It’s so clear…when you hear it clearly stated
It’s all those obfuscations and distortions that fool people into thinking that ‘reproductive justice’ and ‘the woman’s right to choose’ (both descriptions used by Sen. Barack Obama) is anything other than killing unborn children at any stage of their development.
In Guatamala City this week, Cardinal Rodolfo Quezada Toruno called it what it is.
Referring to pro-abortion and feminist groups who are working to make abortion a “right†for women, Cardinal Quezada stressed that abortion will always be a crime and that “there are some things we must call by their name. A crime can never be turned into a right,†he said.
“No one, under any circumstances, can assume the right to directly kill an innocent human being,†the cardinal underscored.
“It is just as serious to kill a 10 year-old child or a 20 year-old adult as it is to kill a baby in his mother’s womb,†he went on.
Princeton ethicist Peter Singer, who notoriously supports infanticide up to ‘the age of reason’, actually makes this same point, in all intellectual honesty.
For instance, in a 2006 interview Singer was asked point-blank: “Would you kill a disabled baby?” His response? “Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole.”
“Many people find this shocking,” he continued, “yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion. One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that, from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby.”
At the very least one should commend Singer for his logic, particularly for his disowning of the modern superstition that at birth a fetus somehow transmogrifies into a wholly new creature. If it’s ok to kill a fetus, then it’s ok to kill a newborn, Singer argues, there being no qualitative distinction between a fetus and a newborn, but only an accidental difference of position – within or without the womb.