"Choice" Now Extends to Born Children, Too

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mdgspencer said:
See www.catholicsistas.com/2014/02/20/choice-now-extends-born-children/
For decades, prochoice advocates have insisted there’s no “slippery slope” to abortion, that the right to end your child’s life in the womb would go no further.
Code: 
Until now.
Click to expand...
Well, anyone claiming that it was a “slippery slope” argument didn’t even have the intellectual integrity to admit that abortion was another form of artificial contraception either.

The honest intellectuals, even utilitarianists like Peter Singer, knew the truth when he said,(and I’m paraphrasing) “if you set a legal precedent for the destruction of human life at one point there is really no logical reason why not to legally permit the destruction of human life at any point of it’s existence for any reason.”
 
First, I am not a supporter of euthanasia. Please remember this as I make the following statement considering the referenced article.
  1. At one point there is a statement that 50 years ago people would have been aghast at the idea of killing disabled adults. Frankly this is not true. Up until the time of John F Kennedy being in office this country put hundreds if not thousands of disabled children to death every year. They were warehoused like animals in “State Institutions” where it was common for them to be left naked, unfed, abused and neglected. It was also common for local fire departments to come along in the winter and hose down the insider of their “rooms” and leave the windows open so “nature would take it’s course.” They died from hypothermia, infections, exposure, abuse, hunger and other forms of mistreatment or lack of care every day.
My point is, the “culture of death” is not new. It is as old as the human race. Almost every culture out there has put the ill, defected or disabled to death out of a sense that survival was dependent on it. Primitive and barbaric, but sadly true. We have simply continued the notion with modern terms and thinking. One would think we would know better but we don’t seem to. Our society promotes being first, the strongest, wisest, healthiest over the sick.
  1. I do believe that very ill children can grow to understand that they are going to die due to their illness, and that they can eventually ask doctors and parents to stop treatment. I don’t believe they should ever be allowed to ask to be killed just for the sake of getting out of life. Letting someone die due to a terminal illness is a whole different thing that giving up or making a choice to live or die because of despair, giving up on live etc.
I think we are on slippery ground and always have been. It has just become more political and obvious due to today’s technology and communications.
 
Amandil said:
Well, anyone claiming that it was a “slippery slope” argument didn’t even have the intellectual integrity to admit that abortion was another form of artificial contraception either.

The honest intellectuals, even utilitarianists like Peter Singer, knew the truth when he said,(and I’m paraphrasing) “if you set a legal precedent for the destruction of human life at one point there is really no logical reason why not to legally permit the destruction of human life at any point of it’s existence for any reason.”
Click to expand...
Though this isn’t an extension of ABORTION. It’s an extension of adult euthanasia. Yes both are wrong in the eyes of Catholics, but we should all recognize which end of life this law is extending from.
 
Nelka said:
Did you vote for a party that approves abortion?
Click to expand...
Did you vote for the party that approves of the death penalty? I’m not a one issue voter and besides, I think second and third trimester are off limits.

This law isn’t “Welp! I don’t want this kid anymore lets kill him!”
It’s “My child, who I love is, with all certainty, going to die. I don’t want her to suffer.”
Thats a very big difference.
 
It’s post-birth abortion. Peter Singer has proposed that legal personhood ought not to be granted to newborns merely by the fact of birth, but that there should be up to a six months period in which the child can still be terminated if there are defects found. Or maybe the parents just change their mind.
 
JimG said:
It’s post-birth abortion. Peter Singer has proposed that legal personhood ought not to be granted to newborns merely by the fact of birth, but that there should be up to a six months period in which the child can still be terminated if there are defects found. Or maybe the parents just change their mind.
Click to expand...
Well I’m pro choice and that is retarded! Also the source cited was a law in Belgium and then this creepy utilitarian Princeton professor. They’re half a world apart!
 
tawny said:
Let us all keep praying.
Click to expand...
Praying.

I like the way Pope Benedict XVI (Caritas in Veritate) touched on justice and peace as being connected to the recognition of the dignity of human life. Peace and justice can get a little vague when the value of life is determined by how healthy or costly a person may be. Health and cost will become factors in rendering justice or not. Our judicial system is already unjust to the poor for if they cannot afford an attorney they do not get a day in court. Imagine if we add to that how costly a person is or may be to the government or society in general which would lessen their ‘recognized’ human dignity. I think that nightmare is already here with our elderlies.

In America the consideration is mainly cost/utilitarianism. It is actually very sick as the medical community considers that they are ahead of the legal system. They consider that they have the superiority to make life determinations. The sick situation of this is that that sense of power can become addictive and meanwhile goes unmentioned and unregulated until the laws “catch up”.

The situation is different for the Belgians. In Belgium it seems to be a nausea kind of thing. The Belgians have been practicing morality without God. In the background of their intellect is that whole existentialist idealism. The existentialist outlook is still part of the intellectual learning and, of course, it is packaged with - no God.

