Are pro-choicers OK with infanticide?

Pro-infanticide “ethicists” are creepy but consistent.  Via Journal editor defends pro-infanticide piece: Killing newborns is already legal in Holland:

The editor of an ethics journal that recently published an article advocating infanticide (what the authors call “post-birth abortion”), has responded to widespread criticism by pointing out that promoting the killing of newborns is nothing new: in fact, in the Netherlands infant euthanasia is already legal and practiced.

The reasons given for abortion (“not a person yet, a parasite, dependent on others, not as developed as others,” etc.) could also be used to rationalize infanticide.  Pro-lifers have pointed out this logic for a long time, although we draw the opposite conclusion: Abortion and infanticide are wrong because they kill innocent but unwanted human beings. (It is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings.  Check out any mainstream embryology textbook.)

Editor Julian Savulescu also criticizes what he calls the “hate speech” directed at the authors of the article, arguing that the public’s response to the piece shows that “proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”

I’ll bet the unborn and the infants would consider the authors to be guilty of hate speech — that is, if they were permitted to live.

In the journal article Alberto Giubilin, a philosopher from the University of Milan, and Francesca Minerva, an ethicist from the University of Melbourne, made the case that “after-birth abortion” should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is perfectly healthy. They base their argument on the premise that the unborn baby and the newborn do not have the moral status of actual persons and are consequently “morally irrelevant.”

Again, pro-lifers actually agree on the consistency argument, although not its application.  It is the pro-choice / anti-infanticide people who are inconsistent.

In response to the backlash, Savulescu wrote that the arguments in the article “are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris.”

That’s true.  It is the pro-choice / anti-infanticide people who haven’t gone down the logical slippery slope yet and embraced the logic of infanticide.  Sadly, it is just a matter of time.

He also observes that the paper “draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands.”

The fact that The Netherlands already permits the killing of disabled newborns is not widely known, even by many in the pro-life movement. The practice is permitted under the so-called Groningen Protocol, which outlines the circumstances under which a physician may deliver a lethal injection to a newborn who suffers from a disability, at the request of the child’s parents.

An article published in 2008 in the prestigious Hastings Center Report about the Protocol similarly provoked outrage after the authors argued that disabled babies might be “better off dead.”

This is the height of selfishness.  Disabled people have lower suicide rates than others.  The “better off dead” rationalization to relieve oneself of an obligation leads to all sorts of evil at both ends of life.

The authors of that article also linked infanticide to legalized abortion, arguing that infanticide may in fact be the morally superior alternative to abortion.

Again, given that you are OK with killing innocent but unwanted human beings in the womb, they actually make a good point.  I know many people who were counseled to abort babies that turned out fine (even though they shouldn’t have been aborted even if they weren’t fine).

“The supposedly morally superior alternative [of abortion]…does not strike us as superior at all,” they wrote. Instead, they said, parents of a child with a poor prenatal diagnosis should wait until the child is born, when they can make a more informed decision about the chance that their child has of living a “satisfactory” life.

Yikes.  Using the “satisfactory life” criteria these loving Liberals would kill 90% of the world at birth.

. . . In his response today, editor Savulescu observed that the authors of the recent paper simply took for granted the premises that undergird legal abortion, and followed them to their logical conclusion.

Exactly!  How bizarre that we agree with these people on that.

The pro-infanticide article and the defense from Savulescu come only months after a Canadian judge employed similar arguments in the process of handing out a lenient sentence to a mother who strangled her newborn and threw him over a fence.

According to Justice Joanne Veit, Canada’s lack of an abortion law indicated that “while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support.”

“Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother,” she added.

See how easy abortion makes it to rationalize infanticide?

Savluescu, the director of the Center for Practical Ethics at Oxford University, has made the news in the past for arguing that the requirement for organ donors to be dead at the time of organ harvesting should be removed, and that “mandatory” organ donation should be instituted. He has also argued that humanity has a “moral obligation” to use in vitro fertilization (IVF) to select the most intelligent embryos for the good of society.

I hope that pro-choicers meditate on those quotes and reconsider their views.

