Skip to comments.Judge: No Jail for Newborn’s Killer Because Abortion is Accepted
Posted on 10/08/2012 12:19:55 PM PDT by Paladins Prayer
When the great philosopher G.K. Chesterton said, Let all the babies be born. Then let us drown those we do not like, he wasnt advocating infanticide but was just making a point. Unfortunately, though, were getting closer to a time when people would take his words literally. An example of this is a judges decision in Canada that a woman who strangled her newborn baby shouldnt be incarcerated because Canadians failure to criminalize abortion indicates that they sympathize with the mother.
...So Justice Veits decision seems to make no sense whatsoever; that is, unless you look beyond the facts of the case and into the philosophy of the times.
First, Justice Veit exhibits something common to leftist judges: reference to a mythical majority consensus to justify the imposition of her own values. In other words, she claims that Canadians generally understand, accept and sympathize with such mothers, but did she conduct a poll? In point of fact, Effert had been convicted of second-degree murder by two juries, which, while not a scientific sample, are certainly a better barometer of public attitude than a judges fancy. Justice Veits claim smacks of when judges rule contrary to the peoples will in rubber-stamping faux marriage and then claim theyre interpreting a constitution to suit the times.
Veits decision also reflects the modernistic mistake of elevating emotion over reason. While she should be governed by transcendent principles such as justice, she instead talks about feelings: how people sympathize and grieve for the mother. But should emotion-based consensus opinion carry the day? Would we visit medieval torture upon a criminal if that was what the public wanted? This would be entirely democratic, but the very reason modern governments craft constitutions is to ensure that we wont be subject to the caprice of the masses....
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
Well, others of us have our own lists of humans that get on our nerves. It's time for our rights to be recognized too! /s
Maybe someone should perform a late-in-life, post-partum abortion on the judge.
I am quoting this because it's so important:
But we should expect nothing but the subordination of transcendent principles to emotion when people dont believe in transcendent principles. And many today dont because relativism has swept the West.
If people believe in Absolute Truth as Christendom did until relatively recently, when it just became a dom they will refer to it when making moral decisions. But when they cannot say, Here are these principles that exist apart from man, and transcend him, and thus we must govern our lives with them, what is left to refer to? What will be the yardstick if there is nothing above man?
To be precise, mans emotion.
Some will now object and say that reason should be preeminent, but this reflects a misunderstanding of reason. Reason is not an answer it is a method by which we find answers. This presupposes that there are answers to be found. But if there is no Truth, there can be no answers to moral questions, and then there is no reason for reason. And then we are left with nothing but If it feels good, do it. Is it any wonder this has become a mantra of the modern age?
When this is your mindset, of paramount importance will be your feelings and those of others that is, if you feel they should be considered. This is why politically incorrect feelings are given short shrift today; it is why moderns selectively use offensiveness as a guide for hate-speech codes and laws, ignoring umbrage taken by non-victim groups. And it is why Justice Veit Justice, what a noble title for someone wholly unacquainted with the principle felt that feeling sorry for a murderer and reference to others alleged feelings legitimized slap-on-the-wrist injustice.