Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Two stories hit the news in the past couple of days. One involved Princeton Professor Peter Singer, who claims to be "guiding a new generation through the moral intricacies of bioethics, in his book Practical Ethics. Even the title of Singer’s book suggests the level of his confusion. The word ethics, in my favorite dictionary definition, is simply what ought to be, what is just, good and reasonable. Practical is an adjective which generally means an action that is ordinarily done. And what is it that Singer thinks the American culture ought to practically to about defective children? He says parents ought to be permitted to kill their imperfectly formed children within 30 days of birth. He says infants under one month of age have no human consciousness.
Of course, it would logically follow that ANYONE who has no "human consciousness" by his new definition ought to also be subject to the same fate. So, not only should parents be able to kill their defective infants, using that logic or "practical ethics" when one’s parent becomes defective, having no "human consciousness," perhaps as the result of Alzheimer’s disease, adult children ought also to be permitted to kill their aged parents.
Undoubtedly that will happen sometime in the future also. It’s a natural progression of the pro-abortion argument. One would have thought that the millions of people who died as a result of Adolf Hitler thinking along this line would have been sufficient to get us through the 20th century without it cropping up again at Princeton University, no less. But, apparently it wasn’t.
At this point, of course, more unborn children around the world have been killed through the simple expedient of declaring them non-persons than were killed by Nazi Germany AND the USSR. It was through the Dred Scott decision of 1857 by the U.S. Supreme Court, which stated that Negroes were not "persons," that permitted the notion that it was "OK" to own black slaves. After all, they weren’t people. A majority on the 1857 Supreme Court would have fully understood Singer’s Practical Ethics. It was the same kind of "Practical Ethics," i.e. ethics totally disconnected from any notion of a Creator, which permitted a their decision to declare Dred Scott "not a person within the meaning of the Constitution."
That decision was finally reversed by a bloody civil war and a constitutional amendment.
The other strange logic which surfaced this week involved a pregnant 12 year old girl in England who wanted to have her baby and not abort it, in spite of extreme pressure on her by pro-abortion teachers and social workers. After the girl’s unemployed father approached Scotland’s Monsignor Tom Connelly and asked for financial assistance to allow the girl, who is now six months pregnant, to have the baby, pro-abortion forces attacked the Catholic Church.
"Offering advice like this to someone so young ignores the long-term difficulties that somebody in this position may have, of depression, disrupted education, significant health problems," says Anne Marie McKay of Family Planning in Scotland.
Dr Geoff Scobie, a senior psychology lecturer at Glasgow University, said that many young mothers were simply not mature enough to cope with the demands of childbirth.
He said: "A 12-year-old can not function as an independent person and she can not look after the child herself."
Really now? She apparently functioned sufficiently as an independent person to find the time and opportunity to have sex with a classmate of the same age, who was also functioning as an independent person.
"The physical and psychological demands for a single parent are great as it is, but for a 12-year-old they are devastating. These girls have to be able to live out their own childhood before they take on the heavy responsibility of child-rearing. In many cases, the pressure can lead to long-term psychological harm," Scobie said. That makes me wonder exactly when Dr. Scobie thinks childhood ends. In many religions the age of 12 is the age selected for ceremonies that mark the end of "childhood" - and the beginning of responsibility - the Bar Mitzvah and the Baptist Church age for baptism come to mind. Some churches put the age of accountability younger than 12. In earlier generations in America, for example, the age of accountability to be able to marry without parental consent was 16. Both of my brothers went into the armed forces during World War II at the age of 17 and I married shortly after World War II at age 17. Today young people in their twenties are still at home, still considered "too young" to be able to make it on their own.
This situation in Scotland has led to a truly vicious attack on the Roman Catholic Church. The Church operates a Pro-Life Initiative to provide an alternative program for young women who do not want an abortion, but do not have the money to have the baby. The girl’s unemployed parents, who live in England, contacted the Monsignor Connelly in Scotland asking for help. The general consensus of the pro-abortionists is that it was WRONG for the Monsignor to GIVE the family any help.
Dr Scobie believes it is inappropriate for the Catholic Church to offer help because it cannot give impartial advice. He said: "If another body was offering help to the 12-year-old with no strings attached then perhaps that would be acceptable. That would allow her to make her own decision. However, the Roman Catholic Church has a very entrenched position and they can’t possibly say they are allowing children to make up their own mind."
"By providing the resources, they are making sure that the girl doesn’t break their perspective on abortion. It seems to me that inevitably they are bringing moral pressure on the girl, which can be very damaging."
