Connect with us

Everything

Professor Death, the life you didn’t take rebukes you

Published

on

“You should have killed your baby.”

No, that wasn’t a quote from Lycurgus of ancient Sparta. No, that wasn’t a quote from Adolf Hitler. No, that wasn’t a quote from Nathan Bedford Forrest, a member of the KKK, or even Margaret Sanger.

This maniacal little tidbit of parenting “advice” is offered to the world from University of Chicago professor Jerry Coyne (Department of Ecology and Evolution).

“It is time to add to the discussion the euthanasia of newborns,” he says.

Reading Coyne’s apathetic blog post is enough to make you run for the hilltops. Through a series of moral justifications, A.K.A. excuses, Coyne presents his case, arguing in favor of the murder of infants who aren’t up to par; all this in the name of morality and compassion. Infants qualifying for the death sentence include those who are severely “deformed or doomed,” or those infants who’s “life cannot by any reasonable light afford happiness.” Coyne lists several conditions, including spina bifida, a condition where an incomplete closure of the backbone and of the membranes surrounding the backbone occurs. It should be noted that a number of successful individuals have spina bifida.

The benevolent professor’s argument in favor of infanticide goes like this…

  • In spite of the fact that “suffering,” “quality”, and “happiness” are all undefinable terms as related to the lives of human beings, the good professor encourages a subjective (and guaranteed to be ever-expanding) understanding of “suffering” be used to quantify the value of a human being in order to determine whether he should be murdered or be allowed to live.
  • Equating human infants with animals, Coyne makes the claim that infants have “no rational faculties” and that, like dogs and cats, human children “don’t know about death and thus don’t fear it.” As a person degreed and licensed in child development, I am astonished at this biologist’s fallacious claim. Never mind the fact that a human baby is always more precious than a pet.
  • Euthanasia has become more accepted, thanks to “a tide of increasing morality,” and so we should all be totally okay with the murder of human infants. After all, euthanizing old people was frowned upon 50 years ago. As Coyne blissfully goes on to say, “I believe some day the practice will be widespread, and it will be for the better.”
  • Don’t worry your conscience, because no babies will be murdered without parental consent. The kindly professor fails to recollect the case of poor Charlie Gard, whose parents did not consent and were stripped of their parental rights by the state. Pay no attention to the man being the curtain.
  •  Religion is the one thing holding society back, it is society’s single obstacle, from engaging “widespread” infanticide. Woe to thee. The compassionate professor thus states, “When religion vanishes, as it will, so will so much of the opposition to both adult and newborn euthanasia.” It must be said that Professor Coyne’s indication that it takes “religion” to uphold the moral absolutes of right and wrong in this world is a direct and automatic indictment of the depravity of the human condition left on its own. Coyne’s statement is in fact a sound argument in support of religion, of the very belief system that prohibits the murderous tendencies of mankind.
  • The Netherlands does it, so it must be okay.

At least one medical professional, Lisa Dennis – a long-time nurse (RN, CCP, LP) and the mother of a disabled child (now a young adult) – isn’t buying into Professor Coyne’s murderous premise. I shared Coyne’s blog post with Lisa. Her rebuke of the spiritually near-sighted and morally bankrupt professor is both poignant and compelling.

My son with Down Syndrome, though non-verbal, is the most sociable young man at his school. Jeffrey gives all he meets the gifts of kindness, enthusiasm, and warmth. He exudes all the best of humanity. While pursuing confirmation at church, he spiritually inspired all who witnessed his journey. He personifies the quote attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, Spread the Gospel; use words if necessary,” she said.

“The professor states, that when religion vanishes, as it will, so will much of the opposition to both adult and newborn euthanasia. My response is that when religion vanishes, so will mankind. Future generations will judge today’s society, not for the respect for new life (even flawed and brief), but for the brutality of ending so many pre-term lives in the brutal practice of abortion. Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person.- Deuteronomy 27:25.”

“There is none so innocent as a babe in the womb or just after birth. Jeffrey was born with Trisomy 21, a PFO, VSD, and PDA. His first 16 days were spent in the NICU. His first year was filled with trials and tribulations. Where does the professor suggest the line be drawn between worthy and unworthy life? The gift of life is to be honored and cherished rather than dissected to find flaw and destroy,“ Lisa continued.

Jeffrey, though non-verbal, has learned to communicate with those around him, and he never sleeps on the job. On Sundays (dressed in his white acolyte rob)  Jeffrey raises his hand in the air as Pastor Hatcher said, “in classic ‘rock on’ configuration,” and takes his bow before taking his seat. In “what looks to some like a signal for Angus Young to keep shredding his Gibson SG is actually sign language for ‘I love you.”

Jeffrey has always been an ever-present, awe inspiring soul to countless other people. His pastor once recounted, “When Jeffrey gave his Confirmation essay last summer, there wasn’t a dry eye in the house. God has worked a faith in this kid that goes well beyond his ability to articulate it. He doesn’t play football. He may not end up as an influential businessman or politician. He is, however, a shining paradigm of what it means to deeply love Christ.”

