Some might wonder, "Poglitsh, don't you think our world has problems other than abortion? Consider war, hunger, disease, poverty, lack of clean water, lack of education opportunities, sex discrimination, racism, lack of good housing, etc. Don't these things matter?"
Absolutely they do. Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, a Roman Catholic prelate, worked tirelessly on numerous issues of human suffering. He popularized the term "consistent ethic of life", a term meaning that human life ought to be respected at all stages and in all circumstances. Before his death from cancer in November 1996, Bernardin addressed the threats of modern warfare to human life, opposed the death penalty, spoke against violence in the middle East and Ireland, dedicated a facility to the care of AIDS victims, participated in an anti-pornography group, and as cancer began to affect his own life, began a ministry to cancer victims. Cardinal Bernardin valued human life, and acted to promote human advancement against all manner of insults.
Here is what the Cardinal said in 1989: "Not all values, however, are of equal weight. Some are more fundamental than others. On this Respect Life Sunday, I wish to emphasize that no earthly value is more fundamental than human life itself. Human life is the condition for enjoying freedom and all other values. Consequently, if one must choose between protecting or serving lesser human values that depend upon life for their existence and life itself, human life must take precedence."
We need not, and should not, promote one human good and ignore others. Let us advance human development in all its aspects, beginning with protecting the right to life. With the right to life secure, we can work for human betterment in all other areas.
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at http://letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Abortion's Lethal Logic
Blob of tissue; products of conception; clump of cells. Abortion advocacy applies such phrases to make abortion seem to be less than the killing of a human being. Much of the modern Western world has accepted these dehumanizing terms and consequently legalized abortion.
When the United States legalized abortion in the early 1970s, parents knew little about the status and development of the unborn. Since that time, medical research has shown that a newly-conceived human being is far more complex-and human-than a "blob of tissue".
The problem is, abortion is an entrenched cultural dynamic in the western world even as science continually reaffirms the humanity of the unborn. How can societies which have legitimized abortion continue the practice when those societies know those unborn entities are no mere "clumps of cells"?
The latest rhetorical technique is to say that born infants are not persons in the way that you, Mr. or Ms. Reader, are, and thus may be legitimately killed, even after birth.
Authors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva recently published a paper entitled "After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” in the London-based Journal of Medical Ethics. Consider these quotes from their paper: "Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a 'person' in the sense of 'subject of a moral right to life.' " "The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual." The authors conclude this way: "what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is [permissible], including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.
In countries where a child can be aborted at any time during the pregnancy-and such countries do exist-their conclusion means that any infant could be killed for any reason after birth.
Two observations are in order: 1) Though the thought of killing born babies should make all sane, decent people shudder, the logic of these authors is flawless. If it is legitimate to kill someone who is unborn, why is it not legitimate to kill them after they are born? Why should a child's right to life begin at birth? It is only a change of location-a change of only a few centimetres-which differentiates between a child which, under the laws of so many countries, may be legally killed, from a child which may not be legally killed. Why should a few centimetres matter?
2) The right to kill a person has moved from the womb to the outside world. The authors assert that it is “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”. This very confusing sentence means that being a "person in the morally relevant sense" is now the criteria for a right not to be killed. Who will decide who is "morally relevant"? What traits must an individual possess to qualify as "morally relevant"? Should the "moral relevance" argument win the day, everyone under the official or practical power of the "experts" is in mortal danger-because the "experts" may draw up any arbitrary set of standards to decide who is relevant, and those who fall outside those standards will become expendable.
Our only protection against a death sentence from an "expert" is to protect all human life. Let public opinion follow science: human life begins at conception. Let behaviour follow biological fact: human conception begins with sexual activity. Let sex be saved for marriage so that all new human life enters the world in the context of love and life-long committment.
Article at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html#.T1BQUf8_LUs.mailto
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at http://letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com
When the United States legalized abortion in the early 1970s, parents knew little about the status and development of the unborn. Since that time, medical research has shown that a newly-conceived human being is far more complex-and human-than a "blob of tissue".
The problem is, abortion is an entrenched cultural dynamic in the western world even as science continually reaffirms the humanity of the unborn. How can societies which have legitimized abortion continue the practice when those societies know those unborn entities are no mere "clumps of cells"?
The latest rhetorical technique is to say that born infants are not persons in the way that you, Mr. or Ms. Reader, are, and thus may be legitimately killed, even after birth.
Authors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva recently published a paper entitled "After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” in the London-based Journal of Medical Ethics. Consider these quotes from their paper: "Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a 'person' in the sense of 'subject of a moral right to life.' " "The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual." The authors conclude this way: "what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is [permissible], including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.
In countries where a child can be aborted at any time during the pregnancy-and such countries do exist-their conclusion means that any infant could be killed for any reason after birth.
Two observations are in order: 1) Though the thought of killing born babies should make all sane, decent people shudder, the logic of these authors is flawless. If it is legitimate to kill someone who is unborn, why is it not legitimate to kill them after they are born? Why should a child's right to life begin at birth? It is only a change of location-a change of only a few centimetres-which differentiates between a child which, under the laws of so many countries, may be legally killed, from a child which may not be legally killed. Why should a few centimetres matter?
2) The right to kill a person has moved from the womb to the outside world. The authors assert that it is “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”. This very confusing sentence means that being a "person in the morally relevant sense" is now the criteria for a right not to be killed. Who will decide who is "morally relevant"? What traits must an individual possess to qualify as "morally relevant"? Should the "moral relevance" argument win the day, everyone under the official or practical power of the "experts" is in mortal danger-because the "experts" may draw up any arbitrary set of standards to decide who is relevant, and those who fall outside those standards will become expendable.
Our only protection against a death sentence from an "expert" is to protect all human life. Let public opinion follow science: human life begins at conception. Let behaviour follow biological fact: human conception begins with sexual activity. Let sex be saved for marriage so that all new human life enters the world in the context of love and life-long committment.
Article at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html#.T1BQUf8_LUs.mailto
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at http://letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Safest Sex
The reproductive health section of Friday's Times of Swaziland spoke about safer sex. It explained that improper planning for safer sex can cause embarrassing or even life-changing events, and went on to describe recent advances in and continuing challenges to preventing HIV transmission.
Without ignoring the plight of the HIV-positive, let's also help the younger generations by promoting Safest Sex: no sex until marriage, and sex only with husband or wife after marriage. Safest sex requires neither devices nor technical training: just coaching and self-discipline to avoid sex before marriage, and sound support from peers and elders during courtship and marriage. A man and a woman who save sex for their wedding night can look forward to decades of disease-free, joy-filled sexual pleasure with each other. Trading a few years of character-building abstinence for 20, 30, or 40 years of no-technology, worry-free, mutually-satisfying, relationship-building, and extremely-safe sex is a very good bargain. It is the safest bargain. It is Safest Sex.
Away with pre- and extra-marital sex and all their negative effects (disease, broken hearts, broken marriages, abortions); up with Safest Sex and all its positive effects (self-control, faithfulness, health, joy, love). Individuals, couples, families, and the nation will benefit.
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at http://letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com
Without ignoring the plight of the HIV-positive, let's also help the younger generations by promoting Safest Sex: no sex until marriage, and sex only with husband or wife after marriage. Safest sex requires neither devices nor technical training: just coaching and self-discipline to avoid sex before marriage, and sound support from peers and elders during courtship and marriage. A man and a woman who save sex for their wedding night can look forward to decades of disease-free, joy-filled sexual pleasure with each other. Trading a few years of character-building abstinence for 20, 30, or 40 years of no-technology, worry-free, mutually-satisfying, relationship-building, and extremely-safe sex is a very good bargain. It is the safest bargain. It is Safest Sex.
Away with pre- and extra-marital sex and all their negative effects (disease, broken hearts, broken marriages, abortions); up with Safest Sex and all its positive effects (self-control, faithfulness, health, joy, love). Individuals, couples, families, and the nation will benefit.
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at http://letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)