Giving Life to Little Souls

I was greatly saddened by an article (reported by LifeSiteNews) by Emily Rapp, who says she would have aborted her son, had she known during her pregnancy that he had Tay-Sachs disease (which results in blindness, paralysis, and death at a very early age). She writes:

If I had known Ronan had Tay-Sachs… I would have found out what the disease meant for my then unborn child; I would have talked to parents who are raising (and burying) children with this disease, and then I would have had an abortion. Without question and without regret, although this would have been a different kind of loss to mourn and would by no means have been a cavalier or uncomplicated, heartless decision. I'm so grateful that Ronan is my child. I also wish he'd never been born; no person should suffer in this way—daily seizures, blindness, lack of movement, inability to swallow, a devastated brain—with no hope for a cure. Both of these statements are categorically true; neither one is mutually exclusive.

I don’t doubt this mother’s love for her son, and I don’t doubt her sincerity in wishing she could have saved him from his suffering. What mother doesn’t want to save her child from harm?

But her statement tells me something else about her. She does not know God as the omnipotent, loving, merciful Father He is. She doesn’t know the salvific value of suffering. She does not know that regardless of the suffering we endure on earth, it is nothing compared to the eternal happiness and perfection that is offered in Heaven to those who believe in Jesus Christ and follow him faithfully.

In the big picture, it really doesn’t matter whether a person’s life “is worth living” according to the standards we earth-bound human beings use to measure such a thing. Every life is worth living because it means a soul has a chance to enter Heaven and to exist for eternity in communion with God.

Holy Innocents

Once a soul has been conceived, parents are duty-bound to protect it and do everything within their power to help that soul get to Heaven. Killing an unborn baby takes away that soul’s chance for Heaven, even though we have assurance that the soul will be happy and without any suffering (see "Second Thoughts on Infants Who Die Without Baptism"). A newborn baby should be baptized as soon as possible to ensure entrance into Heaven should death befall the child in the early years of his life.


Had Emily Rapp aborted her son Ronan, she would have robbed him of his rightful chance for his place in Heaven. And just as a mother wants to prevent her child from suffering, so also does she hope for and strive to provide the very best for him. To that end, I hope Emily Rapp has had her son baptized. Then at his death, after she has watched him suffer in ways that she could not alleviate, she may rest assured that little Ronan’s soul is in Heaven, in the arms of God, and feeling no pain or suffering whatsoever. Denys the Carthusian describes Heaven like this:

My soul, how great and what priceless happiness will it be for you to see the God of infinite beauty face to face, and to be a partaker with Him in the depths of his sweetness. What will it be to possess forever, the All-High God, our only and changeless good! In Him, happily to hold and to possess, in overflowing measure, the fullness of all beauty, and of all that can be wished: yea, and safe in eternity to have your heart's wish; ah! Think what it will be! To taste a peace that is of God and made by Him: to plumb the depths of the sweetness of his love! What will it be, o my soul, to be caught up by the love of your Creator, to be made a partaker in the Godhead – how thrilling – how much to be longed after! And then, to be close locked in God's most loving arms, so that no one shall nor ever can tear you away from before the glowing gaze of his joyous countenance, nor from the embrace of his love!

There is no gift that surpasses that.


But…it’s not just the conceived souls about whom we must be concerned. There are also the souls who exist in the mind of God, and whose conception awaits a couple who will say “yes” to God’s invitation to give that thought life. The contraceptive mentality of our society has prevented untold numbers of these souls from coming into existence, all because we put our own selfish desires and concupiscences ahead of God’s plan for life, all because we “aren’t ready” or “we can’t afford another child” or whatever other reason we come up with that we think trumps God’s perfect will.

Pius XII, in his Address to Newlyweds (March 1941) said:

It will depend on you whether those innocent souls, whom the embrace of Infinite Love desires to call from nothing, shall come to the threshold of life, in order to make of them one day His chosen companions in the eternal happiness of Heaven. But alas! If they remain merely magnificent images in the mind of God when they could have been rays of sun that illuminate every man who comes into this world (John 1:9), they will remain forever nothing but lights extinguished by the cowardice and selfishness of man!

Openness to life means more than being anti-abortion.

It also means more than being anti-contraception.

It even means more than being pro-NFP.

It means…being open…truly open…to life. It means seeking God’s will in everything – especially in the conception and birth of children.

