Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Nov 16, 2004
2,238
930
743
44
Moore
Because it's not going up. If you can't regard that fewer and fewer unborn babies are being slaughtered in the womb since 1990 as a positive development, then I can only pity your morality.
You acknowledge that babies are being "slaughtered" in the womb.

And you are pro-choice?

How does one reconcile that with their conscience?

Do you use some of the same methods Nazis used in the concentration camps? Do you tell yourself "it is a horrendous yet justifiable act for a better good?" Do you say the means justifies the ends?

I have always wondered how some people can do that. I have tried in other situations, and simply can not.
 
Nov 16, 2004
2,238
930
743
44
Moore
Because it's not going up. If you can't regard that fewer and fewer unborn babies are being slaughtered in the womb since 1990 as a positive development, then I can only pity your morality.
You acknowledge that babies are being "slaughtered" in the womb.

And you are pro-choice?

How does one reconcile that with their conscience?

Do you use some of the same methods Nazis used in the concentration camps? Do you tell yourself "it is a horrendous yet justifiable act for some better good?" Do you say the means justifies the ends? For the Nazis it was about extermination of a race of people because they felt they held all the wealth and were a burden on the state. For the pro-choice crowd, the reasoning I hear these days is "population control" and "unwanted children become a burden on the state."

I have always wondered how some people can do that. I have tried in other situations, and simply can not. My conscience prevents me from thinking in that way - regardless of the situation. I thank God for making me that way.
 
Nov 16, 2004
2,238
930
743
44
Moore
Very easily. As one who believes in pro choice, I can no better stop abortiona than I can stop babies from starving in Africa.
And I can't stop my kids from smoking cigarettes when they turn 18, either.

But, I will never support or condone it.

I can't stop Assad from slaughtering his own people in Syria, either.

But, I will never support or condone his actions, either.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,065
2,029
743
Where else but Stillwater
And I can't stop my kids from smoking cigarettes when they turn 18, either.

But, I will never support or condone it.

I can't stop Assad from slaughtering his own people in Syria, either.

But, I will never support or condone his actions, either.
Oh, really? Many conservatives are bitterly opposed to Medicaid paying for birth control pills and want it stopped. But if it's stopped, there's the risk of the woman getting pregnant and somehow finding the money to get an abortion. I don't mind government programs that can help poor women prevent finding themselves in the position of choice.
 
Jun 12, 2005
2,268
1,081
1,743
Very easily. As one who believes in pro choice, I can no better stop unborn babies being slaughtered in the womb than I can stop babies from starving to death in Africa.
You can't stop children from being molested in the US anymore than you can stop babies from starving in Africa. By the same logic, you should be "pro-choice" on child molestation.

By being pro-choice you are supporting a woman's right to "slaughter babies in the womb".
 

Slugger926

Federal Marshal
Oct 19, 2004
11,704
1,676
1,743
I don't understand people who support the killing of innocent babies, but would fight the killing of an evil person convicted of crimes that deserve death.
 

Birry

Federal Marshal
Feb 6, 2007
10,800
6,361
1,743
Landlocked
steross, questions that we haven't anticipated will inevitably come up, and it is impossible to answer them all right now. That is true whether we declare life beginning at conception or if we keep things the way they are now (which is chaotic). We have to simply answer them as they arise. But what is going on now is a slaughter and it has to stop, and it inevitably leads to "post-natal abortion".
Agreed.

It'll eventually get there, though. Its simply too convenient (selfish) for a "progressive" society to pass up.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
62,004
45,740
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Rx: This is nothing but warmed over eugenics, which is where the pro-abortion movement came from in the first place.

Russian Call For 'Postnatal Abortion' Sparks Furor Among Parents Of Disabled
By Claire Bigg, Lyubov Chizhova, Aleksandr Kulygin

February 08, 2010

WATCH: The Russian mother of a child with a developmental disability wants to sue a journalist who suggested killing babies with genetic diseases. RFERL's Russian Service reports from Moscow.

In late December, Snezhana Mitina received a tearful phone call from her friend Svetlana. Sobbing, Svetlana explained she had just read a newspaper article calling for babies with mental disabilities to be killed at birth.

The author, Aleksandr Nikonov, used the word "debil" -- a deeply offensive term in Russian -- to characterize such children. He argued that parents should have the right to euthanize newborns diagnosed with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities.

