Verbal manipulation and influence of the low information masses is what liberals do best
Progressives as “moral superiors” who like to play God
Comments | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
The most famous eugenicists were the Spartans. Their newborns were allowed to live only if perfectly healthy. The state did not want to be burdened by imperfect babies.
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.
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.’
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.