A pro-abortion professor, Dr. Mark Mercer recently argued:
Mercer argued that there is nothing ethically troubling about abortion, at one point suggesting that a baby isn’t a “person” until around 18 months of age…..
Mercer agreed that the unborn are human beings, and that abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being, but argued that the notion of “human being” is not a “morally relevant concept.” Individuals are not special by virtue of their “species membership,” he said, but become “persons” and worthy of protection because they possess certain “ethically salient properties” such as the ability to experience pain or pleasure, self-consciousness, and rationality. (emphases mine)
This reminds me of the mental gymnastics on display in a discussion between Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Rick Santorum in 1999 on the subject of partial birth abortion. Life begins not at conception, but when you “bring your baby home?”
Next consider Virginia Ironside who said she would “put a pillow over my child’s face if it was “deeply suffering.” The questions that begs to be asked is who gets to define “deeply suffering?”
Then, just for the heck of it, consider Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw who said that we all probably know at least a “half a dozen people who are no use in this world.” He suggests putting them in front of a committee and having them justify their existence. And let’s not forget his appeal that “chemists discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly…deadly, by all means, but humane, not cruel.” I think a review of history will show us that Adolph Hitler took him up on that challenge.
Returning to the issue of abortion…Media coverage of the abortion issue uses subtle language choices to influence the debate; choosing who is a “foe” and who is a “supporter.” If you believe in the sanctity of all life you are an “abortion foe.” If you subscribe to the belief in “abortion rights” you are a “supporter.” Why would they do that? Why are the people who want to save the lives of the unborn the “bad guys?”
To help us figure this out we need to remember that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, said: “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it”
Maggie, as any good progressive would, supported the concept of Eugenics. She had quite a few things to say about building that new race.
Mercer, Ironside, Shaw, Sanger…what they all have in common is a progressive world view and would probably refer to themselves as socialists or progressives. Hillary Clinton describes herself as a progressive. And what this means is that they all have a collectivist view of the world. The individual is not important it is the collective that matters. I am not sure what kind of mental gymnastics one has to go through to avoid the realization that the collective is actually made up of a bunch of individuals, but I’m sure it is quite strenuous.
Ideas and world views have consequences. If the world view is focused on the collective, it becomes increasingly easier to ignore the “individual” to the point that they become something “not human.” De-humanization leads to horrors. History has shown us this.
How much has this progressive view infiltrated our society? I would say quite a bit when we see in the news that Oklahoma House overwhelmingly passes fetal pain bill. We need a law to say it is wrong to inflict pain on a fetus?
Finally consider the Complete Lives System proposed by Ezekiel Emmanuel: Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. These “principles” include age-based prioritization of allocating medical care as well as a discussion of “promoting and rewarding social usefulness.” I think George and Maggie would approve. (And, for the record: “Yes Virginia, there are death panels in the new health care law.” They have nicer names but the result is the same as far as I can determine.)
I am not ignoring the realities facing us. I am merely asking you to consider the vast difference between people who have principles and values that say every life is precious and worthy of protection and those whose principles consider that only those deemed to be socially useful are worthy of protection. Which group of people do YOU want making tough decisions?
Pingback: Bookworm Room » Something new at Watcher of Weasels
Pingback: This Week’s Weasel Watching Nominations | UNCOVERAGE.net
Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Libyan Switcheroo Edition | Obama Forcasters
I had not heard this, scary to think there are people who believe this way.
Pingback: Watcher of Weasels! | Restoring Honor Starts Here
Pingback: NoisyRoom.net » Blog Archive » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Libyan Switcheroo Edition
Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Libyan Switcheroo Edition
Ethical, moral individuals may differ on specific abortion questions but an individual failing to recognize an ethical problem with abortion should never be in a position of authority.