Are we supposed to believe that Dr. Scobie does NOT have an entrenched position? The girl and the boy who are in this mess, along with their parents, should be making the decision without the added trauma of busybody teachers, social workers, abortion vendors and Dr. Scobie. Scobie and the other pro-abortionists are obviously bringing immoral pressure on the girl. Why can’t the Catholic Church bring moral pressure on her? That’s what churches do - they exert a little "moral pressure" every Sunday to encourage their flocks to live moral lives.
ABC news announced the story by reporting that "Abortion-rights groups call it bribery" for the Catholic Church to help the family. While ABC reported that "The church has not said how much money it will give the girl," a Glascow newspaper reported that Roseann Reddy, who works for the Church’s Pro-Life Initiative, said the money would go towards providing baby clothes and other basic materials. That doesn’t sound like much of a bribery to me - especially since the girl and her parents ASKED for help.
Jane Roe, of the Abortion Law Reform Association, says that "principles have taken precedence over common sense." In her opinion, Cardinal Connelly’s assistance "encourages a 12-year-old to consider that it is all right to have a child, that it is emotionally the best thing for her.
"Young girls," she says, "have a very rosy view of what a baby means and it is incredible that they cannot get the reality put clearly. There is absolutely no chance that a girl of 12 can understand. Of course a girl of 12 will be determined to have her child. Children of that age are determined to do a lot of silly things. They should be helped to understand what this is going to mean for the rest of their lives. They are losing their childhood and the Catholic Church is putting religious principle before their welfare."
That has to be one of the stupidest, most condescending statements ever made in the abortion debate. Note that Roe didn’t indicate it was not all right to have SEX at age 12 - only that it was not all right to have a CHILD at age 12. In fact, the big issue among abortion advocates and suppliers here and at the United Nations is "Reproductive Rights for Minors" which is a demand that minor children have a basically unfettered right to sexual intercourse, and, should pregnancy occur, the right to unilaterally obtain an abortion without parental knowledge. In fact, we are learning from the harsh criticism of Monsignor Connelly, the minor child not only has the RIGHT to an abortion in their view, but actually should not be allowed to have the baby even if she WANTS to.
What is occurring here is that the abortion advocates fail to understand basic human nature. You can’t tell young people that they have the "right" to ignore their parents teachings, and they have the "right" to sex, and they have a "right" to some vague thing known as "reproductive rights", and they have a "right" to an abortion without telling their parents - but, if they decide to have the baby, they don’t have the "right" to make that decision because they are "losing their childhood" or they are "too young" to know what’s best for them.
Once a girl, whatever her age, decides to become sexually active, she has already arbitrarily ended her childhood. Having babies is considered an adult role in every culture on earth - until the modern era. The abortion rights lobby has spent the last 30 years convincing America that sex is a play thing for the children and the irresponsible and when pregnancy happens abortion is the solution to all problems. What they are facing with the 12 year old is a child who cannot be easily managed. She has taken their statements at face value and has concluded she has "rights" to decide for herself. And what she decided does not fit in with the abortion lobby’s anti-population, anti-family agenda, so you have the international media reporting totally ridiculous statements from pro-abortionists who are now facing young people who have taken their statements about "rights" seriously.
I rather suspect that this won’t be the last young woman who decides to ignore the abortion lobbyists and go her own way. The abortion lobby just need to get used to living with the situation THEY created.
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com
Also see Church Paid Pregnant 12-Year-Old To Keep Baby
Will Having a Baby Ruin the Childhood of a 12 Year Old Girl?
Will Having Sex Ruin the Childhood of a 12 Year Old Girl?
Will Having an abortion Ruin the Childhood of a 12 Year Old Girl?
Will Having a Baby Ruin the Childhood of a 12 Year Old Girl?
YES, but people can help her through the lost. We all lost something in life but while we live there is so much more to obtain. If we have the future, we can have so much more.
Will Having an abortion Ruin the Childhood of a 12 Year Old Girl?
Well it will surely ruin the childhood of the unborn baby!
It was either Adolf Hitler or Monica Lewinsky, I can't remember which, who said, "The only Good Fetus us a Dead Fetus!"
I am in favor of Post Partum Abortions for politicians up to age 90. I call it the voters right to choose.
>>Will Having a Baby Ruin the Childhood of a 12 Year Old Girl?<<
A rosy-eyed, romantic question, typical of the modernist theorem that we can constantly reinvent our selves, and undo inconvenient acts and inconvenient ideas.
