Sliding Down the Slippery Slope at Warp Speed
Giubilini and Minerva aren’t satirists? They really are “ethicists” — and they’re freaking serious? O … M … G.
Indeed, they are, pun intended, dead serious, as is JME’s editor Julian Savulescu. In a blog post five days later, jaded Julian not only defended the publication of the indefensible work, he virtually agreed with its authors’ immoral proposal:
The arguments presented, in fact, are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris in defense of infanticide, which the authors call after-birth abortion.
… 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 provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible.
Savulescu also bitterly attacked those who dared to express their outrage over the decision to publish the Australian pair’s conclusions in a “scholarly” journal. Oh sure, he cited death threats and racist comments, which everyone agrees are out of bounds and should be legally pursued when warranted. But it’s clear from his posting of the following comments he identified as “abusive threatening correspondence” in his introduction that the thin-skinned Savalescu despises being on the receiving end of any form of disagreement from the rest of us inferior beings:
“These people are evil. Pure evil. That they feel safe in putting their twisted thoughts into words reveals how far we have fallen as a society.”
“I don‘t believe I’ve ever heard anything as vile as what these ‘people’ are advocating. Truly, truly scary.”
“The fact that the Journal of Medical Ethics published this outrageous and immoral piece of work is even scarier.”
What Savulescu calls examples of abuse and threats, the rest of us would characterize as “strongly worded opinions.” There is little doubt that if they could, “ethicists” like Savalescu and many of his odious American counterparts would silence any and all dissent from their “ethical” discussions. Really, can gulags for objectors who won’t shut up be that far behind?
Abortion proponents in the late 1960s and early 1970s ridiculed those who warned against the “slippery slope” consequences of allowing abortion on demand. “It won’t lead anyone to seriously consider euthanasia and infanticide,” they said. Well, yes it did.
We’re even taking the first steps towards realizing Swift’s sardonically imagined world where its people consume its children — not in preparing what we eat (yet), but indeed in what we drink, again accompanied by astonishing arrogance:
In a decision delivered February 28, the Security and Exchange Commission ruled that PepsiCo’s use of aborted fetal remains in their research and development agreement with Senomyx to produce flavor enhancers falls under “ordinary business operations.”
… PepsiCo also requested … (that a related shareholders’) resolution be excluded because it “probed too deeply into matters of a complex nature upon which shareholders cannot make an informed judgment.”
Can anyone reasonably doubt presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s deep concern that if we continue down our current path — one which, if Obamacare is ever implemented, will lead inexorably to a point where “every man, woman and child in America … (will be) dependent upon the federal government for your life and your health” — we will “leave a very cold dangerous, frightening America to our children”?
Vile? Absolutely? Surprising? Not in the least. For instance, the APA (American Psychiatric Association) has modified many of its positions the last 40 years, not based on any science, but a preference towards “new tolerance” to make what would have been considered unarguably immoral 40 years ago, now acceptable – even loving. And they are very clever in their justification.
You may remember many of the abortion on demand proponents predate Roe v. Wade used as justification in their reasoning that legalized abortion would help to assure that “children would be wanted.”
We now have 40 years of evidence to substantiate that claim.
And what I’ve witnessed is anything but children being wanted and loved. Look at our public school systems and the state of marriage. Many schools are war zones, with legions of amoral children that have no concept of morality or respect, raised by the previous generation of amoral parents. Throw all the money you wish towards correction, but until we get a quality set of parents which includes a father, nothing will improve. And while we can argue the causation, I do find it a tad suspicious the poor results correlate pretty closely to Boomers becoming parents and their demands for live and let live.
I don’t know where this new definition of tolerance stops, where we throw decency and principle to the winds and we all decide for ourselves right and wrong, but if history has shown us anything, civilizations that took this path are no longer.
My dad fathered me in his late 20s. A guy in his late 20s today has impregnated a dozen different women, and they’ve all aborted because he’s too busy getting a new tattoo and playing a video game with his baseball cap on backward.
We’ve created a culture that’s so “cool” they’re absolutely unmarriable and have no interest whatsoever in creating another generation. Past generations started cathedrals they couldn’t possibly finish in their lifetimes, or died on a beach at Iwo Jima, and they said to their offspring, “I’m doing this for you.” Today people don’t want offspring interrupting their party.
Selfish seems too tame a word for such evil.
“or died on a beach at Iwo Jima”
What do you think this generation was doing in iraq and afghanistan?
Complaining about the next generation is an old tradition. It goes back to the ancient greeks (at least). I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s some cuneiform tablet lying out there in the desert that starts with “these kids today …”
And unwed mothers is nothing new. It’s just that today women have more options. Apparently, some people really don’t like that. They don’t think it’s an improvement.
Actually, the concept of unwed mothers may not be new, but the acceptance of it as a norm or alternative lifestyle most certainly is.
As far as an improvement? I hope that was a rhetorical question, because the results are in. One look around with 41% of children now born out of wedlock, and our schools, our resources, our manners, our teenage health including epidemic suicide and depression, and our societal crassness would say without doubt, it’s not.
Thank you Tex!
And what’s the public reaction to the action in Iraq and Afghanistan? Compare and contrast with WWII.
I stand by my statement that this generation is extraordinarily selfish – to the point of wrecking a culture.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, it’s “an old man complaining about the kids.” That doesn’t dismiss what I have to say. To dismiss me and my ilk is to make the absurd claim that nothing ever gets worse, nothing ever decays, and that public attitudes have nothing to do with anything. Well, what’s this site here for? I guess if we say the economy’s getting worse, well, “People always say it’s getting worse.” If we complain about Obamacare, well, “People always say it’s going to cause an irreparable collapse.”
Saying that it’s a cliche that “Old folks always say things are getting worse” is ITSELF a cliche.
Things DO get worse, and when they do it’s “not something to worry about”… until your civilization vanishes and you scratch your head and wonder “How’d that happen?” Amazing that you’re dismissing me in a thread about legitimized infanticide. It’s like you’re in such a hurry to call an old man and old man that you’ve forgotten what the damned article was about.
Utterly amazing.
Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind. Two generations of immorality hath wrought this upon us, and only a national repentance can change it.
I worry about people who use the word “hath” in casual conversation.
…”cuneiform tablet…”
From Samuel Noah Kramer’s book “History Begins At Sumer,” a bit of a Sumerian tablet dated about 3,700 years ago, possibly much earlier:
“Come now, be a man. Don’t stand about in the public square, or wander about the boulevard.”
“Others like you support their parents by working. If you spoke to your kin, and appreciated them, you would emulate them.”
“I, night and day am I tortured because of you. Night and day you waste in pleasures. You have accumulated much wealth, have expanded far and wide, have become fat, big, broad, powerful and puffed. But your kin wait expectantly for your misfortune, and will rejoice at it because you looked not to your humanity.”
Nice
And then Sumer was smashed by invading forces, and we have not known Sumer since.
Nice!
Total KIA Iraq & Afghanistan 5024 Total Force 2001 to present: 1,357,700
Total KIA/Missing Iwo Jima 6821 Total Force 70,000 Marines
How does that stack up?
I’m not sure I understand where you’re going with that.
Yes, the age of mass-mobilization wars IS behind us (I hope). WWI just involved millions of guys trying to shoot each other between holes in the ground for month after month. WWII got a fair bit more mechanized, but still involved very large numbers of bodies with guns and grenades. Korea and Vietnam were increasingly fought from the air. Kosovo mostly involved just dropping bombs on things. The wars in iraq and afghanistan have involved boots on the ground, but the US military has got a lot smarter about getting things done without just throwing people at the enemy. Modern medicine is also a great deal better and keeping people alive, and the evacuation processes are a lot more efficient now.
But I think you’re missing that people are still volunteering to fight in those wars. They’re not dying as fast, that’s true. Personally, I think that’s a good thing. But I don’t think that undermines their selflessness or commitment.