Bad pro-abortion reasoning: “Only the people making the decision get to discuss this”

From a recent commenter on the A Facebook conversation on abortion post:

You know I find it funny that the people talking about abortion in this are ones who will never have to make that decision.

This is like so many other pro-abortion* sound bites.  It is an emotive, fallacious bumper-sticker slogan repeated ad nauseam such that the pro-legalized-abortionists just nod their heads at it.  They never stop to think how meaningless it is.

A simple response: Debate on whether an act is moral and should be legal is never restricted to those committing the act.  Do only thieves get to decide whether stealing should be legal?

* Yes, I said pro-abortion.  People who wanted slavery to remain legal weren’t “pro-choice,” they were pro-slavery.  (And that would make another good response: “Did only those considering owning slaves get to debate the morality of slave owning?”) And there are remarkably few “pro-choice” who oppose taxpayer-funded abortions, which is obviously pro-abortion.

About those gas prices . . .

This is not that complicated.

1. The relatively modest increases in the past were considered fair game for Democrats to use against Republicans, so why are they pulling up the drawbridge now and claiming it is just political to expect the President to be able to influence it?

2. More importantly, Obama kept his promise to raise gas prices.  Don’t let people forget that. The Greens want higher fuel prices, and they are getting them.

Via Right Klik: Mission Accomplished:

3. There are at least 10 Ways Obama Could Reduce Gasoline Prices Now.  You can’t drill today and have oil tomorrow, but policy changes have a remarkably quick impact on oil prices.  OPEC knows what short attention spans people have.  If they lower prices temporarily everyone will move to some other topic that the DNC-orchestrated mainstream media tells them to (e.g., “the Republicans want to take away your birth control!!).  That keeps us from making wise strategic moves and keeps us dependent on foreign oil and those who set the prices.

Via Stop the ACLU:

A Facebook conversation on abortion

I had an extended-play discussion with someone on Facebook that I didn’t want to go to waste.  It was fairly classic reasoning from someone on the pro-legalized abortion side, and it remained civil throughout.  I hope people will take the time to go through it and see how to navigate through these conversations.  It takes a little practice but we’ve got the science and logic on our side (and the word of God, if they are interested in that!).  The other commenter used the same arguments and tactics (i.e., changing the subject) that professional pro-aborts use.

—–

EMatters:  And he [Obama, at the recent prayer breakfast] spoke of speaking up for those who can’t speak for themselves, yet he’s the most pro-abortion President ever.

Other person:  how is he any more pro choice than clinton?

EMatters:  Obama wants taxpayer-funded abortions and even opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. When you are so pro-choice that you read the Constitution and see a right to a dead baby, even if she survives the abortion, then you are pro-abortion.

Other person:  no one is pro abortion. you can skew the argument all you want. Its Pro Choice

EMatters:  If someone supports taxpayer-funded abortions then I think it is fair to refer to them as pro-abortion. Think about their premise: “There should be more abortions than there are already, so we need taxpayers to fund them — many of which are pro-life.” If wanting to increase abortions isn’t pro-abortion I don’t know what is.

EMatters:  Having said that, I don’t care if someone is “just” pro-choice to crush and dismember innocent yet unwanted human beings. It is still wrong to take innocent human life for 99% of the reasons given for abortions.

Other person:  you have every right to have that opinion. as i do mine.

Other person:  but you still havent made the case for this president being the MOST pro abortion president ever.

EMatters:  Show me one who was pro-taxpayer funded abortions and who fought against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

EMatters:  Yes, you have a right to your opinion. I never thought otherwise. I encourage people to base opinions on facts and logic. Here’s mine: It is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings from fertilization (http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq). And most people agree that you shouldn’t kill an innocent human being just for reasons of economics, romantic life, education, career, etc. Therefore, abortion is immoral in 99% of the cases (the exception being to save the life of the mother, which is consistent with the pro-life ethic).

You can have a different opinion on whether the unborn are human beings, but I have all the embryology textbooks on my side.

You can have a different opinion on whether innocent but unwanted human beings can be killed as well.

