Posted on 12/17/2014 5:57:24 AM PST by wagglebee
The late Richard John Neuhaus famously wrote of bioethicists:
Thousands of medical ethicists and bioethicists, as they are called, professionally guide the unthinkable on its passage through the debatable on the way to becoming the justifiable until it is finally established as unexceptionable.
In my over 20 years engaged in trying to push back against the bioethics movement, I have found that to be an absolutely accurate formula.
Take, as one example, dehydrating the cognitively devastated to death–a slow and potentially agonizing death. That was once unthinkable, it became debatable in the 1980s, and is now unexceptional.
Allowing infanticide has now reached the “debatable on the way to justifiable” stage–with some of the world’s most prominent bioethicists and medical/bioethical journals publishing apologies for infanticide. (Remember the “after-birth abortion” article in the Journal of Medical Ethics two years ago?)
Latest example: The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery hosted a debate on infanticide–See!–in which the prominent Canadian bioethicist Udo Schuklenk argues in favor of the propriety of infanticide.
Killing severely ill or dying babies is okay, don’t you know, because human beings don’t have intrinsic dignity. What matters is the “quality of life ethic.” From, “Physicians Can Justifiably Euthanize Certain Severely Impaired Neonates:”
A quality-of-life ethic requires us to focus on a neonate’s current and future quality of life as relevant decision making criteria. We would ask questions such as: Does this baby have the capacity for development to an extent that will allow him or her to have a life and not merely be alive? If we reach the conclusion that it would not, we would have reason to conclude that his life is not worth living.
That is an entirely subjective question, isn’t it? It’s in the eye of the utilitarian beholder.
Schuklenk might say–I don’t know–that only a baby that would never be conscious should be killed. But the authors of Journal of Medical Ethics article opined that Down babies could be killed because they can be aborted.
Netherlander doctors have killed babies with spina bifida and other physical disabilities. Once human value becomes subjective, the extent of the right to life is reduced to who has the power to decide.
Sometimes when this issue comes up, opponents yell, “But that’s what the Nazis did!” NO. That is what the Nazis allowed doctors who wanted infanticide to do.
German infanticide was driven by doctors and what we would now call bioethicists. Indeed, the very first infanticide, Baby Knaur, would almost surely receive the Okay-to-Kill rubber stamp from Schuklenk. From my book Culture of Death, quoting three notable history books that focused on the case:
The first known German government-approved infanticide, the killing of Baby Knauer, occurred in early 1939. The baby was blind and had a leg and an arm missing.
Baby Knauer’s father was distraught at having a disabled child. So, he wrote to Chancellor Hitler requesting permission to have the infant “put to sleep.” Hitler had been receiving many such requests from German parents of disabled babies over several years and had been waiting for just the right opportunity to launch his euthanasia plans.
The Knauer case seemed the perfect test case. He sent one of his personal physicians, Karl Rudolph Brandt, to investigate. Brandt’s instructions were to verify the facts, and if the child was disabled as described in the father’s letter, he was to assure the infant’s doctors that they could kill the child without legal consequence. With the Fuhrer’s assurance, Baby Knauer’s doctors willingly murdered their patient at the request of his father. [Burleigh, Death and Deliverance, pp. 95-96; Lifton, Nazi Doctors, pp. 50-51; Gallagher, By Trust Betrayed, pp. 95-96.]
Brandt was hanged at Nuremberg. These crimes came from a rejection of intrinsic human dignity and accepting a subjective quality of life ethic.
Schuklenk also spills the beans that infanticide will be about money:
The question of whether it would be a wise allocation of scarce health care resources to undertake the proposed surgical procedures invariably arises in circumstances such as this.
Continuing life-prolonging care for the infant would be futile, it would constitute a waste of scarce health care resources.
Health care resources ought to be deployed where they can actually benefit patients by improving their quality of life. This cannot be achieved in the scenario under consideration.
Several years ago at Princeton, I castigated the university for giving infanticide proponent Peter Singer one of the most prestigious endowed chairs in the world. He was brought to Princeton not in spite of believing in the moral propriety of killing babies (because they are supposedly not “persons”) but because of it.
In the Q and A part of the presentation, one professor objected, saying he liked academic freedom and the interplay of ideas. In reply, I asked if Princeton would ever bring the racist Noble Laureate William Shockley to the university, regardless of his expertise in physics. He said, honestly, “No.”
Exactly. Racism is beyond the pale–and properly so. The fact that Shockley’s expertise would have had nothing to do with racial politics wouldn’t have mattered. He would have been unemployable at any major university.
Infanticide is the same bigotry aimed at different victims. It is now considered a respectable and debatable proposition in bioethics.
If we don’t keep pushing back very hard, it will, one day, become unexceptional.
I'm saying that this is a sham that's used to allow abortion to continue unfettered. The Partial Birth Abortion was enacted in 2003 and upheld in 2007, but these abortions are still carried out every single day. The fact is that there are plenty of doctors will to say that ANY REASON is about the life of the mother.
That is all that he said in the quote you provided.
Actually, it's not. He also used phrases like, "what's going on with that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother" and "thousands of extraneous situations where the life of the mother is involved and other things that are involved." It's pretty obvious to me that he decided to introduce a bill just before he launched a campaign for President that would be appealing to conservatives on the purpose, but filled with all of the usual "and then you can kill the baby" rhetoric.
