Pig-Human

This week the British have approved the creation of an egg containing pig DNA and human DNA. The combination will produce some sort of scientific advance we are assured. The result will be killed.

The ethics of this is a settled issue in Britain. The government has decided in favor of those who believe that there is no value in a fertilized human egg. They have taken upon themselves the right to define the point in human development where a progressing human does in fact have value as they decide to define it. In embryonic form it has no value. This is firmly established in the abortion laws.

This is a direct outcome of Philosophical Materialism. Humans are just so much molecular stuff. As such they have no rights guaranteed by any non-existing "sky-daddy". So the folks in charge are at liberty to define the value of human life as is convenient for themselves. In completely materialist societies this has been extended to all those humans who are not in charge.

Britain has taken the fateful step. But Britain is increasingly Muslim. Will Britain be able to cater to its diversity while continuing down the path of wilful destruction of human life and the creation of obscene hybrids just to kill them for profit?

All of Europe, so proud of its secularism, is in danger passing into the penumbra of tyranny again. Those countries who are voting themselves out of the EU will be assaulted with re-votes until they get it right. It should come as no surprise that secular governments are not bound to any particular ethic; they are free to make up their own as is convenient. The loss of ethical barriers to the abuse of certain segments of humanity generally spreads fairly quickly to other segments, until only the chosen segment is left. This is the lesson of history which must be learned over and over, because some refuse to hear it, much less learn it. Those are the ones with the flexible ethics, the "consequential ethics" where the end justifies the means as is shown on Atheist websites.

When Atheists deny this, the denial is just another flash of intellectual dishonesty. It is denial of the obvious in the service of a chosen objective, the back half of rationalization (the front half of rationalization is choosing only evidence that supports the objective, or making the evidence up). After all any tactic is acceptable if the objective is suitable to the Atheist; it is the very definition of "consequential ethics". Denial of it means nothing.

It is only a short step now to producing the pig-man as a real entity. The antithesis has dragged the thesis into the vortex. There appear to be no rational Brits to put a stop to it.