Forgive me if I’ve misunderstood something there…
You’re comparing two wars to one battle. It would be better to put the deaths as a percentage of total forces deployed.
“It’s just that today women have more options.”
Apparently it doesn’t matter to you that most of these newer options impoverish women, children, and society generally, and leave them unhappier and more maladjusted than before.
It was a pretty gutsy article to publish, no doubt about it. If anyone here bothers to find the interviews with the authors, you’ll find they actually DON’T support infanticide, and the article wasn’t intended as a proposal.
I have read the article, and I think their reasoning has a few problems. Actually, I think their premises have some problems, the reasoning itself is fairly sound. But the idea itself is nothing new. They’re not saying anything more than the people who point out the incongruity of a hospital fighting to keep premature babies alive at the same age as they’re (potentially) aborting them on the next wing over.
Their basic point is that there’s an arbitrary illogical distinction between the arguments in favor of abortion in the womb, and not applying those same arguments after birth. I actually think (although it would be – literally – dangerous for the authors to admit it) that they were being at least slightly satirical. The very term “after-birth abortion” is nonsensical. It’s an obvious oxymoron. You can’t abort a pregnancy once it’s complete. The one word that CAN’T apply in that context is “abortion”. That, to me, is a bit of a hint that this article isn’t intended as a genuine policy proposal. It’s a hypothetical. And you have to admit – it’s provoked discussion (most of it pointless, but still …). The policy also has absolutely no chance of ever taking place in the home countries of the two authors.
There’s nothing theoretical about the threats that the authors have received since that article was published, though. The editors of the journal have been quite right to point out that the people who claim to be “pro-life” seem to be quite liberal with their threats to end it.
It turns out that there really are some debates that are too dangerous to have. Just discussing a topic can get you death threats. How about that.
But it’s great to see so many people leap onto a bandwagon to tell the world how righteous they are. And such an easy target, too. I wonder how many of them can point to their similarly furious polemics about the children killed by US airstrikes in iraq. Anyone? Got any links? How about you, Tom? Do you care about dead babies or not?
dead, asshole
Thank you for demonstrating my point.
“There is NO difference between a child that is killed in any of those circumstances. And I frankly cannot believe that anybody would try to argue otherwise. Whatever the reason, the result is exactly the same. I think you need to go back to the drawing board with that thought. You’re confusing some sort of bizarre notion of utility or culpability with the outcome.”
So, you’re saying there’s no difference between killing without intent and killing with intent? You’re saying that it is the same to kill children in the crossfire of war as it is to kill them because raising them is hard?
“So, you’re saying there’s no difference between killing without intent and killing with intent?”
Not to the child or his family, no.
“You’re saying that it is the same to kill children in the crossfire of war as it is to kill them because raising them is hard?”
The outcome is precisely the same. Yes, murder is murder. The cause might be completely different, but the result is identical. That’s all I’m saying.
And if a government goes and does something that is absolutely guaranteed to kill civilians, then it’s a stretch to try to call that “the crossfire”. The people under those bombs during Shock and Awe weren’t collateral – they were targets.
My surprise is that only one of those scenarios seems to raise even a flicker of concern from you guys. And the one that’s getting you worked up is a HYPOTHETICAL. Whereas the situation I’m asking you to consider and respond to actually DID happen. To real people. In the real world.
I bet I can keep this up all day. I’m not going to see any of you express the slightest bit of concern about actual children killed by US military actions. But you’ll raise the roof about about an academic paper posing ethical problems that aren’t going to happen.
Smuggy, you’ve somehow linked the subject of fighting a war, about which there may be no choice, with abortion. What about driving? Aren’t you concerned about all those children who are accidentally killed as a result of driving? Or, if you are against driving – as a result of transportation? Or food production? How about the children killed accidentally as a result of educating them?
I have my doubts about your goodness, Smuggy.
“Smuggy, you’ve somehow linked the subject of fighting a war, about which there may be no choice, with abortion”
Actually, I linked it with a specific event. I see hot and cold running outrage here about an abstract hypothetical which offends your sensibilities. But I’m still waiting to see one person agree that just maybe killing civilians in that particular circumstance might have even been regrettable, let alone an outrage.
“What about driving? Aren’t you concerned about all those children who are accidentally killed as a result of driving?”
Yes. I am.
“as a result of transportation? Or food production?”
Absolutely. A tragedy, and something to take steps to avoid.
“How about the children killed accidentally as a result of educating them?”
I’m not quite sure how that one works, but yes.
“I have my doubts about your goodness, Smuggy.”
Just tell me you think that killing civilians during “shock and awe” was a bad thing. That those deaths are just as tragic to their relatives as any other.
Smuggy, If you are so concerned about the death of children as a result of educating them (accidental deaths in sports and accidental deaths as a result of their transportation to school, suicides consequent upon bullying and sexual harassment, and accidental deaths consequent upon such actions as the recent one where a teacher concocted an apparatus to keep the student’s head facing the teacher which suffocated the child, etc), why aren’t you spending your time here expressing this concern and doing what you can to end these accidental deaths? Why are you sticking to an ad hominem technique to change the subject to the question of the rightness or wrongness of war, and by daring people to stick up for a possibly necessary war so you can claim that they don’t really care about children’s deaths at all?
You know something, Smuggy? What people think about the Iraq war is irrelevant here.
I doubt that you are actually a good person.
Man, that’s the only argument you got huh? Are we discussing the morality/ethics of war or the morality/ethics of infanticide/abortion? They are in fact, quite separate circumstances, particularly when the military goes out of its way to minimize ALL civilian casualties (to the point of getting soldiers killed for it.)
To try to say that all childrens’ deaths are equal morally is to say that a mother who was doing 10 miles over the speed limit when she wrecked her car and killed her newborn is guilty of infanticide.
There is a HUGE difference between a child that is killed in an airstrike (that was not intended to kill children) a child killed in a car wreck, and a child that is killed because it would be an economic burden. As reasonable as you sound, I’m amazed you don’t see that.
As for the article, I was a bit shocked– I used to make the joke (it seems in poor taste now) that mothers should be allowed to “test drive” their newborn for 30 days before deciding if they wanted it or not…
“Man, that’s the only argument you got huh?”
You seem to have skipped the argument and focused entirely on my challenge to show some consistent concern for the lives of children. I’ll make myself comfortable while I wait
“Are we discussing the morality/ethics of war or the morality/ethics of infanticide/abortion?”
I think we’re discussing the second one. But like I said – I suspect that the same people who are blowing gaskets about this hypothetical didn’t lose a moment’s sleep about children killed by the actions of their government. As long as they’re OTHER people’s children, of course. Oddly enough, I reckon the other guys didn’t see it that way. I guess they just hate freedom.
“They are in fact, quite separate circumstances”
Well, yes.
“particularly when the military goes out of its way to minimize ALL civilian casualties (to the point of getting soldiers killed for it.)”
Drop a few 10s of tons of high explosive on downtown baghdad without warning in the middle of the night and you will kill civilians. The only way to avoid that is to not do it. That’s the reality of “shock and awe”. It killed babies, you can rely on that. And it served no tactical or strategic purpose, other than to scare the hell out of iraqis. How do you feel about it?
“To try to say that all childrens’ deaths are equal morally”
Wow. Think about what you’re saying, there. Are you actually going to declare one dead baby to be morally “less equal” than another?
“is to say that a mother who was doing 10 miles over the speed limit when she wrecked her car and killed her newborn is guilty of infanticide.”
There are going to be differences of culpability, yes. Accidents do happen. But the tragedy is precisely the same.
“There is a HUGE difference between a child that is killed in an airstrike (that was not intended to kill children) a child killed in a car wreck, and a child that is killed because it would be an economic burden. As reasonable as you sound, I’m amazed you don’t see that.”
