There is no "slippery slope", the antithesis demanders demand. Just this one thing; that's all; no more. And we want it to be infrequently used, uncommon (but uninspected and with untrammelled access of course, and without morals attached to it).
Now this "just one thing" is called After-Birth Abortion because "abortion" is widely accepted, but "infanticide" is heinous, don't you know. After-Birth Abortion notably includes killing the healthy child when "the well-being of the family is at risk".
Of course. If the child causes the new boyfriend angst, then kill the child.
These "ethicists" are purely Consequentialists, and obviously Atheist-Materialists, because the human has only the value which they, the elite, place on him/her. They have assumed for themselves the mantle of moral authority to determine who is killable (just about anyone now, at least under the age of ... X). In other words, as ethicists, they are temporal gods. Witness this statement:
"Nonetheless, 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. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.
In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise 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. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia."
[Emphasis added]There is little more to be said after reading these proposals. Infanticide, along with fetus-cide, is abominable, pure and simple. And so are those who support it. Eugenics is the tool of soulless totalitarians.
3 comments:
This is is merely part of the continuum predicated on the initial creation of "kill classes" for "fully human" beings. There is no "slippery slope": the descent into dystopia occurred in one fell swoop concurrently with a legal "right" to kill your own offspring in utero. It will not end until there is no [X-Y] period during which there is sacrosanct life. Your life must be sanctioned by the collective; otherwise, it is of no value and can be terminated at any time.
Ben-Hur:
"We keep you alive to serve this ship. Row well and live."
This article is truly disgusting to read. I was sick to my stomach with the callousness of the authors. They, of course, think their ultra-clinical rhetoric sanitizes their evil, but it does not. In my opinion it highlights it.
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.
Just as Robert said, you are of no value unless sanctioned by the collective. As Rod Serling warned 50 years ago in his brilliant Twilight Zone episode The Obsolete Man: "You have therefore, no function....you are OBSOLETE!"
It becomes increasingly hard to call the slippery slope argument a fallacy when hindsight shows so many examples of warnings going unheeded, only to manifest exactly as they were foretold. For instance one could almost call Orwell a prophet given how accurately the core concepts of 1984 were in describing an out of control corporate-government oligarchy. Likewise those who were steadfastly against abortion warned of just such an ideological leap as infanticide early on and they were pilloried. Despite people like Michael Tooley who were writing defenses of infanticide in 1972, the battle cry of "safe, legal, and rare" was screamed at anyone who dared to question the direction of the road being paved by Roe v. Wade.
It won't be long before the same arguments are being used for when your personage timer ends? Like the famed Science Fiction film Logan's Run, at what age will your life clock go black and it will be time for you to head to Carousel, lest a Sleep Operative pay you a visit.
On natural law, the right to life is the most fundamental right, and it is inherent in every "fully human" being from the moment that "fully human" being comes into existence. As has been demonstrated logically, scientifically, and repeatedly on this blog site, that moment of "coming into existence" occurs at conception, the formation of the human zygote, with a full and unique set of DNA. The properties ascribed to "fully human" beings exist either potentially or actually in that unique individual at that beginning moment of its existence. There are NO missing "properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual." The fact that all relevant properties of a "fully human" beings exist from the beginning is sufficient justification for attribution of a right to life to that individual.
Post a Comment