Her childhood was over nine months ago. Get used to it.
I am in favor of Post Partum Abortions for politicians up to age 90. I call it the voters right to choose.
:)
Amen.
I know. Don't you love how people word things. If I had my choice, I would of titled it...
"Will murdering a twelve year old girls baby, have any effect on her?"
Her childhood was over nine months ago. Get used to it.
Morally, she assumed a parent's role when she voluntarily had sex. If she cannot care for the child, then it should be adopted. And of course she ruined her childhood.
Isn't it mind-boggling how the liberal mind-set is just a complex scheme to have your cake and eat it too? She should be allowed to have sex, AND preserve her childhood.
What about adoption?? That would free up the child from caring for her child and give a good home to the baby. Yes, it's traumatic to give a baby up, I'm sure. But, it would be more traumatic for her to murder her unborn child, no matter what the pro-death crowd says.
Will Having a Baby Ruin the Childhood of a 12 Year Old Girl?
Who knows, but aborting the fetus will sure as hell ruin ITS childhood...
Excellent!!!!!
He said: "A 12-year-old can not function as an independent person and she can not look after the child herself."
Dr Scobie believes it is inappropriate for the Catholic Church to offer help because it cannot give impartial advice. He said: "If another body was offering help to the 12-year-old with no strings attached then perhaps that would be acceptable. That would allow her to make her own decision. However, the Roman Catholic Church has a very entrenched position and they can’t possibly say they are allowing children to make up their own mind."
Is it just me or is there a logical conflict here? This girl is so young that she is "incapable of functioning as an independent person", yet the church is wrong for not "allowing children to make up their own mind".
Your #10 says it all.
I voluntarily started giving up my own "childhood" on my first day of kindergarden when after 2 hours I left and walked home announcing to my mother that I wasn't going back to be trained to grow up to be a bead stringer. Needless to say, she sent me back with a sore bottom.
By the age of 8 I decided that play was total BS and got myself a paper route. At 9 I taught myself to weld so that I could help the 16 year old neighbor channel his 32 coupe, he wasn't very mechanically adept. I also had to port and relieve his flat head. The car did make the cover of Rod and Custom in 1948 or 49. At 12 I drove my first dragster at Santa Ana and went all of 128, still fast in those days. At 14 I started plastering for my fathers company, my insistance.
At 62, I don't regret one minute of not engaging in the BS of play and wouldn't go back and change it one bit.
Dr Scobie believes it is inappropriate for the xxxxxx to offer help because it cannot give impartial advice
Anyone that says such things should never be listened to again, as it is undeniable proof of a lack of logic and reasoning functions...
Although, this article is a fairly good analysis of the situation. The one thing that struck me, which all of the replies point out, is that nothing happens in a vacumn. Pro-Aborts never mention the 12 year old Father, never mention the fact that the unemployed parents( who presumably had plenty of time to watch what this young girl was up to) have some responsibility in this situation. And when someone steps in to help resolve this issue in a way that will save both childrens lives, who do the Aborts criticize, the ones that want to help.
The only thing that will make this bunch happy is a DEAD baby. They are disgusting.
Good points. The best option for all involved would be giving the baby up for adoption. 12 years old is really far too young to care for a baby. Her parents would undoubtedly assume the responsibility. (although they didn't do so good with their daughter.)
What shocks me is the age of this girl. I have ten-year old girls (twins) and I cannot imagine how this girl got herself pregnant. Where were her parents?
He said: "A 12-year-old can not function as an independent person
To carry your point about the logical inconsistency of the pro-aborts about the dependence issue further, it would also true that by Singer's logic, the 12-year-old could be killed for the same reason. These pro-death people are criminally insane.
It's a good article, but the wording about the 12-year-old deciding to "have the baby" is weak. The mom already has the baby. The only question now is whether she will have a live baby or a dead one.
Cordially,
That is about the best for the child but I hope someday we can start teaching (with the world together) that sex at that age is wrong! Also any man that violates that age is sent to jail for a very long time.
My daughters started baby sitting when they were twelve. They could raise a child at age twelve. Of course they would need help from grandpa and grandma, but that's the case no matter what age someone becomes a mother.
TG7,
What's the source of that AE-P piece, the Telegraph? That's excellent (as is all his stuff.) And, btw, you nailed it with your first reply!