There is NO difference between a child that is killed in any of those circumstances. And I frankly cannot believe that anybody would try to argue otherwise. Whatever the reason, the result is exactly the same. I think you need to go back to the drawing board with that thought. You’re confusing some sort of bizarre notion of utility or culpability with the outcome.
“mothers should be allowed to “test drive” their newborn for 30 days before deciding if they wanted it or not…”
I reckon about 21 years would be more practical
Just a throw-away aside … hemingway once declared that the shortest complete story could consisted of just 6 words: “For sale. Baby shoes. Never used”.
It looks like the Nazis won the war after all.
Yeah, and there’s a Communist in the White House. The “losers” didn’t do too bad at all.
Good point. It was a gutsy article, and we have drawn an arbitrary line– what’s the difference between a 8 month fetus and a one-day-old newborn, in terms of viability? (of course, some would argue that the arbitrary line was drawn by the same people who are now moving that arbitrary line forward, but no matter…)
Intellectual inconsistency lives on both sides of the argument, though.
When you can find some articles written by anti-war protestors– who decried the deaths of children in Iraq– about the evils of killing children in the womb, I’ll find some articles written by pro-life people decrying the deaths of children due to American military action. Promise.
The difference is that you’re likely to find example of the latter.
So you’re saying there’s no difference between premeditated murder, manslaughter (that is, negligent or reckless homicide) and a tragic accident? You are completely lacking in any sense of justice or mercy, and I hope you never serve on a jury.
“So you’re saying there’s no difference between premeditated murder, manslaughter (that is, negligent or reckless homicide) and a tragic accident? You are completely lacking in any sense of justice or mercy, and I hope you never serve on a jury.”
Not to the child, no. After the event when we’re trying to assign culpability and punish the guilty, yes. But dead baby is a dead baby. A murder is no more or less tragic than an accident.
I’m sorry, but is this really that hard to grasp?
I’ll ask it again – do you guys see any tragedy at all in an iraqi child being killed by 400kg of high explosives delivered by a tomahawk cruise missile? Are you even willing to CONSIDER that there might be tragedy or “wrong” in that? Does the utility of the situation completely rule out any possibility of human consequences at all?
Because that’s what I’m hearing, here. Skip the “moral equivalence” crap, I just want to see one of you actually write that the death of an innocent child of civilians in an airstrike launched in the middle of the night without warning over a highly populated city is wrong. Just say it. This isn’t about whether you supported the war (I have always agreed with the action in afghanistan, for example), but whether you can actually acknowledge the consequences, or if all life and death just comes down to politics.
“‘To try to say that all childrens’ deaths are equal morally.’
Wow. Think about what you’re saying, there. Are you actually going to declare one dead baby morally ‘less equal’ than another?”
Um …yeah, Tech.
So, if some crazed killer comes into your house, with his own kid strapped to his chest, intent on slaughtering your own kids, you will naturally refrain from firing shots at the killer for fear of hitting his kid …while watching your own kids get slaughtered!?!
Uh, Techno, …don’t let your wife read your posts, …okay?
It’s about PRIORITIES, there, Tech. Because you can’t control every aspect of the world. It’s about what you value. (And, your loved ones would hope, that there is actually something you value higher than your enemy’s children –even if those children are innocent.)
“The policy also has absolutely no chance of ever taking place in the home countries of the two authors.”
Because why?
The State of Virginia recently considered a law to require an ultrasound prior to abortion. The Usual Suspects went into conniptions. Now, the arguments they made were about privacy and autonomy. But it was evident that what was bothering them was that some woman, having seen an ultrasound of her baby, might choose not to kill it.
You see, these Americans — and there are millions of them — are not really pro-choice. They are pro-abortion. “Safe, legal and rare” my ass. They want that baby dead!
How they became thus insane I do not know, but there it is, and there’s no getting around it. They favor killing babies. Maybe they think it’s “good for the environment”. Who knows what they think. But when you consider that the man most of them voted for is now the President, I don’t think there is any reason why it can’t happen here. Maybe it can’t happen in Australia, but it can happen here.
they hate the notion of a birth in which there was no government permission granted at conception
Nobody is “in favor” of abortion. The pro-choice crowd gets it. Late-term abortions are horrific. I personally think any abortion after consciousness is horrific. I also think that early abortions are nothing to get upset about. I understand the ethical problem perfectly well, but I also know enough history to know what happens when abortions are illegal and women resort to desperate measures. You can’t make abortion impossible – but you can make it dangerous. And that’s where I stand on that.
But we also think women should have the right to choose. But anything else that can be done to reduce the number of abortions is fine by us.
Here’s a thought – how about taking steps that reduce the cost of effective contraception? That’s a great idea – reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies by encouraging sensible family-planning. Radical thinking, I know. That would be a very effective way to reduce the abortion rate, and I’m sure that every pro-life advocate would be right behind an idea like that, right?
That’s a lie, though perhaps one that you repeat in ignorance. Plenty of people are in favor of abortions- the same people who profit immensely from them, as well as the ones who wish to have casual sex without any regard for personal responsibility.
“That’s a lie, though perhaps one that you repeat in ignorance.”
And I’m the one using ad-hominem. Nice.
“Plenty of people are in favor of abortions- the same people who profit immensely from them”
Given the abundant demand for medical services in the US, I expect that they’d be doing something else just as profitable.
“as well as the ones who wish to have casual sex without any regard for personal responsibility.”
Actually, I think the recent hullabaloo about contraception suggests that those people would rather not get pregnant at all. Nobody has sex just so that they can have abortion. Get a grip.
That wasn’t an ad-hominem, Techno, that was a fact. Planned Parenthood et al make significant money off of abortion, and do not wish to give it up.
Ah yes, another lefty and his moral equivalency argument. “Since you don’t oppose the war in Irag you can’t possible oppose the deliberate killing of the unborn”
Actually, to take Techno’s argument one step further, we conservatives should not oppose abortion, we should actually advocate it. We all know that conservatives don’t murder their babies; only liberals like Techno and their interest groups do. As a result, given enough time, the Liberal population will reduce itself to being no more than a little fringe group.
“As a result, given enough time, the Liberal population will reduce itself to being no more than a little fringe group”
One response to that would be to point out that letting liberals get cheaper access contraception must surely be a small price to pay to see them (not) breed themselves out of existence. Just think – in a generation you could be free of them. Why is rush opposing it?
Why oppose contraceptives? Because they aren’t effective, but thinking they are promotes irresponsible sex, which leads to single motherhood, which is highly correlated with criminal behaviour.
They aren’t effective because they aren’t 100% effective. Why? Simple math. Suppose your favorite method is 99.99% effective (the best *user* effectiveness rates are more like 95%). That is for *one* use. Now do it, say, 300 times a year, pretty natural for college age youth. That is 97% effective for the year (.9999^300). Keep that up for 4 years of college, and it is 88% effective. That is a good chance of a baby. (I will also note that the method effectiveness of modern [sympto-thermal] natural family planning is better than any contraceptive except the pill.)
The promotion of contraception encourages youth to think that sex has been successfully divorced from procreation and any attendant responsibilities. If they believe that, they will likely also believe that food has been successfully divorced from nutrition, and they can eat 0 calorie “food” with no adverse consequences, and pop pills to address any nutritional deficits.
Despite waiting queues of intact childless families hoping to adopt an infant, most single mothers (who don’t abort) decide to raise the child themselves. When the young mother’s parents, or other functional family, are caregivers, this can work out. But if the young mother is alone, the statistics aren’t hopeful for her child becoming a productive adult.
Finally, why are feminists letting the males get off scott free on irresponsible sex? Another problem with promiscuity is that identifying the dad and making him at least pay child support is much more difficult.
I won’t even go into the public health issues…
I don’t even know where to start with that one. You’re actually trying to argue that contraception doesn’t reduce unwanted pregnancies. That’s just straightforwardly, provable, ridiculous. And you’re trying to claim that feminists don’t think men should be responsible for pregnancies. Seriously? And you appear to have little or no idea what leads single-parent families.
