Marketing Evil by College "Experts"
Jack Kemp
The news is not good.
The Blaze reports:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/
Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.
Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”
END QUOTE
The article further states:
"This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available."
They advocate killing Down's Syndrome babies if they become "too much of a burden" to a family or society. This, once again, is another reason the left hates Sarah Palin and the Down's Syndrome baby she kept.
Last weekend, I saw the foreign movie "In Darkness," about Polish sewer worker Leopold Socha in Lvov who hid a group of Jews in his city's sewers for fourteen months in World War II. It is based on the book/memoir the last one of those surviving Jews, called "In the Sewers of Lvov" by Robert Marshall. In the movie, one of the young Jewish women gave birth to a child in the filth and rat ridden sewers, with the Nazis and their collaborators just feet above them. She - or another woman - decided, under these extreme circumstances, she could not feed or care for the child and she killed it. What these two "medical ethicists" are proposing is that we should all be reduced to living in a sewer under a National Socialist (that was the full name of the Nazis) regime and make our decisions based on this worldview/desperate situation.
"In Darkness" was nominated for an Academy Award this year and I will assume that Hollywood saw it as an inspiration not to repeat the horrors of the Nazi era rather than an advocacy film for infanticide, what these two Australian "medical ethicists" are advocating. Perhaps I am giving Hollywood too much credit here, but that will be my interpretation of this film: don't create a society that can rationalize any type of casual killing because it is inherently evil and barbaric.
In the famed American History story of the Donner Pass Party, a group of Nineteenth Century pioneers got caught in a blizzard in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and some of them only survived by eating the flesh of those that perished. Once again, this was as an extreme situation and no one was believed to have been murdered.
But these true stories are exceptions that prove the rule. The two Australian "ethicists" (and Prof. Singer of Princeton in the U.S.) are trying to make the barbaric conditions exceptions the everyday rule in a "Mad Max" - or worse - world. Their starting premise is the worst possible society - and then excuses it, shrugging their shoulders.
Notice that these are the so called "intellectual experts." If they tried to start a private insurance company that advocated infanticide coverage rather than treatment of infants, they would probably go broke. Their "expertise" can only be employed in a state mandated system where the government is the insurer, the appeals court and the doctor - or in more direct terms: judge, jury and executioner. In a single payer system, such as what ObamaCare will become, there is no adversary to argue the point of extending someone's life. Indeed, like the Third Reich, the Obama Administration is trying to negate the social power of the Church (and Orthodox Synagogue) when it comes to abortions. Yes, I know Obama's speech only spoke of contraception being force on the Catholic Church, but who here believes Obama's plans stop with contraception?
When people say that this is a fight between Good and Evil for the Soul of America, they are not exaggerating. If the left can make it an acceptable policy to kill Down's Syndrome babies, then they have redefined murder - and you shouldn't be surprised by which politically out of favor children will be added to the list.
The news is not good.
The Blaze reports:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/
Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.
Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”
END QUOTE
The article further states:
"This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available."
They advocate killing Down's Syndrome babies if they become "too much of a burden" to a family or society. This, once again, is another reason the left hates Sarah Palin and the Down's Syndrome baby she kept.
Last weekend, I saw the foreign movie "In Darkness," about Polish sewer worker Leopold Socha in Lvov who hid a group of Jews in his city's sewers for fourteen months in World War II. It is based on the book/memoir the last one of those surviving Jews, called "In the Sewers of Lvov" by Robert Marshall. In the movie, one of the young Jewish women gave birth to a child in the filth and rat ridden sewers, with the Nazis and their collaborators just feet above them. She - or another woman - decided, under these extreme circumstances, she could not feed or care for the child and she killed it. What these two "medical ethicists" are proposing is that we should all be reduced to living in a sewer under a National Socialist (that was the full name of the Nazis) regime and make our decisions based on this worldview/desperate situation.
"In Darkness" was nominated for an Academy Award this year and I will assume that Hollywood saw it as an inspiration not to repeat the horrors of the Nazi era rather than an advocacy film for infanticide, what these two Australian "medical ethicists" are advocating. Perhaps I am giving Hollywood too much credit here, but that will be my interpretation of this film: don't create a society that can rationalize any type of casual killing because it is inherently evil and barbaric.
In the famed American History story of the Donner Pass Party, a group of Nineteenth Century pioneers got caught in a blizzard in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and some of them only survived by eating the flesh of those that perished. Once again, this was as an extreme situation and no one was believed to have been murdered.
But these true stories are exceptions that prove the rule. The two Australian "ethicists" (and Prof. Singer of Princeton in the U.S.) are trying to make the barbaric conditions exceptions the everyday rule in a "Mad Max" - or worse - world. Their starting premise is the worst possible society - and then excuses it, shrugging their shoulders.
Notice that these are the so called "intellectual experts." If they tried to start a private insurance company that advocated infanticide coverage rather than treatment of infants, they would probably go broke. Their "expertise" can only be employed in a state mandated system where the government is the insurer, the appeals court and the doctor - or in more direct terms: judge, jury and executioner. In a single payer system, such as what ObamaCare will become, there is no adversary to argue the point of extending someone's life. Indeed, like the Third Reich, the Obama Administration is trying to negate the social power of the Church (and Orthodox Synagogue) when it comes to abortions. Yes, I know Obama's speech only spoke of contraception being force on the Catholic Church, but who here believes Obama's plans stop with contraception?
When people say that this is a fight between Good and Evil for the Soul of America, they are not exaggerating. If the left can make it an acceptable policy to kill Down's Syndrome babies, then they have redefined murder - and you shouldn't be surprised by which politically out of favor children will be added to the list.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 7:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home