That didn’t take long: ‘Postnatal abortion’ morally acceptable in some cases, ethicist says
Related: “…what begins in compassion seems to end in eugenics”
*stolen from FB
That didn’t take long: ‘Postnatal abortion’ morally acceptable in some cases, ethicist says
Related: “…what begins in compassion seems to end in eugenics”
*stolen from FB
That is no ‘ethicist’; because that would presume they have some ethics.
“Post-natal” abortion is the deliberate extinction of human life with malice aforethought against a defenseless person.
In short, active murder.
Obviously, Prof. Udo Schuklenk has been spending far too much time with the writings of Dr. Mengele and has become an ardent apostle of National Socialism,
who was just scrubbing and cleaning the ‘gene pool’…
In the period 1945-1948 this would earn you a hanging or a firing squad.
“The Aktion T4 programme used the term ‘euthanasia’ as bureaucratic cover and in the minimal public relations efforts to invest what was essentially an outgrowth of eugenics with greater medical legitimacy.[17] It is clear that little, if any, of the killing, however, was done to alleviate pain or suffering on the part of the victims. Rather the bulk of the evidence, including faked death certificates, deception of the victims and of the victims families, and widespread use of cremation, indicates the killing was done solely according to the socio-political aims, and beliefs, of the perpetrators.”
Naturally, children just born, have the mental faculty to decide that they want to die.
And so it begins.
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group ‘True North’
When you really hate yourself and your own existence, It is easy to hate everyone else, including innocent children.
http://waltherpragerandphilosophy1.blogspot.ro/2012/12/the-birth-of-god.html
Every time I see “Ethicist” I think eugenics and slippery slopes. Has one single “ethicist” ever, you know, said something ethical?
“post natal abortion”, the ultimate euphemism for murder.
Let me rephrase that for you – What begins as a progressivist social experiment usually ends gulags, pogroms and political cleansing. We’re getting a glimpse of this now whenever the left’s agenda stalls due to or facts opposition. Speech is censored, political opponents targeted and mobbed/indicted/slandered, agendas put forward for jailing dissenters (right Soozook?) the great left enlightenment marching lock step into the gulag society!
Just because:
http://www.vitals.com/doctors/Dr_Kermit_Gosnell/reviews
don’t have time to read the article right now. Does it include the line fragment “… but we’ll get it right this time”? It seems that there’s always someone who thinks that a bad idea that has never worked will somehow work perfectly if only the right people are in charge.
At least they’re not talking Soylent Green yet.
Well said.
Hitler and his associate ethicists were just a little ahead of their time.
I think the guy is just rehashing Peter Singer, but I didn’t read the paper. I think maybe these guys could be closet pro lifers. Their argument is that there is no difference between a newborn and a fetus, therefore you can abort a newborn. Whereas the pro life argument is that there is no difference between a newborn and a fetus, therefore abortion is murder. Either way, there is no difference between a newborn and a fetus. You can’t just come out as a pro lifer when the Women’s studies department is just down the hall. Maybe he is subtly forcing them to confront the absurdity of their position.
When I posted in an earlier thread that “Justin announces Liberal platform to support 4th trimester abortions” it was a joke, not a guide!
Ethics is easy when it is somebody else…..
Somewhat like deciding whether somebody else’ dog should be put down…..it’s much, much different when it’s your dog.
So true – I remember when abortion was forced on us with the lie that it would only be used when the health of the mother was a risk. Ha! I guess health of the mother now means “I get to party with no consequences’ along with ‘a baby is an inconvenience particularly when I just starting my career” Of course no mention that your career will likely amount to not much.
Same with gay marriage – it was a compassionate response to two people loving each other and being devoted for the rest of their lives to each other. Fine. But guess what – if you take away marriage as between a man and a women, the slippery slope now includes polygamy (if it shows up on TLC you know it has hit the mainstream) with further suggestions that marriages based on incest (uncle/niece, brother/sister etc) are also valid. Of course that has worked out so well for the Muslim community with their close relative marriages – even animals know when it is time for the boys to leave the pack!
The Aktion T4 programme, which began in the 1930s, was the farm project in which the 3rd Reich trained and recruited people who would oversee and operate the camps for mass extermination in the 1940s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Stangl#T-4_Euthanasia_Programme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irmfried_Eberl#Murderer_of_disabled_persons
They didn’t just take out ads in the newspaper seeking psychopaths who wanted gainful employment by engaging in industrial mass murder.
They gradually deadened the conscience of these people by having them start out in the euthanasia program first and then recruited suitable candidates from there.
In the U.S. there have been 50 million abortions since 1973 when abortion became legal. I’ve coined it the American Holocaust and I’m still waiting for some politician to steal the phrase and run with it.
The Last Tradition
Only in the West, in those highly developed countries with technologies undreamed off just 50 years ago, would this even be a debate. And even here, fifty years ago, death would just happen in “cases of severely impaired, deeply suffering newborns”. Today in 3rd world countries it still does.
