FYI…you can kill your baby if you want. It’s not a real person.
Yes, you read that right. No, the title wasn’t meant to simply make you read this post; it was, instead, a factual representation of how some view life. When I was in college, I took a class in logic. Why did I take a class in logic, you ask? It probably had something to do with it not convening until after lunch. In that class, I learned that the “slippery slope” argument is a fallacy, i.e., logically wrong. While it may be technically true that it is a fallacy, it is also true that it tends to be a practical reality. Case in point: abortion.
Many pro-life folks have been making the argument for decades that legalizing abortion will lead to a devaluing of human life, which will, in turn, lead to killing those deemed undesirable or a burden. To anyone with common sense, this was not an unreasonable step to take. A society either values life or it doesn’t. The wholesale slaughter of the unborn, mostly for the sake of convenience, seems lacking in the “respect life” department.
Of course, since the legal fiction of Roe v. Wade, the aforementioned “slippery-slope” has proven to be factual. The left has made significant, and largely successful, efforts to justify late-term abortions and partial-birth abortions. And our current president supported legislation allowing a newborn, who survived an attempted abortion, to die on a table from lack of medical care. So, the next step shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.
‘The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.’
Yep, you read that right. This comes from an article entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?,” which was published in the ironically titled “Journal of Medical Ethics.” The authors are, of course, college professors, with significant connections to Oxford and Cambridge. In other words, this article is coming from the minds of the academic elite. Not surprisingly, the authors have received death threats. The Journal’s editor, a professor of ethics at Oxford, had this to say about the persons doing the threatening:
He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were ‘fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society’.
Take a moment to let that sink in. “Values of aliberal society.” That’s perfect, huh? While the talking heads can’t shut up about the Catholic Church trying to take away women’s rights, the liberal elite are publishing an article, in a respected journal about ethics, that advocates for infanticide.
How can they possible justify their position, you ask? Simple, by huffing paint thinner and waxing philosophic.
Rather than being ‘actual persons’, newborns were ‘potential persons’. They explained: ‘Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
What the hell is an “actual person?” Can I decide? Are the authors of the article “actual people?” It’s difficult to put into words just how dangerous this line of reasoning is. Lest we forget, a certain group of people weren’t “actual people” to the Nazi’s.
Fortunately, the authors have deemed us fit to receive their thoughts on personhood.
‘We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.’
I’d love to hear who fits into that definition. Of course, the authors don’t tell us who gets to be in the Club of Life; only those who don’t.
They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that ‘only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases’ in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.
Once such children were born there was ‘no choice for the parents but to keep the child’, they wrote.
‘To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.’
Well the disabled are out; too expensive. Seriously, the Nazi’s would LOVE these guys.
Interestingly, the authors did point out one undeniable truth, albeit in a presumably unintentional way:
However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised (emphasis mine).
These two morally abhorrent creatures actually stumbled upon a truth lost on the pro-choice morons in America. There is no moral difference between the unborn and born. Contrary to the author’s philosophical ramblings, however, it isn’t that they’re both disposable; it’s that they’re both sacred.