Euthanasia for Babies
This horror is beyond words. I won't talk about slippery slopes and I won't talk about the moral implications of this and the awful reality that now exists in the Netherlands. But I will say this: it is not out of "compassion" that we insist on ending the lives of these innocent human beings. No...it is out of our selfishness that we choose death. That's right, our selfishness. Because we can't bear to even WITNESS suffering, let alone suffer ourselves. We are so blinded by our fear and hatred for any discomfort that we have forgotten what compassion is. Instead of standing beside these infants and offering them suffering love by sharing in what they experience in their short lives, we bathe in our cowardice, not even able to let a sword pierce our hearts. Yes, it is our selfishness and want for our own comfort that we choose death every time. We choose death when there is suffering, we choose death when there is inconvenience, we choose death when we think we have not achieved success in the world. Our definition of compassion today is throwing from our presence anything that reminds us that we are mortals and we are not in control. It is a destructive sort of compassion, indeed.Holy Innocents, pray for us, for we do not know what we are doing...
posted by Becky @ 8:35 PM
14 Comments:
Some say Lucifer renounced God because he (and all the angels at their own "test") caught a glimpse of the Divine Plan of Incarnation and Redemption. It so sickened him that God would condescend to our race and suffer on our behalf. You can almost sympathize with the nasty little sprite, can't you ?
40 years of abortion on demand laws and widespread worship of Deus Contraceptus has NOTHING to do with this wonderful societal representative's recent choices:
http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=3575305
July 9, - An Indianapolis woman is under arrest after police say she gave birth at a Tennessee rest stop and left the baby to die in a trash can.
"Out of the corner of my eye I saw movement out of the trash can we got hanging on the wall and I pulled back a towel and there was a baby in the trash can," the employee said.
Desperate attempts by emergency medical crews to revive the 6 and 1/2 pound baby failed.
I am sure some Planned Parenthood and ACLU summer associates are up late tonight articulating how prosecuting this woman would impose an undue burden on women's right to regulate their pregnancies. I don't think they'll need to stay up late, though, as you drive trucks through the distinctions between human life and non-life the choicers have been grating over my ear drums for the last ten years. . .
You wrote "Yes, it is our selfishness and want for our own comfort that we choose death every time. We choose death when their is suffering, we choose death when there is inconvenience, we choose death when we think we have not achieved success in the world. Our definition of compassion today is throwing from our presence anything that reminds us that we are mortals and we are not in control."
What are your thoughts about the Dad that's keeping his pregnant wife alive just to give birth to the baby inside her? She is brain dead and when asked "what next?" he couldn't answer. In all likelihood, (as said by the Pro-Life Ministries Pastor on the Larry King Show with him) "When there is no way to keep someone alive other than by artificial means, and we know they can't even respond to us, then it is God's will that they die." (paraphrased).
I don't know if, in that case, it would be a moral question. If she is being kept alive by a respirator and would die without it, then he would be entitled to keep her alive according to her wishes. Perhaps, in that case, he knew that she would have wanted that little life to have a chance.
If you are referring to the NY TIMES Maganize article, did you read that the babies are born Schiavo-like, with no hope for any life whatsoever? The article mentioned one baby whose skin literally burned when touched. Ending these lives is the hallmark of compassion. How easy it is for the healthy to judge.
I agree with Anon ... People use the Schiavo case like a banner to mask their hypocrisy. This husband will pull the plug on his brain dead wife as soon as she gives birth. She collapsed suddenly, so how could they have planned for such a tragic and sudden contingency? They didn't. Yet, because the "Christians" are behind him, they will spin this situation as being different than the Schiavo case which was a merciful act. She was blind, with half a brain!
I really don't think PP and the ACLU are "...up late tonight articulating how prosecuting this woman would impose an undue burden on women's right to regulate their pregnancies."
This woman didn't even try to help her child - and giving birth to a child and then leaving it in a trash can is imposing undue burden on the newborn, not the mother.
I seriously doubt they would have a problem with this prosecution, and I hate that you even said that. You chastise the extreme liberals, when you yourself are an extreme conservative.
wondertwin-
why is this an undue burden on the newborn? if the woman, instead of discarding her child after it was born, had just had an abortion a week earlier, then she would have been totally within her "right to chose".