“God gives us many gifts.; one must only open one’s eyes to see them,” said Lisa. I wish Professor Coyne could meet Jeffrey. Perhaps then he could understand the real value, the real worth of a human life, regardless of how “doomed” or how “unhappy” that life may have first appeared to the benevolent professor. 

As Pastor Hatcher touchingly stated, “So, forth and short in the Red Zone, down five with thirty seconds left to go… Give me Tim Tebow. A faithful model of the love of Christ, on the other hand… I’d rather have Jeffrey Dennis.” Me too.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
8 Comments

8 Comments

  1. drew

    August 1, 2017 at 8:32 am

    I have to post this as two comments because the way the site is coded, the length of the post obscures the “Post comment” button.

    Perhaps you didn’t accurately read the article but the quote that starts off this posting was actually not from Professor Coyne but from an article that he was quoting by a man named Gary Comstock.

    Coyne presents his case, arguing in favor of the murder of infants who aren’t up to par; all this in the name of morality and compassion.

    In fact, he argues for killing of infants who are dying instead of just letting them die; that it is more compassionate to give such a baby a lethal cocktail which immediately ends their life than it is to allow them to suffocate or starve (as a result of pulling a breathing tube or feeding tube respectively).

  2. drew

    August 1, 2017 at 8:33 am

    He also suggests that in some cases, the example quoted is a child with the most extreme case of spina bifida, which would leave the child not only permanently unable to function, but also in constant pain and agony.

    You then go on to quote a harrowing story of a child born with Down’s Syndrome as though Professor Coyne argued that children suffering Down’s Syndrome should be killed, when in fact, the only time he mentions Down’s is in passing when talking about a different trisomy (trisomy 18) about which he says “unlike the Down case, trisomy 18, involving imbalance of a larger chromosome, produces a severe condition, with most children dying horrible deaths soon after birth.”

  3. drew

    August 1, 2017 at 8:35 am

    That kind of renders your entire article here a non-sequitur. One might even accuse you of “Bearing false witness” against Coyne.

    Do you care to actually address his points? Do you think that it’s more humane to allow a baby to suffocate or starve to death after pulling life support than it would be to quickly and painlessly end the life?

    • David L

      August 1, 2017 at 10:28 am

      Hi Drew,

      I’m curious what browser & system your using. I too have run into problems with Firefox & Brave on Android because of the “https everywhere” extension, or add-on. Other browsers do not cause the bottom of the outer comment box to disappear as each line typed erases more. I usually can’t get past three lines before Post disappeared. Chrome works fine, as do Firefox versions without Https add-on. I’ve contacted EFF about this two days ago. Because a lot of WordPress sites I’ve run into this issue.

      • drew

        August 1, 2017 at 11:09 am

        It was something that used to happen frequently but I’ve not had happen in sometime (until today). I’m using firefox fwiw.

        I’m not a programmer, so take what I’m about to say with a grain of salt, but I think it’s a consequence of the comment frame having a set dimension in height. If what’s inside expands past that dimension it’s no longer seen. I believe the key if for the source code to set the frame height as variable, or to fit what’s inside.

        • David L

          August 1, 2017 at 11:18 am

          Thanks Drew,

          Do you have the add-on Https Everywhere installed, or just plain Firefox with no add-ons. I just corresponded with Electronic Frontier Foundation, the developer of Https Everywhere. I noticed you can type much longer comments before Post button disappeared.

          Are you on Windows 10, and using an up to date Firefox version?

          • drew

            August 1, 2017 at 12:39 pm

            Current firefox Win 7 only flash.Can type 2 line in this reply before it’s gone.Had more before.

          • David L

            August 1, 2017 at 1:17 pm

            Thanks, your info should add to help find a solution hopefully. I appreciate your taking the time to answer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Guns and Crime

Border Patrol arrests 32 at San Diego demonstration

Published

on

Border Patrol arrests 32 at San Diego demonstration

SAN DIEGO (AP) — U.S. Border Patrol agents arrested 32 people at a demonstration Monday that was organized by a Quaker group on the border with Mexico, authorities said. Demonstrators were calling for an end to detaining and deporting immigrants and showing support for migrants in a caravan of Central American asylum seekers.

A photographer for The Associated Press saw about a dozen people being handcuffed after they were told by agents to back away from a wall that the Border Patrol calls “an enforcement zone.” The American Friends Service Committee, which organized the demonstration, said 30 people were stopped by agents in riot gear and taken into custody while they tried to move forward to offer a ceremonial blessing near the wall.

Border Patrol spokesman Theron Francisco said 31 people were arrested for trespassing and one was arrested for assaulting an officer.

More than 300 people, many the leaders of churches, mosques, synagogues and indigenous communities, participated in the demonstration at San Diego’s Border Field State Park, which borders Tijuana, Mexico.

The rally held on a beach divided by the border wall was the second confrontation for Border Patrol agents since a caravan of more than 6,000 migrants, predominantly Hondurans, reached Tijuana last month. A confrontation with rock-throwers from Mexico led to U.S. agents firing tear gas into Mexico on Nov. 25 and a five-hour closure of the nation’s busiest border crossing.

Thousands of migrants are living in crowded tent cities in Tijuana after undertaking a grueling journey from Central America to the U.S. border. Many face waiting weeks or months in Mexico while they apply for asylum. The U.S. is processing up to about 100 claims a day at the San Diego crossing, which is creating a backlog.

The demonstration Monday was meant to launch a national week of action called “Love Knows No Borders: A moral call for migrant justice,” which falls between Human Rights Day on Monday, and International Migrants’ Day on Dec. 18, the group said.

“Showing up to welcome and bless children, mothers and fathers seeking asylum from very difficult and dehumanizing circumstances is the right and humane thing to do,” said Bishop Minerva G. Carcano, from the San Francisco Area United Methodist Church. “How we act in these moments determines who we will become as a nation.”

The group also is calling on Congress to defund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection.

Continue Reading

Entertainment and Sports

Latest Godzilla: King of Monsters trailer may mean it’s actually getting released next year

Published

on

Latest Godzilla King of Monsters trailer may mean its actually getting released next year

One of next year’s early blockbusters will be Godzilla: King of the Monsters. It is scheduled for May 31 after being pushed repeatedly to position it against the competition. This newest release date will give Marvel’s Avengers: End Game plenty of time to eat up audience dollars before passing the baton.

Originally slated for this year, executives kept looking for the best window for their second installment of what they hope to be a franchise similar to the successful Planet of the Apes reboot. The first installment of Godzilla in 2014 was widely seen as the first legitimate blockbuster featuring the Japanese monster after a handful of clunky attempts. It did well with a strong cast (including Bryan Cranston) and chalked up over $500 million at the worldwide box office against 75% on Rotten Tomatoes.

This installment features Millie Bobby Brown who has experience fighting demonic beasts in Netflix Stranger Things.

My only concern is that they seem to be putting out all the major bad monsters in this one – Mothra, Rodan, and King Ghidorah. It lends to the notion that this will be limited to a trilogy with the climax being Godzilla vs. Kong, crossing over the giant ape’s own franchise.

Continue Reading

Healthcare

Brett Kavanaugh punts on Planned Parenthood cases, leaving conservatives baffled

Published

on

Brett Kavanaugh punts on Planned Parenthood cases leaving conservatives baffled

Conservatives were cheering when Justice Brett Kavanaugh was finally confirmed after a tumultuous process that polarized the nation. Leftists argued that Kavanaugh’s confirmation would be the end for women’s rights to make choices about abortions, among other things, even before the confirmation turned into a high school sexual assault circus.

Instead of hearing arguments in his first major abortion-related case since taking the bench, Kavanaugh sided with Chief Justice John Roberts and the four left-leaning Supreme Court Justices to decline to review it. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch all wanted to hear the case, but it takes four.

According to Thomas, the move was political.

Kavanaugh, Roberts, side with liberal judges on Planned Parenthood case

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/10/supreme-court-planned-parenthood-defunding-case-845056?lIn February, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that Kansas was wrong to to end Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid funding, writing that states can’t cut off funding for reasons “unrelated to the provider’s competence and the quality of the healthcare it provides.” Four other appeals courts have ruled that Medicaid patients have the right to access the provider of their choice.

But the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that states do have the right to terminate a provider’s Medicaid contract and that residents cannot challenge that decision.

The Supreme Court’s action Monday allows the split decisions to stand in different federal circuits. Thomas, in his dissent, wrote that the Supreme Court should have taken the cases to resolve conflicting findings from lower courts.

“Because of this Court’s inaction, patients in different States — even patients with the same providers — have different rights to challenge their State’s provider decisions,” Thomas wrote.

My Take

Thomas is right. This is the type of case that is ideal for the Supreme Court to resolve the rights of individuals, who are currently bound by different laws in different states. The majority of the time, this isn’t a bad thing. States can and should act differently from one another. However, when it comes to a person’s right to challenge a federal funding, which Medicaid is in part, there needs to be clear direction from the Supreme Court.

As Thomas noted, the reasons for punting on this issue were clear.

“So what explains the court’s refusal to do its job here? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood.’ That makes the Court’s decision particularly troubling, as the question presented has nothing to do with abortion,” Thomas wrote.

This case had nothing to do with abortion, at least not directly. It was about the rights of the people to challenge how their tax dollars were spent, a fundamental right that drills down to the core of our republic. The mere mention of Planned Parenthood, even outside of the abortion issue, was enough to spook Justice Kavanaugh. He joins Chief Justice Roberts and Republicans on Capitol Hill who are so terrified of Planned Parenthood, they refuse to address the issue even at its most basic level.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report