I’ll have more to say on this issue, but haven’t yet molded my thoughts into an essay; if you’re interested, keep checking back!  In the meantime, listen to this sermon by a priest who touched my conscience with his comments about NFP, the duty of motherhood, and the souls that are lost due to the contraceptive mentality of the world today.

Heavenly Conversation: St. Francis de Sales

The source of the following excerpt is: The Sermons of St. Francis de Sales for Lent. 

This particular passage is from the saint’s sermon for the second Sunday of Lent, on “Eternal Happiness”. It comes from the middle of the sermon; I was quite taken with the description of the heavenly conversation enjoyed by the saints.

Let me remark first of all that in eternal felicity we will know each other, since in this little spark of it which the Savior gave to His Apostles He willed that they recognize Moses and Elias, whom they had never seen. If this is true, O my God, what contentment will we receive in seeing again those whom we have so dearly loved in this life! Yes, we will even know the new Christians who are only now being converted to our holy Faith in the Indies, Japan, and the Antipodes. The good friendships of this life will continue eternally in the other. We will love each person with a special love, but these particular friendships will not cause partiality because all our affections will draw their strength from the charity of God which, ordering them all will make us love each of the blessed with that eternal love with which we are loved by the Divine Majesty.

O God! What consolation we will have in these heavenly conversations with each other. There our good angels will give us greater joy than we can imagine when we recognize them and they speak to us so lovingly of the care they had for our salvation during our mortal life, reminding us of the holy inspirations they gave us, as a sacred milk which they drew from the breast of the Divine Goodness, to attract us to seek the incomparable sweetness we now enjoy. “Do you remember,” they will say, “the inspiration I gave you at such a time, in reading that book, or in listening to that sermon, or in looking at that image?” For example, St. Mary of Egypt’s good angel will remind her of the inspiration which converted her to Our Lord and which was the foundation of her heavenly destiny. O God! Will not our hearts melt with indescribable delight in hearing these words?

Each of the saints will have a special conversation according to his rank and dignity. One day our glorious Father, St. Augustine (of whom I speak, since I know it pleases you), {6} had a desire to see triumphant Rome, the glorious St. Paul preaching, and Our Lord among the people curing the sick and working miracles. Oh, my dear souls, what consolation this great saint now has in contemplating the heavenly Jerusalem in its triumph, the great Apostle Paul (I do not say great in body for he was small, but great in eloquence and sanctity) preaching and intoning those praises he will give throughout eternity to the Divine Majesty in glory! But what incomparable consolation for St. Augustine to see Our Lord work the perpetual miracle of the blessed felicity which His death has acquired for us! Imagine the divine conversation these two saints might have with each other, with St. Paul saying to St. Augustine: “My dear Brother, do you not recall that in reading my epistle [Rom. 13:12-14] you were touched by an inspiration which moved you to be converted, an inspiration which I had obtained for you from the divine mercy of our good God by the prayer I offered for you at the very moment you were reading what I had written?” Will not this, dear Sisters, bring an incomparable sweetness to our holy Father’s heart?

Let us imagine this: Suppose that Our Lady, St. Magdalene, St. Martha, St. Stephen and the Apostles were to be seen for the space of a year in Jerusalem, as for a great jubilee. Who among us, I ask you, would wish to remain here? For myself, I think we would embark at once, exposing ourselves to the peril of all the hazards which fall upon travelers, so that we might experience the grace of seeing our glorious Mother and Mistress, Magdalene, Mary Salome, and the others. After all, pilgrims expose themselves to all these dangers only to go and revere the places where these holy persons have placed their feet. If this is so, my dear souls, what consolation will we receive when, entering Heaven, we will see the blessed face of Our Lady, all radiant with the love of God! And if St. Elizabeth was so carried away with joy and contentment when, on the day of Our Lady’s visitation, she heard her intone that divine canticle, the Magnificat [Lk. 1:39-55], how much more will our hearts and souls thrill with inexplicable joy when we hear this sacred Chantress intone the canticle of eternal love! Oh, what a sweet melody! Without doubt, we will be carried away and experience most loving raptures which, however, will take from us neither the use of reason nor of our faculties. Both will be marvelously strengthened and perfected by this divine meeting with the holy Virgin, to better praise and glorify God, who has given her and each of us so many graces – among them, that of conversing familiarly with her.

But, you may ask, if it is true, as you say, that we will converse with all those in the heavenlyJerusalem, what will we say? Of what shall we speak? What will be the subject of our conversation? O God! My dear Sisters! What subject? Surely of the mercies which the Lord has shown us here on earth and by which He has made us capable of entering into the joy of a happiness which alone can satisfy us. I say “alone” because in this word “felicity” every sort of good is comprised. They are, however, but one single good, the joy of God in eternal felicity. It is this unique good which the divine lover in the Canticle of Canticles asked from her Beloved (she practices true wisdom here, for following the advice of the wise man [Eccles. (Sir.) 7:40], she considers the end, and then, in light of this, the means). “Kiss me,” she cries, “O my dear Beloved, with the kiss of your mouth.” [cf. Cant. 1:1 (2)]. This kiss, as I shall soon exclaim, is nothing other than the happiness of the blessed.

But of what else will we speak in our conversations? Of the death and Passion of our Lord and Master. Ah, do we not learn this in the Transfiguration, in which they spoke of nothing so much as the excess He had to suffer in Jerusalem, excess which was none other, as we have already seen, than His sorrowful death? Oh, if we could comprehend something of the consolation which the blessed have in speaking of this loving death, how our souls also would expand in thinking of it!

Let us pass on, I pray you, and say a few words about the honor and grace that we will have in conversing even with our incarnate Lord. Here, undoubtedly, our felicity will reach an inexpressible and unutterable height. What will we do, dear souls, what will we become, I ask you, when through the Sacred Wound of His side we perceive that most adorable and most lovable Heart of our Master, aflame with love for us – that Heart where we will see each of our names written in letters of love! “Is it possible, O my dear Savior,” we will say, “that You have loved me so much that You have engraved my name in Your Heart?” It is indeed true. The Prophet, speaking in the name of Our Lord, says to us: “Even if it should happen that a mother forget the child she carried in her womb, I will never forget you, for I have engraved your name in the palms of my hand.” [Is. 49:15-16]. But Jesus Christ, enlarging on these words, will say: “Even if it were possible for a woman to forget her child, yet I will never forget you, since I bear your name engraved in My Heart.”



Other Lenten meditations on this blog:


A Sacrifice to God is a Contrite Spirit

St. Francis de Sales on Fasting

St. Francis de Sales Sermon on Fasting: Part II

Temptation: St. Francis de Sales

More on That Lesbian Communion Thing

A few more thoughts on that Lesbian communion thing:

Given the initial information available through the media, it appeared that Fr. Marcel Guarnizo was perhaps a little rash in denying Holy Communion to Barbara Johnson at her mother's funeral Mass. However, subsequent information has emerged which would vindicate the priest and suggest an ulterior motive of the self-identified lesbian woman.

How do we know the truth of the matter? I don’t know, but I have the following thoughts.

Just as the priest was judged to be premature, insensitive, and rash in denying Barbara Johnson Holy Communion in the way she described, perhaps we may also now suggest that the Archdiocese was premature, insensitive (to the priest), and rash in offering Ms. Johnson a groveling apology that perpetuates the myths that: a) there is nothing really wrong with homosexuality; b) everyone is entitled to receive Holy Communion; and c) all the rules are suspended in the context of a funeral Mass, because there might be non-Catholics there and we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings.

If the subsequent reports of what really happened are true, perhaps the Archdiocese should send Fr. Guarnizo a letter of apology.

In summary, here’s what I think...for what it's worth:

1. The woman in question should have known that she should not present herself for Holy Communion.

2.  The fact that she felt entitled to receive Holy Communion reflects poor catechesis, and I think the bishops should take the heat for this.

3.  The homosexual agenda has so permeated society – and the Church – that many priests and bishops bend over backwards to accommodate it and to avoid any political incorrectness when it comes to pointing out the grave sin and immorality of the homosexual lifestyle.

4. Time after time we see orthodox priests who are willing to defend the faith castigated and condemned by the very Church that they are protecting. And time after time, we see priests who are not faithful to the Church given a pass and allowed to continue in their practices that undermine Church teaching. Something is wrong with this picture.

Bottom line: the Church – meaning especially the bishops, but also the priests – needs to take a firm stand – publicly and assertively – about homosexuality and stop giving in to the homosexual agenda.  Homosexual behavior is sinful, and harmful to the individual and to society. Just say it!

When our shepherds start to really make this clear, then we will see some real persecution. That is unfortunate, but I believe it is true.

Let us pray that God strengthen our bishops both to defend the truth and to withstand the persecution that follows.

Meditation for Ember Friday

Here’s another meditation from Denys the Carthusian, preceded by a few biographical words. I posted the one for Wednesday here. You can read the whole exercise at this website.

A Devout Exercise of the Purgative Way  
Appointed for each day of the week

by Denys the Carthusian

Introduction by the Translator

Denys à Ryckel, better known as Denys the Carthusian, was born in the year 1402 at Ryckel, a village near St. Troud, in the Bishopric of Liège. In his twenty-first year he entered the Carthusian Order at Roermond in Holland, and there died in the year 1471 at the age of sixty-nine.

By scholastic writers he has been given the title of Doctor Ecstaticus (the Ecstatic Doctor), both from his frequently having been rapt in ecstasy, as well as from the depth and sublimity of his valuable writings on the contemplative life.

He is also, probably, the most prolific of ecclesiastical authors. His entire works, as recently re-edited, fill no less than forty-two stout quarto volumes, forming in themselves an almost complete ecclesiastical library.

...

Friday: Of Our Lord's Passion

Behold and see, my soul, how much and how dearly Christ, God's only begotten Son has loved you. He was made man for you; and for you he died a most bitter death. His sufferings verily were all the sharper from the tender fashion of his making.

See how those ruthless men seized Him and held Him, Christ Jesus, the most loving Son of God! See how they bound Him and dragged Him off. They plucked his beard and his hair, they blindfolded his lustrous eyes. They spat in his sweet face and struck his ruddy cheeks and holy lips, mocking and blaspheming as they cried: "Prophesy unto us o Christ who is he that struck You". Then, see how they led Him bound like a robber before Pilate, bore false witness against Him, the Holy of Holies, God's only Son. See Him sent to Herod and how He is sent back to Pilate. They stripped Him shamefully before the whole crowd, tied Him to a pillar and scourged Him with grievous stripes till his bones showed through the flesh. He was crowned with sharp thorns which pierced into his sacred head, and they put a purple garment on him in mockery. Watch then, as they strike his thorn-crowned head with a reed, till the blood from his forehead courses down his face, fills his eyes, oozes into his mouth and ears; and then bending the knee before Him in mockery they say: "Hail, King of the Jews"! 

My soul, behold how in such a plight, Jesus was led to the people, "bearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment": his face all dappled in blood, as the lowest of men. Recall how the raging and maddened crowd yelled out: "Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!" See Him as He stands before Pilate and Herod and says never a word, with his head bowed, the image of a patient and most meek lamb. He is condemned to death by Pilate, and see Him as they lead Him away bearing his own cross between two thieves and raise Him aloft amongst criminals. His whole body was stretched out cruelly to the dislocation of his members, the opening of veins, the numbering of all his bones. They gave Him gall and vinegar to drink and then cruelly mocked Him saying: "Let Christ the King of Israel come down now from the cross. If He be the Son of God, let Him come down. He saved others, Himself He cannot save".

Remember how hanging in agony on the cross, Christ spoke seven words, saying: "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do". To the thief he said: "This day shall you be with me in Paradise". To his most sweet mother He said: "Woman, behold your son", and to the disciple John: "Behold your mother". To his Father He cried: Eli, Eli lamma sabacthani? That is: "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?" Later, He said: "I thirst"; when they had given Him vinegar, He said: "It is finished". And lastly: "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit"; and so "bowing his head, He gave up the ghost". Oh, what was his sorrow for his sweet mother! How lovingly and patiently did He not pray for his executioners! And though he suffered agonies of thirst in his body, He thirsted yet more after our salvation, so that He suffered more in soul by his compassion than by his bodily pains.

O my soul, be not ungrateful nor unmindful of all this. Behold who is He that suffers for you. See the width and depth of his sufferings. Strive to follow in his footsteps. Learn to suffer patiently and to rejoice in adversity. In every temptation have recourse to the memory of these things: grave them deep on your heart, and time and again call them back to mind.

Other Lenten meditations on this blog:
A Sacrifice to God is a Contrite Spirit

St. Francis de Sales on Fasting

St. Francis de Sales Sermon on Fasting: Part II

Temptation: St. Francis de Sales

That Lesbian Communion Thing: My Two Cents

See an update: More on That Lesbian Communion Thing


Plenty has been said and written about the woman who was denied Holy Communion at her mother’s funeral because the priest had been told she was living in an active homosexual relationship. (For the comic relief of a great parody, see The Idiot’s Guide to Catholic News.)

Barbara Johnson

My vote, for the record: I applaud the priest for having the testicular fortitude to do what he thought was the right thing. I also think that Dr. Ed Peters and Fr. Z are likely correct in saying that what the priest did probably was not the right way to handle that particular situation.

And I vote that the Archdiocese of Washington’s letter of apology to the woman is scandalous. (See the letter below, courtesy of The Deacon’s Bench.)

Here’s why: These sentences from the letter signed by Most Reverent Barry Knestout made me scoff out loud.

It is understandable that you and your family would expect the funeral of your mother to be a time of fond remembrance of her life and comfort from the Church in the midst of family grief. I am sorry that what should have been a celebration of your mother’s life, in light of her faith in Jesus Christ, was overshadowed by a lack of pastoral sensitivity.

“Fond remembrance of her life” at the funeral Mass?! I guess I thought a funeral Mass was supposed to be a time of prayer for God’s mercy on the soul of the deceased, as well as a farewell to the deceased and an opportunity to strengthen the faith of the mourners. I guess I thought the homily at a funeral Mass was supposed to be…well, first of all, just that: a homily. Not a eulogy given by a family member, which specifically forbidden by GIRM paragraph 382. No: a homily given by the priest (or deacon) that consoles the faithful, but also exhorts them to be aware that our time on earth is short, eternity lasts a lot longer than that, and we’d better keep our souls in good shape so that we do have a chance to make it to Heaven.

Come to think of it, though, I don’t know why I think those things. I don’t believe I’ve ever been to a funeral Mass that actually followed those rules.

But that’s beside the point. I know what a funeral Mass is supposed to accomplish, because I have read what the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the General Instruction of the Roman Missal have to say about it.

And that phrase, “a celebration of your mother’s life”…at the funeral Mass?! Ummm…I just don’t believe that a funeral Mass is supposed to “celebrate” a person’s life. The Mass is our liturgical vehicle for worshipping God. It’s our highest form of prayer. We pray for the deceased at the funeral Mass, because we do not assume that the deceased was perfect and went directly to Heaven. We essentially acknowledge that there were things about the person’s life that we don’t celebrate, and we ask God’s mercy on the deceased.

As for the priest’s “lack of pastoral sensitivity”…hmph. Naturally, the Archdiocese isn’t talking about how this priest was at least watching out for the soul of the woman to whom he denied Holy Communion. What kinder thing could he do than prevent her from receiving the Body and Blood of Our Lord unworthily, thus bringing condemnation on herself?

I wonder if any pastoral priest, monsignor, or bishop from the Archdiocese of Washington has taken the time and made the effort to talk to the woman about the fact that she is living in sin, that she should not present herself for Holy Communion, that there is a hell, and that even if the priest erred, she should, in her own Christian charity, forgive him.

Just sayin’.

Slippery Slope: Justifiable Infanticide

I ended my last post with the comment:

..the validity of the logic depends on the truth of the premise. I’m afraid the world is bordering on insanity on this issue, and is willing to deny the truth in order to pursue the logic of the culture of death.

I actually wrote those words last September. A few days ago, I discovered that the world was teetering over the edge of that insanity border when I read the LifeSiteNews story that came out on February 28, 2012, entitled “Ethicists Justify Infanticide in Major Medical Journal”.

We are surely plummeting down that slippery slope now. LSN reported that:

Taking the logic of abortion to its ultimate consequence, two ethicists have argued that “killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be.”

[The writers] have made the case that since both the unborn baby and the newborn do not have the moral status of actual persons and are consequently morally irrelevant, what they call “after-birth abortion” should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is perfectly healthy.

There are no words to describe how sick and perverted that reasoning is. But it is the logical consequence of both the abortive and contraceptive mind sets that prevail in this country.

All these ethicists are doing is coming up with twisted reasoning and re-definition of terms in order to justify the killing of newborns. They are blunt in the words they use, but intellectually dishonest in their re-definition of terms. Have you read the actual paper? It is available here.

Here’s an example of their convoluted reasoning (all emphases mine):

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.

Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.

At least the authors of that paper are honest enough to admit that they are talking about “killing newborns” – a phrase they use a number of times.  And they are chillingly and brutally honest about the fact that they believe that “what’s best for the child” is not at all of concern. They dodge the entire issue of whether a baby with a disability or disease would be able to live a “meaningful” or “acceptable” life simply by acknowledging that “it is hard to find definitive arguments to the effect that life with certain pathologies is not worth living”, and then focusing on the needs of others, whose rights take precedence over the rights of the person to be killed:

Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

Gee, if only their parents had had the option...NOT.

In other words, because it is permissible to abort an unborn baby who is prenatally diagnosed with a debilitating disorder or disease, it’s also permissible and morally neutral to kill the newborn who was not diagnosed prenatally, but showed up with debilitating symptoms at birth. It’s not about whether “life is worth living” for the baby; it’s about whether life is worth living (for the family) with the baby.

Not only this, but the authors add other situations that justify killing a newborn:

…or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.

So…if the parent(s) simply change their minds about “wanting” the child, it should be permissible for them to kill the baby. This is simply exalting the self above another human being. It is diabolical.

The authors also attempt to forestall any “personhood” arguments. They deny the “actual” personhood of the unborn and the newborn child, but placate us with an acknowledgement that these little ones are “potential persons”:

Although fetuses and newborns are not persons, they are potential persons because they can develop, thanks to their own biological mechanisms, those properties which will make them ‘persons’ in the sense of ‘subjects of a moral right to life’: that is, the point at which they will be able to make aims and appreciate their own life.

Yet, they claim that it does not make sense to claim that a fetus or newborn is “harmed” by being denied the chance to develop into an “actual” person:

However, whereas you can benefit someone by bringing her into existence (if her life is worth living), it makes no sense to say that someone is harmed by being prevented from becoming an actual person. The reason is that, by virtue of our definition of the concept of ‘harm’ in the previous section, in order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm.

If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. So, if you ask one of us if we would have been harmed, had our parents decided to kill us when we were fetuses or newborns, our answer is ‘no’, because they would have harmed someone who does not exist (the ‘us’ whom you are asking the question), which means no one. And if no one is harmed, then no harm occurred.

Sort of like the age old question: if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to witness it...Oh dear. If you buy this, I have some ocean-view property in Arizona I would like to sell you. This is double-speak, pure and simple. It is false logic because it is based on the false premise that the fetus or newborn is not an “actual” person.

What about adoption? Surely these ethicists might agree that since the baby is actually born, adoption would surely be the preferred option if the parents truly do not want their child. No…they again cater to their perception of the needs of the mother, completely denying the right to life of the child.

…[W]e also need to consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption. Birthmothers are often reported to experience serious psychological problems due to the inability to elaborate their loss and to cope with their grief. It is true that grief and sense of loss may accompany both abortion and after-birth abortion as well as adoption, but we cannot assume that for the birthmother the latter is the least traumatic. For example, ‘those who grieve a death must accept the irreversibility of the loss, but natural mothers often dream that their child will return to them. This makes it difficult to accept the reality of the loss because they can never be quite sure whether or not it is irreversible’.

Wow. I do believe these ethicists have forgotten to do their homework on the psychological effects of abortion on women. As we know, those effects are profound and long-lasting, even when the abortion was performed on a “clump of cells” and the mother had not even seen her baby. Imagine the devastating psychological and emotional after-effects of giving birth to a baby and then authorizing the child’s death!

But, then, it’s all about the actual people, not the potential people, according to these ethicists:

…[T]the rights and interests of the actual people involved should represent the prevailing consideration in a decision about abortion and after-birth abortion.

And just exactly when does the “potential” person become an “actual” person? The authors don’t really know. But they know you can’t wait too long:

…[W]e do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for nonmedical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.

So these “ethicists” have opened the Pandora’s box of the killing of human beings whom others have decided are a “burden”, and they have left the window of time for such killings to occur up to other “experts”.  We are on the slippery slope, we are much closer to the abyss, and the grade is getting steeper.

I suggested in my earlier post that the difference between the killing of an unborn baby by an abortionist versus the killing of a newborn baby by the mother is only a separation of a small slice of time and the difference of physical location. Now these “ethicists” have made that difference even smaller.

It is a small step from here to killing other defenseless individuals who are deemed to be a “burden” on their families – those with profound disabilities, extreme retardation, lack of cognitive ability…coma…persistent “vegetative” state…elderly…etc. Do you see where this is going? When the family gets tired of dealing with the “burden” – who we can re-classify as not an “actual” person because of a lack of awareness, or for whatever reasons we want – then the person can be killed.

And just a little farther down the slope will come the declaration that, even if the family does not consider the individual a burden, society might – especially if social and medical services are being provided at a cost to the state (as in…hmm…Obamacare).

Here’s one more telling paragraph from the article:

…[A]s we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence. Actual people’s well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of. …[S]ince non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions. We might still have moral duties towards future generations in spite of these future people not existing yet…This argument, however, does not apply to this particular newborn or infant, because we are not justified in taking it for granted that she will exist as a person in the future. Whether she will exist is exactly what our choice is about.

That last sentence bears repeating:

Whether she will exist is exactly what our choice is about.

If that is not “playing God”, I don’t know what is.

Related: Logical Consequence: Infanticide

Logical Consequences: Infanticide

In light of the recent news of the “ethicists” who have written a paper justifying infanticide – which they call “after-birth abortion” – I am re-posting a previous post called “Logical Consequences”. That was in September 2011 – just a few short months ago.

I concluded the post with the comment:

…the validity of the logic depends on the truth of the premise. I’m afraid the world is bordering on insanity on this issue, and is willing to deny the truth in order to pursue the logic of the culture of death.

That logic – the logic of the culture of death – is what is being put forth in the “infanticide” paper. I will be posting more about that later (go here for the new post).

[In September 2011] LifeSiteNews ran a story with the headline “Shock: No jail time for woman who strangled newborn because Canada accepts abortion, says judge”.

Shocked? Well, yes and no. I’ve thought for years that this is the logical outcome of acceptance of abortion, but I guess I never really thought it would happen. I remember reading a story years ago about a college girl who gave birth in a bathroom and then put the baby in a trash can. I remember the horror I felt at such a thing happening, but also remember thinking about the ludicrous fact that while she was condemned for her actions and did some jail time, abortionists are killing thousands of babies each day and yet what they are doing is legal. What is the difference between what the college girl did and the abortionist does? It is only a separation of a small slice of time and the difference of physical location.

I’ve also thought about the laws we have regarding unborn babies. For one thing, of course, abortion is legal (not safe and rare, as its proponents say they would like). It is therefore legal to kill an unborn child. But wait…if a pregnant woman is murdered and her unborn baby also dies, there’s a double murder. Wikipedia’s entry on the subject says, “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

7 months along, in mother's womb

 So, it’s okay to kill some unborn babies, but not others. How do we know when it’s okay and when it’s not? It depends on whether the baby is “wanted”. That begs the question, “Wanted by whom?” Even if the mother says she does not “want” her baby, others often do: the baby’s father, the baby’s grandparents, and even unrelated strangers who would love to adopt the child.

The incongruity of the law on the subject of the killing of unborn children is evident also in the push to pass a “Personhood” amendment to the Constitution. This amendment would essentially define the “fetus” as a person. That would make it difficult to justify the legality of abortion. So there is a war going on right now in that arena, because pro-abortion groups know they must prevent that amendment from becoming reality if they are to stay in business.

Here are the two lines of thinking:

1)      the “fetus” is not a person, not a child, not entitled to life, until a particular milestone has been reached. This milestone must be defined by law, and “logically” we would engage scientific which means to determine that milestone. This won’t happen, though; science has already stipulated that life begins at conception. That’s why the groups following this line of reasoning are intent on “clarifying” the exact date a fetus is aware of pain, or is “viable”, or is cognitively aware of itself (this last definition is being pushed by some extremists and bodes much ill for all mankind. Think about it.)

2)     the “fetus” is a person from the moment of conception. If that is true, then the life of every unborn baby is to be protected by the same laws that protect “born” people. That means no abortion. None. For NO reason.

There are logical consequences of each way of thinking. But remember: the validity of the logic depends on the truth of the premise. I’m afraid the world is bordering on insanity on this issue, and is willing to deny the truth in order to pursue the logic of the culture of death.

See also: Slippery Slope: Justifiable Infanticide