Your right! There are plenty of issues here. I'm really tired of the quick fix culture we live in, even if it means we have to kill , Unborn Babies., severly ill or disabled, etc, etc. Killing a Baby certainly is not taking responsibility. There are plenty of people involved that should feel guilty about this situation, but the only truely innocent is the baby , and they want to kill it. God help us.
Clearly demonstrates what I've said many times, that the people who call themselves "pro-choice" are really pro-abortion. This "woman" (child, really) has made her choice, but they don't like it one bit! When the Church steps in to help her live out her choice, they go apoplectic. If the Church of England had offered to pay for her to kill her baby, they'd think that was just peachy.
They aren't "pro-choice," and they don't give a d*mn about the girl. They just want her baby dead. Murderers!
I couldn't believe it when I read about this yesterday! The abortionist attitude is too, too, silly and idiotic to even comment on. I'm glad this author was able to put into words my thoughts. What a crazy world we are living end. Lord Jesus, come quickly!
Clearly demonstrates what I've said many times, that the people who call themselves "pro-choice" are really pro-abortion. This "woman" (child, really) has made her choice, but they don't like it one bit!
Great point! I've always felt that "pro-choice" was a complete lie.
Dr Scobie believes it is inappropriate for the Catholic Church to offer help because it cannot give impartial advice. He said: "If another body was offering help to the 12-year-old with no strings attached then perhaps that would be acceptable. That would allow her to make her own decision. However, the Roman Catholic Church has a very entrenched position and they can’t possibly say they are allowing children to make up their own mind."
Wonder how long it will be before abortionists lobby for laws limiting involvement of churches or other faith groups to help pregnant women. Wonder how long before abortionists try to involve child protective services agencies in declaring parents, like the parents of this 12-year old, as abusive because they are "letting" their daughter have her baby. Bet both will happen in the next year or so.
Yikes, but seems about right in this day and age. The same folks who say it's okay for a 12-year-old to choose sex and murder, will be the first on the block to cry child abuse!
Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20
THANK YOU!
I honestly think that you are 100% correct...
The idea that "childhood" should be 18 years of
irresponsability and play instead of a time to learn to
cope with and work with the rest of your life is one that
needs to be hammered HARD.
Oriental cultures as well as our own frontier culture shows
that "children" are fully capable of having responsability
and taking care of business especially if they have guidance
and assistance from the adults in the local community.
These days, we keep hearing that children "are not mature
enough" for this and that...BS...they can be as responsable
and mature as they are taught to be. (Always keeping in mind that their
peers are one of the most significant sources of input to
their lives...often overriding what their parents are trying
to impart to them.) The concept of "extended childhood" is
one that contributes significantly to the problems that we
see in youth today...Children should be given responsability
as soon as they can reach the sink and start washing dishes
(or bringing in wood, feeding the dog, picking up trash,
etc). Teaching them that "play" is good and "work" is bad
instead of showing them that work has it's own rewards
is why so many are unwilling to take responsability for themselves and consequently look to the government to take
care of them when they become "adults" at 18.
As an aside, I know several 12 year olds that do a much
better job of taking care of their younger brothers and sisters than other people who are in their 20's and 30's
take care of their kids.
Note: I certainly do not approve of 12 year olds having sex
and children, particularly in our society, but, she
certainly knew what the consequences would be and I think
that the best thing that could happen would be for her
to
have to become the adult that she wants to act like.
Of course, parents, peers, society, etc will probably not
let that occur...after all, she is "just a child".
By the age of 8 I decided that play was total BS and got myself a paper route. At 9 I taught myself to weld so that I could help the 16 year old neighbor channel his 32 coupe, he wasn't very mechanically adept. I also had to port and relieve his flat head. The car did make the cover of Rod and Custom in 1948 or 49. At 12 I drove my first dragster at Santa Ana and went all of 128, still fast in those days.
How old were you before you learned to use the force, build your own droid and win a pod race?
TS 8-)
(can you guess what kind of board I just scanned before coming over here ....??)
Ms. Roe makes a lot of statements, but leaves out the most important part, the parents.
"Young girls," she says, "have a very rosy view of what a baby means
The parents have a very realistic view.
There is absolutely no chance that a girl of 12 can understand.
The parents understand exactly what is going on.
Children of that age are determined to do a lot of silly things.
The parents know this is a serious matter.
They should be helped to understand what this is going to mean for the rest of their lives.
The parents now exactly what this means for the rest of her life. Because they care about her more than anybody else, they are the best people to explain to her what it will mean.