It seems to me that there comes a point in the mind with that reasoning where life appears to not be worth living. Camus was fighting all this and appeared to have concluded that although life is absurd it is still worth living. I never bought that car accident death. True, Virginia Woolf suffered from bi-polar disorder but I would say that it was the existentialist influence more than her malady that led her to commit suicide.

Due to this attitude, it seems to me, that whole region surrounding Belgium which shares the same basic intellectual attitude and disposition, such as; Sweden, Finland, Denmark etc… (the French say that existentialism went out of style a long time ago ) will jump on the wagon and adopt similar laws at some future time. I googled the suicide rates around there and they are high. I think these things ( euthanasia, these recently adopted laws etc…) are linked to the suicide rates and they have their roots in the intellectual outlook of those people.

I think the way to help them and in doing so the whole world which may just follow suit; is to attack their erroneous existentialist philosophical understanding and pray for them and the whole world.

Take a look at the suicide rate: eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/2/108.full.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Peace
 
I am wondering if people still think the Slippery Slope is a fallacy.🤷
 
JimG said:
It’s post-birth abortion. Peter Singer has proposed that legal personhood ought not to be granted to newborns merely by the fact of birth, but that there should be up to a six months period in which the child can still be terminated if there are defects found. Or maybe the parents just change their mind.
Click to expand...
Horrible. Just plain horrible. IF I was not a person at the time of my conception what was I? If I was not a person when I was born why did the doctors make such great efforts to save my life and my parents pray and cry and hope for the best? If I was not a person at 6 months of age why do I remember the diaper pin stuck in my right hip? (The one with the crack in it where the pin was supposed to stay secure?) Someone like this fool mentioned above needs to answer these questions for me.
 
Cricket2 said:
Horrible. Just plain horrible. IF I was not a person at the time of my conception what was I? If I was not a person when I was born why did the doctors make such great efforts to save my life and my parents pray and cry and hope for the best? If I was not a person at 6 months of age why do I remember the diaper pin stuck in my right hip? (The one with the crack in it where the pin was supposed to stay secure?) Someone like this fool mentioned above needs to answer these questions for me.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree, the whole idea is unspeakable. While the Belgian Parlianment approaches termination of life from the standpoint of euthanasia, Peter Singer approaches it by extending the choice of terminating children past birth. And he is a professor of ethics at Princeton University!

But his ethic is purely utilitarian. He would also favor terminating the disabled. For a rather horrifying look at what his ethics would mean, try reading the article “Unspeakable Conversations,” from the NY Times archive. Harriet MacBryde Johnson, the writer, a disabled lawyer, begins,
“He insists he doesn’t want to kill me. He simply thinks it would have been better, all things considered, to have given my parents the option of killing the baby I once was, and to let other parents kill similar babies as they come along and thereby avoid the suffering that comes with lives like mine and satisfy the reasonable preferences of parents for a different kind of child.”
 
Thousands of children have been killed in Ghana because the communities they are born into believe they are evil spirits. When I first heard about this I could not believe it was happening in my country in the 21st century.

The practice originally emerged as a way for poor families to deal with deformed or disabled children that they cannot look after. These families approach village elders known as concoction men and inform them that they suspect their child to be a so-called spirit child. The concoction man then takes the father of the child to visit a soothsayer who confirms whether or not the child is truly evil, without ever actually laying eyes on them.
aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2013/01/201319121124284358.html

I guess Solomon would say: there is nothing new under the sun. Can we really say that western societies are advancing? It seems to me that western societies with there decadence, outlook and philosophies are deteriorating.
 
Lokadottir said:
Though this isn’t an extension of ABORTION. It’s an extension of adult euthanasia. Yes both are wrong in the eyes of Catholics, but we should all recognize which end of life this law is extending from.
Click to expand...
Glad you mentioned that. I would not have gathered from the original post that this was for mercy killings; from the original post it sounded arbitrary.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Glad you mentioned that. I would not have gathered from the original post that this was for mercy killings; from the original post it sounded arbitrary.
Click to expand...
No problem! My sub’s Belgian and he explained it in length.
The proposed 6 month killing period is sick and twisted. It’s already out of you put it up for adoption! You won’t run the risk of crippling guilt and its probably cheaper! Thats fairly utilitarian but the argument for it also is. So this argument will make the most sense to proponents of it.
 
mdgspencer said:
See www.catholicsistas.com/2014/02/20/choice-now-extends-born-children/
For decades, prochoice advocates have insisted there’s no “slippery slope” to abortion, that the right to end your child’s life in the womb would go no further.

Until now.
Click to expand...
This is actually nothing new to leftist ideology. The left was against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act which, if politicians on the left wouldn’t have voted against it, would have protected children who survive abortions so that they can’t be killed or left to die after. And they had no problem with killing Terri Schindler Schiavo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top