The
modern eugenicists advocate infanticide as being no different than abortion.
According to an article in The Telegraph, a team of medical ethicists linked to
Oxford University maintained that “parents should be allowed to have their
newborn babies killed because they are ‘morally irrelevant.’ (Stephen Adams,
February 29, 2012)
The Journal of
Medical Ethics
published an article, “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” Francesca
Minerva and Alberto Giubilini argued that babies are not “actual persons,” do
not have a “moral right to life,” and parents should be allowed to kill their
babies if they are disabled. (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full.pdf+html)
Prof.
Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics
labeled those readers who made death threats to the article’s authors as
“fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.” Most modern humans must
then be fanatics because they reject such a liberal society based on brutal values.
We no longer live in Sparta. A sign of civilization is treating life with
respect and awe, beginning at conception until death.
It
is frightening to logically comprehend how liberals argue for population
control through eugenics and advocate abortion when they themselves have
already been born and their mothers did not consider them an inconvenience, an
imperfect form of life, or a burden on society.
With
a self-appointed “moral superiority” mandate, these warped individuals argue
that “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 of an individual.” “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.’ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html)
The
authors believe that “after-birth abortions” should be available to parents if
the newborn is disabled and the parents had no prenatal testing and did not
know their fetus was not perfect, but also in cases when the newborn is not
disabled. Allowing disabled children to live “might be an unbearable burden on
the family and society as a whole, when the state economically provides for
their care.”
Therein
lies the truth – under the socialized medical care system in the U.K., the
state considers a burden to care for people’s imperfections, life is not
sacred, and rationing of care must occur in order to save money. It is an
admission of the failed medical care system that is incapable to deliver proper
care to its citizens and must thus vilify those who are not perfect in order to
justify getting rid of financial burdens and inconveniences in a supposedly
“ethical” way. It is similar to our Obamacare labeling persons over the age of
70 as “units” and their medical care rationed based on their utility and
contribution to society.
One
of the authors, Alberto Giubilini, lectured students on the topic, “What is the
problem with euthanasia?” Morally, ethically, and religiously, there is plenty
wrong with euthanasia and “after-birth abortion.”
Dr.
Trevor Stammers, medical ethics director at St. Mary’s University College summed
it best when referring to the term, “after-birth abortion.” “This is just
verbal manipulation that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion
henceforth as antenatal infanticide.”
Verbal
manipulation and influence of the low information masses is what liberals do
best. Progressive liberals, a growing minority, like to control not just our
moral, economic, political, and ethical lives; they want to be able to play God
in both birth and death because they see themselves as the ultimate authority,
an omnipotent force that can control nature and Earth.
No comments:
Post a Comment