Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

avatar

“Safe, legal and rare”

January 19th, 2011, Promulgated by Nerina

I know not all of our readers share the Church’s view of abortion, but this story is repulsive.

Lord, have mercy!

Tags: , ,

|

21 Responses to ““Safe, legal and rare””

  1. avatar Anonymous says:

    I find this very repulsive; however, how is it that the people in this video find this repulsive as well? Isn’t it repulsive to kill babies at any age?

  2. avatar Ink says:

    Yuck. >.< Remind me never to click a link in a post tagged "abortion" unless it's at least noon… That's so horrible! How can they be talking about the “right way” to perform an abortion? It’s like saying that the “right way” to kill someone is to slit their throat with a clean, sharp blade–it’s humane!

  3. avatar Louis E. says:

    One doesn’t have to share your church’s views on abortion to find Dr. Gosnell’s deeds repulsive.Remember,what we see as allowing the abortion of a foetus does not apply to live-born infants…we see an enormous difference to which you blind yourselves!

  4. avatar Matt says:

    Louis…HOW? What is the difference of 5 minutes before birth and 5 minutes after birth? At least some of these atheists who believe in infanticide are intellectually honest, if deranged. Might I remind you that Pres. Obama on at least 3 occasions supported partial-birth abortion…which is essentially infanticide…

    Frankly, Louis, if you feel the way you do, why do you muck up the combox?

  5. avatar Louis E. says:

    I suppose we have different prisms of intellectual honesty.I realize that you see extending the protection of life backward from birth to conception as a logical extension,but I see it as a hubristic overreach which brings your “ethic of life” crashing down in hypocritical ruin.I have certain sympathies with the sincere against hypocrites,but where your church teaches error I don’t embrace it for all that I understand that those who claim to adhere to your faith must do so to be sincere.

  6. avatar Abaccio says:

    Louis, I must echo Matt here. Why do you bother reading and commenting if you find Catholic social teaching “hubristic”? Furthermore, it sounds to me like you’re just saying big words at the expense of saying anything meaningful. Define the hubris you find inherent, explain your understanding of the “ethic of life” and express more clearly how you feel it comes “crashing down in hypocritical ruin.” If we are to have meaningful dialogue, everyone must defend his or her position with some greater authority than personal feeling. Furthermore, on what authority do you find the Church’s teaching in error? Are you deriving this perception of error from your own arbitration of Truth?

  7. avatar Anonymous says:

    Louis the liberal strikes again. Do not genuflect before receiving communion, and kill the unborn. They’re not fully human until after birth… ???

  8. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    I think everyone should relax on Louis. He’s stated his views here before. We don’t agree, but he admits as much. It’s not like he’s arguing from a Catholic point of view. I don’t think we should chase people away for not sharing our beliefs.

    I have certain sympathies with the sincere against hypocrites,but where your church teaches error I don’t embrace it for all that I understand that those who claim to adhere to your faith must do so to be sincere.

    I commend you for this, Louis.

    Louis, I have a couple of questions.

    1) I now you’ve hashed it out before in the comments on abortion, but I don’t remember exactly when… I’m curious as to your views – do you have an article or something you can point to if one wants to understand your view point?

    2) I’m just curious – what is your world view? What interests you to read Cleansing Fire?

  9. avatar Louis E. says:

    I am a secular theist,as I’ve probably stated here…I believe that there must be a God in the sense of Infinitely First Cause,but that there is no credible evidence that that IFC writes books or founds official fan clubs for itself.I believe that allowing rights before birth subtracts from the rights of pregnant women,and thereby imperils the rights of all the born,and that all should be entitled to know that they were born because their mothers wanted them to be born,not because the state commanded them to give birth unwillingly.

    I have an abiding interest in hierarchies of all kinds,and religious ones are part of that.I’m in NY state,I spent a summer session at RIT and have a friend who grew up in Irondequoit.And my principled opposition to same-sex sexual activity rivals that of any religionist.

  10. avatar Abaccio says:

    Louis, by your logic, allowing rights before the age of majority subtracts from the rights of parents, and thereby imperils the rights of all the adults, and that all should be entitled to know that they reached adulthood because their parents wanted them to reach adulthood, not because the state commanded them to let them grow up unwillingly.

  11. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    Louis,
    Very interesting. I’m not following your logic. Do you have any references for those who wish to drill deeper into your logic? Or is it just something you came up with on your own?

  12. avatar Nerina says:

    Louis, thanks for explaining your worldview. I’m happy to hear that you are repulsed by this story. Sadly, many on the “pro-choice” side are not similarly outraged because for them this might affect the public’s view on abortion.

    I think you have stated before that personhood is conveyed at birth – before that event, the baby has no rights. Yet, with this story you are repulsed so I assume it because the babies had actually been delivered. Did the act of “partial-birth” abortion also repulse you or was that somehow different? Because, from the description given, it seems like this doctor simply performed a “partial-birth abortion” procedure outside of the birth canal (Lord knows why). How can only a few centimeters make such a difference in your moral calculations?

    Remember,what we see as allowing the abortion of a foetus does not apply to live-born infants…we see an enormous difference to which you blind yourselves!

    To what “difference” are we blinding ourselves? Because the baby has an umbilical cord? Because the baby is dependent upon another person (as they will be for a long time post birth)? From your logic, it appears you would have no problem with what the doctor did had he managed to either pith the brain/spinal cord while the baby was inside the mother or had he dismembered the baby before extracting him or her. Do I understand you correctly? Is there any point in pregnancy, say viability, where you draw a line, or is it simply, natural birth that is the determining factor?

    Finally, can you help me understand your thinking with this quote?

    I realize that you see extending the protection of life backward from birth to conception as a logical extension,but I see it as a hubristic overreach which brings your “ethic of life” crashing down in hypocritical ruin.

    I mean, it has quite a rhetorical flourish, but I don’t know to what you are referring. What “hypocritical ruin?”

    Clearly you desire that every child be a wanted child and feel that keeping abortion legal is the right way to ensure options for mothers. I would argue that a mother might change her mind once the baby was born, or better yet, there are many adoptive parents waiting for a child. How do we really help women by allowing them to kill their own children? Look at the post-abortive outcomes and see what this choice is really offering women. A life of regret, remorse, guilt, pain, physical effects, emotional effects, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, marital breakdown, inability to bond with future children, increased risk of miscarriage, cancer, you name it. It isn’t a pretty picture. We think we’re giving them a choice when really we’re giving them is death to both their children(a physical) and a spiritual and sometimes physical death to themselves. I think there is a better way where options can be exercised and no one dies.

    Thanks for posting, Louis.

  13. avatar Nerina says:

    One more thought, you mentioned above about protecting a mother’s choice based on her desire to have a child or not – that the state should not force a mother to have a baby. In this story, the mothers apparently did not want these children, so why should the fact that the babies were born make a difference (at least according to your arguments)? Are you saying that since these babies were actually delivered, the mother no longer as the option of “not wanting” the child? Did she not go to the abortionist with the express intent of killing her baby? For consistency, why do you object to the outcome in this story?

  14. avatar Louis E. says:

    Pre-birth dependence is completely untransferable,afterward it is completely transferable.Not being forced to serve as incubators is a right we all have,not just all of us except pregnant women.That exception is carved out by attempting to extend rights before birth,and it undermines the whole idea of our having rights to our lives.

  15. avatar Matt says:

    Louis, you seem to be mistaking the concept of freedom with the concept of license.

  16. avatar Nerina says:

    Pre-birth dependence is completely untransferable

    Actually, it’s not. With viability occuring at younger and younger gestational ages, medical equipment, technology and expertise are able to facilitate the survival of very young babies.

    It’s hard to engage you in this discussion because you keep moving the goal posts. You talk about a women’s desire to be a mother, then you claim no woman should be “forced” to be an incubator (I mean, you make it sound like women are getting pregnant by some weird experiment over which they had no say) and then you bring up the issue of interdependence as justification for killing another person. Should one conjoined twin have the say over another since they are interdependent?

    I notice you didn’t answer my other questions. Is partial-birth abortion okay? Why did this story repulse you since the babies born, then killed, were not wanted by their mothers anyway?

  17. avatar Louis E. says:

    Matt,the boundary between freedom and license may be disputed,but you’re not making clear where we are disagreeing.I certainly understand that freedoms are imperiled if equated with their abuse.

    Nerina,you’re the one moving goalposts if you think a foetus is a “person”.And you can’t treat your own position that becoming pregnant entails an obligation to see the pregnancy through as a given in discussions of whether or not your position is right.Conjoined twins can’t live without each other,while women can stay alive pregnant or not.There’s no equality between woman and embryo any more than there is between marriage and same-sex coupling.

  18. avatar Nerina says:

    Louis, I give up. I really do because you’re not making any logical sense. And you still refuse to answer my other questions. Why is this case in particular repulsive to you? The doctor got rid of the baby or, in your word “fetus”, just like the mother (who shouldn’t be forced to be an incubator) wanted so why does his method matter? And I haven’t moved my goalposts once. I have said, from the beginning that a baby in the womb has the right to live because he or she is a unique individual from the moment of conception. You you have offered differing reasons why you think abortion should be available (baby is interdependent on mother, mother shouldn’t be an incubator, every child should be a wanted child, giving rights to a baby in the womb diminishes the rights of those outside the womb).

    I find your view of humanity and the dignity of the human person utterly depraved.

  19. avatar Louis E. says:

    Only its denial to the unborn renders the dignity of the born person secure.That you can ask how such an earth-shattering distinction matters shows you are the one “not making any logical sense”.

  20. avatar Louis E. says:

    There’s a story on the AP wires tonight about a woman who suffered at this man’s hands because anti-abortion protesters scared her away from going to Planned Parenthood.Now are they going to admit their share of the blame?
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41211777/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
    And don’t forget the role guaranteeing the ready availability of contraception can play in averting such situations.

  21. avatar Matt says:

    Actually, more than half of abortions are procured due to failed contraceptives. You lose.

    Also, the fact that you cite MSNBC tells me all I need to know.


-Return to main page-