I recently came across an article talking about how the South Koreans have intercepted capsules filled with ground up aborted fetuses (some of us prefer the more archaic term, ‘babies,’ but I don’t want to be accused of emotionalizing the topic) en route from China to Japan, where, we are told, it is believed that …
Category: human rights
The culture of death is rarely honest about its beliefs and values. All the more reason for those of us in the pro-life community to keep our eye on the ball. If we got rid of abortion on demand, but erected the apparatus that the elites are trying to build, I assure you, the only thing that will change is the group of people that falls under their scrutiny. Probably the old, most certainly the disabled. But also targeted: those who smoke, who drink, who eat sugar, or trans fat, or engage in ‘unhealthy lifestyles.’ I would say that tyranny is right around the corner, but that last sentence should give us the real truth: it is inside the door, and sitting at our couches… and trying to make itself at home, at our own invitation.
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? Or, What is the proper response to killing newborn children because they are a burden to a family… or society?
authors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argue that the same arguments that justify abortion of the fetus on demand likewise apply to the newly born. Here is the abstract:
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
It is has never been more important to carefully examine what one believes and why they believe it. If you do not carry out this work, you may end up being nothing more than a useful idiot of the worst sort: directly bringing about the goals and ends of those you specifically repudiate as wicked and evil… condemning the communists, nazis, and eugenicists, while carrying out their work.
if anyone is actually concerned about the plight of the poor and oppressed and the abuses by corporations, banks, and politicians- no doubt inspired by genuine concerns arising within a decent heart- I would challenge them to rely on more than their hearts and emotions, which can and do deceive and will co-opt the mind if it needs to. We must use our brains. We have to be thinking people. And we must be thinking people within the proper boundaries and context for thinking, that is… our thoughts must actually conform to reality the way it is.
All else may very well simply be self-deception.
Posted this at the LFL-WI blog.
This is the sort of story that really gets under my skin. A Florida couple won a lawsuit against her doctors, asserting that they failed to discover that their child would be born disabled (no arms and one leg). The woman testified that she would have definitely aborted the child if they had that information.
“They went from the heights of joyous expectations to the depths of despair,” their attorney Robert Bergin told the jury during closing arguments Wednesday.
It is a sham to think that the timing makes any difference. My wife and I also experienced this descent from joy to despair, but it actually occurred at the ultrasound. We were crushed as truly as this couple was crushed.
Dr. Oz is catching fire for not distinguishing between ‘organic’ and ‘inorganic’ arsenic. This distinction appears to be completely absent in the community water fluoridation debate, where there are BIG differences between ‘naturally occurring’ fluoride and the stuff scraped out of the chimneys of phosphate fertilizer factories.
‘New’ arguments would actually serve to put into doubt humanity’s epistemological foundations. Better- it isn’t a question of ‘new’ evidences or ‘new’ arguments, but a new perspective on what weight we give old evidences and arguments. I think that is a mark of sanity and maturity; I for one would view any ‘new evidence’ or ‘original argument’ or ‘innovative idea’ with great suspicion, especially if it implies we were all off our rockers before it was offered.
I don’t hate atheists. I don’t like arguing for the sake of arguing and don’t have a ‘thing’ about winning a debate. I discourse with atheists because I love them, and because I believe that I am right in my belief that God is going to call this world to account and if we do …