Bosco – Irish Sentinel Contributor –
Everyday we are reminded of the atrocities that are happening in Ukraine. The news feeds are bursting with new episodes of cruelties. The most alarming thing however, is that the very people who are leading the charge in condemnation of barbarity are themselves purveyors of the worst types of all.
Over 153,000 prenatal children are brutally killed with each passing day through abortion. This makes the womb the most dangerous place on Earth for a human being to live. According to the Guttsmacher Institute, an establishment founded in 1968 as the Centre for Family Planning Program Development (CFPPD) and as a branch of Planned Parenthood, there have been over 1.6 billion abortions in the world since 1980. In our little island of Ireland, over 15000 little babies have lost their lives to this heinous practice since it was made legal in the state in 2018.
In a BBC interview Late term abortionist Dr. Leroy Carhart, who does abortions through the third trimester, told reporter Hilary Andersson of the heavily left wing station that he believes he is killing babies. During the interview Carhart dispels the myth of plausible deniability that many attach to the pro abortion lobby when he stated “To the fetus is makes no difference whether it’s born or not born. The baby has no input in this, as far as I’m concerned”. The interviewer then replies “But it’s interesting that you use the word baby because a lot of abortionists won’t use that. They’ll use the term fetus because they don’t want to acknowledge that there’s a life?”. Carhart doubles down replying “I think that it is a baby and I tell our- I use it with the patients”. Andersson asks the abortionist again “ And you don’t have a problem with killing a baby?” to which he replies after a pause “I have no problem if it’s in the mother’s uterus.”
In January 2019 Virginia Governor, democrat, Ralph Northam defended allowing an infant born alive to die. When asked about the debate over Virginia House of Delegates member Kathy Tran’s bill that would allow an abortion even after the woman goes into labour and if he supported it, Northam argued that decisions by physicians can be made to allow an infant to die even after birth stating,
“If a mother is in labour, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” he said. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
Recently in the state of Maryland, democrats proposed to enact senate bill 669. The contents of the bill put forward the idea that if a baby died because due to being abandoned and police investigated and eventually arrested the person responsible for the baby’s death, then the woman could sue the police and get monetary damages for having been investigated and arrested. The language used in the draft is also ambiguous enough such that it could prevent any investigations into the death of infants at least seven days AFTER their birth, and may extend to infants as old as four weeks. Adopting the classification “perinatal over prenatal” is significant . The perinatal period is defined in diverse ways. Depending on the definition, it starts at the 20th to 28th week of gestation and ends 1 to 4 weeks after birth.” This in effect gives legal carte blanch to those persons who wish to avoid their parental duties and allow a newborn to die without any consequences.
These recent movements towards infanticide should not come as a surprise at all given the degree of public adoration given to bio ethicist Peter Singer. Singer is a contentious character, much loved by the psychopathic community, especially the academic quarters of that troop. Singer, a Princeton ethicist, famously wrote in 1979, “Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all.”
The irony here is that Singer is a Jew whose three of four grandparents died at the hands of the Nazis during world war 2. It is rather tone deaf of Singer to propose an ad hoc theory of personhood that relies on arbitrary ascriptions of personhood that would deny human rights to life he himself considers human, when his own kith and kin were targeted for similar ad hoc reasons to justify their dehumanisation at the hands of the Nazi regime.
In 1993, Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot, which seems congruent with the world view of the democrats of Maryland and Virginia.
In his diatribe ‘Practical Ethics’, Peter Singer has argued in favour of abortion rights on the grounds that a fetus are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences. Singer however acknowledges that a “fetus” is a “living human being” and has stated that to people should not “run away from what abortion is.” What Singer proposes is a utilitarian concept of personhood. The problem with Singer’s argument is that is built upon a supposition that human beings to be classified as persons, and therefore to be protected under the law, must be rational and aware. The flaw in Singer’s claim is that this is as arbitrary as saying a Jew is not a person on the grounds they have some trait or expression, real or perceived, different to anyone else. In a way, Singer is justifying the arbitrary nature of dehumanisation that lead to the killing of his own grandparents. It is arbitrary because who says a human being must be rational and aware? Singer does. Singer, like Goebbels can rationalise why their position is valid, then again Ted Bundy could do the same when he murdered innocent women. Rationalising an argument is not the same as holding a moral claim unless of course one determines it moral to kill an innocent human being on the basis of subjective justification. If this is true, then could I rationalise Peter Singer’s death and be justified? If I made an arbitrary claim that Bio Ethicists from Australia have no preferential value, would I be excused if I were to kill Peter Singer? Let’s be frank, one can rationalise into existence any idea, even the foulest. For example, a symposium gathered in Cambridge in 2013 attempting to spin legitimacy to paedophilia by calling it an immutable sexual orientation ( And of course once it becomes classified as an orientation then “equal rights to expression of that orientation” necessarily follow, which is how the most vile eventually becomes mainstream. It has happened before).
The Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) defines “genocide” as “The deliberate and systematic destruction of a national, racial, religious, political, cultural, ethnic, or other group defined by the exterminators as undesirable.” That definition readily applies to abortion. The “national group” is Irish “unwanted” unborn children, and they are now being destroyed at the rate of just under 7000 a year from a population of 60,000 babies born per year. The babies are being terminated in an elaborate network of killing centres around the country, often in the same hospitals where surgeons perform prenatal surgeries of wanted babies. The reason for the ubiquity of abortion is, in part, its universal availability. Abortion is legal through all 9 months of pregnancy in all 50 states of the USA. Roe vs. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 1973, established the right to abort but Doe vs. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 1973, a companion case ruled at page 192, that no abortion could be prohibited if sought to terminate a pregnancy which threatens a woman’s health. The Court defined “health” so broadly as to include “emotional, psychological, familial, and … age …” related factors, which made it functionally impossible for any government to prohibit any abortion. Recent research coming out of the UK found that Irish doctors were having a difficult time dealing with these “procedures” more accurately defined as executions. The study, published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, is based on interviews with abortion doctors working in Ireland.
It indicated that unborn babies are sometimes born alive after legally-performed abortions in Ireland, and are then left to die. Such late term abortions are carried out in cases where there is a life limiting condition or a so-called ‘fatal foetal abnormality’.
Some of the doctors performing these heinous acts spoke about the “internal conflict” they experience and how ending the lives of unborn babies can be “brutal”, “awful” and “emotionally difficult”.I dare say, it isn’t as brutal, awful or difficult as it is for the babies being dismembered. The study quotes one doctor referring to what they do as “stabbing the baby in the heart.” Another doctor interviewed for the study said: “I remember getting sick out in the corridors afterwards because I thought it (feticide) was such an awful procedure and so dreadful.” By any measure this is heinous.
For genocide to be conclude the action must be considered motivated by hate. While most aborting mothers may not “hate” their unborn children this is certainly not true of the pro abortion lobby whose recent slogan ranted by activists outside an Australian church demanded “ throw them ( the aborted babies) in the bin”. If this doesn’t suggest hatred, then nothing does. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, declared war on “unwanted” children with her motto, “every child a wanted child.” Planned Parenthood of Minnesota/South Dakota, for instance, has run newspaper advertisements which read in part “BABIES ARE LOUD, SMELLY, AND EXPENSIVE. UNLESS YOU WANT ONE. 1- 800-230-PLAN.”
Today, we see football and rugby stadia and matches to follow decry racism, denounce war and violence when the same media personnel, many of the same pundits, and supporters wholeheartedly advocated for the worst type of racism, war and violence, perpetrated against the most innocent of all, the unborn. The same people who object to racism support a “procedure” that kills more blacks than any other race in the USA, the same people who condemn senseless violence in Ukraine, encourage dismemberment absent pain relief of tiny babies, the same people who virtue signal about Russian atrocities are the same people who cheered on and danced in the square of Dublin castle.
It is very hard to take seriously any individual who virtue signals for well managed theatre when the same people actively participate in the worst crime of all, a crime that permits dehumanisation and gets awarded for it. It is very hard to take seriously any individual who warrants themselves righteous yet who trivialises into obscurity genuine travesties at the genocidal level. It is very hard to take seriously any individual who not only allows evil to persist, but demands its enthronement as a laudable feat, and then calls those who see it for what it is as unenlightened. The world is truly an evil place and the people will wave their flags to appreciate it.
