Dr. Mengele Would Have Been Proud

March 1, 2012 4:09 pm 95 comments

Dr. Josef Mengele held a doctorate in anthropology from Munich University and a medical degree from Frankfurt University. He was an early medical pioneer in "after-birth abortions." His groundbreaking research was conducted at his world renowned clinic in Auschwitz, Poland.

Evil comes in a variety of shapes, sizes, sounds, and smells. Many people (particularly liberals, progressives, and non-believers) are uncomfortable with the idea that monstrously evil individuals can also have the capacity to laugh, love their dogs, love their children and parents, be part of a community, and have a pleasant appearance. These people would prefer to see evil as a function of some psychological/physiological abnormality rather than attribute it to a “choice” for which the individual is fully responsible. In this view, evil people should have nothing in common with us; they are some bizarre, diseased branch of humanity.

The reason for this delusionary view of reality is simple. It is rather frightening to confront the notion that if evil is a “choice” open to all human beings, then “I” am also capable of choosing evil. It gets worse. Just as most evil people seem absolutely convinced that they are right and are oblivious to the evil that they perpetrate, or seem totally unaware that their ideas are perverse and corrupt, then how do I really know that I am different? Maybe my ideas are perverse and corrupt, maybe my actions are reprehensible and I am oblivious and unaware of their true nature. Let’s face it, just about everybody thinks they are right. “All of a man’s ways are proper in his own eyes…” (Proverbs) No, anyone is capable of choosing evil, even those who seem to be perfectly normal and just like us.

Let us then confront evil in the form of two young smiling faces; one a handsome young man, Dr. Alberto Giubilini;  the other a rather pretty young woman, Dr. Francesca Minerva.  Both hold PhD’s in philosophy from prestigious universities. At some unknown twist or turn along their path to academic “enlightenment” Dr.’s Giubilini and Minerva traded in their souls and humanity for some perverse and profoundly evil ideology they call “ethics.”

Dr. Alberto Giubilini loves kangaroos; newborn babies, though, are another story

They are co-authors of an article in The Journal of Medical Ethics (2/23/12), entitled, “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” They argue – quite logically and coherently – that if it is justifiable to “kill a human fetus” then it is also justifiable to “kill a newborn human” because “merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.” Infants are not “persons” in the sense that they have a “moral right to life…in these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions.”  (For those who are unfamiliar with the term “after-birth abortion,” it used to be called “infanticide” or “first-degree murder.”)

Please note that Minerva and Guibilini apply this principle to fully healthy babies who are simply unwanted by their parents. However, they do raise the question of putting the baby up for adoption: “Why should we kill a healthy newborn when giving it up for adoption would not breach anyone’s rights but possibly increase the happiness of people involved (adopters and adoptee)?”

Dr. Francesca Minverva, this deceptively beautiful smile may be the last thing a newborn baby ever sees.

Dr. Peter Singer, "bioethicist" at Princeton University is the intellectual father of the animal rights movement. He has stated that "nothing is intrinsically wrong." Sometimes Satan comes as a man who loves animals.

They provide us with an interesting answer to this question: “On this perspective, the interests of the actual people involved matter, and among these interests, we also need to consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption…we are suggesting that, if interests of actual people should prevail, then after-birth abortion should be considered a permissible option.” (Makes perfect sense to me.)

As could be expected, the suggestion that it is perfectly all right to kill a healthy newborn baby because putting it up for adoption would cause the mother “stress” has raised a storm of controversy. The editor of The Journal of Medical Ethics, Julian Savulescu, decried what he called the “hate speech” directed at the authors of the article. He also added that the pushback against the article shows that “proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.” (If the values of a “liberal society” include murdering newborn babies then count me as a member of the fanatical opposition.)

One of the earliest recorded cases of a late term "after-birth abortion." In this case the white parents suffered tremendous "psychological stress" when they discovered, much to their chagrin, that their twin sons were "colored." Although there were offers of adoption, they decided that a life where the boys would have to use separate toilets and drinking fountains was not a life worth living. Note the primitive, but effective, "rope and tree" technique used to perform the abortion. Modern sophisticated techniques include "starvation," "death by poisoning" (politely called "lethal injection" in the Netherlands), and "drop the brat in a dumpster."

Savulescu also defended the article by pointing out that “infanticide is practiced in the Netherlands” and that these arguments have already been advanced by well known “bioethicists” such as Peter Singer and Michael Tooley. “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics …is to present well reasoned arguments based on widely accepted premises…the authors proceed logicallyfrom arguments which many people accept.” Of course, in Nazi Germany the premise that Jews were a mortal threat to the Aryan people was also a “widely accepted” premise and genocide was practiced in Nazi Occupied Europe and Russia.

What is most frightening of all is the banal, matter-of-fact manner in which these highly educated academics build a case for the murder of babies. In fact it is the deadly logical consequence of an atheistic worldview in which human life has no inherent value but only as much value or non-value as is assigned to it by those in power. It is the deadly logical consequence of a worldview that values self-indulgence and self-gratification above any other consideration. The “sexual revolution” of the 60’s led to the acceptance of the notion that unlimited sexual freedom is a basic human right; sexual freedom must include unlimited access to contraception and abortion because pregnancy and babies bring with them a powerful dose of reality and responsibility (what a way to ruin the fun!); once these premises become “widely accepted” the next perfectly logical step, as Mr. Savulesco points out, is that newborn babies can also be put to death. Opposition to these ideas then becomes a fanatical attack on the “values of a liberal society.” It is obvious to any thinking person that there is no end to the horrible evil that can result once we have started down this path. If we do not turn things around soon there will be hell to pay. There is one consolation though…Dr. Mengele would have been awfully proud.