Wow, some anons should learn the law. Regardless of your stance on abortion, that last statement regarding the mother's timing as to an abortion says nothing of viability or even late term abortions. If you want to flame just to flame, then post elsewhere please.
Anon, um... that would sort of be like a late-term abortion which is to say, not the same as every other abortion. You are seriously out of line here by your horribly attempts at a cheap shot against any "Pro-Choicers" in the blogging world. Say something a bit more rational please instead of just bashing people who don't agree with your point of view.
Seriously though, that situation is closer to crap that was recently posted on this blog that likened "late-term" abortions to "...having a knife jammed into your neck, your skull crushed, and your brain sucked out your ears." That's a totally different procedure than early-term abortions!
The suggestion was that the liberals inability to convincingly articulate what the difference is between late-term and early term, early term and embryonic, renders the distinction between abortion and infanticide quite ambiguous.
If we agree late term abortions are problematic, at what point does the late term arise. Is it when then fingers separate into five ? when ?
I'm not an extreme conservative, I'm a conservative who would like there to be some rationality behind someone's abortion stance if they are going to have one.
Why can't anyone talk about when life begins. In theory there should be some logic behind every law. Maybe I am forgetful and people have explained this before, but why can't we kill young babies if we can kill late term fetuses. Why can we kill early term fetuses if we were to reach a consensus on the unacceptability of doing the same to late term ?
Liberal choicers benefit from this perpetual ambiguity in when the state may sanction the taking of life. It allows you to both horror at the truth of partial birth abortion but support worthless bill riders that would allow for a totally discretionary physician determination of health of the mother. So long as the definition of life for you is caked in butter and oil, you can move it around as it suits you. If you support choice, can you live without that ambiguity ? Can you offer a consistent definition of when a human is as human does and stick with it ? Are you willing to tolerate and concede the legal rights that may arise under your definition that you may not anticipate as science reveals more about the properties of human entities at various stages ?
I think some of you really are ready for that. I would call that intellectually responsible and brave.
Forgive my hyperbole as usual. It at least gets the attention.
Whoa
I don't recall bashing anyone or their point of view. I simply asked for an explanation in order to illustrate a point. (I apologize that I did not raise it an a very coherent fashion the way that Andrew does in his last post). I realize that laws and procedures are different for early and late term abortions - just as they are different for abortion and infanticide. My question is simply - why? I am asking for a logical explanation as to why the line is drawn at birth.
I understand that there are many people in the world who do not agree that a fetus is a child. I do not condemn people that hold that position- disagreeing is not the same as condemning. All I ask for is a rational explanation for it.
Does that clarify my question? I apologize for the sarcasm in my earlier post- but this is a source of great frustration for me as no one has ever given me an answer to this question. Maybe you can...
Anon,
Sorry I also jumped the gun a bit there, but I see that kind of sh*t way too often on these blogs and it really pisses me off when I see it (since it's just a useless endeavor and frustrates everyone).
As for the answer to that question you pose, it certainly does seem a bit random to set the bar at child birth - so it's a good question indeed and one of those questions that rarely gets asked (but should be more often).
I don't really know a lot of people who have made good reasons for drawing that line at birth (although I'm sure someone has.. just haven't heard it yet that makes enough sense to me). I know a few people who draw the line at "viability," or when the fetus is able to live outside the womb... I've also heard a few other points of view on this one.
I have thought a lot about this I can assure you, and by now could probably fill up many pages writing (although it would be pretty crappy writing I'm sure) about that distinction.
Let me recall a post I made on Patrick's blog that went pretty much ignored by the blogging public. If you read the post by "brian," you'll see where I stand on the issue - which I believe is a rational place to draw the line.
Again though, as this is an issue where there is rarely a clear cut line, my explanation should only be read more as a general guideline that I think of - NOTHING is that clear-cut in this world, and so I wouldn't think this question you asked has a clear-cut answer either.
Hope that cleared things up a bit for you and sorry for any misunderstanding there.
Read it- liked it. It's the best thought-out argument I've ever seen on this topic. Don't agree with your line cuz I think its still blurry, but your post explains your view of the line in a well thought-out manner. Thanks for responding
No problem. I alluded to the fact that I think ALL lines are blurry. I mean, think about it... even the line between male and female is blurry sometimes (not just appearance, but biologically as well). I guess it would take a publication to bring that line into a better focus, eh?
Post a Comment
<< Home