Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MHGinTN
Thank you so much for pinging your list!

Once abortion was a horror, something only done to save the mother's life. Then, people began openly debating whether anyone had the right to life if their life was an inconvenience or less than optimal.

Gradually, abortion, promiscuity or alternate lifestyles became more acceptable - and material accomplishment more desirable - than monogamy for life, with families structured around raising children. Women are now expected to "handle" any "problem pregnancy." And public debate about the killing of one human by another has switched from the safety of the mother to the "quality of life" of first "defective" babies, then the handicapped and then the elderly and ill.

Now, the subject is "how many lives can be saved" by destroying others. With a hint of "designer babies" in the future.

This is nearly a cliche', but: 30 years ago, I couldn't imagine a world where public figures promoted genocide more openly than the Nazis did in Germany. But, now I read about Peter Singer and participated in debates on line with doctors willing to use their own names when they suggest worse than any in in history.

If clone and kill is not successful, then millions will have died for nothing, except to cheapen human life. If it is successful, I don't think we'll recognize our world in 30 years. If they let us live our less than perfect lives.
22 posted on 02/15/2003 1:21:55 PM PST by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: hocndoc

But, now I read about Peter Singer and participated in debates on line with doctors willing to use their own names when they suggest worse than any in in history.

Animal Rights Book Review, David Kopel, Peter SingerBut if you compare a profoundly retarded child with one of the higher primates, the primate may have much more advanced skills in the traits that we consider human (such as use of language or tools) than does the profoundly retarded child.

If we acknowledge that the retarded child has rights, then what philosophically plausible claim can be made that the primate does not?

The best test for rights, argues Singer, is a test first articulated by the 19th century philosopher Jeremy Bentham: "Can it suffer?" If you saw someone using an electric cattle prod to torture an adult human, you would say that the person's rights were being violated. If the severely retarded child were being tortured, you would likewise say that the child's rights were being violated. [Medical Evidence that a Child Feels Pain]

And because gorillas, dogs, and eagles also feel intense pain when being attacked with electric cattle prods, their rights are likewise violated when they are tortured. In contrast, trees and rocks do not feel pain, as far as we know, and therefore using a cattle prod on a rock is merely a waste of electricity, and not the violation of rights on the part of the rock.[ The Emerging Reality of Fetal Pain in Late Abortion The disturbing concept that an unborn child feels pain while being destroyed has once again entered the public conscience in England, when a pro-choice fetal researcher suggested that anesthesia should be given to comfort the fetus from pain from abortions as early as 17 weeks gestation.]

In reply, Singer points out that: First of all, animals react in a manner which we would expect from a being in pain -- they scream, and they try to avoid the source of the pain. Second, all of the evidence we have regarding the nervous system of animals shows that their pain-sensing capacity is structurally similar to the pain-sensing portion of the nervous system in humans. [ The Silent Scream A Realtime ultrasound video tape and movie of a 12-week suction abortion is commercially available as, The Silent Scream, narrated by Dr. B. Nathanson, a former abortionist. It dramatically, but factually, shows the pre-born baby dodging the suction instrument time after time, while its heartbeat doubles in rate. When finally caught, its body being dismembered, the baby's mouth clearly opens wide - hence, the title]

Having set up a philosophical basis for animal rights, Singer then examines current treatment of animals by humans, to see if violations of rights are involved.

Singer's approach has no sentimentalism about animals in it. He describes his disgust as meeting a woman who gushed "Don't you just love animals!" -- and then offered him a ham sandwich.

24 posted on 02/15/2003 2:16:23 PM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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