About

Earl Aagaard’s opinions about everything that interests him. Og also enjoys gardening, travel, reading, woodbutchery, and lots of other stuff.

Monthly Archives

Join Og's Mailing List

OgBlog.net

NOW WE KNOW WHERE ABORTION LEADS…...

THE LONDON SUNDAY TIMES has been kind enough to inform us.

Doctors: let us kill disabled babies

That is the headline, and in the story we’re faced with the reality that the pro-abortion activists assured us for decades was unrelated to their cause.

The college is arguing that “active euthanasia” should be considered for the overall good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies.

“A very disabled child can mean a disabled family,” it says. “If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome.”

And there it is…..since we can’t know for certain if the baby is damaged while it’s in utero, faulty diagnosis leads to killing some perfectly normal babies. Therefore, why not let parents who don’t want a damaged baby kill it after it’s born? Notice that no one suggests that parents who give birth to a baby they don’t want could simply give it up for adoption…..despite the fact that there are couples committed enough to caring for “the least of these” that they welcome even children with profound disabilities into their homes.

At this point, we’re even hearing the arguments of the pro-life majority echoed by their opponents:

The college’s submission was also welcomed by John Harris, a member of the government’s Human Genetics Commission and professor of bioethics at Manchester University. “We can terminate for serious foetal abnormality up to term but cannot kill a newborn. What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it okay to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not at the other?” he said.

Well, that’s a really good question, isn’t it? My answer that there is nothing morally significant that happens during the passage down the birth canal - but my answer is not to kill newborns, but to stop killing pre-borns.

Perhaps Mr Harris would like to explain what happens during the passage of five or six years that makes it okay to kill the abnormal newborn but not the abnormal child? Make it 21 years and ask why it’s okay to kill a disabled newborn but not acceptable to kill a young adult after a disabling car accident?

Can none of these people see where they’re headed with this “reasoning”? The logic is impeccable—and it takes us right into the hell that Britain and the West fought against and defeated in WWII.

Thankfully, there are those in opposition:

However, John Wyatt, consultant neonatologist at University College London hospital, said: “Intentional killing is not part of medical care.” He added: “The majority of doctors and health professionals believe that once you introduce the possibility of intentional killing into medical practice you change the fundamental nature of medicine. It immediately becomes a subjective decision as to whose life is worthwhile.”

If a doctor can decide whether a life is worth living, “it changes medicine into a form of social engineering where the aim is to maximise the benefit for society and minimise those who are perceived as worthless”. Simone Aspis of the British Council of Disabled People said: “If we introduced euthanasia for certain conditions it would tell adults with those conditions that they were worth less than other members of society.”

Physicians before Hippocrates were feared, because the patient never knew whether his doctor was there to heal or to kill. Western medicine for more than two millennia committed themselves to healing, pledging never to kill. That lasted pretty much until just after the first world war, when the old ways re-emerged in Germany, where some doctors eagerly took part in the cleansing of the volk by euthanizing WWI vets, damaged children, and finally whole groups of those classified as subhuman.

The postwar discovery of the extent of these horrors led to a new commitment never to kill, but the lessons appear to be wearing off. Even Holland, who protected her Jews to the extent of her ability during WWII, now condones INFANTICIDE, and Britain’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology is ready to join them.

READ THE WHOLE (DEPRESSING) THING

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/11 at 09:28 PM

Comments and reactions