Doctors should have the right to kill newborn babies because they are disabled, too expensive or simply unwanted by their mothers, an academic with links to Oxford University has claimed.
Read more and then comment …
-
Why doesn’t the government just build gas chambers and be done with it?
-
Partial birth abortion has been legal in the USA for years now, so this is really only the UK playing catch-up
http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.htmlI can’t help wondering if, in fact, there have been such cases here but not publicised.
-
Patricia, I looked at that link to Priests for Life but it seems that partial birth abortion has now been banned. I couldn’t see anywhere that said the ban had been lifted, so I think even over there where anything goes, they have stopped killing babies who are partly born. It makes me shudder to think of that barbaric procedure, shown on the Priests for Life site, and it makes me shudder again to think of anyone supposedly with brains in their head like that Oxford academic actually advocating murdering babies who are born but unwanted for any reason. It is chilling.
Are there no people out there who want to adopt any more? They have programmes about people desperate to adopt who are put through hoops to prove they could be good parents and yet they think nothing of allowing a birth parent to kill their babies. It is truly sinister. We have become a truly barbaric nation even to consider this.
-
This is really the bottom line of Marxist materialism: human life has no value other than what financial profit it can bring to others. Oxford should put a sign over the entrance to its campus:
“Work will set you free.”
-
Well the doctor is at least being logical. If we kill a baby in the womb why not kill a baby outside it? Enough of this `foetus` nonsense. Abortion is a `woman`s right to kill`, she want the baby killed and the doctor should oblige.
-
Whenever I debate abortion with a pro death opponent, I always ask them this. If I lose my job and in danger of losing my house, should I be able to take my youngest child to the doctor and say “I can’t afford him anymore – please give him a lethal injection”? Of course, they usually recoil in horror. However, as JKearney says, if it is moral to kill a baby in the womb, why is it immoral to do so outside the womb?
-
Someone sent me this video link today
http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2012/03/dawkins-and-singer-trying-to-think.htmlYou will see and hear Richard Dawkins and another alleged academic discussing infanticide. Unbelievable stuff. You need to cover the typing underneath with your curser to read the text (crazy idea – can’t see the benefit) which explains the various strands of shallow thinking being shared by these highly acclaimed “academics”. Not that it needs much explaining – they scarcely have a rational thought between them on the subject.
Given their impoverished intelligence and the nutty Oxford advocate of baby-killing, I would be hard pushed to encourage any youngster into higher education these days.
-
What a gruesome pair! Not an original thought in their heads. Honestly, there must be something satanic going on with them. Dawkins has devoted his life to generally being a nusiance. Singer is a real nut. He has been known to priase beastiality! After all, if man is nothing more than an animal (Singer calls human beings “great apes”) then what’s the big deal.
These two buffoons are the pefect example of what happens when you cut God out the picture. Anything goes. What they don’t realise is that they are Princes of the Religion of Man – the King being Satan!
I hope this is video is a warning to those who think they can live without God. The crazy views of these two plonkers are the logical conclusion. We had a blogger on here a few years ago, a young guy who converted to the Faith and made some fantastic contributions. However, he began to realise that God was just too much like hard work for him and fell hook, line and sinker for the evolutionary clap trap of idiots like Dawkins. I hope he watches this video clip.
Editor you are absolutely right! Who could honestly send their child to university knowing that tweedle dum and tweedle dee were on the loose?
-
I dont like abortion but to say that theres no difference having an abortion to killing a child is just wrong.
-
Montini
you must see that a human being is a human being whether before or after birth? To kill a child is gravely wrong – irrespective of the location, surely?
-
margaret mary I see your point but you must see mine. It’s different when the baby has been born.
-
Montini,
I understand that you don’t like abortions, yet think it is wrong in saying there’s no difference having an abortion to killing a child. Finding it different when the baby has been born. I’m unsure of your logic. The unborn child is no less human before birth than after.
Should doctors have the right to kill newborn babies because of disabilities, or whatever reason can be thought up, is perhaps not such a new idea at all.
Eugenics has been known of since the late 19th century on into the 20th century. In America in the 1930s several States practised forcible sterilisations of those deemed feeble minded etc. You can read this link.http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/12/disabled-america-immigration
Torkay
“Work will set you free” was also the motto at the entrance to Auschwitz concentration camp. Hitler utilised eugenics too.
One other link I thought worth reading is
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/euthanasia/eu0036.html
-
Montini,
Would you tell us in what way a baby is different after birth?
-
Gloria
Yes, I know, I was going further with Zita’s opening comment, which was spot on.
I too await Montini’s explanation….
-
Birth is significant. IT has to be. This is when the fetus receives its soul.
-
Montini,
The word fetus comes from the Latin word meaning little one. So the next step to ask is, what is this little one?. Well if a cow is pregnant she’s going to have a little calf, a dog is going to have a little pup, a horse a little foal, etc, etc. So when a woman is pregnant the little one is a little Baby. It’s really not that difficult to grasp. The baby receives it’s soul not at birth, but at the moment of conception. To put it another way, for a baby to be nine months in it’s mother’s womb it must first be one month there, to be nine weeks there, it must first be one week there, to be nine days there, it must first be one day there, to be nine seconds there it must be one second there, so from the moment of conception up to birth it the very same baby, so to say there’s a difference between before and after birth, is not only immoral, it’s also illogical and silly. -
buddy you are using the same logic as the two men in the video posted. How can you compare human unborn with animal unborn? This is illogical and silly. Who says a fetus receives it’s soul at conception? You? How can we know this?
-
Montini,
Don’t know where you read in my post where I compared human unborn with animal unborn. I clearly said fetus is Latin for little one, and that little one is a baby, and just to be perfectly clear, it is murder to deliberately kill the baby unborn or born, there is no difference, it’s just nine months later. The catechism of the catholic church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God, part1. section2. 366. That’s how I know. -
Torkay, do you know if partial birth is still banned in the USA or was than ban overturned? I was totally shocked at the pictures on the Priests for Life website. Is partial birth now illegal in America?
-
buddy is this the same new catechism mocked and rejected by traditional “Catholics”? How can you reject it and quote it? seems weird.
-
Montini,
You are very confused indeed. If the Catechism repeats traditional teaching, then it is not rejected by any traditional Catholic. Just as the new Mass can be valid as long as correct matter and form is used.
It seems that the killing of the newborn is now a real campaign. It’s moved from Oxford to Australia with the BMA defending its decision to publish about it.
http://www.news.com.au/national/abortion-outrage-mums-should-be-allowed-to-terminate-newborns-say-australian-academics/story-e6frfkvr-1226286841396We are surely pushing God to the limit.
-
Sorry, I just realised that the academic in the report about Australia is the same doctor mentioned in the Oxford report.
-
Montini,
What I find really weird is that you can read in posts things that are not there. Where did I say I rejected the Catechism?. It seems to me by your reply that it is indeed yourself that has rejected the traditional teaching on the infusion of the soul into the body at conception. Perhaps the Catechism of the Council of Trent will meet your requirements. “Lastly, He formed man from the slime of the earth, so created in body as to be immortal and impassible, not, however, by the strength of nature, but by the bounty of God. Man’s soul He created to His own image and likeness, gifted him with free will, and tempered all his motions and appetites so as to subject them, at all times, to the dictates of reason. he then added the admirable gift of original righteousness, and next gave him dominion over all other animals”Article 1, Production of Man. This is the authoritative teaching of the church, Montini, and it should dispel any false notions. -
buddy that just says God made man out of the earth and made his soul in his own likeness. Doesnt say he gave man his soul at conception.
-
Montini
We read in St. Luke Ch. 2, about the visitation, when Mary the Mother of Jesus with Our Lord in the womb went to see her cousin Elizabeth who said that her child leapt in the womb when she heard Mary’s greeting.
We now understand that John the Baptist was, at that moment, baptised, the only other human being to be born without stain of original sin.
Mary however was conceived without original sin.Hope you think on these things as Catholics do when meditating on the mysteries of the rosary.
God Bless. -
I’ve never heard that John was baptised in the womb. Can you provide a source?
-
Montini,
On what, or whose authority do you state that the soul is infused at birth?. -
Montini,
There is a small and trifling matter of something known as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
The dogma defines that the soul of a newly conceived zygote, later named Mary, was preserved from Original Sin at the very moment of conception.
“We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful”.
One can not be Catholic and not believe it. Therefore, ever since the proclamation of the dogma, the question of when ensoulment takes place is no longer open to debate.
It is now a matter of the Faith.
-
Carmel I see. I didn’t ever think of that. So Mary must have had a soul at conception? Well, maybe that was just her?
-
Montini, I really do think you are having us on. Obviously, everyone has a soul from the moment of conception. That is very basic Catholic doctrine. Either you’re having us on or you’re not a Catholic at all so which is it?
-
Montini,
I’ve read all your posts and I want you to know that you are very welcome here. Your questions have made us all think and some very educational responses have been posted as a result. Thanks to all who have responded, very patiently, to Montini.
If I may suggest, Montini, it would be helpful to frame your comments just a wee bit “softer” – I’m a very hard-headed gal and I enjoy the cut and thrust of debate and I thrive on the old saying: “sticks and stones…” However, others might not feel the same way, so I would encourage you to take account of that and perhaps ask your questions or make your comments with just a tad more gentleness.
And I’d urge everyone reading this to check out the links that bloggers have been kind enough to post for Montini – they are all excellent.
-
Editor I thank you for your kindness and I’m sorry if I’ve been OTT. I just hate the pope and his bishops being criticised. What’s the point of having these if all we do is criticise them!
-
Maybe some of these hard nosed philosorphers like Singer and his ilk should go and see for themselves what happens during an abortion. have any of them been fathers?
I’m sure that they would change their minds very quickly.
Perhaps they might think again too if it happens close to them in their families.
I remember an old Irish catholic(would you believe) who told me he didnt think there was anything wrong with abortion and he was also a bit of a racialist.
Some years later his son’s girlfriend opted to have an abortion…. he was devastated! he had lost his grandchild. -
I understand, Montini -by the way, I’m interested in your choice of username. Are you a special fan of Pope Montini????
Clotilde,
That is a very interesting story about the Irishman – perhaps if people stopped to think that it is a son, daughter, grandchild they are murdering, abortions would become rarer than a sunny day in Scotland…
-
Montini,
My screen is dripping wet , I wonder is it from all those tears your shedding for the Pope and bishops we’re criticising. By the way I’ve checked the whole blog and the Pope or bishops aren’t even mentioned. Another optical illusion on your part, seeing things that are not there. Must rush for some cloths before my computer is destroyed. -
Buddy that just is not very nice.
-
Montini,
I agree it’s not very nice, but don’t worry too much about it, I was able to salvage the computer. -
Surely the whole purpose of blogs like this is, as the editor said, to educate. Not a very good educator who makes fun of people or uses sarcasm. Please reflect.
Editor yes you are right. Pope Paul and Blessed John Paul did so much for the Church. Renewal, reformed! The Church wouldn’t have survived if it hadn’t been for the 2 greatest popes of the 20th century.
-
Montini,
I think Buddy is helping to lighten the atmosphere – I didn’t see his comments as being sarcastic, just humorous.
And I don’t even need to check my posts to see what I wrote about Popes Paul and JP II because there is no way I said anything remotely to lead you to the conclusion that they are “the two greatest popes of the 20th century” -”worst” more like.
-
I’ve been scrolling to see if Torkay answered the question about partial birth abortion. Is it now banned in the USA because it was legal at one time.
-
Montini,
With respect, you seem so confused! Unfortunately you are not alone. We’ve had 2 or 3 generations who have never been taught the Faith properly.
I suggest you take a look at the writings of St. Pius X.
-
Montini,
Reflected really hard. It may seem funny to you, but it was my computer. -
Monica and Margaret Mary
Sorry, forgot about your question RE partial birth abortion, the answer to which is yes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act
However, have a look at the last paragraph, “Effect,” which describes how abortion mills get around the law. Kind of reminds me of the way most “theologians” get around the teachings of the Church….
-
I find it quite curious that Montini, whose posts are typically belligerent and which feature infantile ad hominem remarks, now calls for reflection without sarcasm!
Montini, I see no sign that you have come to this blog to be educated, but merely to throw up your irrational and ignorant pontifications and insults, so please be so kind as to tell us why you are here. Without sarcasm and after due reflection, that is.
-
I agree Torkay – sorry, Montini but your posts are very irritating. You don’t add anything to the discussion you just niggle away there. You don’t even acknowledge that you have learnt or are learning anything from other bloggers.
I’m sorry to be so blunt and I do not mean to offend at all but you are coming across as if you are a troll. They always spoil discussions – sorry.
-
I think Montini is having us all on, if you ask me. I think he’s playing games. Nobody could be so far off the wall!
-
Montini can prove me wrong at any time – but I get the feeling that he is genuinely looking for something. He does persevere at least!
Margaret Mary,
You wouldn’t believe the deplorable catechesis in parishes today. Just listen to this, a deacon preaching at a daily Mass saw fit to give the school children this gem “St. John was anti Semitic, and that has led to the problems in the Middle East today?
-
Crusader,
Our archbishop (Mario Conti) of Glasgow, sat at one of these ecumenical services, listening to a Protestant preacher saying exactly the same thing about St John’s Gospel being anti-Semitic – and afterwards thanked him warmly!
Margaret Mary thinks Montini of off the wall – the whole Catholic world seems to be off the wall, if you ask me!
Comments are now closed.
48 comments