Techo said, “You’re actually trying to argue that contraception doesn’t reduce unwanted pregnancies.”
Techo didn’t actually read the comment he is responding to.
For the sake of Techno, let me mention that what I am describing is well known to the insurance industry, and is appropriately named “moral hazard”. When property is insured, the owner is measurably more careless with the insured property.
The same thing happens with contraception. Sure, it reduces the *probability* of an unwanted pregnancy for each sexual encounter, but the misleading claims of efficacy (exploiting what statisticians call the “birthday paradox”) also lead to a huge moral hazard, and a rate of *actual* unwanted pregnancy that, even after abortion, mirrors the national debt (41% and passing the last I checked). Throw in a welfare system that pays single mothers for more kids, and you wonder if the government “insurance company” is crooked, and actually trying to destroy the country.
Geez, Stuart, don’t you read the news? Unplanned pregnancies have plummeted since contraceptive use has become widespread, right Techno? And they’ll plummet even more when we get the special magic contraceptives next year (the ones the Catholic Church has to pay for). Don’t you understand statistics??!
“Unplanned pregnancies have plummeted since contraceptive use has become widespread, right Techno?”
In most countries, yes. The US is THE stand-out exception in this regard. It’s also the only developed country in the world where anyone would serious dispute that contraception should be covered by some sort of health insurance. Coincidence?
See there you go again. Liberals trying to spread the falsehood that conservatives are opposed to contraceptives. We’re not opposed to contraceptives,Techno. We’re just opposed to paying for your contraceptives. Next you’l be wanting us to buy the detergent to wash the sheets after your sex party.
I don;t understand why anyone bothered to respond to Techno’s “look, a diversion!” post. He just…changed the subject.
Actually, the question about whether any OTHER sorts of deaths mattered was an aside in my last paragraph. I’m not the one who decided that was the only line that mattered, but it’s apparently significant because people keep bringing it up and telling me I’m wrong to pose the question. I am still amazed that not one person has answered my challenge though. How hard is it?
As for the thread topic – I’ve answered it, I’ve explained where I stand on abortion, I’ve explained the authors’ intent, explained that it was only intended as a hypothetical and I’ve posted links to follow-up comments from the authors themselves that explain their position much better than I can.
I understand why you guys are angry about the original article, but it (should be) abundantly clear by now that the authors were not actually advocating infanticide. If you’d all like to huff and puff about it anyway, that’s fine – but you’re not engaging with facts any more. You’re just luxuriating in an attack on an easy target and apparently don’t care about anything that gets in that warm glow of inner rectitude.
I won’t go back to your original question, but I readily acknowledge that a death, accidental or intentional, makes no difference to the one who is dead. However, while the death of a child is a tragedy either way, I have no doubt that parents and family feel at least somewhat different about an accidental death than they do about a murder.
You can’t possibly explain the authors’ intent — because you don’t know what their intent was. If you believe what they wrote afterward in an effort to avoid the heat they were getting, you’re at a minimum gullible. Their only intent may well have been just to show how clever they are. Or to fulfill some “publish or perish” mandate.
Yes, I understand the nature of a “philosophical discussion,” even one based on flawed premises. Nonetheless, it’s not at all clear to me “that the authors were not actually advocating infanticide.” If they were advocating anything at all, they could very well have been advocating infanticide.
Though I would never justify the death of a person for an opinion no matter how vile, the thought that someone could rationalize sympathy in any regard for proponents of legal euthanizing of a baby is vile in and of itself.
The request for sympathy of the euphemistically referred to “ethicists” is almost as grotesque as article itself, and I submit your response is further proof of just how far this twisted thinking has permeated throughout or society.
“proponents of legal euthanizing of a baby”
They AREN’T proponents of euthanizing babies. It’s quite possible to lay out a completely logical case in favor of something and not actually want to see it happen.
Make a BIT of an effort to get some facts. Ok, I’ll do it for you:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/abortion-paper-led-to-death-threats-20120301-1u60a.html
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8428050/melbourne-abortion-author-gets-death-threats
And a more direct response from the authors themselves:
http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2012/03/02/an-open-letter-from-giubilini-and-minerva/
Specifically:
“… However, we never meant to suggest that after-birth abortion should become legal. This was not made clear enough in the paper. Laws are not just about rational ethical arguments, because there are many practical, emotional, social aspects that are relevant in policy making (such as respecting the plurality of ethical views, people’s emotional reactions etc). But we are not policy makers, we are philosophers, and we deal with concepts, not with legal policy”
My response to that has been in moderation since yesterday. I think it’s probably because there are too many links. So you’ll have to google the following titles to see the articles:
“proponents of legal euthanizing of a baby”
They AREN’T proponents of euthanizing babies. It’s quite possible to lay out a completely logical case in favor of something and not actually want to see it happen.
Make a BIT of an effort to get some facts. Ok, I’ll do it for you:
“Abortion paper led to death threats” – Sydney Morning Herald, March 2nd.
“Melbourne abortion author gets death threats” – NineMSN, March 1st
And a more direct response from the authors themselves:
“An open letter from Giubilini and Minerva” – BMJ Blogs, March 2nd.
Specifically, see the quote:
“… However, we never meant to suggest that after-birth abortion should become legal. This was not made clear enough in the paper. Laws are not just about rational ethical arguments, because there are many practical, emotional, social aspects that are relevant in policy making (such as respecting the plurality of ethical views, people’s emotional reactions etc). But we are not policy makers, we are philosophers, and we deal with concepts, not with legal policy”
is to forbid abortion altogether, but allow murder any time after birth, of anyone at all, to anyone at all
Good. We’ll no longer require law enforcement. Or courts. Or lawyers.
We’ve been here before, and it wasn’t satire then, either.
The eugenics movement in the early 20th century also advocated the “disposal” of children deemed to be “incapable of living full, productive lives” (exact quote). Coupled with the sterilization of those judged to be mentally deficient to prevent them from reproducing.
Quite a few luminaries of the era supported this view, including Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and U.S. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. However, it found its purest expression- where else?- in Nazi Germany.
There, the removal of “undesirables” became state policy. Children who were determined to be deficient (by the Nazis’ rigid standards of perfection) were medically murdered by doctors; their parents were told they had died of pneumonia or whooping cough or some other such malady.
Adults deemed deficient were done away with in mental institutions. Elderly adults got the same treatment in nursing homes. This, by the way, was even before they began herding Jews into death camps in conquered countries like Poland.
And yes, back then ethicists argued that all of the above was ethical, and even humanitarian. Sparing the disadvantaged lives of misery being the usual justification.
I suspect that this time around, it goes back to what P.J. O’Rourke has identified as the Paul Ehrlich syndrome, first shown in Ehrlich’s 1971 book “The Population Bomb”. Ehrlich related being made uncomfortable by seeing a mass of people in a street in India; not being in the crowd and hemmed in by them, mind you, just seeing them. This theme of “people, people, people” being a threat was the centerpiece of the book.
O’Rourke concluded that Ehrlich had a “Just enough of me, way too much of you” mindset, in which the limited resources of Holy Mother Gaia should be reserved for the enlightened elite’ (like Ehrlich), by eliminating as much of the great unwashed as possible. Except for those the elite’ needed to do the scut-work, that is, plus some muscular boys to keep the peasants in line, naturally. He pointed out that it was masses of people who were not like him that bothered Ehrlich; he would be unlikely to complain about a room , or indeed a stadium, full of fellow progressives, with or without Ph.Ds.
My best guess is that this “modest proposal” was put forward in all seriousness, but was intended only for a restricted audience, i.e. the journal’s usual readers, all of whom could be expected to approve of such “out of the box” thinking on the part of fellow enlightened (pseudo-)intellectuals. But once again, us grotty groundlings found out what our betters were talking about behind our backs, and our betters had to backpedal. They must really hate us for that, by now.