Kind of like believing that anyone who has been divorced a half dozen times or so, would make a gifted marriage councilor.
I don't know why you're assuming that these parents care so much about this poor little girl. Where were they when their little girl was having sex with the neighborhood boy? And did they teach her that her body was off limits to all boys except her future husband? And maybe they're just hoping to get some welfare money for the poor little baby, instead of doing the right thing & giving the baby up for adoption? Not all parents have their children's best interests in mind. Sometimes they care only about themselves & only have children because they were too innattentive or too horny to use birth control.(And no, I don't believe that abortion is acceptable in this situation)
Kind of like believing that anyone who has been divorced a half dozen times or so, would make a gifted marriage councilor.
More like believing a couple that had managed to stay married through the good times and the bad would make good marriage councelors.
I don't know why you're assuming that these parents care so much about this poor little girl. . Where were they when their little girl was having sex with the neighborhood boy? And did they teach her that her body was off limits to all boys except her future husband?
Are you suggesting that parents should watch their children 24 hours a day? That's impossible for any parent to do.
Maybe they did teach her to wait until marriage. Do children always follow the teachings of their parents? There are many influences upon a child's behavior besides their parents.
And maybe they're just hoping to get some welfare money for the poor little baby, instead of doing the right thing & giving the baby up for adoption?
Is giving the baby up for adoption always the right thing? Maybe the parents are young enough that they plan on raising the child themselves.
I've never bought into the welfare mother argument too much. It has always seemed to me that the time, cost, and effort of raising a child outweighs any measly payment the government makes. If they are out for the money, what should we do? Should we force people to have abortions to lower welfare payments?
Not all parents have their children's best interests in mind.
Are you seriously suggesting they want to harm their daughter? It is one thing for a parent not to care about their child. It is another thing to say a parent wants to hurt their child. I haven't seen any stories saying childrens services had taken her away from her parents for child abuse. Have you?
Who is the most likely to care about the girl? One year, ten years, fifty years from now this girl will barely be a memory to most of the people in this story. But the parents will still be her parents, and she will still be their daughter, and they still will have a relationship.
Children know plenty about getting into trouble. They don't know alot about what to do after they get into trouble. It seems to me the parents are taking steps to ensure that a bad situation doesn't become worse.
True compassion means the willingness to be with another, to share the ups and downs of the journey while always seeking the other person's highest good. God the Father is the source of all true comapssion. He sent Jesus to share in our human condition, and Jesus sent the Spirit to remain with us. The Catholic Church is demonstrating true compassion toward this girl in its willingness to walk with her in her difficult situation for the sake of the best outcome for her as well as for her baby. The pro-abortionists are demonstrating false compassion in their alleged concern for the girl. They do not want to walk with her or share in her condition at all, but to change the journey for her as well as her baby in ways destructive to both. If this girl brings her baby to term and gives the child up for adoption, she will suffer in the short run but ultimately remember the love and care shown to her and be able to be glad of her baby's life. If she were to have an abortion, she would always remember the baby she had killed and her interior suffering would go on indefinitely, despite any comforts. There is no compassion whatsoever in encouraging her to choose death and ongoing anguish when she can choose enduring life and thanksgiving.
I have no idea what you are talking about, I assume that those are computer games, I have never played one. I consider a computer a tool and not a toy and really have no interest in playing games on one.
Beautifully stated Jim. I couldn't agree more!!!
"I have no idea what you are talking about"
He was referring to Star Wars... Young Anniken (sp?) Skywalker was an impressive person at a very young age. Kind of like you!
Old enough to make a decision to abort a child independent of her parents but not old enough to make a decision to bear a child with her parent's support. Illogical.
I honestly think that you are 100% correct... The idea that "childhood" should be 18 years of irresponsability and play instead of a time to learn to cope with and work with the rest of your life is one that needs to be hammered HARD. Oriental cultures as well as our own frontier culture shows that "children" are fully capable of having responsability and taking care of business especially if they have guidance and assistance from the adults in the local community.
According to Josh McDowell, the industrial age was the beginning of a decline in morals in this country. Before the industrial age began, boys worked by their fathers' sides, learning the family business (farming, mercantile, blacksmith, etc.)and learning values. The closeness of the father and son allowed for the father to impart wisdom and right from wrong to his son.
We now mostly have fathers who are workaholics, either because of personal drive or because the company expects it, or are not in the home at all where children (especially boys) can interact with them in the real world. The decline has been going on for decades. It didn't just start in the past 20-30 years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |