Bioethicists realize birth is an artificial dividing line whether a human can be aborted or killed.
We can terminate for serious fetal 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 OK to kill the fetus at one end of the birth canal but not at the other? (Source.)
Rather than conclude that late-term abortion is wrong and set an earlier “deadline,” the push is to allow killing of babies after they are born.
As medical science progresses the number of seriously disabled babies that survive is growing – we should therefore consider having a debate on allowing active euthanasia, for the good of families, says the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology. The College explains families who have the most severely disabled babies, babies who until recently would not have survived, are suffering enormously, both emotionally and financially.
The college explains that if obstetricians were allowed to carry out active euthanasia, some patients would be more inclined to wait till birth, rather than carrying out late abortions. (Emphasis added. Source.)
Simply amazing. Words fail me.
I guess partial-birth abortion isn’t late enough. When is too late?
(I’m waiting for someone to make the argument that this is a good development: if we allow doctors to kill babies after they are born, there will less abortions. Update: I guess the argument’s already been made. )
Mike Cohen raises a valid point in response to my last post on the Darfur conflict.
So.. the deaths of 50,000-300,000 Africans are less important than the death of one brain-dead American woman. I don’t see any of the “culture of life” people getting their knickers in a twist about this.
Mike compares the lack of attention to the Darfur conflict with the media circus surrounding the Terri Schiavo case. Terri’s feeding tube had been removed more than once, but it was only the last time that received much attention, primarily because of the blogosphere. I am hoping we can do the same to raise the public’s awareness of Darfur (and this time, not have the subject die in the process).
So why is so little said about Darfur? At first glance, it would seem the current administration would be falling all over itself to publicize it.
- First, it is a humanitarian crisis of incredible proportions. Tens of thousands dead. Many more having all they owned destroyed and forced to flee for their lives. Do we really want to sit on our hands and watch another Rwanda?
- Second, it can be positioned as Muslims slaughtering Christians. Certainly, that could play well with the President’s constituency.
- Third, the Sudan has oil. Why not attempt to lower prices by stabilizing the Sudan?
On second glance, maybe those same factors are reasons why the U.S. is not pressing the issue.
- If it’s a humanitarian crisis (and it is), why doesn’t the U.N. prove its value (if it has any) and take a leading role in actually getting something done in Darfur. The U.S. is vilified for acting like the world’s policeman. Now when it doesn’t — Damned if we do and damned if we don’t. More seriously, what is the exit strategy? Can we afford the troops when some (many?) say we need more in Iraq and Afghanistan?
- If the President positioned entering the Darfur conflict as defending Christians against Muslims, it could provide a basis for the Islamic world to believe the U.S. is anti-Muslim. Probably not a good idea when trying to work with Muslims in building democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is purely a political consideration, but when you’re a politician, politics are reality.
- Finally, what about “no blood for oil”? Would the MSM media argue that Bush was interested in Darfur only because it had oil? Is it even enough oil to make a difference?
Damn the politics; it’s time to end this conflict because it’s the right thing to do. We have a name for those who target noncombatant civilians. Let’s not give the terrorists in Darfur a pass because of political “difficulties.”
While I type and while you read, people are starving. It’s a painful, ugly death, with no dignity involved. We can help by donating dollars to aid organizations. I bet your favorite international charity is working to alleviate suffering in Darfur. If you need help finding a charity, use the resources available here.
Oh, and Mike…I’m one “culture of life” person trying to make a difference in Darfur. I hope you join me.
I’ve been discussing with “AL” Terri’s and the pope’s deaths in the comments of a previous article. Go here to follow the discussion.
Diane at Crossroads posts another side to the Schiavo/Schindler controversy. The post’s date is March 31, 2005, so I assume it’s not an April Fools’ post. Diane’s post starts:
Perhaps the Christian community has swallowed a lie about Michael Schiavo? I think we certainly should consider that possibility, in order to be fair.
What’s amazing about this case is how much coverage it’s received with so much innuendo and so few facts. For that matter, I don’t know if the information Diane posts is true…
It’s tragic. Somewhere, the truth exists, but would we recognize it if we saw it?
Thirteen days after her feeding tube was removed by court order, Terri Schiavo has died. May she and her family have peace.