing that all of these programs are at their heart racist (one group of people is not able to meet the standards, so they must be treated like mentally deficient children and given “help” to make up for that). Did you know or remember that when ABC first came out, Jesse Jackson was totally and rightfully opposed to it? He saw right through the promotion and knew that it was people of HIS skin color who would be targeted.

And then he ran for President. And got bought off.

The ex-slaves were largely illiterate and depended upon their pastors and leaders to tell them what to do. When these men betrayed them, they didn’t stand up and think for themselves.

You’re right, it is eugenoide and now, it’s also very very profitable.

 

[faithfully]

How is it profitable?

I need some numbers. I’m curious, because the only profit centers I’ve ever heard of in a medical environment has to do with cosmetic…

 

[Black_Rose]

Their leaders have betrayed them, and they have been made passive by decades (generations) of taking welfare and other “helping” programs from the government. Not recognzing that all of these programs are at their heart racist (one group of people is not able to meet the standards, so they must be treated like mentally deficient children and given “help” to make up for that). Did you know or remember that when ABC first came out, Jesse Jackson was totally and rightfully opposed to it? He saw right through the promotion and knew that it was people of HIS skin color who would be targeted.

…

You’re right, it is eugenoide and now, it’s also very very profitable.

Cesar Chavez opposed illegal immigration contrary to any perception that he supported it because he realized it would decrease the labor power of farmer workers.

I guess there are more “moral” ways of opposing the expansion of the welfare state such as disenfranchising minorities right? I doubt conservatives like the idea of minorities getting more votes and voting for an expanding welfare state right?

Does anyone have anything to say against Peter Singer’s moral framework and its implications? You do realize that he is indeed the “ace” of the utilitarian bioethics and is more than capable of defending his own arguments. It is hard just to dismiss him because you perceive his ideas as repugnant and contrary to the Church.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Cesar Chavez opposed illegal immigration contrary to any perception that he supported it because he realized it would decrease the labor power of farmer workers.

What does illegal immigration have to do with abortion?

I guess there are more “moral” ways of opposing the expansion of the welfare state such as disenfranchising minorities right? I doubt conservatives like the idea of minorities getting more votes and voting for an expanding welfare state right?

What makes you think that minorities would want to expand the welfare state? Most of them come to this country (the USA) for free enterprise.

Does anyone have anything to say against Peter Singer’s moral framework and its implications? You do realize that he is indeed the “ace” of the utilitarian bioethics and is more than capable of defending his own arguments. It is hard just to dismiss him because you perceive his ideas as repugnant and contrary to the Church.

If you won’t dismiss him because he is repugnant and contrary to the Church and the Bible, then dismiss him because his ideas were at the root of the Third Reich.

And if you still won’t dismiss him, then you should not reside in a country where we hold that all men are created equal–without regard to whether they can “hold preferences.”

 

[Black_Rose]

What does illegal immigration have to do with abortion?

What makes you think that minorities would want to expand the welfare state? Most of them come to this country (the USA) for free enterprise.

If you won’t dismiss him because he is repugnant and contrary to the Church and the Bible, then dismiss him because his ideas were at the root of the Third Reich.

And if you still won’t dismiss him, then you should not reside in a country where we hold that all men are created equal–without regard to whether they can “hold preferences.”

How are Singer’s ideas the “root of the Third Reich”? Such a statement is indicative of profound (but not uncommon) ignorance of 20th Century history and modern schools of philosophy. First, National Socialism is a collectivist ideology promoting the advancement of the German people, usually at the expense of other ethnic and national groups. Despite its name, it is not socialist as National Socialism abhors the notion of a class struggle, indicated by its persecution of communists, trade unionists, and socialists, perceiving that class conflict compromises the interests and unity of the Fatherland. In contrast, utilitarianism is not confined to a code of conduct dictating the behavior of individuals within a community, society, or country, because it asks to consider the interests of people beyond our immediate family or sovereign nation. In other words, utilitarianism expands the scope of ethical consideration and does limit altruism to those who have proximity in kinship. Nazism is interested only in the welfare of the German people and the Third Reich while disregarding the interests of others, while Singer’s ethics are more much universal.

Could you step up the plate and face Singer? He’ll make whiff on his offerings.

 

[Cat_Herder]

How are Singer’s ideas the “root of the Third Reich”? Such a statement is indicative of profound (but not uncommon) ignorance of 20th Century history and modern schools of philosophy. First, National Socialism is a collectivist ideology promoting the advancement of the German people, usually at the expense of other ethnic and national groups. Despite its name, it is not socialist as National Socialism abhors the notion of a class struggle, indicated by its persecution of communists, trade unionists, and socialists, perceiving that class conflict compromises the interests and unity of the Fatherland. In contrast, utilitarianism is not confined to a code of conduct dictating the behavior of individuals within a community, society, or country, because it asks to consider the interests of people beyond our immediate family or sovereign nation. In other words, utilitarianism expands the scope of ethical consideration and does limit altruism to those who have proximity in kinship. Nazism is interested only in the welfare of the German people and the Third Reich while disregarding the interests of others, while Singer’s ethics are more much universal.

Forget the tangents and hand-waving. The Holocaust and utilitarian eugenics have a common premise: That humans have no inherent dignity or worth, thus, everyone who does not meet up to the authority’s predetermined standards will die.

I respond as follows:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Could you step up the plate and face Singer? He’ll make whiff on his offerings.

I doubt that anyone but the Holy Spirit could change him. Hence there is no point in confronting him. I will however pray for his conversion and work to ensure that in 50 years no one will remember about him or his ideas.

 

[Black_Rose]

Forget the tangents and hand-waving. The Holocaust and utilitarian eugenics have a common premise: That humans have no inherent dignity or worth, thus, everyone who does not meet up to the authority’s predetermined standards will die.

Utilitarians certainly acknowledge the interests of most humans and take consideration with their concerns and preferences. They certainly acknowledge that most people outside of the womb have a right not to be killed and respect it.

 

[jilly4ski]

Utilitarians certainly acknowledge the interests of **most **humans and take consideration with their concerns and preferences. They certainly acknowledge that most people outside of the womb have a right not to be killed and respect it.

emphasis mine.

Oh that’s a lovely sentiment. So who are the “most” and who is excluded from that group? For Hitler it was Jews, Gypsies, and the disabled, for Stalin it was political opponents, for Singer it is the unborn, infants, and the disabled.

Saying “most” people have rights is really no protection at all.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Utilitarians certainly acknowledge the interests of most humans and take consideration with their concerns and preferences. They certainly acknowledge that most people outside of the womb have a right not to be killed and respect it.

Not Singer.

[The argument that a fetus is not alive]
is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being’s life.

 

[edwest2]

Get rid of the idea of evil. “Axis of Bad Ideas”? Nope, just does not roll off the tongue.

There are people who believe life is temporary and the body is only a device that requires food and pleasure. The more pleasure, the better.

To my fellow Catholics -

People desire to avoid pain and suffering but you must always be on your guard about how scientists wish to achieve that end.

There is a concept called conditioning. It works like this: You repeat something over, and over and over again. You repeat it on every media outlet available. On TV, radio, movies, conferences, books, magazine articles. You tell people that even though you oppose it, we’ll keep doing it anyway. So, your only real choice is to oppose it.

You must speak the truth whenever possible.

Destroying human embryos is evil because everyone reading this began life as a human embryo. The alternative is Adult Stem Cells.

Euthenasia is evil because healers must not compromise their principles by aiding and abetting killing the patient. “First do no harm.” Doctors heal, not kill. There is an alternative:

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=417

The greatest evil in the Catholic community today is indifference. Indifferent toward God, our neighbors and even members of our own family. Authority derives from no one and nothing, except the individual. By helping to break normal, inter-generational bonds between families through No-Fault Divorce out of convenience, by aborting children out of convenience and by pulling the plug out of convenience, we abdicate our role as those who love, to those who discard inconvenient human lives. When we act exactly like those who do these things, believing some greater good has been served, we are not living out what the Catholic Church teaches. We are living out what the world teaches.