Yet some argue that prolonging life, even if it is totally artificially done through massive effort and very high technology, is a moral issue. Is it? Is subjecting a living creature to procedures akin to vivisection moral. Tubes with drugs in arms and legs, operation after operation to “fix” some God given (if you will) defect which can never really be fixed. Unconscious 99% of the time with pain killers or, even more horrible, without them. Death always just around the corner anyway. And survival just means more suffering until the inevitable.
And to sasquatch, yes it is easier to decide whether “someone else’ dog should be put down”. That’s because another person’s perspective is not so affected by love, loyalty, and memories. The real question however is can YOU put your own dog down when it is suffering. In my long life, I’ve had to make this decision twice. Call me whatever name you like but I believe I’ve done the right things. Can you say the same?
Is there a possibility for abuse. Of course. I’ll take that chance because I AM a moral person.
Let us see now.
If one wants to bring on something like this kind of killing, one only needs to find an “ethicist” without ethics and you are free to do whatever.
The only important part in this is to be an academic. That should shut, everybody else who is not, up. There is not to be questions. Who do these other people think they are anyway?
Now, there are two parts to the problem.
There is the part where there is active part of killing.
Then there is the part where a person that is dying does not need machines and other such to keep them alive.
Whatever one thinks of popes, don’t remember which one JP II, or one before him said that there is no need to use extraordinary measures to keep a person alive.
My mom at the end of her life, having leukemia and cancer, said that she did not want to live hooked to a machine to be kept alive and so it was.
There is also difference between one being kept alive and bringing one back to normal life.
If one want’s to be a cynic, one can say that there is the medical industrial complex that see dollar signs in this initiative. There is no risk, if the administrator makes a mistake and the victim dies, the outcome is just as good.
The actual doctors are not necessarily happy with the whole discussion. They most likely want to avoid the whole issue. Though little bit by little bit ever so slowly they will comply.
It will become the norm if the opposition is week and on the advice of academics shuts up.
Well, I, for one, am all in favour of post-natal abortion, as long as it is done by means of a rope, following due process. Just look two posts down for some promising candidates.
There is a certain set of “intellectuals” who really, really, REALLY want to be the ones who get to decide who lives and who dies. They -really- want it. Logan’s Run is their Utopia.
It seems to be both the ultimate power trip and the ultimate despair. The power trip is obvious. The despair is perhaps less so.
Despair comes from the belief that physical happiness is the ultimate and only good. People who suffer have no happiness and contribute nothing, all they are is a big downer. They and we would all be better off if their suffering was ended.
Or, you could let life take its course, in the belief that WE DON’T KNOW EVERYTHING, and you can’t always tell who will recover and live a good life and who won’t.
I’m of the opinion that while taking heroic measures to “save” the life of some terminally damaged people is futile and stupid, killing them off on purpose is evil. Basically its not our job do decide this stuff, Nature does it.
Its profoundly not the job of academics, officials and other rent seekers.
Well, once I’ve anointed myself God, then everyone else is dirt. Literally.
The weaselly (and literally nonsensical) phrase ‘postnatal abortion’ gives the whole rotten game away. Correctly speaking, it is infanticide.
“Can you say the same?”
Not really….nearly a septuagenarian here and my list extends much further than 2…
The way I see it…it is caring enough to send the very best…taking a dog to a vet to be “put to sleep” is a weak cop-out….for girls….
When I hear the term “ethics” I start to worry – seriously, because as we know “ethics” are for people who have no morals. We’ve been told that abortion was only for the “hard cases” even knowing that hard cases make for bad law. It is not just the loss of the life of those future souls, but of the spiritual lives of those who are their mothers (and fathers).
Abortion cheapens and dehumanizes the value of human life as practised today as a contraceptive method. This is the natural trajectory once gone down this slippery slope.
I believe the word is infanticide and despite what one or two here may think, child-killing should be beneath one.
As human life in all states and stages has officially been given no value, when do the statues of Kermit Gosnell and Adam Lanza go up, you know – for facing down that “ridiculous” moral standard that killing children is repulsive?
On the other hand, after ruling out ‘post-natal abortion’, a genuine discussion needs to ensue so that these unfortunate newborns are treated appropriately. And this may mean deciding not to subject the wee one to myriad procedures in the hope something works.
Many years ago, Peter Gzowski interviewed a couple whose son had died in the infant ICU. They had consented to a lot of treatment before realizing that their child would never get better and said enough, just palliative care so he can die in our arms. Children’s Aid became involved, a hugely over-optimistic prognosis was given to the judge, and their wee son was removed from their custody and sent to a distant hospital, where he died among strangers. The mother said at the time that when she heard words to the effect of “we’re doing all that we possibly can”, she shuddered.
Ask anyone whose child has been in the infant ICU. You want the best for your child, but – sadly – sometimes what is best for the child is letting him or her go quietly. You don’t want the baby killed, but neither do you want the baby’s short life to be totally pain and suffering.
Sometimes there is nothing medical science can do for ANY patient, child or adult. In those situations, letting one die naturally is the only thing one can do. However, outright killing is not just repugnant morally, it stunts the medical progress for treating or curing conditions/illnesses. Infanticide is regressive and is done allegedly for the right reasons, a poisonous lie.