I don’t support an exception for rape or the health of the mother but I have never even heard anyone seriously say they are against an exception for the LIFE of the mother.
Me neither, but this is the red herring used to push abortion no matter what.
I happen to agree with Ron Paul that a federal law which said, “No one can have abortions” would be unconstitutional.
Nonsense, equal protection under the law means just what it says.
This is why I agree with Rand Paul in advocating for federal legislation clarifying that the 14th amendment applies to those in the womb.
But he's not actually saying this, he's presenting it as some sort of ideal while saying, "I think the law will come down in between" because "the country is in the middle." This is the exact same mindset which led to our Republic's other libertarian foible where we allowed the states to define who was a person and slavery continued because "the country was in the middle."
It's pretty obvious to me that regardless how many times he passionately calls for protecting the life of the unborn in interview after interview you will still have your doubts. You have pre-conceived notions that you will believe regardless of the facts.
....LIFE of the mother.
Me neither, but this is the red herring used to push abortion no matter what.
No. "Life of the mother" means exactly what it says. Usually "health of the mother" is used as the slippery slope to open the door to unfettered abortions. He didn't mention that. You are intentionally confusing things.
.....would be unconstitutional.
Nonsense, equal protection under the law means just what it says.
The problem with that type of law is that the law would be focused on the procedure. There is no Constitutional basis for outlawing a procedure. There IS a Constitutional basis for granting all people equal protection. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees on what "people" are. A law clarifying that and correcting those who are currently in the wrong would be prudent and Constitutional.
If not through legislation as Dr. Paul suggests, how do you think we should establish who is and who is not a human? Should we leave it to the sensibilities of the politicians and advocacy groups at any given time? Should we simply say "We don't need any new law. Come on. It's obvious." and then hope everyone finally gets it?
The FACTS that I have presented are the actual words of the Pauls.
No. "Life of the mother" means exactly what it says. Usually "health of the mother" is used as the slippery slope to open the door to unfettered abortions. He didn't mention that. You are intentionally confusing things.
He said, "where the life of the mother is involved and other things that are involved." "And other things" means those reason in addition too the life of the mother.
There is no Constitutional basis for outlawing a procedure.
Have you actually read the Constitution or is this some libertarian talking point? Amendments 4, 5 and 13 CLEARLY outlaw procedures.
If not through legislation as Dr. Paul suggests, how do you think we should establish who is and who is not a human?
The legislation he suggests DOES NOT ESTABLISH PERSONHOOD, it lists ideals and concludes with "and then you can kill the baby."
If Rand Paul is really pro-life, why did he get a 33% rating from Planned Parenthood at one time?
“KY U.S. Senate Jr Rand Paul Republican 33”
snip http://votesmart.org/interest-group/1578/rating/6093
Have you actually read the Constitution or is this some libertarian talking point? Amendments 4, 5 and 13 CLEARLY outlaw procedures
..and how exactly do these amendments outlaw THIS procedure?
You have kind of proved my point. We either need an amendment such as 4,5 or 13 to outlaw this particular procedure. Or we can simply pass a law clarifying that 14 covers human being in the womb.
Long ago, I stopped trying to figure out why leftists do what they do.
I don’t know if 33% is a good rating or not but Paul has been a vocal advocate of completely defunding the organization that gave him that rating.
You said "there is no Constitutional basis for outlawing a procedure.
You didn't specify what procedure.
You have kind of proved my point. We either need an amendment such as 4,5 or 13 to outlaw this particular procedure. Or we can simply pass a law clarifying that 14 covers human being in the womb.
Amendment XIV:Amendment V:
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
We don't need another amendment, we need to follow the Constitution as it already exists.
Besides, Rand Paul has already said there would be exceptions to his law, not a single baby would be saved.
Yet you still defend the Pauls.
I don’t know if 33% is a good rating or not but Paul has been a vocal advocate of completely defunding the organization that gave him that rating.
A 33% rating means he is pro-abortion. Republicans who even pretend to be pro-life get ZERO ratings from Big Murder.
And as far as "defunding" goes, that does nothing, it won't save a single life. Keep in mind that two-thirds of abortions aren't done by Planned Parenthood.
bump
United States
There were 1,793 abortion providers in the United States in 2008.
381 of the 1,787 providers in the U.S. in 2005 were clinics at which the majority of patient visits were for abortions.
Every state (and the District of Columbia) had at least one provider in 2008.
The states with the most providers were California (522) and New York (249) in 2008.
The states with the fewest providers were North Dakota (one) and South Dakota (two) in 2008.
13% of all counties in the United States had a provider in 2008.
31% of metropolitan counties and 3% of non-metropolitan counties had a provider in 2005.
Source: Wikipedia
I’m afraid both Rand Paul, and Ron Paul, give the impression of being more pro-life than they actually are. The candidates I strongly support are 100% pro-life.
Now take a look at Ron Paul:
“Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Rated 56% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)”
snip http://www.issues2000.org/Ron_Paul.htm#Abortion
Why is Ron Paul against a parent deciding what’s right for their minor child?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.