Sliding Down the Slippery Slope at Warp Speed

By: sebastianjer , 3:21 PM GMT on March 11, 2012

Share this Blog
0
+



Sliding Down the Slippery Slope at Warp Speed

A medical journal article ruthlessly proposes — and its editor defends — rhetorically dressed-up infanticide.

Posted By Tom Blumer

Almost three centuries ago, in A Modest Proposal, satirist Jonathan Swift suggested that poor children in Ireland should be fattened up for a year and sold as food. This would spare families years of expense, provide them some income, enhance the upper crust’s dining experiences, and improve the nation’s economy.

Given the long-lasting fame which came to Swift as a result of this work, I figured that Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, two Australian writers who somehow convinced the UK’s Journal of Medical Ethics (JME) that they are “ethicists,” were surely attempting a similar exercise in Juvenalian satire in their February 23 paper titled “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?”

In that paper, excerpted here (the original has since gone behind a subscription wall), the pair told us that society faces a really big problem, namely that many pre-born babies who should have been killed in the womb escape because their physical condition wasn’t fully known ahead of time:

An examination of 18 European registries reveals that between 2005 and 2009 only 64% of Down’s syndrome cases were diagnosed through prenatal testing. This percentage indicates that, considering only the European areas under examination, about 1700 infants were born with Down’s syndrome without parents being aware of it before birth.


The fact that many of the parents of the other 36% might in otherwise stable circumstances have chosen to end the pre-born baby’s life if only they had known of the baby’s handicap is far from the only problem. Sometimes the mother’s life situation changes for the worse, and what was expected to be a bundle of joy has become a serious encumbrance.

That’s all bad enough, but there’s something even worse:

… to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden … 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.


One must admit that as satirists, the two Aussies really rock.

The pair then immodestly proposes that we make the exercise of killing already-living children palatable by changing the language:

… we propose to call this practice “after-birth abortion,” rather than “infanticide,” to emphasize 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.

… 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.


Giubilini and Minerva are absolutely brilliant, aren’t they? Through their satire, they make incredibly powerful pro-life arguments. Over forty years of reason-based attempts at persuasion and breathtaking improvements in science and technology affirming the wonders of human life at all stages have failed to prevent the annual slaughter of a million-plus children in the U.S. from abortion on demand. But now, in points bluntly made and sharply executed, the two Aussies have found the key. After reading their work, nobody can possibly believe that children, once born, are not entitled to continue to live. Once readers are reminded of that obvious point, they’ll reach the inescapable conclusion that “pre-birth abortion” is every bit as evil as “after-birth abortion.”

… Uh, what’s that?

Giubilini and Minerva aren’t satirists? They really are “ethicists” — and they’re freaking serious? O … M … G.

Indeed, they are, pun intended, dead serious, as is JME’s editor Julian Savulescu. In a blog post five days later, jaded Julian not only defended the publication of the indefensible work, he virtually agreed with its authors’ immoral proposal:

The arguments presented, in fact, are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris in defense of infanticide, which the authors call after-birth abortion.

… the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises. The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible.


Savulescu also bitterly attacked those who dared to express their outrage over the decision to publish the Australian pair’s conclusions in a “scholarly” journal. Oh sure, he cited death threats and racist comments, which everyone agrees are out of bounds and should be legally pursued when warranted. But it’s clear from his posting of the following comments he identified as “abusive threatening correspondence” in his introduction that the thin-skinned Savalescu despises being on the receiving end of any form of disagreement from the rest of us inferior beings:

“These people are evil. Pure evil. That they feel safe in putting their twisted thoughts into words reveals how far we have fallen as a society.”

“I don‘t believe I’ve ever heard anything as vile as what these ‘people’ are advocating. Truly, truly scary.”

“The fact that the Journal of Medical Ethics published this outrageous and immoral piece of work is even scarier.”


What Savulescu calls examples of abuse and threats, the rest of us would characterize as “strongly worded opinions.” There is little doubt that if they could, “ethicists” like Savalescu and many of his odious American counterparts would silence any and all dissent from their “ethical” discussions. Really, can gulags for objectors who won’t shut up be that far behind?

Abortion proponents in the late 1960s and early 1970s ridiculed those who warned against the “slippery slope” consequences of allowing abortion on demand. “It won’t lead anyone to seriously consider euthanasia and infanticide,” they said. Well, yes it did.

We’re even taking the first steps towards realizing Swift’s sardonically imagined world where its people consume its children — not in preparing what we eat (yet), but indeed in what we drink , again accompanied by astonishing arrogance:

In a decision delivered February 28, the Security and Exchange Commission ruled that PepsiCo’s use of aborted fetal remains in their research and development agreement with Senomyx to produce flavor enhancers falls under “ordinary business operations.”

… PepsiCo also requested … (that a related shareholders’) resolution be excluded because it “probed too deeply into matters of a complex nature upon which shareholders cannot make an informed judgment.”