Rabbi Moshe Averick is an orthodox rabbi, a  regular columnist for the Algemeiner Journal, and author of Nonsense of a High Order: The Confused and Illusory World of the Atheist. It is available on Amazon.com and Kindle. Rabbi Averick can be reached via his website. .

95 Comments

  • >>>>>>“Why is killing healthy babies immoral?”<<<<<<

    For the same reason killing sick babies is immoral — which is the same reason that killing healthy (or sick) adults is immoral: because humans live by learning to use rational judgment, which means they need to be free to pursue their own interests.

    That means that it is immoral to initiate force against any human individual.

  • Mengele died on a beach.

    Swimming.

    Has anyone apart from someone I noticed noticed Mengele was not a swimmer?

    Anyway that might be a red herring but I can authenticate my sighting of Mengele
    at http://web.mac.com/beachhutman
    So they think it is all over?

  • Remarkable. The a-theists are as zealous and rude as some of their theist brothers and sisters. Well, this is no surprise. Accept for a moment that women can and do terminate their pregnancies. Now, accept that women keep their babies through term. Finally, accept the illogic in killing one’s newborn after carrying it through term, all 39 weeks, without the early in-utero termination. What, she had a change of mind? She didn’t know she was pregnant? So you are suggesting that the responsibility of terminating, or birthing, or killing the baby are not the parents’? Or that one can just change one’s mind about such a minor issue? Or is it selective (Oh, I’ll keep the fetus through term but then kill it…) If a woman, specifically, has the werewithal to terminate her pregnancy, or carry it out, then should not her willing act of killing her child be as responsible? Should she not be as responsible for the murder of her child? I’m not discussing the ethics or terminating a pregnancy, I’m discussing the legality of killing a human being, at least in the US.

  • “If materialism is wrongheaded, what is not?”

    Both “materialism” and “spiritualism” are wrongheaded.

    Think about it. A body without a spirit is a corpse; a spirit without a body is a ghost. Actual living human beings are neither of those, but rather integrated beings for whom there is no reason to consider body and soul to be somehow in conflict such that you need to choose one or the other (instead of accepting both together as they actually come in real life).

    Check out Ayn Rand’s description of the fake conflict between the “mystics of spirit” and the “mystics of muscle.”

  • “Any biologist would say a baby is a human.”

    Any competent and honest biologist. But these days, unfortunately, having a degree (or even a job) in biology (or anything else) is no guarantee of either competency or honesty.

  • Rabbi Averick, since you are correctly condemning an academic piece of writing for advocating infanticide, it would only be proper and sensible to condemn the Bible at the same time, since it is also a piece of writing advocating infanticide (and lots of other murder).

  • Thanks Moshe for bringing up this subject. I have checked this out on the bmj website and I am heartened by the responses to this journal’s defense to publish the article. There are still some people around who know what is right and what is wrong. Without reading all the posts, it seems that the article and the bmj are roundly condemned for writing and publishing it.
    For me this article is a clear sign that the present science education is totally blind on moral issues. Mankind will reap the fruits.

    • moshe averick

      Christoph,

      Nice to hear from you. The problem is that these two “ethicists” and people like Singer and Tooley haven’t changed their minds, and as long as they keep spewing out this garbage the danger is still there.

      • The same garbage is spewed by the Bible. Have you changed your mind on that, yet?

      • And if they don’t, some others will. As long as there are people who deny the existence of spirit, there will be some who follow the logic to the bitter end. Singer sees no difference between animal and human being because he denies that the human being is a spiritual being with an individual destiny. Cows and pigs don’t have individual destinies. An animal you can kill as you see fit, and as humanly as you like.
        The ‘spirit’ issue, I fear cannot be solved merely with Biblical faith. That the human being is the carrier of spirit individuality has to be recognized directly. Once you know, Biblical scripture confirms it and is confirmed by it.
        You are right in pointing out that materialism is incapable of producing a morality that considers the human being sacred. Materialism is spiritual suicide, with some genocide mixed in.

        • “Materialism is spiritual suicide,…”

          Yes, “materialism” is just as wrongheaded as “supernaturalistic spiritualism.”

          Whichever side you take when accepting a false premise like the mind-body dichotomy, you’re making a serious mistake.

          The notion that there can be no morality unless it comes from God is “spiritual suicide” (regardless of whether you mix in murder and genocide or not).

          • If materialism is wrongheaded, what is not?

            Why is killing healthy babies immoral?

  • ‘It is rather frightening to confront the notion that if evil is a “choice” open to all human beings, then “I” am also capable of choosing evil.’

    So is the story that people who are afraid of choosing between good and evil would rather embrace religion so they can feel safe being commanded by God instead of being rational individuals?

    But why should it be “frightening” to be a real human being? Free will is a wonderful capacity to have — not something to be frightened of.

    • Religious folk scare easily.

      The fact that I could behave monstrously but don’t doesn’t scare me at all, and confronting the notion that evil action is open to all humans seems to be a good motivator to support the desperate, enact just laws, and adequately fund police forces and mental health services, not to hide under the bed and think “it could be me next”.