The article, which ran under the headline "Finish Them Off, So They Don't Suffer," went on to describe what Nikonov termed "postnatal abortion" as an act of mercy.

Mitina and her friend, Svetlana Shtarkova -- both mothers of children with developmental disabilities -- decided to take action. They filed a complaint with the Russian Union of Journalists against Nikonov, a correspondent for the popular tabloid "Speed-Info."

The two women say their aim is not to punish Nikonov but to raise the alarm about Russia's culture of intolerance toward disabled people. Shtarkova made an emotional appeal at a hearing last week at the journalists' union.

"The opinion expressed by the author is not unique; statistics show that one-fourth of Russians share similar views," Shtarkova told the February 2 hearing. "Complete strangers come up to me in the street and tell me that I'm depraved and deserve my fate. Doctors and social workers refuse to do their jobs, just because my child is severely disabled."

The lawyer representing the two mothers, Pyotr Kucherenko, told the board that Nikonov's proposal to put "flawed" babies to death only fueled discrimination and was dangerously reminiscent of the theories of racial superiority upheld by Nazi Germany.

Nikonov, however, was unrepentant.

"Let me introduce myself: I am Adolf Hitler. This is the way people want to portray me," Nikonov says. "But the real bastards are those who tell me, 'Yes, it is good and fair that people are in pain. We'll look on and say people can suffer, as long as our scholarly conception of humaneness is not affected.' To hell with you. People shouldn't suffer. This is my opinion, and you won't shut me up."

Mobilized Mothers

Nikonov's arguments failed to convince the Union of Journalists, which ruled that his article bordered on extremism and asked "Speed-Info" to publish a rebuttal by Mitina and Shtarkova.

Although the union's complaints board has no legal authority, plaintiffs and defendants at the hearing formally pledge to fulfill the board's recommendations. The ruling is a symbolic victory for the two mothers, who have relentlessly defended their children's right to life.

Shtarkova keeps several blogs -- one of them on RFE/RL's Russian Service website and the other on livejournal -- devoted to her 3-year-old son, Ivan, who was born with severe brain damage and other birth defects as a result of a rare genetic disorder that went undetected during Shtarkova's pregnancy.

Mitina also has a blog and chairs an organization to improve understanding of Hunter syndrome -- a genetic disease that prevents the body from eliminating toxins, leading to severe physical and mental ailments.

Her son Pavel, now 10 years old, was diagnosed with Hunter syndrome when he was still an infant. The disease causes extreme pain in its sufferers, and Mitina says Pavel's condition steadily grew worse, with little help from either the state or the medical community.

"He had this terrible word: 'melp.' It came from 'Mommy' and 'help' -- that's what he screamed when he was in a lot of pain," Mitina says. "When we called ambulances, the doctors would say there was nothing they could do. The physicians who treated us for years said our child was dying as a result of the syndrome. It was awful."

In 2006, news that U.S. scientists had come up with medication to help treat the painful effects of the disease gave Mitina new hope.

The first obstacle was cost: almost $25,000 per week. The second was the indifference she encountered at the Russian Health Ministry, which flatly turned down her request to import the drug.

"They told me: Find 20 children, have five articles in the press and three television reports, and then we'll talk about it," she recounts.

Mitina launched a campaign to find other Russian families raising children with Hunter syndrome. But health officials, she says, kept increasing the minimum number of sufferers needed to register the drug in Russia.

Only after she had rallied 215 families did the ministry finally agree, in 2008, to make the medication available to Russian patients.

Moral Crisis?

Thanks to her efforts, Pavel and dozens of other Hunter syndrome patients are receiving treatment, paid for by regional authorities. Although the long-term prognosis for Hunter patients remains grim -- many patients die before the age of 20 -- Mitina says Pavel's quality of life has improved dramatically and he no longer suffers from constant pain. Mitina's organization is now working to persuade all local governments across the country to buy the medication.

Her battle underscores Russia's reluctance to care for its citizens with disabilities, widely regarded as burdens for society. The issue is gaining traction as Russia faces a severe population crisis brought on by a low birthrate and poor pediatric health.

Over the next two decades, Russia's population is expected to shrink by 17 million people. Faced with such statistics, advocates of people with disabilities say the country cannot afford to let prejudice stand in the way of caring for the country's estimated 15 million registered "invalids" -- adults and children suffering from a range of physical and mental ailments.