And even if we have been involved in some of these things, we need to reorder ourselves. And we must renew our faith as opposed to allowing ourselves to be dragged down with the rest of the world.

You might be thinking: But my coworkers have done all of these things. Yes, but examine yourself, look at the alternatives and prepare yourself to do the opposite. It’s not easy, but the world has taken the last 40 years to teach us to take the easy way out.

Problems in the marriage? Go to counseling. Pray.
Problem pregnancy? Consider adoption. And pray.
Parent in the hospital and it does not look good? Talk to your doctor and your priest.

No one lives forever, but once we begin to view this life as all there is then we begin to lose our connection with God and the hope of eternal life.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

emphasis mine.

Oh that’s a lovely sentiment. So who are the “most” and who is excluded from that group? For Hitler it was Jews, Gypsies, and the disabled, for Stalin it was political opponents, for Singer it is the unborn, infants, and the disabled.

Saying “most” people have rights is really no protection at all.

Which Singer and his many admirers refuse to understand.

 

[Black_Rose]

emphasis mine.

Oh that’s a lovely sentiment. So who are the “most” and who is excluded from that group? For Hitler it was Jews, Gypsies, and the disabled, for Stalin it was political opponents, for Singer it is the unborn, infants, and the disabled.

Saying “most” people have rights is really no protection at all.

Regarding infants and the unborn, they do not meet the criteria set for personhood: the ability to suffer, possession of interests, and a perception of themselves as an entity with a past and future.

A “right not to be killed” can exist without a “right to life”.

 

[taylor2]

Regarding infants and the unborn, they do not meet the criteria set for personhood

Your criteria, not God’s. It’s when people start playing God, then there is a problem.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Regarding infants and the unborn, they do not meet the criteria set for personhood: the ability to suffer, possession of interests, and a perception of themselves as an entity with a past and future.

Let’s say that (God forbid) you are hit by a car and you suffer neurological damage so that you are no longer able to perceive suffering, know your interests or perceive yourself as an entity. Have you ceased to be a person?

A “right not to be killed” can exist without a “right to life”.

The Declaration of Independence says that equality begins at creation. If you disagree with that criterion please justify Nazi Germany’s wholesale genocide of people who cannot perceive suffering and know their being, as well as those who have been stripped of their interests for not being Aryan enough.

 

[St_Francis]

Regarding infants and the unborn, they do not meet the criteria set for personhood: the ability to suffer, possession of interests, and a perception of themselves as an entity with a past and future.

Whose criteria are those, and why should we use them instead of, say, my criteria: in oder to be considered a person, a being must be able to think rationally; therefore, Dr Singer is not a person.

A “right not to be killed” can exist without a “right to life”.

And your point is…?

 

[John21652]

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.

Once you see the name of Professor Peter Singer, alarm bells should ring. he is professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. He espouses Utilitarianism, Preference Utilitarianism to be precise. He is considered the ‘father’ of animal liberation. His ‘philosophy’ has been taken to extremes and he condones sex between animals and humans, provided the animal isn’t harmed and he places unborn babies, new borns and the severely mentally retarded in the non persons category. Singer is on record as saying that the Bible is myth, so with the stroke of a pen he killed off the entire Judeo-Christian heritage. There can never be ,nor should there ever be any common ground with such a man and anyone of any religious persuasion…

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Singer and his many sycophants are probably thinking, “We have to get rid of the idea of evil SO WE CAN CONTINUE WITH OUR AGENDA AND NO ONE WILL NOTICE.”

 

[jilly4ski]

Regarding infants and the unborn, they do not meet the criteria set for personhood: the ability to suffer, possession of interests, and a perception of themselves as an entity with a past and future.

A “right not to be killed” can exist without a “right to life”.

umm you do know there is no “set” criteria for “personhood.” Personhood is merely a (or many) construct of arbitrary ideas that one uses to justify killing a member of the human species.

And yeah, infants (and the unborn) have the ability to suffer, they have nerves and can feel pain. They can also be frightened and lonely. I don’t know what kind of infants you have been around, if any.