The Case Against Abortion: Medical Testimony  www.abort73.com  A new human being comes into existence during the process of fertilization.

Other person:  http://www.issues2000.org/celeb/Bill_Clinton_Abortion.htm  Clinton actually used a number of executive orders to undo some pro-life legislation. i dont believe obama has.  if its so cut and dry then why did the supreme court rule the way they did…..or with their conservative advantage overturned it. Why hasnt congress drafted legislation to ban abortion if its so apparent

EMatters:  Re. Clinton — I assume you don’t think I’m a Clinton fan ;-). He was bad on abortion as well. That is a contest no one should be proud to win. Obama has also done his best to export abortion.

EMatters:  I encourage you to study Roe v Wade and how Justice Blackmun was pressured to make it happen. It doesn’t get overturned (yet) because of all the money involved. Planned Parenthood and the other aborts make huge $$ and funnel it back and forth to politicians.

Interestingly, Blackmun conceded that if if we knew life began that would change things. He made a major scientific error there. Even PP used to be pro-life and knew when life began — http://tinyurl.com/ykeex9e — that is, until they realized how much money they could make.

Having said all that, I don’t follow your point about it not being cut and dried. My scientific fact and simple logic are there to criticize, if you like. But there existence of an opposing view doesn’t mean there is no morally correct view.

The issues surrounding abortion are psychologically complex. I do pregnancy center ministry and can attest that the pressures on women are severe (often from boyfriends pushing them to “choose” to abort). But there is moral simplicity: You shouldn’t kill an unborn human being for the reasons given for abortion.

Other person:  there is just a much pressure on women to have a baby they arent capable (or willing) to care for. There are also women that are very much in control of their lives that find themselves in a motherly way who want to maintain the right to determine whether or not to have a child…..just the speed of the backlash against Komen today should show you that women will fight to preserve this right

So eMatters: , let me ask you, are you pro capital punishment? What do you think about us killing Bin Laden? Are you in the “all life is sacred” camp or do you pick and choose which already “birthed” people deserve to live?

EMatters:  Re. capital punishment, there are questions of practice (e.g., Can you get a fair enough trial given our lax treatment of perjury?) and questions of principle (i.e., is it always wrong to use CP?). Your question was about the principle of CP, and I’ll answer it with a question.

Do you see any difference between A and B?

A. Completely innocent human being — no record of any crimes, ever — being put to death for being unwanted, with no appeals.

B. Human being guilty of capital murder beyond a reasonable doubt who survived 10+ years of appeals.

EMatters:  ‎”there is just a much pressure on women to have a baby they arent capable (or willing) to care for.”

I conceded that abortion situations are psychologically complex. In fact, if there weren’t some factors that made the situation psychologically complex I doubt anyone would consider an abortion. So that isn’t the question.

The question is whether feeling ill equipped to care for a baby is justification to kill her.

For every situation you come up with to rationalize abortion, I encourage you to ask the same question with a toddler plugged in the example. What if the toddler is causing economic / romance / career / education problems? Can you kill her for those reasons? Most people would say no.

Therefore, the only question is, “What is the unborn?” The answer is that they are human beings that are simply at a different stage of development than the toddler, but with the same right to life.

EMatters:  ‎”There are also women that are very much in control of their lives that find themselves in a motherly way who want to maintain the right to determine whether or not to have a child…..”

If I understood that correctly then you are making a factual error. The woman already has reproduced a human being, so she has a child. The question is about birth control (whether or not to have a child), it is about abortion (whether or not to kill the child).

“just the speed of the backlash against Komen today should show you that women will fight to preserve this right”

I don’t dispute that. The fact that the pro-aborts are venomous and radical in their pursuit of the legal right to kill innocent human beings is true, of course, but completely irrelevant to the question of whether it should be legal.

Other person:  venomous and radical? i only see doctors being killed and clinics bombed by one side, my friend.

EMatters:  So we agree that killing humans is bad. Your side kills 3,000+ daily with your apparent approval. My side vehemently denounces murders and violence against abortionists, which are extremely rare. And your media apparently forgot to tell you about the pro-lifer killed a couple years ago.

Other person:  abortion is legal in this land. has been since 1973. so you statement is wrong…..legally speaking

EMatters:  Huh? We are debating whether it should be legal. The fact that it is currently legal is irrelevant. It is a fact that abortion kills an innocent human being.

Other person:  we’re getting no where here. you may want to stick to the moral arguments, because currently you dont have a legal one. You can work you elect folks to overturn Roe v Wade to change that, but you arent ever going to convince citizens who believe in choice to change their minds…..and as of today, we dont HAVE to convince to come over to our side.

EMatters:  I’ve noticed that you change the subject every time I make a point. I’d appreciate if you’d close out on a topic or let me know if you see my point. Examples:

1. Do you see the difference between aborting a completely innocent child who had no appeals (20,000 per week in the U.S.) and executing a first-degree murderer who lost 10+ years of appeals?

2. Do you see how the fact that pro-abortionists are really committed to their cause has nothing to do with whether their cause is just? (Same thing for pro-lifers, btw)

3. The reasons you are giving for abortion (women wanting to control their lives, not equipped to care for kids, etc.) would justify killing infants and toddlers as well?

4. The existence of two sides to an issue doesn’t mean neither is correct.

Etc.

EMatters:  Your last comment made no sense. Saying I don’t have a legal argument is merely stating that abortion is legal. That proves nothing, because we both agree that it is legal. Do you see how anyone could make that claim as justification for keeping the status quo at all times? Using your logic, the pro-lifers were correct before Roe v Wade because the law said abortion was illegal. Therefore, they had no legal argument. Now does that make sense?

I’m arguing that abortion kills an innocent human being and that it should be illegal. Your response is that it is currently legal. But my argument assumes that already.

I hope you give this important issue more serious thought than you have to date.

Other person:  ‎1. We’ve executed innocent people. Even if they were possibly “bad” in some other way, they werent guilty of capital murder. One of these “mistakes” is one too many IMO.

EMatters:  I agree that we shouldn’t execute innocent people. You are the one whose views are in conflict. Using your logic, we make 3,000+ mistakes per day — but you are OK with those (that is, unless you are going to attempt to refute my scientific argument that the unborn are human beings).

And using your logic, capital punishment is legal, so you shouldn’t complain about it or expect it to be changed.

Other person:  ‎2. We ARENT pro abortionist. We are pro choice. Must pro choice women never make the decision to actually abort their babies. I never said my side is more JUST than yours…its just legally supported.

Other person:  what dont you get about my statement that I DONT THINK ABORTION ARE MURDER

Other person:  ‎3. That is a ridiculous statement. Since we believe people are given rights at birth, killing a toddler WOULD be murder

EMatters:  Right, but you aren’t offering any facts. Which do you deny, and why?

1. The unborn are human beings from fertilization. I’m claiming that as a scientific fact and offered references to 10+ embryology texts — not to mention common sense (what else would two human beings create?)

2. Abortion kills human beings.

So do you deny that the unborn are human beings or that abortion doesn’t kill something?

Other person:  why doesnt the supreme court deem it so then?

EMatters:  ‎”Since we believe people are given rights at birth, killing a toddler WOULD be murder”

You are once again begging the question and assuming what you should be proving. We are debating whether unborn human beings have rights, so you can’t just claim that they don’t have rights.

EMatters:  ‎”why doesnt the supreme court deem it so then?”

I’ve addressed that above (money & politics) and you’ve ignored it and once again changed the subject. I’ve answered your questions. Why do you ignore mine?

Other person:  i just answered them all. i believe rights to be granted at birth…which is the law

EMatters:  ‎”I never said my side is more JUST than yours…its just legally supported.”

And for the 3rd or 4th time I’m pointing out that you are making an illogical statement. Saying, “abortion is legal,” when I concede that and when we are debating whether it should be legal is meaningless.

Other person:  ok. so lets stick to the moral argument

EMatters:  ‎”i believe rights to be granted at birth…which is the law”

You stated your opinion without reasons and for the 5th time you’ve begged the question on the law issue. If that is the best you’ve got you may want to reconsider your position.

EMatters:  Yes, let’s stick to that.

EMatters:  Is it moral to kill human beings because they are unwanted?

Other person:  i dont think its moral to kill ANY human being.

Other person:  but we do for all sort of reasons

EMatters:  So you think abortions are immoral?

Other person:  in war, criminals. if they really scare us

Other person:  but we kill in war because it makes us more secure…but its not moral

Other person:  was the constitution moral? is everything in the Bible moral?

Other person:  eye for an eye or turn the other cheek? which is it?

Other person:  my point is moral is malleable. mostly shaped by the culture, the victors. Is abortion a good thing to be doing….absolutely not. but 35% of US children in poverty isnt very moral either. a large number of those babies would be in poverty

EMatters:  Interesting questions, but irrelevant to the debate. We are debating whether abortions are moral, and if so, should they be illegal (we probably agree that you don’t want gov’t micro-managing every activity of our lives and assessing whether they are moral or not).

I think we agree that war and capital punishment exist, and people can debate the “just cause” theory of war and the principle and practice of CP. But we can address abortion whether those exist or not or whether they are just or not.

I will answer a side note: Of course everything in the Bible isn’t moral. That’s the point! Even Homer Simpson quipped, “And talk about a preachy book! I mean, everyone’s a sinner . . . except this guy.”

So, I’ll ask again: Do you think abortions are immoral?

Other person:  why is every point i make irrelevant to you. i think all my points form why i think the way i think. just because you dont like the points dont make them irrelevant

EMatters:  Yeah, we agree that poverty is bad, too. But using your logic, it is legal and exists, so you definitely wouldn’t ask the gov’t to do anything about that.

And I realize that societies have different views at different times. Abortion was illegal, now it is legal. But it was either always moral or always immoral. Same thing with slavery and many other ills.

EMatters:  You are welcome to your opinions, but I am free to point out whether those have anything to do with whether abortion is moral or should be legal.

Back to the topic: Is abortion moral or not? You say it isn’t a good thing. Why not? I say it is a bad thing because an innocent human being is killed with no appeals. And if government exists to do anything, it exists to protect the lives of human beings. Therefore, it should be illegal.

Feel free to use facts and logic to point out why my premises or conclusions or false.

Other person:  its not moral

EMatters:  Thanks, that helps the dialogue. Why do you think it is immoral?

Other person:  i dont think its immoral.

Other person:  i think the mother has rights until the baby is born. period

EMatters:  I’m confused — did our comments get out of order? You said “its not moral” then you said “i don’t think its immoral” . . .

Other person:  i got ahead of myself. sorry….and we’l have to pick this up later

EMatters:  ‎”i think the mother has rights until the baby is born. period”

Yes, we’ve established that you hold that opinion. I’m asking you to be more specific. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the mother should have the right to kill an innocent human being.

EMatters:  No problem! I need to run as well. I appreciate the charitable dialogue. I know these things can get testy so it is nice to be able to discuss it with someone who is civil. I just think it is a very important topic.  Have a blessed day!

Update: Not surprisingly, he never came back.  Hopefully it planted a seed.

God’s unconditional love. Sort of.

Mark from Facebook was lamenting his church’s overly simple “Remember, God loves everyone” billboard.  It is true in a sense, of course.  As Marie noted there, Jesus loved the rich young ruler who walked away and He commanded us to love our enemies.

A former church of ours had the “God loves you unconditionally” message preached nearly every week and posted on a local billboard.  While it was true in a particular sense, they never finished the sentence: “And He’ll unconditionally send you to Hell for eternity if you don’t repent and believe.”

My guess is that many people read the message on the billboard and thought, “That’s great — I don’t have to change a thing and don’t even have a reason to go to their church.  I’ve heard all I need from the experts.”

Eternity is a mighty long time to hold bad theology.  Another good Facebook find this morning was a link our pastor posted: My Take: Stop sugar-coating the Bible.  That was surprisingly good for CNN. Too many people don’t realize that by editing the word they are making a god in their own image and not seeking the real God.

