Thursday, April 25, 2013

Kermit Gosnell is pretty much Peter Singer's views about infants, enacted

Mike Gene at Shadow to Light points out something about Kermit Gosnell's little infant slaughterfest that I missed. Gosnell's actions towards infants pretty much is just the Peter Singer philosophy enacted. If anything, it was rather restrained - Singer would extend the time period further.

7 comments:

Billy Squibs said...

Crude, if you aren't aware of him already, I would recommend Scott Klussendorf as somebody who offers the a very logical, considered and clam set of arguments against abortion that you are likely to hear any time soon.

See here for a link to a very cordial debate he had with Nadine Strossen, former President of the ACLU.

Crude said...

Thanks, Billy. I never heard of Klussendorf. I'll have a look tonight.

Apologetics315 is a great site.

Cale B.T. said...

His "Case for Life" isn't too bad, either.

Crude said...

I actually wish I saw more secular arguments against abortion. (Maybe this guy goes into those. It's been a busy day.) It seems to me like, certainly at the level of partial-birth abortion, there should be SOME kind of secular humanist based opposition broadly.

And yet, and yet...

Billy Squibs said...

I'm actually reading through Case for Life at the moment. Early days but very interesting.

In fairness to some Secular Humanists (maybe they are just plain old atheists), I have heard of one organisation that is against abortion. Sadly this opposition is dwarfed by the overwhelming pro-abortion majority.

I can't say why this is. Why so little dissent amongst the faithless? Perhaps there is nothing within Secular Humanism or atheism as a whole that would coherently support such opposition. But then again this assumes that atheists are a logical and coherent bunch who have explored what atheism really entails in terms of morals etc. While there are some outstanding examples of thoughtful atheists out there, I've concluded that atheists are on the whole as confused and as muddled up as the rest of us.

Also, I wonder should we refuse to use the term "partial birth abortion". Given what abortion actually means this terms is incoherent, and it's clearly an attempt to sanitise the reality of the situation.

Finally, below I've posted another link this time to a lecture series on abortion. Again, it's given by Klusendorf. (I promise that I'm not his publisher.) This was the one that really got me on the road from "well, it's not something that I personally agree with but who am I to say it is wrong" to "actually, the pro-life movement have made a far better case". The whole abortion debate is kicking off in my country, Ireland, and I hope and pray for a bit of sanity from all and some winsome and persuasive voices from the pro-life side.

Billy Squibs said...

Forget the link of course :?

http://www.apologetics315.com/2013/03/advanced-pro-life-apologetics-course.html

Crude said...

In fairness to some Secular Humanists (maybe they are just plain old atheists), I have heard of one organisation that is against abortion. Sadly this opposition is dwarfed by the overwhelming pro-abortion majority.

Oh, I know that there does exist some out there. I recall Roger Ebert was an agnostic catholic who stuck with his pro-life views. But, yeah, I'm talking about it having a vastly more prominent, front-and-center role than it seems to have.

You're right about partial-birth abortion, thanks for correcting me there. I suppose part of the reason it's beneficial to so call it that is it highlights the pointlessness of it.