Can anyone reasonably doubt presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s Linkdeep concern that if we continue down our current path — one which, if Obamacare is ever implemented, will lead inexorably to a point where “every man, woman and child in America … (will be) dependent upon the federal government for your life and your health” — we will “leave a very cold dangerous, frightening America to our children”?
************************************************* ****
Profile Visitor Map - Click to view visits
Create your own visitor map


()()()()()()()()(()())()()()()()()()()()

The religion of Climate Science

Romney's Pending Sellout on Global Warming

EPA Endangers Human Health and Welfare
()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()

NOT EXACTLY FRONT PAGE NEWS



***

CONSTITUTION 101

History in Pictures


###
TODAY'S QUOTE

~~~~~~
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

~ Martin Luther King Jr.

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Sign In or Register Sign In or Register

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 9 - 1

Page: 1 — Blog Index

9. theshepherd
12:36 PM GMT on March 12, 2012
Pepsi and chips anyone???
Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 10 Comments: 10226
8. theshepherd
12:33 PM GMT on March 12, 2012
@..."The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible."

************************************************* ***

...and that is most relevant to Partial Birth Abortion.

...and further down the slippery slope...

If you can kill a newborn simply to prevent an "unbearable burden" on the family unit in question, then shouldn't it follow that you can kill an adult that has become an unbearable burden on society?

I know a bunch of those...

Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 10 Comments: 10226
7. NumberWise
1:29 AM GMT on March 12, 2012
I read these articles earlier today, but I quickly left to go work in the garden after I read that line that spathy quoted about using "aborted fetal remains". I did some reading about it tonight, and I'm now feeling ill about the whole subject. I haven't yet gotten over the image of the two IVF babies crumpling as the needle entered their bodies.

I can understand how some people can support issues with which I don't agree - e.g. Obamacare - but I can't understand how people can support the whole package of progressivism.
Member Since: October 22, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1775
1. sebastianjer
4:03 PM GMT on March 11, 2012


The Awful Parallel

By Mark Walker

Winston Churchill wrote a memoir about World War 2 , the personalities, circumstances and events leading to the outbreak of the war. His review of these events in "The Gathering Storm" begins after the end of World War 1 and the Treaty of Versailles, under which the Allies and the League of Nations forced draconian war debt reparations on Germany. The post-war naivety of the victorious Allies with respect to their place in the world and their responsibility to maintain the peace, as history shows, resulted in a downward spiral of denial and political pandering, both domestically and on foreign policy matters that would lead, inexorably to another war.

Tired of war and looking for a "peace dividend" the Allies began in the early 1920's to disarm, decommission navies and armies and ignore weapons development and preparedness for war. In the meantime the onerous conditions placed on the German economy as punishment for war ruined Germany's economy and national pride, leading to the rise of Hitler and his National Socialist Party, the Nazis.

A series of missteps and miscalculations by diplomats, and the election of increasingly socialist and isolationist politicians in the western democracies encouraged Hitler's National Socialists in Germany to break post war treaty agreements, surreptitiously re-arm and create an armed force second to none at the time. Hitler's diplomats went to great lengths to assuage the nervous Western governments -- they lied. When the Great Depression hit Europe, the allied countries adopted Keynesian spending polices, deepening and prolonging the Depression. While the West spent money it didn't have on social programs and waste, Hitler built his armies and annexed the Rhineland of France, all of Austria and the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia.

Churchill was a lone voice sounding a warning through the mid 1920's and the 1930's. Various British Prime Ministers concluding with Neville Chamberlain -- who famously declared "Peace in our Time" weeks before Hitler crushed Poland -- convinced themselves that negotiating with Hitler and imposing sanctions on his allies, despite all evidence to the contrary, would secure the peace. The rest is history.

The parallels of the lead up to World War 2 with the current conditions in the Western world are troubling. The cast of players has changed, but the characters remain. The result of years of socialist policies is that Europe is once again on the brink of financial collapse. The people of many European nations are withdrawing into almost tribal enclaves, preparing for the worst. In place of the tyranny of the German National Socialist Party of Hitler, radical Islam oppresses much of the Middle East. Paralleling widespread support of Fascism by progressive elites in the West is now a troubling acquiescence to radical Islam by western governments and media. In Hitler's role we cast Ahmadinejad of Iran, racing to create nuclear weapons and, like Hitler and the National Socialists, threatening the Jews with extermination. Like Hitler, Iran's diplomats lie and obfuscate, buying time to complete their preparations for attack.

Chamberlain's part is aptly played by US President Barak Obama, whose foreign policy is one of apology, appeasement and isolationism. Obama uses the diminishing influence of the US to dissuade Israel from defending itself, while encouraging radical and corrupt Islamic governments to become bolder. At the same time Obama's domestic policies and those of the Euro-statelets result in huge cuts to defense spending and an alarming lack of preparation, and no stomach to engage in any armed conflicts, hoping instead that sanctions and talk will replace action. The descent of the countries of North Africa, particularly Libya and Egypt from relatively stable, and tacitly western-friendly states to Islamist, western-hating states is the direct result of Obama's muddled foreign policy -- and something for which the media congratulates Obama endlessly. Obama and the media believe his actions will bring peace in our time.

Like Hitler, Ahmadinejad has declared his intentions. Like Chamberlain, Obama denies the obvious. Like the Allies following World War 1, the Western democracies have allowed socialist domestic and spending policies to bankrupt their economies and comprise their national security. All of the players are in place and field is set. We may well be watching this generation's gathering storm.

It is said those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. We have our Fascist tyrant and our naïve appeaser. We desperately need our Churchill.
Member Since: August 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197

Viewing: 9 - 1

Page: 1 — Blog Index

Top of Page

About sebastianjer

Local Weather

Overcast
79 °F
Overcast

sebastianjer's Recent Photos

Looking for Lunch
Landing Gear
Sunday Morning
Chops