So far, however, the state has yet to weigh in on the debate over Nikonov's controversial article.

Lawyer Kucherenko says the official silence on a highly public proposal to kill babies with developmental disabilities shows that Russia is in the throes of a deep moral crisis.

"This article demonstrates the moral crisis that Russia has witnessed in recent years," Kucherenko says. "Our law-enforcement agencies are actively combating extremism, but why isn't the Prosecutor-General's Office reacting [to Nikonov's article]? We are dealing with a bona fide extremist case discriminating against a social group."

Divisive Debate

Ordinary citizens, by contrast, have reacted strongly. A video report on the case unleashed a heated debate on the website of RFE/RL's Russian Service, a sign of how divided Russians still are on the issue of physical and mental disabilities.

"Is it really more humane to let a child suffer all his life? What happens when the parents die and the child is helpless?" asked one reader.

"People, especially Nikonov, should keep in mind that a child is not anyone's property, he is a full-fledged person. Nobody has the right to decide whether he should live or die," read another post.

Despite the grief caused to people with disabilities and their families, Nikonov's article has already had the unintended positive effect of prompting a rare discussion on the plight of one of Russia's most vulnerable populations.

Svetlana Sorokina, a television reporter and member of the Union of Journalists' complaints board, says Nikonov "voiced the opinion of many Russians" on the topic and sparked debate.

"In a sense, what he did was useful, because these issues exist and they must be discussed," Sorokina says. "We must know our opinions, why we think that way, and what the consequences are."
 
Nov 16, 2004
2,238
930
743
44
Moore
Oh, really? Many conservatives are bitterly opposed to Medicaid paying for birth control pills and want it stopped. But if it's stopped, there's the risk of the woman getting pregnant and somehow finding the money to get an abortion. I don't mind government programs that can help poor women prevent finding themselves in the position of choice.
It sounds like you are saying you can overlook the fact that babies are slaughtered in the womb as long as it doesn't create an inconvenience to our society in any way or some hardship to a poor person.

Do you realize what you are saying and what you are justifying to yourself?

I say this because you are obviously a good person with a good conscience. I give you kuddos for that.

Just remember, you don't have to agree with everything in the party line. I don't agree with a lot of things in the Republican party line. That is what is wrong with our Country right there. It seems the parties have drawn lines in the sand and said "you are either with us or against us." Instead of issues being the focus, it is now all about the party line. If you are a Democrat you have to stand for x,y and z. Same goes for Republicans. It is really sad. We can have different views on most things and still find common ground. That is how politics should work and once did in our Country. We are now divided evenly down party lines.

Listen to your conscience. You can still be a Democrat and be against abortion.

Just like I was a Republican against invading Baghdad - which made my Republican friends question if I was really a RINO. I believe I was just standing up for what I felt was right and not the party line. Perhaps that is why these days I am drawn more and more to the Libertarian side of the house.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
62,004
45,740
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
From the editor's defense of the decision to publish the article:
I take a ‘subject of a moral right to life’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to my own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to me.
Genesis 3:5 (the serpent said) "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

The lie here is "you will be like God," elevating self to a position of importance equal to that of God. In the "editor's defense" above the test that he uses for attribution of basic right to existence is the same self-centric lie that Eve listened to in the Garden of Eden, elevating self to a level equal to that of God. It is the exact same lie and biting that apple is the exact same sin. And if you dehumanize any class of people enough then there is no moral conflict with pushing them into ovens.
 

State

Russian Bot
A/V Subscriber
Mar 15, 2007
13,581
7,967
1,743
Working on the Railroad
From the editor's defense of the decision to publish the article:


Genesis 3:5 (the serpent said) "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

The lie here is "you will be like God," elevating self to a position of importance equal to that of God. In the "editor's defense" above the test that he uses for attribution of basic right to existence is the same self-centric lie that Eve listened to in the Garden of Eden, elevating self to a level equal to that of God. It is the exact same lie and biting that apple is the exact same sin. And if you dehumanize any class of people enough then there is no moral conflict with pushing them into ovens.
Rx, you read that wrong. What your quoted was a post from the blaze that the editor quoted. It was a poster presenting a '
reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises'
in mockery of the original authors argument for infanticide.