Killing newborns legal in Holland? February 29, 2012Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, horror, sadness, scandals, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
I posted the other day about radical utilitarian “ethicists,” whose ethics are totally detached from any anchor in the natural law or Eternal Truth, who argued that because abortion is practiced, it should be just fine to kill newborns as well. Many opponents of abortion have argued that the same mentality that leads to the killing of children in utero would eventually be applied to those who are born, to be met with claims that such “slippery slope” arguments are logical fallacies and untrue. But in reality, some slopes are dang slippery:
The editor of an ethics journal that recently published an article advocating infanticide (what the authors call “post-birth abortion”), has respondedto 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. [If you want to see where the secular pagans want to go, look to Holland. "Forced euthanasia" (murder of old or sick people), killing of "disabled" infants, legalized drugs, legalized prostitution, moral decay, complete secularism, apostasy in the Church......it's a wonderful, dreamy place!]
Editor Julian Savulescu also criticizes what he calls the “hate speech” [You see, they have an inalienable right to express their opinions, but criticism is "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 think the vast majority of people, and all people with strive to live a life grounded in Christian morality, know who the fanatics are. And no, I don't want a "liberal society," I want a Catholic society]
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.”[Every single one of these is an exteremist utilitarian materialist - the ends justify the means, those in power dictate what is "right," etc. The apotheosis of dialectical materialism]
He also observes that the paper “draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands.” [Well, shame on the Netherlands, and why is the Church there not declaiming this evil to the heavens? This is a crime that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. I can find nothing in English on this topic - perhaps in Dutch, I don't know]
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.”
The authors of that article also linked infanticide to legalized abortion, arguing that infanticide may in fact be the morally superior alternative to abortion………….
………..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 [Certainly, to extend the life of such brilliant minds, any contingency is reasonable] and that “mandatory” organ donation should be instituted. [The distance between this twisted view, and what was described in the dystopian Logan's Run and THX-1138, are miniscule] 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. [So, he's also a eugenicist. Nice.]
Actually, these academics, educated perhaps to the point of embecillity, or at least to the point of monstrous utilitarianism, do have a point. There is great hypocrisy in our culture, with a widely prevalent outrage over claims that murdering infants is no different from murdering the baby still in the womb. There is no difference. If you tolerate the latter, you will sooner or later be faced with demands to kill the former, because the evil, selfish logic is all the same. When you say that any human life, from the moment of conception to natural death, is not equal, that it is permissible to kill certain types of life, the ground crumbles beneath your feet, the slope gives way, and in an instant you will find yourself mired in the darkest caverns of hell.
These “ethicists” are the intellectual vanguard, they point the way towards the future in our society if we do not repent and change radically. We have created a monster, a soul-devouring killing machine, that profits on the death of others, that kills for the sake of convenience, that encourages immoral perversion and sexual decadence not seen since the worst days of Rome, and that, deep down, knows it is doomed to eternal torment and so is willing to go to any length to extend this current life and make it as pleasurable, as convenient as possible.
That monster is us, or those of us who adhere to the satanic logic that is the whole contraception/abortion complex.
I reject the whole rotten mess. How long can a culture so totally detached from all that is Good and Holy survive?