“Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.”
(Red above = CaptFun’s emphasis. “Difficult to talk about” - yet …).
Let’s re-write this a few different ways with the words:
- Old person
- Disabled person
- Sick person
- Poor person
- Person of colour
- Homosexual
- Woman
- Protestant
- Muslim
- Jew
- Catholic
instead of fetus.
:sad_yes: And what of the humanity of a “sleeping person”?
And what if instead of a woman’s rights … it were somehow a “husband’s rights” in a society inclined to give
THAT eternal lattitude? Actually this is not entirely unthinkable … blend certain countries’ laws with the principles that have been established in the culture of death and we might wake up one day and find such a monstrosities as:
kpeople: -
Warning: Preposterous Pro-choice “reasoning” follows. Do not emulate! :tsktsk:
"Open minded" appeal:
"I personally would never terminate my wife … but I don’t think the government should be able to tell a man what
he can an can’t do in his own home.
**Questionable human
viability of the terminated **
“Just because I exercised my “right to choose” and terminated my wife in her sleep doesn’t mean I’m a bad person. She always told me that " … in her sleep” is how she *wanted
to die. Besides - when a person is asleep are they really viable?
** invocation of the Michael Schiavo husband’s rights provision.
*
**“Sincere religious” appeal **
How close are we coming to hearing this kind of sophistry?*
“I meant it when I said ‘til death do us part’ - but it was time for me to move on. Society has no right to force a man to be married to someone when he doesn’t want to be. Had I died first … how could I have given her this wonderful funeral?”
NO. It’s
NOT funny. Not in the sense of ha - ha. In the sense of “ewww…” it is “funny” as in perversely distorted. BUT - it is not unthinkable to see it happen somewhere (or sometime) soon.
Corollaries to the radical feminist culture of death question above: “So What If Abortion Ends Life?” are being crafted for public release in the halls of hell now. And in headlines like these we see that some of these **“life taking excuses” ** have already begun to be published, believed, allowed and/or championed.
msnbc.msn.com/id/11943750/ns/dateline_nbc/t/its-my-turn-talk-says-michael-schiavo/#.UQX2245OTzI
MSNBC interview:
Matt Lauer: People have often asked. Michael why didn’t you divorce Terri. You were living with Jodi.
**Michael Schiavo: **Why do I have to divorce Terri? Terri wasn’t like a football— an inanimate object you pass back and forth. She was my wife. You mean because your wife gets sick, do you give her back?
time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2055445,00.html
In THIS case the father who killed his daughter was convicted (of 2nd degree murder)
in what some speculated as an “honor killing.” The article estimates there are 5,000 of these worldwide each year. AND while it doesn’t rise to the level of “justification” yet -
cultural “explanations” are being given for this “procedure”.
“Some families think that the women of the family represent their reputation,” Rana Husseini, a Jordanian journalist who has spent nearly two decades campaigning against the practice and author of the book Murder in the Name of Honor, explains. “If a woman has committed a violation in their point of view, they believe if they kill her, they have ended the shame. Blood cleanses honor.”
And in our multi-cultural and tolerant society what if one should ask - " Is a jury of western Christians or non-believers judging a Muslim … a “jury of his peers”? (Gulp hard here).
What if a jury of his fellow religionists found him innocent by virtue of his “office as a father” in their culture? A sort of jury nullification like “To Kill A Mockingbird” in reverse.
I post these things by way of warning. Our society is halfway through the looking glass and the “right sounding” justification for almost any action calling for a moral solution - might just prevail these days (reason, justice, and morality, being trumped by fashion, “tolerance” and apathy).
I agree with Triumphguy’s analysis … wondered if anything he warned against was in danger of actually happening … and remembered these things.
While I hold that the virtue of mercy CAN trump the virtue of justice (per Jesus’ “Go and sin no more” ruling) … it is not mercy to obliterate the law and justice altogether. That would end in anarchy and a living hell on earth.
The “So What …” principle behind this “argument (?)” has been around since Eden - and
when acted upon ends in consequences as serious as – “death” eventually. And not just for the explained away and killed baby. :nope:
