Oh My word- "After Birth Abortion"

[sedonaman]

… where in the world is that going to lead… ?

For liberals, there is no finish line.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

You never learned that ideas have consequences, did you?
Ideas Have Consequences

Professors are in a position of enormous power and authority in front of the classroom, in molding and shaping young minds, and there is a corresponding responsibility that comes with this position of authority that can leverage the passion and raw energy of youth for good or for evil. To abuse this power is the greatest evil that can lead to horrific consequences as it has since the early 19th century in Germany. The maxim that “ideas have consequences” is well known. Moreover, dangerous ideas and the manner in which they are disseminated can lead to dangerous consequences. Accordingly, their purveyors should be held accountable for the results, when the results are world war, mass-murder, genocide, or Holocaust.
…
It is worth remembering that not all academics in the German university of the 1930s allowed themselves to be sucked into the Nazi maelstrom. There were a few with the integrity to stand up against the storm, hold onto their beliefs, who paid the price, and there were also a few who lived to tell their stories. Victor Klemperer, a professor of Literature at the University of Dresden, already in the minority for his unpopular views on the French Enlightenment, and formerly a Jew, was expelled after the Nuremberg Laws were enacted. To his great dismay, faculty, former friends, and colleagues deserted him. He witnessed them grovel at the feet of the Nazis, compromise their consciences and bend their scholarship to the Nazis’ will. He observed the fake righteous self-interest of his contemporaries vying with one another to achieve coveted Nazi credentials. They were the guilty party, not the ordinary Germans. Given the opportunity to mete out punishment after it’s all over, he wrote the following in one of his published diaries, I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi Years 1933-1941:

Here is another thought: There has been a resurgence of anti-Semitism in academia. This professor should be fired immediately, if not sooner, before he/she and people like her can do any more damage, because there were undoubtedly people in Germany who just let it slide when Hitler came to power. Before you dismiss me as some kind of nut, consider what Hayek wrote in 1943: “It is a common mistake to regard National Socialism as a mere revolt against reason, an irrational movement without intellectual background. If that were so, the movement would be much less dangerous than it is.” – F. A. Road to Serfdom, Chapter 12. “The Socialist Roots of Nazism”

So, heil, professor!

---

“There is a tendency for a principle to expand itself beyond the limit of its logic.” – Justice Benjamin Cardozo

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Wait for the movie.

I think the movie already came out…or at least the book:

*Unwind *by Neal Shusterman

amazon.com/Unwind-Neal-Shusterman/dp/1416912045

 

[Trishie]

I agree 100% with that statement.

Peace

Tim

Tim, do you mean us to understand you to agree it is 100% permissible to kill newborns? And unborn children?
The statement you agree 100% with is claiming that both are as permissible as each other.
As Catholics we 100% disagree that it is permissible to kill either newborns or unborn children.
Some clarification might have been helpful?
Regarding an issue so serious we need to be clear, not semantically clever, I think, so that we don’t cloud the issue for direct thinkers amongst us.
You mention you weren’t a philosophy student, Tim, but I was a philosophy student, and I also studied linguistics…but still respond best to plain speaking on such a serious issue.
I hope you don’t mind, but as my response to your post was shock, whilst I tried to unravel your meaning, I do think some people may not get past the shock, and possibly need the consideration.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Tim, do you mean us to understand you to agree it is 100% permissible to kill newborns? And unborn children?
The statement you agree 100% with is claiming that both are as permissible as each other.
As Catholics we 100% disagree that it is permissible to kill either newborns or unborn children.
Regarding an issue so serious we need to be clear, not semantically clever, I think, so that we don’t cloud the issue for direct thinkers amongst us.
You mention you weren’t a philosophy student, Tim, but I was philosophy student, and I also studied linguistics…but still respond best to plain speaking on such a serious issue.
I hope you don’t mind, but as my response to your post was shock, whilst I tried to unravel your meaning, I do think some people may not get past the shock, and possibly need the consideration.

I think he’s saying that he agrees it’s okay to kill newborns if you grant that’s okay to kill unborn children. I don’t think he grants the original premise.

 

[Corki]

I think he’s saying that he agrees it’s okay to kill newborns if you grant that’s okay to kill unborn children. I don’t think he grants the original premise.

It is not logically consistent to approve of abortion up to the very moment before birth but be aghast at the idea of killing a child after birth.

 

[Trishie]

It is not logically consistent to approve of abortion up to the very moment before birth but be aghast at the idea of killing a child after birth.

If you both re-read my post I did acknowledge that, but it was a leap. Some more explanation might have perhaps been needed for more literal readers? As his meaning has occupied several posts in this thread I wasn’t alone in some questioning. If he was offended then he has received much support.

 

[Orogeny]

Tim, do you mean us to understand you to agree it is 100% permissible to kill newborns? And unborn children?

Marc and Corki have already answered for me. It is logical that any situation where it is ethically permissible to kill a child before he/she is born would also apply to one who is already born, so the question becomes when is it ethically permissible to kill a child (location realtive to his/her mother is irrelevant). Of course, the answer is never. That is why I agree 100% with the statement.

The statement you agree 100% with is claiming that both are as permissible as each other.

Yep.

As Catholics we 100% disagree that it is permissible to kill either newborns or unborn children.

Exactly!

Some clarification might have been helpful?

I hope this has clarified it for you.

Regarding an issue so serious we need to be clear, not semantically clever, I think, so that we don’t cloud the issue for direct thinkers amongst us.
You mention you weren’t a philosophy student, Tim, but I was a philosophy student, and I also studied linguistics…but still respond best to plain speaking on such a serious issue.
I hope you don’t mind, but as my response to your post was shock, whilst I tried to unravel your meaning, I do think some people may not get past the shock, and possibly need the consideration.

I don’t mind at all. I hope that the shock was the original statement, not my agreement. Regardless, I hope that the shock you and possibly others felt has led you to re-read the statement that I agree with and discern why I might do so. I’ll bet that you also agree with me when you think about what the authors wrote.

It is important, as we dialogue with those who claim to be “pro-choice but personally opposed to abortion”, we make sure that we never find it acceptable to intentionally kill a child, pre or post birth. The statement made by the authors of that article summed up, in my mind, very succinctly the problem with the “pro-choice but personally opposed to abortion” position. I think that equating killing a child that has been born to killing one that has yet to be delivered is genius!

Peace

Tim

 

[SMHW]

Marc and Corki have already answered for me. It is logical that any situation where it is ethically permissible to kill a child before he/she is born would also apply to one who is already born, so the question becomes when is it ethically permissible to kill a child (location realtive to his/her mother is irrelevant). Of course, the answer is never. That is why I agree 100% with the statement.Yep.Exactly!I hope this has clarified it for you.I don’t mind at all. I hope that the shock was the original statement, not my agreement. Regardless, I hope that the shock you and possibly others felt has led you to re-read the statement that I agree with and discern why I might do so. I’ll bet that you also agree with me when you think about what the authors wrote.