Sorry my blogs haven’t been consistent. I realize this lack of consistency contributes to the dwindling interest of those who actually care to know what I think about the issues. At the same time, knowing this is true saps what little motivation I have to be regular with these posts. So it’s an ever increasing apathy for a constantly diminishing motivation. But alas, I cannot be silent on this. I have been shaken from my lethargy by the international Journal of Medical Ethics.
In an article published by JME last month “after-birth abortion” i.e. infanticide, is presented as a viable option. Sickos like Princeton Professor Peter Singer are known for their brash support of killing one year olds with physical or mental disabilities but for crying out loud, this comes from a journal with the word “ethics” in its name. So I want you to know that the perverted thought process which leads to such conclusions is a direct result of rejecting God and refusing to live by His rules. At that point, nothing is safe. It’s the logical result of Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” philosophy which spawned Hitler’s holocaust, Stalin’s purges, and, oh yea, Roe vs. Wade.
Let me give you a sample from the article itself. Speaking of children born with Downs Syndrome: …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. But wait, there’s more…... 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.... Although fetuses and newborns are not persons, they are potential persons because they can develop, thanks to their own biological mechanisms, those properties which will make them ‘persons’ in the sense of ‘subjects of a moral right to life’: that is, the point at which they will be able to make aims and appreciate their own life.... The alleged right of individuals (such as fetuses and newborns) to develop their potentiality, which someone defends, is over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.
Okay. I think that should be sufficient to convince you that the pro-life movement is an all or nothing proposition. Eventually, one side of this war will win. Given that our nation has willfully and deliberately turned its back on God it’s pretty clear where we’re headed. “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all nations that forget God.” Psalm 9.17
