Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Feminist tries to play gotcha with pro-lifers and fails miserably

Atheist in Canada thinks she's caught us in a double standard:

Anti-choicers have us believe that abortion is the killing of a human baby, and thus should be illegal. Nevermind all their other hypocrisies, what I want to know is this: do they condemn the Jehovah Witness parents who let their actual children, who are breathing and conscious beings, die because they refuse medical treatment? Because if you ask me, that is in fact actual murder, or at the very least, criminal negligence.

That is so weak.

First off, has anyone ASKED pro-lifers if they condemn the JW doctrine of refusing blood transfusions for their small children?


But that doesn't stop her from jumping to her desired conclusion:

So pro-life, you go to hospitals and call those parents murderers, right? You make them feel worse about themselves on their worst day, right? You fight tooth and nail to introduce laws to make sure those parents aren't allowed to cause the actual death of their actual children, right?

The overwhelming majority of pro-lifers are orthodox Christians of one kind or another, and would not share the JW's Bible interpretation.

Speaking as a Catholic, religious doctrines against reason and the public good can't have the force of law. I suspect many if not most Christians believe something to that effect.

So no, JW's cannot let their babies die.

Secondly, where is the movement to deprive JW babies of their right to life? Where is the push? Who is calling for it?


Then there's no need to go down to the hospital.

As AtheistinCanada has pointed out, it's already illegal to allow infants to die.

So...why would pro-lifers bother when the laws are to their satisfaction and other people will make sure those babies are saved?

Doesn't she suppose that doctors in the hospitals aren't gunning for those kids to be treated?

Doesn't she think that Child Protection intervenes in cases involving dying children, at least as far as very small children are concerned?

So why don't pro-lifers have to go to hospitals when the legal system will take care of it?

Oh I know, because she needs a convenient strawman.

Seriously to answer her question, maybe it has to do with the fact that this is a complete NON-issue.

And by the way, JW's go through great lengths to save their children without blood transfusions. According to this wikipedia article, they attempt to identify doctors and hospitals where alternative procedures are performed.

JW's don't want their babies dead.

Abortionists do. And some informed women who abort do as well.

Big difference, from a moral standpoint.

That's not to say that the JW's are correct.

But the elements of the situation show that the cases of JW's and their small children, and aborting women, are different.

When you try to find a double standard, you have to compare apples to apples.

Cases where the right to life of the innocent is denied.

Consider that pro-lifers fight against euthanasia, and are particularly vehement about euthanasia for disabled newborns, which is legal in the Netherlands and Belgium.

Why? Because like in the case of abortion, the goal is to intentionally kill innocent human life.

I can't vouch for the pro-life movement in the Netherlands and Belgium and their activities. But they certainly do speak out against the practice. Disabled babies are virtually deprived of their right to life.

Consider another case: The Born-Alive Infants Act.

In the US, some late-term aborted babies who were born alive were intentionally left to die. The pro-life movement lobbied to make sure that these legal persons were treated if they survived the abortion. So Congress passed a Born-Alive Infants act prohibiting abortionists from letting babies die.

And feminists fought it tooth and nail.

"Pro-life", you are a sick, murderous, hypocritical bunch and the world would be a better place but for your existence.

Feel the love. How liberals argue. Can't get their facts straight and typically resort to ad hominems. *Yawn*.


I did a little Googling.

And found one strong pro-life objection to blood transfusion, but it's a very authoritative one.

Bishop Alejandro Goic of Rancagua, Chile, addressed a case of the Jehovah's Witness of denying blood transfusions to their children:

“For the Catholic Church, the position of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is what we call one of an erroneous conscience. That is, they believe something that is mistaken. This is part of their profound convictions, and therefore it merits respect in their decision making. Religious freedom invites us to respect the conscience of each person. What we must safeguard is the respect for life. In response to this, many laws dealing with minors in danger of death allow for the will of the parents to be overridden, not because children have more rights than parents, but because their lives are in jeopardy (Spain, Canada, to name of few).”

“God is the God of life. For Jesus life is something precious and ‘saving a life’ prevails over the law of the Sabbath (Mark 3:4), because ‘God is not a God of the dead but of the living’(Mark 12:27),” Bishop Goic stressed.

“We are followers of Jesus Christ. In the example of Christ, we can give our lives out of love of neighbor. ‘No one has greater love than he who lays down his life for his friends’ (John 15:13). Therefore, we strongly affirm ‘life, always’,” the bishop said.