      Maybe Moshe’s scared that God will order to him to commit genocide, like He ordered Saul, or oblige him to kill his own child, like He obliged Jephthah.

      • Moshe Averick

        jp,
        the reason you are not scared is because you haven’t quite taken stock of what is going on around you. The problem is not laws, Nazi Germany also had laws. The problem is who is making the laws. George Tiller, who murdered thousands of late term babies is a hero to many. Recently it was revealed that the authorizations he received that the woman were in imminent danger were of course phone (big shock, eh?) In the Netherlands they are now proposing mobile Euthenasia services. They already murder newborn babies and many old people, what is next? Your childish comments about Saul and Jephtah not only reveal your ignorance of the Torah but that your focus is on the wrong issues.

        • Since you are rightfully condemning an academic piece of writing for advocating infanticide, it would only be proper to condemn the Bible, too, since it is also a piece of writing advocating infanticide (and lots of other murder).

        • Moshe, you need to improve your reading comprehension. I didn’t say the problem was laws, I said that the universal potential for evil was a motivation to make just laws, rather than hide in fear from our own capacity for evil actions.

          But since you’re feeling all superior, perhaps you could share a lesson on how Jephthah’s daughter had it so much better than other murdered children.

          • No?

            Oh well, not surprised, really.

            Perhaps you’re busy wondering about the fact that your model of the world predicts that atheists should be scared of the implications of evil and yet real atheists come here and tell you that they aren’t.

            Why could that be? Could the model be…. wrong? No, banish the thought. It must simply be that you have a far better understanding of atheist thought than atheists themselves. Yes, that MUST be it. Glad we got that one sorted out, then.

      • JP

        I am not quite sure why you are comparing people who kill their own children out of convenience to the rules of a nation engaged in war with another nation (especially when that other nation, the Amelekites, started the war unprovoked and with the intention of committing genocide.

        Regarding Jephthah, who in the world said what he did was an admiral thing? Its always been considered one of the most terrible and tragic stories in the Bible. The ancient Rabbis clearly state that fulfilling his vow vow was evil (and totally unnecessary for that matter).

        • I’m not comparing the morality of killing children to the morality Saul’s genocide orders.

          I’m merely speculating as to the source of fear that one might be next to commit evil acts that Moshe talks about.

          Because Moshe doesn’t understand atheism, and thinks it implies amorality, he thinks that atheists must fear doing evil because they have no divine yardstick for what’s right and wrong. (And if atheists by Moshe’s definition are amoral and don’t even know what evil IS, how can they fear committing evil acts? Moshe’s argument is totally incoherent, as usual).

          On the other hand, the Torah records instances where people who were just going about their business were pressed into evil actions by God. In the case of Saul’s soldiers, even Biblical apologists like William Lane Craig (admired by Moshe) worry about the traumatising effect of that order on those soldiers, who were ordered to go way beyond self-defence and slaughter babies and livestock as well as enemy soldiers.

          In such a case, where one has ceded moral control of one’s life to God, it seems that a fear of being pressed to immoral acts by a higher power is a realistic fear, and it’s only in the context of not having moral sovereignty over one’s own actions that this fear even makes any sense at all.

          Suggesting that it’s a problem for atheists just seems like projection to me.

          Same goes for Jephthah. He acted out of a sense of obligation to God, even when that went against his own moral sense. You can argue that the Torah calls his actions unnecessary, but the fact remains that Jephthah felt obliged to God to act as he did and felt the fear that Moshe projects onto atheists. If Jephthah had been an atheist, he simply would have had no reason to fear doing something evil out of obligation to God, and his daughter would have lived.

          • “You can argue that the Torah calls his actions unnecessary, but the fact remains that Jephthah felt obliged to God to act as he did …”

            If the ancient Rabbis condemned what Jephthah did, does that means they thought God was in the wrong? Or does the story go that God condemned it, too?

            Of did God want it even though it was wrong?

        • A&A, you raise a good point I hadn’t considered in this context. When an aggressor starts a war, then that aggressor is morally responsible for all the resulting deaths. The defender is not responsible for deaths on the aggressor’s side, not even the deaths of children resulting from legitimate acts of self-defense.

          But my understanding is that the Biblical God was prone to killing unbelievers just because He didn’t like them (not because it was reasonable to consider unbelief as an act of war).

  • A newborn baby = a fetus = an embryo = a sperm = an octogenarian = a corpse; or is there something wrong with my logic?

    Answer:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

    • Yes, there’s something wrong. A sperm is not human and never will. Sperm plus egg, well that’s different.

      • How can you say a sperm is not human? As you just said, the sperm will be half of a human once it fertilizes an egg.

        • Humans have 46 chromosomes, which all the DNA of that person is stored in. Sperm cells and egg cells (gametes) have only half that number, and thus only half of a human’s DNA. It’s not a human, it’s just part of a human genome.

  • So lets get this straight, Moshe:

    You think that abortion is morally equivalent to killing a newborn child. You’ve argued this before, and you seem very convinced about your position.

    Now Minerva and Guibilini write that abortion is morally equivalent to killing a newborn child, and you’re wetting yourself with rage, even though they agree with you.

    If you had half a brain, you’d be praising their logic, and using it to push your anti-abortion agenda. But you don’t have half a brain, so you’re kicking at and tearing down the very philosophers who could best support your position, for the crime of agreeing with you on the moral equivalence of abortion and infanticide.