When you couple this with the “10:10″ campaign (the “no pressure” one with the red button that turned AGW skeptics- and smoker Gillian Anderson- into chunky salsa), it’s becoming clear that those who define themselves as being on a higher moral (or at least ethical) plane are very close to dropping all pretense and openly stating that the world is divided into very splendid and worthwhile people, like themselves, and a bunch of hairless apes who are excess to requirements, according to Holy Mother Gaia and other similarly-qualified experts.
For how this could turn out, consider the events from 1 September 1939, to 2 September 1945. Combined with other factors (notably those related to Islam), this is starting to look uncomfortably like the late summer of 1938.
In Munich.
clear ether
eon
Eugenics was actually a fairly popular position in the early 20th century. It wasn’t even very controversial. Maybe that’s a dirty secret, maybe it isn’t. But it obviously went right out of fashion after the second world war.
Here’s a question for you – should the state have the power to sterilize the mentally disabled? That’s a debate that is still alive today (and only recently starting to swing towards “obviously not”). That’s eugenics.
Maybe that’s a dirty secret, maybe it isn’t. But it obviously went right out of fashion after the second world war.
And why would that be, hmm?
Here’s a question for you – should the state have the power to sterilize the mentally disabled? That’s a debate that is still alive today (and only recently starting to swing towards “obviously not”).
That’s hardly a “debate that is still alive.”
“And why would that be, hmm?”
That’s obvious. It motivated some horrific abuses and abominations masquerading as science. Hitler wasn’t JUST motivated by eugenics, of course. He also had some seriously warped ideological views about a hierarchy of humanity (kind of like the same ones that once justified slavery). And a little problem with megalomania. But eugenics really was demonstrated at a logical extreme and everyone though “ooh … don’t like that much, let’s drop it”
“That’s hardly a “debate that is still alive.””
Seriously? I’d love to know what your definition of a “live debate” is, then. Right now, in most developed countries, it’s illegal to select IVF eggs by sex (and that’s under pressure in some places). It’s LEGAL to test for certain genetic diseases, and to abort fetuses that are likely to have debilitating illnesses. That’s eugenics. Heck – in a sense you might even argue that IVF itself falls within the field of eugenics – giving those with the means a way to overcome nature’s roll of the fertility dice, when they could otherwise adopt. Are you suggesting there’s no debate about any of that? Really? Matters of genetic testing and fertility science are all well and truly things that eugenicists would have dreamed of. We’re all just a lot more circumspect about what it’s used for now.
That’s obvious.
No kidding.
Seriously? I’d love to know what your definition of a “live debate” is, then. Right now, in most developed countries, it’s illegal to select IVF eggs by sex (and that’s under pressure in some places). It’s LEGAL to test for certain genetic diseases, and to abort fetuses that are likely to have debilitating illnesses.
You wrote “Here’s a question for you – should the state have the power to sterilize the mentally disabled?” And yet you don’t mention that in your response to me. I didn’t comment on sex selection, genetic diseases, or anything else. I commented on sterilization of the mentally disabled.
Please, tell me about the issue of sterilization of the mentally disabled. Tell me where this debate is happening, how often it comes up, and the different sides. If you are saying that eugenics is still debated, then say so. Words have meaning, and I can only respond to what you write.
Oh, and I’ve studied eugenics, and don’t need the crash course in it, thank you very much.
Are you suggesting there’s no debate about any of that? Really?
I RESPONDED TO WHAT YOU WROTE! Good God, I can’t read your mind and respond to the conversation going on in your head. So, No, I’m not “suggesting there’s no debate about any of that.” I’m responding to your claim that there’s an ongoing argument about the state sterilizing the mentally disabled.
“You wrote “Here’s a question for you – should the state have the power to sterilize the mentally disabled?” And yet you don’t mention that in your response to me. I didn’t comment on sex selection, genetic diseases, or anything else. I commented on sterilization of the mentally disabled.”
Sure:
Feb 21, 2012: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57381855/ex-judge-defends-ordering-an-abortion-for-woman/
Feb 24, 2012: http://www.wect.com/story/17003838/special-report-sterilization-victims-talk-about-their-pain
And from overseas:
Feb 18, 2012: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-02-18/bhopal/31074730_1_vasectomy-mphrc-rewa
And a biggie from 2009, that’s just been resolved:
Feb 29, 2012: http://www.praguepost.com/news/12346-compensation-to-go-to-illegally-sterilized-women.html
Yes, it’s an ongoing moral and legal issue. Any other questions?
Ok, that’s the second post that’s been held up in moderation. I think it’s because I include some links. Let’s try this a different way – google the titles below:
“You wrote “Here’s a question for you – should the state have the power to sterilize the mentally disabled?” And yet you don’t mention that in your response to me. I didn’t comment on sex selection, genetic diseases, or anything else. I commented on sterilization of the mentally disabled.”
Sure:
Feb 21, 2012: “Ex-judge defends ordering an abortion for woman” (CBS News)
Feb 24, 2012: “Special Report: Sterilization victims talk about their pain” (WECT)
And from overseas:
Feb 18, 2012: “Notice to officials on vasectomy of mentally-ill man” (Times of India)
And a biggie from 2009, that’s just been resolved:
Feb 29, 2012: “Compensation to go to illegally sterilized women” (Prague Post)
Yes, it’s an ongoing moral and legal issue.
“Eugenics was actually a fairly popular position in the early 20th century. And it wasn’t even very controversial.”
Yes, I believe I mentioned that. If two or more U.S. presidents and the founder of a major U.S. NGO support a position at roughly the same time, you may safely assume it is not considered out of the intellectual mainstream at that point in history. Whether or not it is a good idea is another matter entirely.
“Maybe that’s a dirty secret, maybe it isn’t. But it obviously went right out of fashion after the second world war.”
Considering what we’re talking about here, I have my doubts about that. Say rather, those who advocate eugenics today are more careful about who they talk to about it. Or else they call it “ethnic cleansing”, instead.
“Here’s a question for you – should the state have the power to sterilize the mentally disabled? That’s a debate that is still alive today (and only recently starting to swing towards “obviously not”). That’s eugenics.”
Correct, it is part of the eugenics philosophy, and was practiced in Nazi Germany along with the “disposal” of the mentally challenged. At the same time, it was being done in the U.S., the UK, and several other countries that thought eugenics was a swell idea.
As to my opinion, the problem is that “states” (i.e., governments) have an irritating tendency to regard anyone who disagrees with them as “crazy”. Meaning that if your political opinions are different than those of your Fearless Leader, you are likely to end up gelded- or worse.
And it isn’t just fascists (real like the Nazis, or imagined like the usual progressive definition of non-progressives) who are likely to do this. After all, the Soviets habitually put dissidents in mental hospitals, labeling them “mentally sick criminals”.
(BTW, one sure test of a dictatorship is the number of such people they lock away while claiming that, in their “enlightened” society, there in no crime. The USSR was a case in point- Google “Andrei Chikatilo”.)
As a rule, I believe that governments should not have the power to do harm to their own citizens unless and until those citizens do harm themselves. And that the definition of “harm” needs to be a very narrow one. That is, simply disagreeing with the government or wearing tinfoil in your hat doesn’t count (however irritating some of us may find the latter, even in our own families).
Sterilizing the mentally challenged falls into the “Thou Shalt Not” category. And yes, I extend this to mentally-challenged sex offenders, as sterilization seems to have no noticeable effect on their propensities, anyway.
They just need to be kept away from other people to prevent them from hurting same. That’s what we have law enforcement, a court system, and a penal system (including mental institutions) for.
That is, when they are used correctly. For how to do that, read any state penal code, any state mental health code, and the Constitution of the United States.
clear ether
eon
Thank you Eon for pointing out that this is eugenics, plain and simple. We have been here before. Advocating and practicing eugenics is a mark of shame for the progressives, they dont like to have it brought up, but clearly they havent changed one bit. The desire to cull the herd using their standards as a guide is still there, bubbling just below the surface.
