Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Abortionists kill twin with down syndrome by piercing his heart
clinicquotes.com ^ | August 15, 2016 | Sarah Terzo

Posted on 08/16/2016 1:58:22 PM PDT by Morgana

Pro-Life author William Brennan describes the following abortion:

“In June 1981 it was disclosed that the doctors at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City destroyed an unwanted unborn twin inflicted with down syndrome by piercing his heart and draining out almost half his blood. The successful implementation of this destructive procedure required the application of ultrasound “to hit a moving target [the baby’s heart] less than an inch across” with a needle.”

Harold M. Schmeck “Twin Found Defective in Womb Reported Destroyed in Operation” New York Times June 18, p A19

The doctors who did this described the operation as

“a very gratifying experience.”

Thomas D. Kerenyi and Usha Chitkara “Selective Birth in Twin Pregnancy with Discordancy for Down’s Syndrome” New England Journal of Medicine 304 (June 18, 1981): 1527

Quoted in William Brennan The Abortion Holocaust: Today’s Final Solution (St. Louis, Missouri, 1983)


TOPICS: Health/Medicine
KEYWORDS: abortion; clinicquotes; downsyndrome; eugenics; prolife; theysaidit
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last
To: avenir

Precious.


21 posted on 08/16/2016 2:54:39 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (The Confederate Flag is the new "N" word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rejoicing

I am so proud of you!

I wanted to do that when my husband died and I could handle it. 60 was too old. Now I am 80 and still enjoying life and regret not being able to do that job!


22 posted on 08/16/2016 3:00:34 PM PDT by 3D-JOY (Monthly donors needed...! Will YOU be next?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

This action violates “MY STANDARDS” too but luckily it will be OK on FR.

Love for everyone is “BIG” here.


23 posted on 08/16/2016 3:03:59 PM PDT by 3D-JOY (Monthly donors needed...! Will YOU be next?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

Come quickly, Lord Jesus.


24 posted on 08/16/2016 3:06:59 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Ping


25 posted on 08/16/2016 3:10:34 PM PDT by StoneWall Brigade ( America's Party! Tom Hoefling/Steve Schulin 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: When Word Games Take Lives—William Brennan, PhD (1995)


Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: When Word Games Take Lives (1995)

Father Frank Pavone conducts six 25 minute audio interviews. These were originally broadcast in video format on EWTN TV, but no YouTube videos of Dr. Brennan are currently available.

sensationsDismembermentForcepsElectricCurrent Track 1

Track 2
getRidLoveNeighbor
Track 3
Track 4
Track 5
Track 6

“A New Ethic for Medicine and Society”
California Medicine, Volume 113, Number 3, September 1970

The process of eroding the old ethic and substituting the new has already begun. It may be seen most clearly in changing attitudes toward human abortion. In defiance of the long held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for every human life regardless of its stage, condition, or status, abortion is becoming accepted by society as moral, right, and even necessary. It is worth noting that this shift in public attitude has affected the churches, the laws, and public policy rather than the reverse. Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected.

Click ▼ to Read More…

It seems safe to predict that the new demographic, ecological, and social realities and aspirations are so powerful that the new ethic of relative rather than of absolute and equal values will ultimately prevail as man exercises ever more certain and effective control over his numbers, and uses his always comparatively scarce resources to provide the nutrition, housing, economic support, education, and health care in such ways as to achieve his desired quality of life and living. The criteria upon which these relative values are to be based will depend considerably upon whatever concept of the quality of life or living is developed. This may be expected to reflect the extent that quality of life is considered to be a function of personal fulfillment; of individual responsibility for the common welfare, the preservation of the environment, the betterment of the species; and of whether or not, or to what extent, these responsibilities are to be exercised on a compulsory or voluntary basis.

The part which medicine will play as all this develops is not yet entirely clear. That it will be deeply involved is certain. Medicine’s role with respect to changing attitudes toward abortion may well be a prototype of what is to occur. Another precedent may be found in the part physicians have played in evaluating who is and who is not to be given costly long-term renal dialysis. Certainly this has required placing relative values on human lives and the impact of the physician on this decision process has been considerable. One may anticipate further development of these roles as the problems of birth control and birth selection are extended inevitably to death selection and death control whether by the individual or by society, and further public and professional determinations of when and when not to use scarce resources.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=420444


William Brennan, PhD, Professor of Social Work



slu.edu/school-of-social-work/william-brennan-phd

Curriculum Vitae

Research Interests:
Human life issues;
Impact of language on oppressionTeaching Areas:
Human behavior and the social environment;
Communicating with children;
Family interaction under stress

Education History:
PhD, Saint Louis University
MSW, Catholic University of America
BA, Catholic University of America

Community and Professional Service:
Member, Society of Catholic Social Scientists and
Fellowship of Catholic Scholars
Editorial Advisory Board, Catholic Social Science Review


Tegeler Hall, 306
(314) 977-2737
brennanw@slu.edu

Dr. Brennan is a Professor of Social Work in the Saint Louis University School of Social Work. He has written and spoken extensively on how euphemisms and dehumanizing language facilitate massive oppression. His book, Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: When Word Games Take Lives (Loyola University Press, 1995), became a Loyola bestseller.His most recent book is “John Paul II: Confronting the Language Empowering the Culture of Death” (Sapientia Press of Ave Maria University, 2008). Professor Brennan is currently working on a book-length manuscript tentatively titled, Killing in the Name of Healing: Technology, Rhetoric, and the Medicalization of Destruction.

Review

William Brennan – Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: When Word Games Take Lives. Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1995.

Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: When Word Games Take Lives, by William Brennan, is a book that merits being read by the widest possible audience. It is meticulously researched and well argued, and packs quite an emotional wallop to boot. In its discussion of such hot button moral topics as abortion, euthanasia, racism, sexism, and totalitarianism, this book will validate and fortify the beliefs of some (including those of the reviewer); infuriate others; and leave still others discomforted and shaken. This is a book about which it is difficult if not impossible to remain indifferent.

Brennan’s basic thesis is that the great crimes against humanity (abortion, attacks on the vulnerable, dependent and disabled, the exploitation of one sex by the other, anti-Semitism, genocide under Nazism and Soviet totalitarianism, racism and the enslavement of non-whites, and the virtual annihilation of America’s indigenous peoples) share in common a rhetoric or language of dehumanization. This common way of speaking, Brennan argues, takes a variety of forms, ranging from viewing the unborn, the dependent, women, Jews, Native Americans, blacks either as “deficient humans,” ”subhuman” or “nonhuman,” a “species of lower animals,” ”repulsive parasitic creatures,” ”diseased organisms,” “inanimate objects,” “waste products,” or ”legal nonpersons.”

Brennan argues that pinning such labels on people facilitates greatly or makes possible denying them their basic and essential dignity as full-fledged human beings. It follows that a critically important part of the solution to human oppression is a semantic sea change to rhetoric that is life-affirming and that is capable of counteracting the “toxic” rhetoric of dehumanization. Brennan speaks of an “expansive definition of humanity,” one that embraces all human persons regardless of their physical characteristics or stage of life. He points out rightfully that a shift in semantics will not in and of itself eradicate dehumanization. He recognizes that human institutions must change: laws ought to reflect an expansive definition of humanity, and social systems should not allow some people to dehumanize others for profit. However, the powerful role of semantic oppression, long neglected, is given its just due in this book.

Brennan addresses the critical issue of the grounds on which the ethic of expansiveness can be defended. He argues that an “expansive definition of humanity” can be based either on a humanistic or supernatural worldview. That is, its underpinning can be natural law (human beings regardless of characteristics or stage of life being entitled to inalienable rights to dignity and well-being) or divine law (human beings regardless of characteristics or stage of life being equally sacred and valuable in the eyes of God). Thus, Brennan clearly is not pitting secularists against those with an appreciation for the supernatural foundations of our existence: rather he is pitting those with an expansive view of humanity against those with an exclusionary or restrictive view of humanity.

I find myself in wholehearted sympathy with Brennan’s argument. It exemplifies a sociology that is morally grounded. A universal moral standard (an expansive definition of humanity) is put forward as a societal ideal. The sociological side of the analysis identifies those cultural elements (in this case linguistic symbols) that not only define how human beings are viewed but have implications for how various groups are treated differently. The sociological analysis helps us understand why the universal moral principle is not being realized and what steps need to be taken to bring the reality closer in line with the ideal. Clearly the sociological analysis constitutes an intellectual activity independent of the activity by which the moral standard is delineated. However, the sociological analysis is clearly subordinate to the moral mission which serves to frame that activity. Brennan’s argument is not esoteric, given the fact that his book is meant to appeal to a general audience and therefore a premium is placed on accessibility. However, the development of a morally-grounded sociology or a Catholic sociology requires systematic efforts to integrate two autonomous yet cybernetically linked intellectual activities-the development of universal moral principles upon which society should be grounded, on the one hand, and the identification of social and cultural forces that either support or impede the actualization of those principles, on the other. In unpacking Brennan’s argument, we are able to infer the outlines of such an integrated perspective. High on the agenda of those interested in developing, legitimizing, and institutionalizing a morally based sociology or a Catholic sociology should be to present such a perspective in as explicit and codified a form as possible.

—Anthony L. Haynor Seton Hall University, South Orange, New Jersey


Ignatius Insight editor Carl E. Olson interviews Dr. Brennan about John Paul II: Confronting the Language Empowering the Culture of Death (2008)


26 posted on 08/16/2016 3:26:00 PM PDT by CharlesOConnell (CharlesOConnell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rejoicing

That’s a glib theological gloss. Read up on the Abrahamic bargain, among other things.


27 posted on 08/16/2016 3:30:25 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free

It was heard at the Cross.

People are ignoring it, at best wanting God to cry for their private agendas rather than for the specific things He put into His creation as first and foremost.


28 posted on 08/16/2016 3:31:56 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

Ghouls!!!


29 posted on 08/16/2016 3:55:41 PM PDT by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

I simply meant God was crying over this aborted innocent.


30 posted on 08/16/2016 6:52:03 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (The Confederate Flag is the new "N" word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free

And yet. The earthly body as we know it is not the only body that a soul will have. It is not as though the essence of this child was utterly wiped off of the scene. We have to look deeper.

The hatred that makes it possible for those embracing it to see such a slaying as conscionable, must grate the worst on the Lord. As in the story of the beggar and the rich man, it was a situation where the resources to care more were not lacking... but the poor person was maltreated unto death, for selfish reasons.


31 posted on 08/16/2016 7:34:22 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson