Raspunsul (urmare la Strigatul mut) – The Answer (a sequel to Silent Scream)

Filmul Strigatul mut a stirnit multe controverse in Statele Unite, unde organizatia Planned Parenthood, care militeaza pentru controlul nasterilor prin intermediul avortutilor, a acuzat autorii filmului de manipulare si de abordare nestiintifica. Iata aici raspunsul la aceste acuzatii, oferit de insusi doctorul care efectuase avortul filmat in Strigatul mut.

Iata si o descriere a acestui film, facuta de Asociatia ProVita:

Imediat după lansarea în 1985, filmul „Strigatul mut” (vezi aici cu traducere în română: http://www.strigatulmut.ro ) a fost atacat virulent de lobby-ul pro-avort care acuza că pelicula a fost manipulată, că fătul avea mai mult de 12 săptămâni și chiar că dr. Bernard N Nathanson ar fi fost medicul care a făcut acel avort.
Aici puteți vedea „Răspunsul” – inclusiv mărturia personală a medicului care a întrerupt sarcina din „Strigătul mut” [Jay Kelinson].

* * *

„The Silent Scream” was released in 1985 to a storm of controversy and attacks by the pro-abortion movement, claiming that the film was manipulated and misinterpreted, that the fetus was older than 12-weeks, even that Dr. Nathanson participated in the abortion. Here is the response – including the actual testimony of the doctor that performed the abortion.

An interesting point of view, arguing against the legitimacy off infanticide, even without appeal to a higher moral instance (God, etc).

Point taken (on ethics being more about feelings than about rationality, even if it can lead easily to ethical relativism). Yet, I can’t help but think that, rationally, the Melbourne philosophers mentioned in the text seem to make a logical conclusion when they say:

‘it wasn’t any MORE wrong to kill newborn babies than to kill foetuses in the womb, and that sometimes, it might actually be the right thing to do. Logically, they argued, what’s the difference?’


And apologies in advance for the controversial subject…

Two Melbourne philosophy professors recently caused an uproar when they said that it wasn’t any MORE wrong to kill newborn babies than to kill foetuses in the womb, and that sometimes, it might actually be the right thing to do.  Logically, they argued, what’s the difference?

Ok I know some people think it’s wrong to kill babies OR foetuses (and some of these people think it’s alright to kill adults if they break the wrong law, live in the wrong country or perform the wrong medical procedures).

I’m not weighing in on this. Really.  It’s a minefield.  See below.

But professional ethicists usually miss the point.  Ethics isn’t about rationality.  Ethics is about how we feel.  We have evolved to feel bad about things that don’t help us survive, and good about things that do.  We don’t like killing babies, because as…

View original post 279 more words

Mobile Euthanasia Units Launched In Netherlands

Mobile Euthanasia Units Launched In Netherlands.

This is really scary, a real assault of the ”culture of death’, as Pope John Paul II used to call it, especially as it comes after the recent case for killing new born babies – since secularists consider that unborn babies can be killed by abortion, is it not logical to do the same with newly born ones? after all, what is the difference? and what will be next? the killing of people with special needs, because they are not productive enough?

As Dostoevsky used to say, ‘if God does not exist, anything is possible’.

%d bloggers like this: