Abortion will always remain a hot-button topic because it isn’t possible to craft a compromise. You either terminate a pregnancy or you don’t. No middle ground can exist. However, the “Journal of Medical Ethics” came up with A Modest Proposal concerning babies with Down’s syndrome or other problems.
… 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. … 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 …
They’re redefining terms in classic post-modern style — it’s not infanticide (or murder), it’s just an abortion. If the life (in their opinion) isn’t worth it, snuff it out.
Note the argument: when the government pays for medical care, they have the right to kill anyone they feel is a burden. Remember this with nationalized healthcare (aka Obamacare) — there is no free lunch — you’re trading your life for $$$.
If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself. (George Bernard Shaw)
For the elites who want to control everything because they think they’re better than you, it’s not sanctity of life, it’s quality of life as they define it.
It’s just a logical progression of abortion — it’s okay to terminate a baby because it has some “defect” according to a group, or the baby isn’t economically worth it. So what’s the difference between second trimester and after birth? None, says the Journal.
Of course this applies to grandma as well. Not pulling your weight? Have a doctor — under authority of government — terminate grandma. It’s the same argument as with the baby, and it’s just as repulsive.
That’s where we’re headed folks as a logical extension of abortion.
Many people in Holland, not just the elderly, have felt compelled to carry around “Do not kill me” cards in their wallets should they be in an accident.
The Netherlands now has traveling euthanasia trucks who will kill you for free — because, you know, you’re a burden on society and not pulling your weight. And if the government pays for your medical care, they have a vested financial interest in your untimely demise to save money to pay for the massive debt they’ve racked up.
That’s the future when you abandon the sanctity of life because you’re an “unbearable burden on society”, as the Journal says.
Scary times when you can’t trust doctors not to kill your child, yourself, or grandma. What happened to “do no harm”? It appears the handicapped, sick, and elderly have the same moral status as that of an unborn child — kill ’em at will.
Why not? Well, read Jon Morrow’s story for starters — we’ll have more on him next week.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
… self-evident except to medical ethics and pro-abortion people — God-given rights only apply if the government’s death panel allows you to live; I hope those denying God-given rights have a change of underwear when they do meet God.
CLEAN-UP ON AISLE 6!