    Personally, I think you’re exactly as wrong as these two, but if you want to spend your energy ripping people who agree with you a new one, then knock yourself out.

    • The confused and illusory world of the theist can engender a lot of foul-ups like that. People who hold the false premise of equivalence between abortion and infanticide/homicide haven’t necessarily decided whether they are for them or against them.

      Still, infanticide/homicide should properly be illegal, while abortion should properly be legal. They don’t need to be taken as a package-deal.

  • Communism/Naziism was an evil ideology that favored murder for the sake of “the good of society.” (Or still favors it in the guise of Obama’s death panels.)

    Biblical religion is an evil ideology that favors murder for the sake of “the glory of God.” (Modern Western religions have retreated in the face of the Enlightenment and decided they could forgo that part of their doctrine for now, but other religions are still lost in the lust for killing.)

  • Communism/Naziism was an evil ideology that favored murder for the sake of “the good of society.” (Or still favors in in the guise of Obama’s death panels.)

    Biblical religion is an evil ideology that favors murder for the sake of “the glory of God.” (Modern Western religions have retreated in the face of the Enlightenment and decided they could forgo that part of their doctrine for now, but other religions are still lost in the lust for killing.)

  • Inveterate Popoff

    Here’s an idea I think may have considerable merit — geared to Alberto Giubilini, John Harris, Francesca Minerva, Julian Savelescu, Peter Singer, Michael Tooley, and all of their big-brained ilk. Anyone who thinks a newborn has no moral right to life because it isn’t a sentient human being with goals and aspirations . . . should herself have no right to life. Then, would it be murder if someone deliberately killed them?

    ———————————————————

    Ultimately, this could prove to be much ado about nothing. Since newborns have no moral right to life, we have a simple solution at hand. However, it will take a bit of time to bring my solution into effect. All it requires for implementation with a clear conscience is casting off the notion that non-person newborns have a right to be free of pain.

    Castrate all male newborns and it won’t be terribly long before abortion, after-birth abortion, and infanticide cease to be nuch of a concern.

    You can thank me later.

    ———————————————————

    I’m not much of a religious person myself, but I do have one prayer: God spare me from encounters with militant atheists. The folks who aren’t satisfied just not to be religious themselves, but who spend a lot of their time knocking people who are religious — and their religions, too.

    Rabbi, your exchanges with this “salvage” character have made my surfing day — so far. The dolt thinks she’s a Child of the Enlightenment? Hardly. She rarely manages to complete a post without making some or multiple mistakes in usage.

    • “I do have one prayer: God spare me from encounters with militant atheists.”

      What do you think about encounters wit militant theists, the kind who want to ban abortion and force “Creationism” on kids through public schools?

    • Funny, being called a dolt by someone who begs mythological characters for stuff isn’t much of a burn. Probably because they clearly don’t understand much about reality, that’s why we can safely dismiss their opinions on abortion and when life starts.

      And you mistake “knocking” with pointing out how little sense it all makes but I understand why doses of truth would be upsetting, bit like feeding a lactose intolerant a milkshake.

  • Of course God didn’t actually kill anybody because God is a fictional character. (Moses might be another story.)

    And Giubilini and Minerva haven’t killed anyone, either. They are just advocating what they think would be right to do (or what people should do based on certain beliefs).

    On the other hand, religious believers throughout history (well up into the present day) have killed a lot of people.

    And the Bible advocates killing babies, first born, even entire cities, as just what some believer think would be right to do (or what people should do if they really, really believe in God).

    The Singerites and the Bible-ites are together in the advocacy of murder.

  • http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2012/02/28/liberals-are-disgusting-in-defence-of-the-publication-of-after-birth-abortion/

    Please read this. It is a response from the editor of the journal in which the essay was published.

    “The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide – the paper repeats the arguments made famous by Tooley and Singer – but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests.”

    “Many people will and have disagreed with these arguments. However, the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises. [...] The authors proceed logically from premises which many people accept to a conclusion that many of those people would reject.”

    “Of course, many people will argue that on this basis abortion should be recriminalised. Those arguments can be well made and the Journal would publish a paper than made such a case coherently, originally and with application to issues of public or medical concern. The Journal does not specifically support substantive moral views, ideologies, theories, dogmas or moral outlooks, over others. It supports sound rational argument. Moreover, it supports freedom of ethical expression. The Journal welcomes reasoned coherent responses to After-Birth Abortion. Or indeed on any topic relevant to medical ethics.”

    • That’s obvious to anyone who actually takes a learned interest in ethics.

      But “sound rational argument” and “reasoned coherent responses” are not really Moshe’s stock in trade, so hysteria will have to suffice.

      • Notice, of course, that it is NOT a sound rational argument to use a premise of some alleged “equivalence of abortion and infanticide.”

        Those are too different for there to be any rational confusion about the difference.

        • “Abortion as murder” is strictly a religious article of faith, not a reasonable position for anyone to hold.

          “Infanticide as not murder” is strictly a bit of deliberate stupidity on the part of ethical nihilists — not a reasonable position for anyone to hold.

          • Pam Siegfried

            You are not quite correct. “The fetus or embryo as a child”, merely younger than the neonate or toddler” is a strictly scientific position held by many ob-gyns even Bernard Nathanson MD (deceased) former board member of NARAL, though it can be a religious view as well. From that, abortion is seen correctly as pre-natal infanticide and you go from there. Under what circumstances may you take innocent life?

          • Children are born, not imagined. A fetus hasn’t been born. An embryo hasn’t be born.

            Neither an embryo nor a fetus is an actual baby, infant, or child.

  • Rabbi Averick maintains that “This column is not about Bible study,…”

    It is about baby-killing, and the Bible is one of the most prolific sources on that subject. Singer, et.al., are horribly mired in that particular religious tradition.

    • Pam Siegfried

      You say a fetus or embryo has not been born. He or she also has not done any of a great number of other things. What makes birth special? A baby is not much more viable after birth than before. Breathes on its own, yes, but otherwise just lays there and cries until it can’t anymore and then just lays there and eventually dies. Unless someone provides for him or her. I’ll spot you everything you say about the Bible and none of that alters the scientific fact that what dies in an abortion is a child.

  • One of the frightening aspects of religion (note the similarity to some of modern academia) is the self-righteous manner in which the religious leaders build a case for the murder of babies, even whole cities, etc. In fact it is the deadly logical consequence of the theistic worldview in which human life has no objective value but only as much value or non-value as is subjectively assigned to it by God, depending on who He considers proper believers or not.

  • Max Marie, OFS

    Thank you for this.

    I read about these two earlier today. It is so dreadfully heartbreaking to find such thoughts from our “academics.”

    You can tell the article speaks truth due to the number of personal attacks you’ve gotten from people leaving comments.

    I will keep you in my prayers. God bless!

  • Pam Siegfried

    As I have said elsewhere, ANY time you devalue human life you can do desperately evil things. Including when you believe you are God’s slave so if you are ordered to slaughter infants (Numbers 31:17) or strap on a bomb jacket or “Kill them all, the Lord will know His own,” why then, you will because you have no intrinsic value.
    This article fails by its own standards. THE SILENT SCREAM contains real time ultrasound film of a 10 week abortion. The baby immediately goes to the top of the uterus, swimming frantically. Pulse is twice normal for a baby that old. Clearly the child values his life and feels sorrow- read “bright terror” for its ending. So by their arbitrary standard, that baby is human by their stated ceriteria. And they are Nazis in all but name.

  • Mengele is closer to us today than you might think. My website mentions his checking up on tall poppies in the field of Mind Control research, but in 2002 when he would have been 92. This short guy with a videocamera toting minder peeled off a glove, grinned and chortled through his still gap toothed mouth…( the 79 skeleton and skull was a shill)
    poked me with his bare index finger in my Adam’s apple, and was notable by his bone diseased reduced height (6 inches shorter…osteomyelitis and spongi….the cause)
    still strong brow and gentle jaw, and the cheek lines on his face were then so very very deep and ingrained…I wondere if caused by pain of his spine, or the programming he has to be kept scared of…for you see, Mengele as mind control programmer and Ipsimus
    without full responsibility for his lifes work, might lack mens rea for the trial he should have had were he not sequestered by western agencies. Still, that pain..the face lines, mans he was suffering even if he was quick escaping me realising what was going on.

  • Oh I just noticed your ha! Ha! Funny about lynching.

    You really are a goddamned idiot.

    • Salvage,

      It took you quite a long time to get the joke. Are you drowsy? Drink some coffee.

      • No, it’s just that your articles are is so badly laid out with the images out of proportion to the text that flow and legibility suffer. It’s odd, algemeiner is really well designed (well navigation can be a bit wonky) the coding is tight yet you can’t seem to use it properly.

        Oh, and the joke isn’t funny, the comparison cheap and it betrays the author’s ignorance on more than a few subjects.

  • I enjoyed your article and even more so your tongue-in-cheek responses to some of your unhinged commenters. Hope to read more from you.
    “Thank you for the compliment on the headline” – a gem.

  • To abort means: To terminate an operation or procedure ***before*** implementation or completion.

    This basicly means that an “after-birth” abortion is an oxymoron. A lot like “involuntary manslughter”.

  • Nice headline Mushe except the Nazis outlawed abortion so a bit lacking in factuality.

    But hey, you’ve never let that stop you before.

    At Any rate it’s simple, what happened in a woman’s womb is none of your business.

    I know, I known women are inferiorior and the ruinatin of mankind for tempting Adam but still it’s their body that’s a fact.

    I also know that this article has been getting misogynistic Bible (and Torah) beaters all hopped up thinking, once again, that they’ve found some sort of rhetorical silver bullet but alas they, once again, fail to note that different things are different.

    It’s simple, if the woman wants to have a baby than it is a child, if she does not want the baby than it’s a fetus. Hence CHOICE.

    See if you decide that a six week year old fetus is a person than why not the eggs and sperm? They’re just as potential life as the fetus.

    It’s so weird that theists are often anti-abortion/choice considering how many children their gods have slaughtered. Oh not just in the Angel of Death / flooding the world / blowing up a city way but in the poor design of the birth canal and whole fetal development process. You have a chance for miscarriages in the first trimester so often that people don’t bother to announce their pregnancy until after.

    Tell me Mushe, is that your god doing some aborting on its own? Perhaps getting the next Hitler?

    And that’s WITH medical science developed in the last 100 years or so, before that having a child was a most dangerous business for both mother and baby.

    Tell me Mushe, why did your inteligent designer make it so? Does it enjoy the site of a dead baby hanging out of it’s dead mother?

