Thursday, March 01, 2012

Babies are"Morally Irrevelant" So Killing Babies No Different than Abortion

As the abortion debate continues to rage on, the most important question at the center of this hot-button issue remains the same, "When does human life begin?." The answer very much depends on one's view of what a human being is. For instance, do you believe human beings deserve special dignity? Are human beings worthy of special respect? Or, is it okay to kill and eat human beings the same way we kill and eat chickens, pigs, and cows? Is it okay to enslave and use human beings the way we do horses and/or oxen? One thing is certain: the answers to these questions cannot be determined by empirical science.

Up until now, most of us believe human beings are intrinsically valuable - equal in fundamental worth and dignity - because of who we are. Not because of the transient qualities we may, or may not possess? Not because of what we can contribute to society. After all, we're human-beings, not human-doings. So, if we are intrinsically valuable because of who we are, and not because of our capacity to do things  when does that unique cluster of cells that we all start out as, become a human being? Remember, the physical/materialistic is the only aspect of the human being that empirical science can confirm. Science cannot substantiate the immaterial aspect of the human being - the consciousness/ soul.

Today, in America, one in four pregnancies ends in abortion. Most of us, including myself, do not give this subject much thought because it's become so universally accepted, whether we are "pro-life" or "pro-choice". This could also signal what might be called a hardening of sensibilities, especially considering what some academics are seriously discussing and publishing. That is, the right to kill your newborn, or as they so eloquently put it, "after-birth abortion".

That's right. The Journal of Medical Ethics recently published the paper, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?  Parents should have the right to kill newborn babies because they are not "actual persons".  The authors argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn because their capacities to do things are the same; hence, if abortion is lawful, infanticide should be lawful.

You might say to yourself, "So's not been made law." While that's true, it's important to understand that since these arguments are acceptable to publish, the implication is there is potential for societal acceptance. To be sure, The Journal of Medical Ethics rejects many more papers than it accepts.

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
As absurd as this sounds, it's not, when you really think about it. Many of those who cringe at the thought of killing a newborn, defend, tooth and nail, the right to kill that same child a few days/months sooner. They're that certain there is a difference. If a fertilized egg is not a human, then it never will be, because nothing is added to it after that time.

The bottom line is that this is just part of an overall message that becomes clearer everyday: if for any reason you are an inconvenient and/or non-productive member of society, you need to be eliminated for the "greater good".


Anonymous,  03:54  

Any species which willingly destroys its offspring for any perceived benefit to the parents or to the existing members of the species as a whole unwittingly consigns itself to self-imposed extinction.

To jump in late into the theological debate, God did not destroy his Son. His Son allowed himself to be killed for the sake of the entire species, knowing that death could not defeat him. It was a choice that He made, not one forced upon him by society or even God. He made the choice. How does a newborn baby make the choice to die by the hands of a selfish parent? There is no equivalency, and to try and make equivalency is not only dishonest, it is very unintelligent.

This is the fallacy of the atheist argument that man can be good without God. When man becomes God by subversion, whatever man wishes to be good is therefore good. There is no moral code of the cosmos, no divine law of the earth, only the will of man. Once you eliminate the morality based on a power greater than ourselves, morality becomes plastic and moldable, having no firm set and having no guarantee. Rights become allowances at the hands of those with power, and life becomes as meaningless as death.

Jeff,  04:17  

Obama’s Czar of Science John Holdren in his book “Ecoscience” embraces similar goals:

Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not.

The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food.

Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise.

People who “contribute to social deterioration” (undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility”

A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.

Notice the euphemism “After-birth abortion” instead of outright murder in the first degree.

Anonymous,  04:24  

Also, this reeks of “eugenics” which was supported among progressives as a way to advance the human condition through genetic selection…in other words the selection of those worthy of reproduction while denying those they deem unworthy.

The most notorious distortion of these fabian/progressives was perpetrated through various laws set forth in Nuremberg under the Nazis which led to the eventual targeting of certain undesirable races as “sub human” (Jews and Slavs) only for extermination.

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was a big supporter of the classic form of eugenics and she hated blacks.

Genetic manipulation, today, is a refined version of eugenics in the past. It’s a slippery slope that we should avoid at all cost if we can manage to keep the progressives and elitists at bay. It‘s Interesting to note that early proponents of the new science were Winston Churchill, Alexander Graham Bell, Himmler, Hitler, Goebels, Eichmann, Goering, Theodore Roosevelt, Marie Stopes, H G Wells, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Linus Pauling, Sidney webb…among many other notables…

Petitions by|Start a Petition »

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by 2008

Back to TOP