Jill Stanek Addresses Catholic Leaders on ‘Live Birth Abortions'

[Michie]

Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

"Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death; don’t stand back and let them die. Don’t try to disclaim responsibility by saying you didn’t know."

CHARLOTTE, N.C. (Catholic Online) –

For me, the highlight of the gathering of the Catholic leadership Conference was the plenary address given on the final evening by Jill Stanek, the Registered Nurse who worked in the Labor & Delivery Department at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn and exposed the practice of a modern form of “infant exposure” wherein unwanted children would be born alive and left to die. Like so many, I have read of this horror and regularly visit Jill’s web log.(http://www.jillstanek.com/) I have seen Jill interviewed on television and have been deeply moved by her heroic witness of exposing, opposing and confronting this evil. However, nothing could have prepared me for the reaction I had on Friday evening when I heard her story in person.

As a student of Church history I am well aware of the barbaric practices that the early Christians faced as they went, in obedience to the Lord, to proclaim the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every Nation. One of those practices was infant exposure. Unwanted children would be left on rocks to be eaten by birds of prey or picked up by slave traders. One of the earliest accounts we have of the practice is from the second century.

It is mentioned in a letter written by an anonymous Christian and addressed to a pagan inquirer to the Christian faith named Diognetus. In this letter the Christian explains what makes Christians different through contrasting Christian practices with some of the prevailing cultural practices. A portion of that letter reads: "Christians are indistinguishable from other men either by nationality, language or customs. They do not inhabit separate cities of their own, or speak a strange dialect, or follow some outlandish way of life. Their teaching is not based upon reveries inspired by the curiosity of men. Unlike some other people, they champion no purely human doctrine. With regard to dress, food and manner of life in general, they follow the customs of whatever city they happen to be living in, whether it is Greek or foreign. And yet there is something extraordinary about their lives. They live in their own countries as though they were only passing through. They play their full role as citizens, but labor under all the disabilities of aliens. Any country can be their homeland, but for them their homeland, wherever it may be, is a foreign country. Like others, they marry and have children, but they do not expose them. They share their meals, but not their wives.”

Continued- http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=29333

 

[Sianelle]

Oh Sweet Jesus.... that is appallingly wicked.

I read somewhere once that the true goodness of a civilization can be assessed by the way they treat their very young and their very old.

 

[WarriorAngel]

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Epistle to Diognetus

CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to Diognetus (Mathetes)

Anyway - I wonder if this is the nurse who witnessed another nurse throw a baby into phermaldehyde [as per the story i received from HLI back in the 90's when i got their letters - b4 i moved]

 

[LivingWordUnity]

When people start by saying that they don't know when life begins, where they draw the line can always slowly shift.
.

 

[SolomonVII]

When people start by saying that they don't know when life begins, where they draw the line can always slowly shift.

It is more than the slippery slope issue I think. what is under dispute is the value than any individual life has, and what gives it that value. Science has fairly well established that an individual life begins at conception. the question then becomes what makes a life valuable.

If life is not inherently valuable, then the value of any life is dependent on certain conditions being met.
Is the life wanted? Is there love in its future?
Is there sentience?
How much suffering is/will be involved?
How much potential does the life promise to fulfill given its biology?

This is how a life must to be judged, if life is not given a value that is inherent to its own being. If value is not inherent, the value given to that life will be relative to the values of the current judgments of the society into which the life is born.

The arguments now being applied to the fetus, once accepted as valid, will be applied to other stages of life too.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

When people start by saying that they don't know when life begins, where they draw the line can always slowly shift.
.

Being Catholic means we do not have to guess, we know it starts at conception. Even science has proven that at conception there is a new human life. Not sure why they still debate it???

 

[Globalnomad]

Because, as Solomon pointed out, it is not true that a life is a life is a life. We all accept that a new life begins when a perticular sperm breaks through the ovum, deciding the new genetic mix. What is not so clear is whether the life represented by this fertilised egg is the same as the life represented by an adult human being, or by a five-year-old child, or by a newborn baby, or by a seven-month fetus. It certainly does not have the same fullness: now what is the consequence of this difference in fullness?

 

[Globalnomad]

P.S. that was not an indirect argument to accept abortion. I did say it is a new human life right from conception. So please try to address the nuance of my question (it is a genuine one!) and don't just squash it with a hundred-pound hammer.

 

[SolomonVII]

Because, as Solomon pointed out, it is not true that a life is a life is a life. We all accept that a new life begins when a perticular sperm breaks through the ovum, deciding the new genetic mix. What is not so clear is whether the life represented by this fertilised egg is the same as the life represented by an adult human being, or by a five-year-old child, or by a newborn baby, or by a seven-month fetus. It certainly does not have the same fullness: now what is the consequence of this difference in fullness?

I am not sure that you accurately understood me.
If the Catholic premise is accepted that all human life is inherently valuable, infinitely valuable even as is true of all sacred things;

and the science of life is accepted that a unique individual is created at the time of conception with the same DNA footprint that will be there for the whole life journey;
then indeed a life is a life is a life.

It is when this premise is rejected that value becomes extrinsic to the life of the individual and relative to the social constructs of the particular society.
When the premise of the inherent worth of human life is rejected, then the worth, or fullness, of life becomes in effect imposed on that life by us as a whole.

Is the life of a Down's child of equal fullness and worth and value as that of a normal child?

Or is an autistic life of equal value to that of a socially well-adapted individual?

We (as Catholics) can only know that when God decides, all human life is sacred. When we decide, we may come to radically different conclusions about such things.

80% of potential parents of Down's for example, decide "No", such a life is not worth living. Who knows what the numbers will be for the autistic, if ever a genetic screen becomes available.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Because, as Solomon pointed out, it is not true that a life is a life is a life. We all accept that a new life begins when a perticular sperm breaks through the ovum, deciding the new genetic mix. What is not so clear is whether the life represented by this fertilised egg is the same as the life represented by an adult human being, or by a five-year-old child, or by a newborn baby, or by a seven-month fetus. It certainly does not have the same fullness: now what is the consequence of this difference in fullness?

In the secular world your points are debated.

In Catholicism there is no debate. LIFE begins at conception. If you are Catholic and you have a problem with that then "tough cookies".

 

[SolomonVII]

There is no debate about it in Catholic teaching. The Cathoilic teaching is clear, unchanged and unchangeable when it comes to the question of the goodness inherent to human life.

But there is good reason to expect that life is not always going to be defined as the taking of the first breath.

That is as arbitrary a definition of personhood as any other.
Once it is established by secular society that a Down's life is not worth living-and this has pretty much been decided that it is not- then how long before the same decision is not made for an autistic child who happens to be outside of any in-utero screening devise?

Just because a test has not been developed, the precedent has already been set. The argument has already been made and accepted that life is not really 'full' unless there is a degree of consciousness and self-awareness.

Nobody is even conscious of their first year of breath, so who is to say that the beginning of legal personhood should not start at the first birthday rather than the first breath?

What is clear from the OP is that hospitals were already approaching this new definition of personhood before specific legislation was passed.

Really, the argument is already out there, and suffice it to say that there are some very prominent politicians that are not beyond this line of reasoning.

And in terms of the Catholic vote, Jack, such reasoning on behalf of politicians comes without any sort of political price to be paid.

This should be clear to all Catholics here too, whichever side of the debate we may find ourselves on. When it comes to the Catholic vote, there is no price to be paid by a poltician who is ready to accept a new definition of just when life begins.