    I know, I know, punishment for Eve and that darn magic fruit, women are here to suffer your angry god’s wrath.

    • Salvage,

      Thanks for the compliment on the headline.

      • Right, I forgot, sarcasm and irony is another thing you don’t understand. That list is so long it’s easy to loose track of what’s on it.

        Is it truly Algemeiner’s editorial policy to debase the evils of the Nazi regime to the point that cutting someone off in traffic is akin to liquidating the Polish ghetto?

        At any rate the god you worship and beg favors from is an abortionist on a scale that a million Planned Parenthood clinics could even begin to touch so it’s a bit odd you bring so upset about dead babies.

        I guess abortion is only kosher if you’re a mythological being rather than a rape victim or a woman who has this crazy idea that she should be master and commander of her own body.

        I know, I known if she’s pregnant and doesn’t want to be she’s a slut who deserves what she gets.

    • Salvage,

      I’d like to point out to you that the article is
      about ‘AFTER-BIRTH ABORTIONS”, something that the Nazis performed with incredible skill and gusto and certainly was not outlawed in Germany. I think you are suffering from “neuro-phobia” which means “fear of using your brain.”

      • No you theist addled clown, what this whole exercise in retardation really is is a false comparision. Twits like you never address the actual realities of abortion, here they are:

        1 It’s none of your f&@$ing business what a woman does with her womb. I know your Bronze Age mentality leaves you with little choice but to regard women as chattel and breeding stock but we in the modern world, we children of the Enlightment think otherwise and have even gone as far as codifying it into law.

        2 You are not pro-life you vile hypocrite of the worst sort. This whole publication is drooling at the idea of fresh war in the Middle East and I am sure you count yourself amongst the other hawks. If you do call yourself prolife it’s only life in the womb, once the birth canal is cleared you couldn’t care less.

        3 you are not anti-abortion. If you truly thought it bad you would be part of the movement to ensure that birth control and sex education are widely available because that is the only practical way to reduce abortion. Abstinence education simpy does not work.

        4 what you actually believe us that women who have sex unathorized by your bizarre god and its celestial barkers are whores and sluts who deserve to be punished with a baby. The idea of women having sex and “getting away with it” is what really motivates you and tripe like this post.

        5 it’s fascinating how you and idiots like you get upset at anyone comparing Israel to 80s South Africa as wild hyperbole but cheerfully compare slavery and the Holocaust to abortion. It makes me wonder, again, are you really that stupid or really that hypocritical?

        Perhaps both.

      • “AFTER-BIRTH ABORTIONS” — Moses and Dr. Mengele would have been proud.

    • Salvage,

      “It’s simple, if the woman wants to have a baby than it is a child, if she does not want the baby than it’s a fetus. Hence CHOICE.”

      That is sheerest nonsense. Either you value human life, or you don’t. If you don’t, that’s your choice, but you should admit it and own it.

      Abortion is ugly enough, but for any sane person (especially those who’ve held a newborn in their arms) the idea of killing babies after birth is repugnant and an atrocity. Thankfully here in the US we consider that murder, just as we consider it murder when an unborn baby is killed by violence against the mother. Those laws are very unlikely to change. We will see about abortion in the long run.

      I will take some comfort from the fact that you have to live with yourself. That can’t be easy.

      • moshe averick

        Objectivist,

        I could not have said it better myself. Nice to hear from you.

      • No, not sheer nonsense, reality. I guess some people have trouble understanding that. See a fetus in a womb isn’t actually human life, potential human life to be certain but so is a sperm and an egg and so is a zygote.

        A baby on the other hand is a human life, it’s strange you can’t tell the difference, perhaps you should google it?

        Oh and if you think making abortion illegal would stop it than you’re a bigger fool than Mushe. See the war on drugs for an example of how it’s impossible to legislate what people do with their own bodies.

        And if your really think abortion horrible than I assume you’re all for free birth control?

  • Moshe, Another gem! It always tickles my funny bone when people shout free speech after proposing something repugnantly evil. One common thread is the conclusion that if an objective standard does not exist then all opinions are somewhat equal. A preference for murdering babies and a preference for the color blue are more or less the same.

  • One of the frightening aspects of religion is the self-righteous manner in which the religious leaders build a case for the murder of babies, even whole cities, etc. In fact it is the deadly logical consequence of the theistic worldview in which human life has no objective value but only as much value or non-value as is subjectively assigned to it by God, depending on who He considers proper believers or not.

    • “In fact it is the deadly logical consequence of the theistic worldview in which human life has no objective value but only as much value or non-value as is subjectively assigned to it by God”

      There are many problems with your statement here, Steve.

      First of all, if you posit a God, then the value he assigns is scarcely “subjective”. You are not expected to understand God’s will, after all. It would certainly trump your pitiful and limited human understanding.

      Second, if you’re an atheist (another form of faith and speculation by the way) there is certainly no “objective” value to a human life. No value system has more merit than any other, since no one sits in judgement and there is no absolute moral framework. That is one of the major tenets of the Left and the pro-abortion faction – and the exact factor that leads to specious logic such as “infanticide is acceptable”.

      I hope this injected a bit of light into your personal darkness.

      • “You are not expected to understand God’s will, after all.”

        Naturally not, since it is not any part of reality and has no objective standing. “God’s Will” is entirely the stuff of fantasy: totally subjective/imaginary.

        God is a fictional character, not real. As Rabbi Averick likes to point out, God is totally “other” than real.

        • Objectivist

          Steve:

          “God is a fictional character, not real.”

          As I pointed out in my first reply, atheism is as much a leap of faith as is religion. Most fair-minded people will admit that the orderly Universe we inhabit leads one to believe that it was conceived rather than just a random accident of physics. For instance, why are so many power laws inverse square laws rather than inverse d^1.8948382 laws? Further, isn’t it better to feel a sense of meaning in life rather than the empty pit of meaninglessness?

          Aside from all that, from a strictly practical standpoint the Judeo-Christian tradition has clearly produced the best rules for nurturing a successful society. One of the most central tenets of those rules is a reverence for human life. It is difficult for me to think that anyone considers a baby to be anything but a full-fledged human. Any biologist would say a baby is a human.

          It is also laughable how many people will gleefully support this flavor of mass murder – while bemoaning even the mistreatment of a dog or cat.

          • “As I pointed out in my first reply, atheism is as much a leap of faith as is religion.”

            That’s a common misconception. It does take a leap of faith to choose to have theistic beliefs, since there is not only no evidence for anything supernatural, but the supernatural is literally impossible. Being an atheist on the other hand merely means not taking that particular leap of faith. That is, instead of taking the leap of faith to become a theist, an atheist doesn’t take it.

            (That doesn’t mean that atheists cannot take other leaps of faith. For instance, another common leap of faith is the belief in government as God, that government spending, for instance, can stimulate the economy.)

            “Most fair-minded people will admit that the orderly Universe we inhabit leads one to believe that it was conceived rather than just a random accident of physics.”

            That’s nonsense. There is nothing “fair-minded” about that false “supernatural vs random” dichotomy.

            The universe actually exists. Why people should believe they need some sort of explanation for it is the problem in that regard.

            “Further, isn’t it better to feel a sense of meaning in life rather than the empty pit of meaninglessness?”

            Sure it is, but the “empty pit” of theism is not a viable source for dealing with how to get meaning in your life. Believing in “something from nothing” or “meaning from nothing” is not a wise choice.

            “Aside from all that, from a strictly practical standpoint the Judeo-Christian tradition has clearly produced the best rules for nurturing a successful society.”

            That’s not true. It was the Enlightenment that did the job — by progressing beyond the old religious traditions.

  • What God did, from KJV I Samuel 6:19: [19] And he smote the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.

    What some others did: Of course, in Nazi Germany the premise that Jews were a mortal threat to the Aryan people was also a “widely accepted” premise and genocide was practiced in Nazi Occupied Europe and Russia.

    Two example of evil.

    • Moshe Averick

      Steve,

      This column is not about Bible study, so I’m not going into discussing the actual story from a Jewish perspective, but quit living in the past. You are talking about events that happened 3000 years ago.

      • > You are talking about events that happened 3000 years ago

        !

        Amazing.

        Simply amazing.

        • OK, so it was 2800 years ago.

          • No S for Bs, I wasn’t expressing amazement at your math but rather your dismissal of genocide because it happened a long time ago. Tell me when can we dismiss the Nazi version? We’re well past three generations now, that’s a kong time in our lifespans.

            To be fair your god is a silly myth that stupid people think is real so it may not be quite the same thing.

      • I still lament them Moshe, you got over 50 000 pretty fast.

        • L Mende,

          AS I tried to point out to Steve Stoddard, this column is not about Bible Study. In fact, in Jewish tradition the report of thousands of people dying is not taken literally and has been understood metaphorically. The simple fact is that Jews do not go around murdering people and we do not teach our children to be hostile to the cultures around them. A fundamental principle of Jewish law is “Dina D’malchusa Dina”, which means that wherever a Jew lives he must accept the laws of the country that he is in, and it is a religious obligation to be an upstanding citizen. The only exception is if the country requires him to violate the Torah, say for instance…by murdering newborn babies.

          In truth, all of this is beside the point. Are you outraged that these “ethicists” advocate murdering babies or are you not? Where do you stand?

          • >we do not teach our children to be hostile to the cultures around them

            I guess you’ve never been to Israel.

          • “…in Jewish tradition the report of thousands of people dying is not taken literally and has been understood metaphorically.”

            In regard to the Holocaust? Metaphorical Murder?

          • Are you outraged that God and some “believers in God” advocate (and sometimes engage in) murdering babies or are you not? Where do you stand?

      • Why is the time period relevant? Can’t we take opposing murder as a matter of principle (that is not time-dependent)?

  • I would go so far as to say that a rational person should reject both “modern liberalism” and “old-time religion” as two sides of the same irrationalist coin.

  • (If the values of a “liberal society” include murdering newborn babies then count me as a member of the fanatical opposition.)

    I’m with you against such a “liberal society,” Moshe. The problem here is that “religious society” is just as bad — God was also for murdering babies, children, etc.

    When offered the choice between “liberal” murder and religious murder, the rational person should reject both.

    • And, of course, the view held by some (many?) religious people of the Muslim persuasion that Kafirs (i.e. anyone else) is an inferior being and may be murdered.

      • Moshe Averick

        Phil,

        As I wrote at the beginning of the article, evil comes in many shapes and sizes. What is so bizarre about these “ethicists” is that they claim to be “scientific” and “objective.”

        • One of the shapes evil comes in is religion. What is so bizarre about some religionists promoting murder is that they claim to be “righteous,” “good,” and “doing God’s work.”

Leave a Reply

Please note: comments may be published in the Algemeiner print edition.


Current day month ye@r *

More...

  • Education Why We Should Invest in Jewish Children

    Why We Should Invest in Jewish Children

    JNS.org – My wife Suzy and I will never forget our wedding day. It was not just the uplifting ceremony and beautiful party that left an indelible mark. Some life-altering advice that we received from one of our guests informed and shaped our lives from that day forward. My high school teacher, Rabbi Moshe Yagid, pulled us aside just before the chuppah and challenged us to choose one mitzvah that would be the foundation of our marriage and our lives. He explained [...]

    Read more →
  • Jewish Identity Sports LeBron James’ New Coach Shaped by Summer on Kibbutz and Jewish ‘Life Lessons’

    LeBron James’ New Coach Shaped by Summer on Kibbutz and Jewish ‘Life Lessons’

    JNS.org – Influenced by his Jewish upbringing and a summer on a kibbutz, basketball coach David Blatt is embarking on his highest-profile challenge yet: coaching LeBron James, the four-time National Basketball Association (NBA) Most Valuable Player who has made waves for returning to his hometown Cleveland Cavaliers. After guiding Israel’s storied Maccabi Tel Aviv basketball franchise to its 51st Israeli league championship and 6th Euroleague title this past season, Blatt landed the Cavaliers head-coaching job in June. Just weeks later, [...]

    Read more →
  • Food Jewish Identity Young Syrian Jewish Restauranteur Continues a Family Legacy

    Young Syrian Jewish Restauranteur Continues a Family Legacy

    JNS.org – At the turn of the century, a young Jewish immigrant arrived in New York. So begins the history of many American Jewish families. It is 27-year-old Albert Allaham’s story, too, with a few unusual twists. Albert’s “century” is the 21st—he arrived almost 100 years after the massive waves of European Jewish immigration. Rather than coming from a small town along the Danube river, his shtetl was Damascus. His first American business was not a pushcart on the Lower East [...]

    Read more →
  • Book Reviews Jewish Identity A Holistic Look at the Rebbe’s Life and Career (REVIEW)

    A Holistic Look at the Rebbe’s Life and Career (REVIEW)

    Did you know that in the entire Bible, only one birthday is mentioned and it is that of Pharaoh? And did you know that according to some scientists, by accepting Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity, it is impossible to prove or disprove that the sun is the gravitational center of our solar system? In his new book, REBBE, best-selling author Joseph Telushkin reveals many surprising and sometimes shocking details as he chronicles the life and teachings of the charismatic Rabbi [...]

    Read more →
  • Food Mitzvos New Jerusalem Eatery’s Uniform Pricing Seeks to ‘Help People Make It’

    New Jerusalem Eatery’s Uniform Pricing Seeks to ‘Help People Make It’

    JNS.org – Omelet sandwich: 5 shekels. Iced coffee: 5 shekels. Tuna sandwich: 5 shekels. Fresh-squeezed orange juice: 5 shekels. Cheese bureka: 5 shekels. There’s plenty more on the Cofizz menu, but you get the idea. Dani Mizrahi and Amir Amshalm, two Israeli men in their early 30s, asked themselves: Why not launch a take-out food joint in busy neighborhoods around Jerusalem where everything—and that means everything—goes for five shekels, or about $1.50. They’d seen the concept take off in Tel Aviv, where [...]

    Read more →
  • Arts and Culture Israel New Primetime Drama ‘Tyrant’ Filmed Entirely in Israel (VIDEO)

    New Primetime Drama ‘Tyrant’ Filmed Entirely in Israel (VIDEO)

    The new FX Network drama Tyrant was shot entirely in Israel, just 10 miles north of Tel Aviv, Bloomberg News reported last Tuesday. Tyrant follows the life of an Arab dictator’s second son Barry, played by Adam Rayner, who reluctantly returns home to the Middle Eastern nation of his birth to join the family business away from his suburban life in America. The elaborate set production for the primetime drama included a crew of 300 and a reported cost of over $3 million [...]

    Read more →
  • Arts and Culture US & Canada Supermodel: Jewish Mothers Are Constantly Trying to Set Me Up With Their Sons

    Supermodel: Jewish Mothers Are Constantly Trying to Set Me Up With Their Sons

    Skokie, Il-born 25-year-old Erin Heatherton (Erin Heather Bubley) is rocking the modeling world. And in a new interview accompanying a cover spread for Miami’s Ocean Drive magazine, she says Jewish moms are “constantly trying to set her up with their sons.” Imagine that – who would have thought? “The moms, they’re doing what they do. It doesn’t matter what country they live in, what city – grandmothers, too,” she admitted. “But I’m probably going to do that too one day.” Heatherton was [...]

    Read more →
  • Education Israel First Ever: Turkish Academics to Visit Israel Holocaust Museum for Seminar

    First Ever: Turkish Academics to Visit Israel Holocaust Museum for Seminar

    Some 15 Turkish university professors and lecturers will take part in a first of its kind seminar at Holocaust museum Yad Vashem’s International School for Holocaust Studies starting next week. The trip is especially significant as Holocaust denial is rampant in the Arab world. A Palestinian professor was recently forced to resign after he led a trip to the Nazi extermination camp Auschwitz. Participants in the week-long program at Yad Vashem will experience in-depth tours of the museum’s archives and [...]

    Read more →



Sign up now to receive our regular news briefs.