I believe you are correct, and we’ve seen this act before. As politicians like to put out trial balloons to gather the acceptance or rejection before going national, it’s been my observation that many of these so called ethicists do much the same for a more limited audience – their peers.
And these “expert” academicians, armed with their own agendas, aren’t limited to just bioethics. I suspect even anthropogenic global warming was tossed about for a time amongst “the scholars.” I’m almost sure this discussion wasn’t intended for public viewing – at least not yet.
Nice post!
I have not read the article so cannot weigh in on it as Techno has done. But I do find it strange that at the very end of this blog post, Mr. Blumer veers into the “fetus in your Pepsi” ridiculousness, then strangely links this issue to Obamacare. I’m no fan of Obamacare, but this seems a sloppily written.
The article started with a bit about Swift’s Modest Proposal, and concluded with the idea that it might be coming to pass, after all. Hardly sloppy writing.
As for linking to ObamaCare, it’s not at all strange to suspect that giving the government unprecedented control over the health of every person in the nation would lead to such moral arguments about who deserves care and who doesn’t. Who deserves to live and who doesn’t. That was part of what these two “ethicists” were arguing, that because mentally handicapped children require more government resources to be cared for and are therefore a drain on society, parents should have the option to murder them after birth.
I suspect that if you’d read the article, the conclusion might have made sense.
Guys like you will just never get it, will you?
Here, I’ll make it simple:
“… to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden … on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. “
You see, whoever is paying the bills makes the decisions. When you pay your own bills in a free market economy, you get to make the decisions about your family and your health. When the state pays the bills—socialism—you no longer get to make the decisions. It’s called “losing your freedom.”
Once this pesky problem of post-birth abortion is settled, the big thinkers and medical ethicists may want to move on to old people. There are sure a lot of them around these days, many of whom receive government aide and services. What a great way to lighten the load if we could figure out a way to cull the herd, or weed the fields of this non-productive group. I am certain that somewhere, some group of forward thinking people, un-encumbered by backward notions of the sacredness of life itself, will be able to put forth some, let’s say “solutions” to these growing numbers of senior citizens.
That’s definately in obamacare (death panels) and called end of life counseling. They need to get those people dead as quickly as possible to save social security.
Once this pesky problem of post-birth abortion is settled, the big thinkers and medical ethicists may want to move on to old people. There are sure a lot of them around these days, many of whom receive government aide and services. What a great way to lighten the load if we could figure out a way to cull the herd, or weed the fields of this non-productive group. I am certain that somewhere, some group of forward thinking people, un-encumbered by backward notions of the sacredness of life itself, will be able to put forth some, let’s say “solutions” to these growing numbers of senior citizens.
are the final solutions for old people. obama’s seen to that already.
I won’t shut up, as a matter of fact I will add to the hate. They can take back my college degree because if this kind of intellectual thuggery passes as science these days then they have it back. When you add this to the fact that “science” czar John Holdren has written books that make the case for forced abortions and Kathleen Sebelius’ obsession with Planned Parenthoods version of “healthcare” or should we call it deathcare, the future looks bright indeed, bright red. Why is it the only “disease” that they seem interested in curing is pregancy? I won’t be silenced. They can call me a hater all they want, but the truth will eventually shine through and the real BULLIES will be exposed.
The only life that matters is their own. Strange, as they are the compassionate ones, a convienient self compliment as long as it’s not examined by the person. The leftist mind is a vortex of contradictions, always self congratulatory, never reconciled, usually dangerous. And vicious.
Yes, one must wonder how they would react if people agreed we should eliminate the defectives and then added that progressivism is a mental pathology that is detrimental to the human race, and therefore progressives must be exterminated. Would they march into the gas chambers they built for others? Or would they protest that no one has the right to make such judgments?
Live by the sword, die by the sword. Haman, if you build gallows intended for the innocent, you have neither reason to be surprised nor right to complain when the decree is given that it is you who will swing from them, rather than your intended victims.
“we propose to call this practice “after-birth abortion,” rather than “infanticide,” to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which “abortions” in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”
The Nazis would have been proud of these monsters. And that’s what they are, monsters. Notice they also try to deflect from the horror of murder by stating that “the well-being of the family is at risk.” Progressives can come up with all sorts of new ways to justify murder, just like the Nazis did. For the Nazis it was to create a “master race” and to get rid of people who were not genetically “perfect.” What garbage. What pure, despicable, garbage. And you also notice that these same people never talk about making the lives better for these infants, only coming up with new and creative ways to kill them.
But if you take a stand against monsters like this, you are considered an “idiot” by liberals, some of those “bible-thumpers” from the “flyover states.” To those people, to those very, insidious, cold-blooded killers, who take life as casually as they would take a piss, I would force them to read a book I’m reading right now. I’m currently reading “The Liberators: America’s Witnesses to the Holocaust” by Michael Hirsh. It’s about the first people who liberated the concentration camps at the end of World War II and what they saw. They saw the very people who were at the receiving end of Hitler’s desire for a “master race.” And to me, if you decide to kill living kids just because they are “a bother” to the family or a “drain” on the state, then you are no better than the people who, only 70 years ago, came up with new and creative ways on how to take care of that “problem.” Maybe that’s why they called it “The Final Solution.”
I thoroughly loath, despise, and detest liberals like this because they are too stupid to see where all of this inevitably leads. And it only leads to where we were 70 years ago, to a camp filled with dead bodies.
No, no, no. You must not have grasped what Giublini and Minerva were saying. They weren’t talking about a baby being merely a “bother” to the mother, they were talking about “unbearable burdens.” “Unbearable.” . . .
Oh, wait, that’s right. The “ethicists” did eventually get around to saying “after-birth abortion” would be just fine if the mother was inconvenienced by “her” baby at all. Based on the “newborn-has-no moral-right-to-live” premise, ya’ know, the mother doesn’t need a reason for killing “her” baby. All she needs is to not want “her” baby to live. Ergo, the newborn has absolutely no standing if mom doesn’t want it to live. Funny, that. The word “father” wasn’t used even once in the article. Suggesting to me that if the mother wanted to kill “her” baby, the father had no choice but to go along for the ride.
I put some effort in trying to believe that Giublini and Minerva weren’t actually arguing in favor of infanticide, but I couldn’t manage to bring myself to believe otherwise.
I’m cool with it, as long as we extend it to late-term abortion for individuals like these two Aussies due to their small third legs. I mean, what good are these two to anyone?
I might be convinced to extend it to Democrats.
And Peter Singer, just about everyone inside the Beltway, Womyn’s studies departments at every university… On the other hand, our lives have been enriched by our friends with Down’s Syndrome so they don’t qualify.
>>>>>>>It was a pretty gutsy article to publish, no doubt about it.
Oh, nonsense. In the academic hothouse of “ethical studies”, nothing is LESS gutsy than suggesting that some new “radical” suggestion, from infanticide to polygamy, should be legitimized. It’s hip! It’s cool! It show how much you “accept the other” and “do not want to impose your moral views on others”!
You want REAL guts? Try publishing some article saying some obvious, yet politically incorrect, truth — from homosexuality still not being normal, despite the fact that it should be tolerated, or that women / gay / black / whatever “studies” departments are fake departments whose real purpose is to segregate annoying, talentless hacks from disrupting the real academic work being done elsewhere.
Now, THAT would REALLY take guts.
Skeptic, Such an article won’t be published, but you said it here and you couldn’t be be more correct [as in truly correct as opposed to politically correct].
Put you in for best, most incisive comment of the month.
‘… we propose to call this practice “after-birth abortion,” rather than “infanticide,”’
And, I propose that we call it cold-blooded murder, because that’s what it is.
As a ‘Field Trial’ I propose that over a course of 5 years, self ID’d Liberal post birth ‘Infants’ between the ages of 18 and 70 be involuntarily and retroactively aborted. That should prove the concept and end the controversy.
“… Although fetuses and newborns are not persons”
Except, fetuses and newborns ARE persons, both in fact, and in law…at least where I live they are.
Glad to see that folks recognize this as another cry for eugenics. Also, the authors posit that a newborn is morally equivalent to a fetus, and that is an essential part of the argument. Who says this is true? In fact, did the authors prove this point? One could also say that, since we all eventually die, life at all stages is morally equivalent – therefore we could “abort” people at any age. Truly an exercise in semantics unhinged from common sense.
Also, infanticide is far from new. The Vikings and Greeks both practiced it – after a birth, people had a certain amount of time to decide if they wanted to keep the infant. So much of “progressive” thought is actually regression to more primitive times.
Well it did work for the Spartans.
And certainly it would establish grounds for other abortions, such as the Post-Scholastic Abortion for those with unacceptably low grades, and the Pre-Incarceration Abortion for those who would otherwise be a drain on society for criminal acts, and the very important Post-Election Abortion for those incapable of appealing to a sufficient portion of the electorate. Of course most critical of all would be the Post-Peer Rejection Abortion for those whose articles are not judged of sufficient quality, or are superseded by subsequent research. (And need I even mention how it would apply to supernumerary editors and publishers?)
By recognizing that these are properly just abortions and not actually executions or anything like that, any concern over the State killing actual people or making an error and killing an innocent person would be neatly sidestepped, and the removal of these 40th-800th trimester after-births would be of inestimable value to society as a whole, eliminating the long-term costs to support them when they clearly do not have acceptable lives.
Philip K. Dick wrote a science fiction story about a U. S. in which this becomes the law, “The Pre-Persons.” Seemed the wildest fantasy in the 70′s.
This is what morality look like when it has become unmoored from the Judeo Christian ethic that animated our nation at the Founding.
Historically, infanticide was an accepted practice in many cultures and, indeed, was part of several pagan religions. most notably the cult of Moloch. It was only with the growth of Judaism and, ultimately, Christianity that the practice fell out of favor in the West.
But the socialist left has long been intent on destroying the Judeo Christian underpinnings of our society. When that happens, it is the few people in power who decide what is to be deemed moral and immoral, what is to be deemed acceptable and what is to be deemed punishable, Never in history has any wholly secular moral code claimed the sanctity of individual human life as its defining characteristic. As Lenin said in a speech in 1920, after declaring that socialists should have no “belief in God,” and that they should reject morality based on Christian traditions, he opined that “morality is entirely subordinated” to the interests of the state.
It is the man-made morality of the socialist left that resulted in the slaughter of over 100 million people in the 20th century. In the far left’s secular view of the life, there is no soul, nor is there any threat of punishment or reward after life on earth. Thus individual life has no intrinsic worth and its value is defined in purely pragmatic and relativistic terms. Maintaining the power of the state and attempting to meet utopian ideals takes precedence over individual life. Call it the culture wars or whatever you like, but the dominant theme of our lifetime is the struggle between those who would keep our nation based in the Judeo Christian tradition and those who would substitute government as our nation’s moral arbiter. The left has been engaged in this war through the Courts for over the last half century, and now, with Obama in power, they are forcing it through our nation’s regulations.
Make no mistake, this culture war is at the heart of the HHS mandate being foisted on America by Obama. It is a mandate that has nothing to do with the availability of contraception to women – its already available at minimal to, in some cases, no cost – and everything to do with, at once, harming religion and, simultaneously, furthering the secular left’s amoral views of sex. The genesis of the HHS mandate is from the same leftist wellspring that gives us an argument for infanticide.
Because the left’s war on religion in America has been so protracted and incremental, not many people realize the fundamental changes being wrought to the character of our nation, nor, unfortunately, do many people know where these changes logically lead. Far too many people yawn at the “culture war,” having no idea just what is really at stake. It is a battle for the heart and, ironically enough, the “soul” of our nation.
I used to feel somewhat isolated in that very viewpoint. If PJMedia has done anything for me, it has convinced me that many understand the war being waged.
Nice post.
Indeed, at one time or another Israel turned from God to the worship of Moloch. And, Israel paid a terrible price for their sin.
From Isaiah: “Hear the word of the LORD,
princes of Sodom!
Listen to the instruction of our God,
people of Gomorrah!
Wash yourselves clean!
Put away your misdeeds from before my eyes;
cease doing evil; learn to do good.
Make justice your aim: redress the wronged,
hear the orphan’s plea, defend the widow.
Come now, let us set things right,
says the LORD:
Though your sins be like scarlet,
they may become white as snow;
Though they be crimson red,
they may become white as wool.
If you are willing, and obey,
you shall eat the good things of the land;
But if you refuse and resist,
the sword shall consume you:
for the mouth of the LORD has spoken!”
I hope and pray we still have time to turn away from feeding our children to demons.
I’m just going to throw out there, the idea that Pepsi is using fetal kidneys to develop drink flavors is *really* creeping me out right now.
I never was a Pepsi fan. It just turns my stomach when I see the logo now.
Their logic is straight out of Nazi propaganda about “useless mouths”. Unbelievable.
The very fact that we are talking about this subject tells me that a huge shadow is present in the world.
Let us pray.
And the point of these 25 rants is that we have become death, the killers of life and the darkness upon ourselves. Our progeny will suffer the madness given them by a generation of degenerates who no longer see or feel or care for love or kindness
nor feel the love a power greater than ourselves. Whats left will be grief and death.
Hare. Hunter. Field.
I still blame Dr. Spock.
9 or 10 hours ago, i posted a number of links and (sourced) quote from one of the authors of this paper, which explained why she isn’t advocating what is being suggested here and explains the context of that paper and why it should not be interpreted as a policy suggestion. That post sat in the queue for hours and now seems to have disappeared. Would somebody like to explain why? Did it tend to undermine the point of this thread? Do we not like seeing the other side’s response? What?
You’ve posted your monstrous opinions repeatedly in this article. When I post links, my posts tend to not show up either. Geez, quit whining and grow up.
Care to explain why my opinions are “monstrous”?
A scientist will believe life on earth is found if he finds a few single cell organisms ‘alive’, but, a fetus with arms, legs, feet, hands and a mouth is not a fully formed life yet? Have I got this right?
I would like to see the entire paper. My pastor noted this fact in his homily a couple weeks ago.
On the other hand, the link with the excerpts are rather compelling.
“… The alleged right of individuals (such as fetuses and newborns) to develop their potentiality, which someone defends, is over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.”
Do you get that? “Merely potential people”? Fetus and newborn infants?
I would welcome the ability to see this statement in… as you say… the author’s “explanation”. I am not sure that any “explanation” would even justify that evil statement. Just because an author does not actively propose as thesis does not mean they will not and do not support in fact. Or, allow others,less “ethical shall we say, to take the next step forward.
Don’t you know what the “final solution” for non people ends up to be? Jews, American Indians, Protestants in Catholic countries, Catholics in Protestant countries? They die.
To all my brothers and sisters, do not be accomodating with Evil. It must not be called “reasonable” or “ethical” when it takes the guise of mere science.
Confront it.
“The right to life is the foundation of every other human right. If that right is not inviolate, then no right can be guaranteed.” – AB Chaput
When we can look on abortion even up to the day before a baby is born, and give tacit approval, can this be far behind? Then when they have anethesized us about this, they it will be (or maybe before this) pushing old people out, first so they can harvest their organs, next just to get rid of the expense.
I certainly agree GW this horrible state of our union has excellerated when we remove God and religion and morality from out lives, and with the advent of the Godless administration we have allowed in office. Then you hear the msm talk about the economy is getting better and we should all love 0b0z0. The economy is one thing, and I don’t believe it’s getting better, but our very souls are being trampled and destroyed. Heaven help our children if this continues. Check this out for all the things that he has done to destroy our spiritual lives.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/barton-calls-obama-americas-most-biblically-hostile-u-s-president/
Goldi: We de-sanctified life thirty years ago, when we accepted infanticide. THis is just its logical conclusion.
God said this (to Ezekiel) when he was showing E. the extent of evil that had taken over: There were 25 men standing at the gate. I recognized the leaders….God said, “Son of man, these are the men who draw up blueprints for sin, who think up new programs for evil in this city. They say, ‘We can make anything happen here. We’re the best. We’re the choice pieces of meat in the soup pot.’ ” (Exekiel 11:1-3, The Message) The writer of Ecclesiastes was so right, “There’s nothing new under the sun.”
As someone else mentioned earlier in the thread, they’re not afraid to go public now. They don’t fear backlash. They don’t fear decency. They fear nothing. They should. But they don’t. And these fearless, evil people are more at more holding the reins of authority in nations, including the authority that resides in our regulatory agencies.
It is terrifying. I was not a fan of Bush, but at the most he annoyed me. It is not so much Obama that bothers me, but the creepy weirdos he has picked for his czars that terrify me. John Holdren wrote a book that made the case for FORCED abortions. Chu wants to take away our cars (which is a necessity to survival in the country unless you were raised Amish). Kathleen Sebelius is obsessed with the “disease” of pregnacy and eradicating people with Downs syndrome. Their version of “science” is what we say goes, it’s settled. When you think about the ideas put forth in this paper and add it to the authoritarian “science” creepiness of our current administration, it is beyond terrifying.
Smuggy, you’ve somehow linked the subject of fighting a war, about which there may be no choice, with abortion. What about driving? Aren’t you concerned about all those children who are accidentally killed as a result of driving? Or, if you are against driving – as a result of transportation? Or food production? How about the children killed accidentally as a result of educating them?
I have my doubts about your goodness, Smuggy.
Saying it twice doesn’t make it true
It doesn’t make true false either Smuggy, but I don’t think real logic is something you are that good at.
I have no doubts.
I know. (Not good.)
Smuggy is trying to hijack the thread, by changing the subject. But war is not the issue here.
Ignore him.
“We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk… The alleged right of individuals (such as fetuses and newborns) to develop their potentiality, which someone defends, is over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.” Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, Australian “ethicists”
“Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery [or killing children], I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally… Those who deny freedom [or life] to others deserve it not for themselves.” Abraham Lincoln
“Smuggy, If you are so concerned … why aren’t you spending your time here expressing this concern and doing what you can to end these accidental deaths?”
Because this is a thread about a specific paper that was published about medical ethics. If there’s another thread where we’re discussing accidental deaths of children, let’s go join it.
“Why are you sticking to an ad hominem technique to change the subject to the question of the rightness or wrongness of war”
Actually, that’s not what I’m doing. I’m fishing for one (just one) person who is willing to put aside their furious outrage over something that isn’t happening and won’t happen in order to consider the moral downsides to something that HAS happened. The first happens to suit your politics because it fits with your anti-abortion political position. The second DOESN’T suit you, despite actually being a real event, because you probably agreed with it and voted for the guy who made it happen. And for that reason alone you cannot bring yourself to express the tiniest shred of concern about its consequences. You can’t even mention it, and you resent me bringing it up.
But you’ll happy rail against the first one, and anyone challenges you is a nazi, or monstrous or (as you say) not “a good person”.
I see no contradiction in agreeing with the objectives of a war and regretting the consequences. Go read some of the stuff that WT Sherman wrote and said on the subject. War is hell, and all that.
“You know something, Smuggy? What people think about the Iraq war is irrelevant here”
You’d expect so. But apparently that’s not true. If I’d picked a war that you HADN’T agreed with, I think we’d be seeing a lot more responses to that challenge. Apparently, what people think about the iraq war is very important.
“I’m fishing for one (just one) person who is willing to put aside their furious outrage over something that isn’t happening and won’t happen in order to consider the moral downsides to something that HAS happened”
I’ve been reading your various posts, and am still not sure what you’re getting at. What relationship at all does deliberate infanticide have to do with the other cases that you cite? Just because events X, Y, and Z are all to be deplored (I dislike using the term “tragic” for things that, technically, aren’t)doesn’t mean that they are otherwise related.
I think that you have more of a case to make in asserting that the authors of the paper were not being literal than the post author does in saying that they were. Unfortunately, in Progressive circles these days, as has been posted elsewhere, things like this are openly accepted.
“I’ve been reading your various posts, and am still not sure what you’re getting at”
Sadly, I think you’re not alone.
“What relationship at all does deliberate infanticide have to do with the other cases that you cite?”
Because they lead to the death of innocent people, including children. That’s a pretty straightforward link to make. I took the example of the shock-and-awe bombing at the outset of the iraq war, and challenged the author to show some expression of his concern at the loss of innocent civilian life. It’s not abstract, and it’s not obscure – you either give a toot or you don’t. Now, somebody who can’t be enticed to express a single word of concern or regret over that actual, large-scale killing of people is somewhat undermined when they try to take the high moral ground against an entirely abstract theorizing about the point at which “personhood” begins in an academic journal.
I deliberately chose “shock and awe” because I knew it would conflict with the political position of most people here. They’ve probably never actually thought about the people who were killed, simply because they supported the war at the time (although I’m starting to sense some unwillingness to say so now). As it happens, shock and awe achieved nothing. It was based on some “intelligence” that said saddam and his brass were in a particular region, so the navy and airforce flattened it. He wasn’t there. Oops. No apology – just a lot of really great TV footage.
It is actually possible to see the need to do something violent while simultaneously regretting the consequences. Much more classy leaders from the past have done so – sherman did, lincoln did, washington did, churchill did, heck – even le may did. These days it’s just about justifications.
“Just because events X, Y, and Z are all to be deplored (I dislike using the term “tragic” for things that, technically, aren’t)doesn’t mean that they are otherwise related”
Wow. That’s a really depressing thing to read.
“Unfortunately, in Progressive circles these days, as has been posted elsewhere, things like this are openly accepted.”
Yeah. Progressives are all nazi-vampires. Very good. Nice going with the unhinged demonisation.
I haven’t read through all of these comments. But anyway, here’s something to consider:
Yes , dead babies in Iraq are a tragedy.
But no, I do not blame my country. I lay those deaths at the feet of terrorist-supporting, Kurd-gassin’, father of homicidal sons, invader of neighboring countries, attempted presidential assassin, nuke building and all around murderous tyrant Saddam Hussein.
Dresden was annihilated. So was Tokyo. Who should we blame for those deaths?
Perhaps the best comment on this topic was left by Kermudjin (18) above. Yes, infanticide has been routinely practiced by many societies in the past. In addition to those mentioned, two other bear noting. Many of the societies around ancient Israel worshiped Baal/Moloch and “made their children to pass through the fire” [offered them as burnt sacrifices]. There is no remnant of these societies today. In classical Rome, both abortion and infanticide were quite common in the upper classes; once a Roman father decided that he had enough children and had made up his will, he had the right to reject any new infant and let it die by exposure. [http://www.afn.org/~afn32612/Contraception.htm - a very interesting site, BTW] Of course we know what happened to ancient Rome. There is really nothing new under the sun.
Father : abuser, alcoholic
Mother . illiterate, siphilitic
Child son to be born: will have siphilis. he will be deaf, paranoic and will die because of the congenit diesase.
Abortion?: yes.
Congratulation, you just killed Bethoven.
Limping, the spartans would have killed him after birth . Not in his mind, incestuous, alcoholic, drugaddict. Kill him at birth? yes. No Byron ,then
Tiestes, poet, school teache with humback. The spartans would have thorw him from taigetus. The oracle ,and athenians jokers, made him their general. He defeated Iran