Why Don’t We Trust Atheists? Well, Post Natal Abortion and Personhood, for Example.

This subject arises du temps en temps and for some reason Atheists cannot believe that they are not considered trustworthy, despite the lack of morality attached to their belief system. They actually think that by creating a personally congenial code of behavior which matches their actual daily doings, that their tautological morality should be obvious to everyone, and that not only are they moral, they are more moral than anyone else, all of whom are admittedly moral defectives, to wit: sinners. (One cannot be a sinner if one declares that there is no sin of course).

Not only are Atheists, in their own minds, more moral than their inferiors, Atheists are in possession of the moral authority to determine morality for the rest of humanity. For example, take a look at all of the Humanist Manifestos.

Some Atheists attain accreditation in moral superiority; they call themselves “ethicists”. By pondering - in ungrounded ponders of course, there being no absolute grounds - the value of other humans who are not themselves, they are able to make moral pronouncements on the value of classes of humans, again not themselves.

In a sense, all Atheists are ethicists, in that they determine at least their own personal ethical systems of behavior. So every Atheist is at least a moral authority unto himself. It is not entirely clear how it is that some, but not all, Atheists acquire the extra moral authority to declare ethics for everyone. Regardless of how that accreditation is acquired, some Atheists have it, and they become career moral authorities for the rest of humanity.

Now two of these career moral authorities have declared a new class of non-valued humans: the post-natals. Here is a summary of their new revelations:

Abstract
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.

Now, since this new revelation is an intellectual understanding of some sort, we should see how it stacks up before rejecting it as the product of fools. Well, “should” is too strong, that is a moral pronouncement itself; it is not necessary to examine it before rejecting it on the basis of “who do they think they are, God?” - the product of fools... and summarily shit-canning the entire subject.

But of course, many folks will consider this Atheist revelation to be elegantly compelling, and for that reason alone it needs to be analyzed.

First off, it presumes that pre-natal abortion of a fetus is a rational and therefore moral action. It explains legally declared ethical reasons to destroy a fetus and then asks, what is the difference between a fetus and a new-born, the answer for which is merely: a breath of air.

For diseased pre-born fetuses it is presumed ethical to kill them. But some diseases, such as Down’s syndrome, are not 100% detectable prior to birth. So why not kill them post-natally? Since there is no definitive difference between pre-birth canal and post birth canal existence, the value of the critter is the same one second after as it is one second before traversing the canal. So it is not the process of birth that influences the value being placed on the critter.

Yes, it’s a critter all right. But is it a human? Who is to say? If the mother and the ethicists agree that it is not a person, why then who can disagree? In fact, at what age does this determination procedure become invalid? Well, age is not the criterion. There is no age limit for placing value on a human.

What is the criterion for personhood? According to these two career moral authorities, it is just whatever they, themselves, figure it to be. Their specific criterion is... well, it just doesn't matter; they have one today. Now we might sit down and calculate the ROI for a just birthed critter, say on the average of a large population. Or we might do a specific calculation on the ROI for a just birthed critter for the individual case, say based on class, genetic history, family prior contribution to human welfare, needs for balancing the sexual population, needs for dealing with social ills such as poverty, or other social imbalances which this individual might exacerbate, etc. (Can Social Justice be ignored at the valuation of an individual, morally?)

There is absolutely no restriction which is logically attached to the authoritative determination of the value of humanesque critters, regardless of birth status or time since traversing the birth canal. So it is incumbent upon someone to make the decision, someone with moral authority of course. And we already know who that is, the career moral authorities: the ethicists.

By measuring the value of individuals (as has already been done by the Emmanuels in the current Democrat administration) those who do not contribute significantly to the betterment of humankind (for example) can be credited with less or no value. This is a simple determination. Equations already exist toward that end.

The problem then becomes what to do with them, those who are devalued. At what point are their sources of sustenance reduced, or their sources of life maintenance removed, or maybe outright termination is required? Since the age, post natally, is not the issue, then how should the older ones be terminated? Or should they be sequestered in encampments? Perhaps some value might be extracted in terms of labor? And when they no longer can perform that, then extinguish them?

These issues will be decided by the ethicists, of course.

Why should we not trust them with our lives as they socially engineer the future for our children... Oh wait... the children, what about the children??

If social engineering and eugenics is about a better world for the children, it is definitely not for ALL children, is it? Only those finding favor with the Atheist ethicists.

Note: link fixed.