Do I like to share the truth of God’s love?  Absolutely!  But we must be careful not to distill it down so far that it loses its real meaning.

Remember that even the oft-misused John 3:16 notes that without believing in Jesus people will perish eternally, and the following verses make it even more clear.

16 “For God so loved the world,that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

 

Shocking news: People who kill unwanted human beings for a living may break the rules

Via Hypocrisy In The UK:

Oh dear, dear me, the evils of vice and corruption! The Daily Telegraph spells out the newest moral quandary of the British NHS below.

Doctors at British clinics have been secretly filmed agreeing to terminate foetuses purely because they are either male or female. Clinicians admitted they were prepared to falsify paperwork to arrange the abortions even though it is illegal to conduct such “sex-selection” procedures. Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, said: “I’m extremely concerned to hear about these allegations. Sex selection is illegal and is morally wrong. I’ve asked my officials to investigate this as a matter of urgency.”

Got that?  Taxpayer-funded killing of innocent but unwanted human beings is morally  acceptable for any reason except gender selection.

The Wintery Knight lists some good (by which I mean bad) quotes from related articles:

Another consultant, Claudine Domoney, who works with 132 Healthwise clinic in Harley Street, central London, agreed to arrange for a woman to abort a boy after being told that she and her husband already had a son from his first marriage. The practice is known as “family balancing”.

In a consultation room in the Chelsea and Westminster hospital, the woman, who was about 18 weeks pregnant, explained her reasons for the termination “It’s a boy, and that’s the reason, we don’t want to have a second boy.”

Scientific fact: They already have two boys.  One is just “safely” located in her womb.  They have two, but only want one, so they plan to kill the second one — at taxpayer expense, of course!  Because Liberals think it is a human right to be able to kill some unwanted human beings.

“It’s obviously taken a little bit of time to decide this?” asked Miss Domoney, in reference to the fact that the woman was 18 weeks pregnant.

Well, gee, if you took a long to think about killing an unwanted human being I guess that makes it OK.

The vast majority of gender selection abortions kill female human beings for the sole reason that they are female human beings.  This puts feminists in a quandry, but they love unrestricted abortion so much that they can never clearly denounce gender selection abortions.  They realize that fighting these would lead to an obvious question: If killing an unwanted human being because of gender is wrong, why is killing because of education, career, love life, economics, etc.?

Pro-abortion “Reverend” shocked that people could be callous towards the unwanted

This is soaked with irony, and the saddest part is that false teacher Chuck Currie doesn’t even realize what a self-parody he is.  See Statement On Ash Wednesday Shootings Of Homeless Portlanders.

I urge all Oregonians to pray today for the two men experiencing homelessness who were shot early this morning under Portland, Oregon’s Morrison Bridge in what police are calling a random attack.

I think we would all agree that you shouldn’t harm homeless people.

Violence against those who are homeless is a national epidemic, according to the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH).

Violence against the unborn — over 3,000 crushed and dismembered human beings per day — is a larger epidemic.  Yet unlike the shooting of the homeless, which everyone except the shooters knows is wrong, we have “Reverends” like Chuck who think one of our problems is that we don’t have enough abortions (he advocates for taxpayer-funded abortions).

But this is a spiritual crisis as much as a political or economic crisis.  When we allow people living on our streets to become invisible we begin the process of dehumanization and thus we see the increase in hate crimes against the most vulnerable in our society – those Jesus would have called the “least of these.”

Just replace “people living on our streets” with “unborn” and watch your hypocrisy meter explode.  Yeah, Chuck, if you ignore the homeless pretty soon people will kill the unborn simply because they are unwanted. Oh, wait, they do that already, and you think that is a moral good.

Ash Wednesday begins the Lenten season of reflection and prayer.  Let our prayers this Lent be with those children, women and men living on our streets in the most prosperous nation on earth.

Any prayers for those human beings living in the womb, “Reverend?”

The attacks today were nothing short of a terrorist attack.  The crisis of homelessness is nothing short of sin.

The far, far bigger sin is fake Christians advocating for abortion.

As always, remember that forgiveness and healing are possible for those who have participated in the abortion process.