Abortion is already accepted by so many, can outright killing of infants already born be far behind? That thought is very scary indeed and, if these ideas do become “normalized,” we are in for some very dark, evil times for our nation and world.
Eugenics. The curse that keeps on taking
Statements of one who’s voting record supports infanticide (starts on page 85 of the transcript). Take a person for their own words and actions. And here is the proof of those words and actions.
Father Tham explained that a ‘domino effect’ has propelled this progression, with infanticide having developed from the acceptance of contraception, abortion and, now, euthanasia.
We’re already pretty far down the track. I’ll be surprised if acceptance of infanticide takes as long as 50 years.
I was thinking the same thing.
How is it any scarier than abortion? It’s certainly no more morally objectionable, murder is murder.
Maybe it will finally shock people to their senses about the evils we already tolerate.
I find it very odd to think that infanticide will be normalized in 50 years (or less). Fr. Tham, of course, is entitled to his opinions, but they seem pretty far-fetched to me.
I agree, it is not scarier than abortion, it is just as evil and morally unacceptable and a baby dies in either case. However, in some folks’ minds, abortion does not kill a baby. They cannot use that same excuse with infanticide, but the scary part is that that apparently would not matter to them. They would somehow “justify” killing infants just as a certain candidate running for POTUS has done.
Infanticide is already being practiced in some places as an adjunct to abortion. If a baby survives abortion, he or she may be killed anyway on the theory that it was not intended to survive. (That was the impetus behind the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, I believe.)
And Professor Singer, professor of Ethics (!) at Princeton University, has written articles advancing the idea that newborns should not be granted legal personhood for up to 30 days after birth, in case there are unknown physical defects which turn up; thus the child could be aborted up to 30 days post birth. But of course that’s an entirely arbitrary line.
And the euthanasia movement advances the idea that the elderly, if not sufficiently cognizant by our standards, may not be ‘persons’ within the protection of the law.
The fact that laws ACTUALLY had to be written to protect children born alive from an abortion (doctors are suppose to do all they can to save a life) is a sad statement of how far the abortion and eugenics movements have come in manipulating the general population. It’s sad that in our sickness we follow the evil shepard in so many ways. Taking our heads out of the sand and maybe being hit by a two-by-four to see reality for what it TRULY is, may be a good start.
I don’t think this is far-fetched at all. People thought it was far-fetched when the Pope said the introduction of the birth control pill was going to lead to more abortions and divorces. I think that was accurate.
Sorry, but it is fairly well established now. 25 years ago a local news station here in Boston did an expose of infanticide at Boston hospitals.
Established now. Normalized in…?
The OP says 50 years. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it made legal in the United States in ten or fifteen years - in Canada (where I live), maybe five or ten years later. We tend to follow in the footsteps of the Americans.
It won’t take 50 years. We’re dabbling in it now with partial birth abortions. I’d say more like 15 years.
We are about to elect to the office of President of the United States a man who among his few times not voting ‘present’ in Illinois state legislature voted against a bill outlawing infanticide. Not saying normalization of infanticide is going to happen but I wouldn’t call it far-fetched, either.
I think it may very well happen and if it does it will be sold the same way many evil things are, such as abortion or euthanasia. It will be said to be a merciful choice.
29 years ago I couldn’t figure out why the nurses I had worked with hated the doctor who was present when DD was born. I later found out that a baby had been born with a defect, omphalocele, and rather than try to do anything for the child she wrapped him up in a towel, handed him to the nurse and said “Take it to the morgue.” Nurse left the delivery room, unwrapped baby and found that it was alive. She immediately called another doctor to come and treat him. OB/GYN was furious that her orders hadn’t been obeyed, so obviously for her infanticide was no biggie.
Legalization is different from normalization. Legalization? I suspect within the next 15 to 20 years, assuming that present cultural and societal conditions continue in the current trajectory.
Princeton philosoper Peter Singer has already argued not only for abortion but for infantcide in cases of deformity. He argues from a utilitarian framework. Infantcide is no longer unthinkable. Ideas have consequences.
From Humanae Vitae:
*Consequences of Artificial Methods
- Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards.* Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
- Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective*? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
Pope Paul VI repeated many times in private and public addresses his prophetic warnings as to what the consequences of the acceptance of artificial contraception would entail. The past 40 years have borne out the truth of his words.