The Morning Rant

Just call it murder, because that is exactly what it is, and no amount of academic obfuscation will change the fact that these ghouls…these vile and disgusting lumps of amoral protoplasm…are calling for the deaths of babies because their lives might be inconvenient and expensive.

But I will grant them one thing; they are logically consistent! If a life before birth is without worth and can be ended based on the whims of the mother or the state, then it follows that that life is worthless after birth.

Luckily they haven’t extended their lust for murder past the newborn stage. That comes in their next paper, titled, “The Jewish Question: How Many Is Too Many?”

Because I cannot see any substantive difference between these people and Aktion 4, the Nazi program of “euthanasia” of the incurably ill, which of course led inexorably to genocide.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Although it is reasonable to predict that living with a very severe condition is against the best interest of the newborn, it is hard to find definitive arguments to the effect that life with certain pathologies is not worth living, even when those pathologies would constitute acceptable reasons for abortion. It might be maintained that ‘even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of Down’s syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child’. But, in fact, people with Down’s syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy.

Nonetheless, 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.

Amazingly, they open the door to many other murders that they can justify based on their subjective analysis of the worth of a human being. “Potential” being the operative word! Doesn’t that allow for the culling of low potential children?

Okay kids, this IQ test is pretty important, because the bottom 25% of you will be killed!

And why not extend this eugenicist’s wet-dream to the parents of those low-potential children? That way society can minimize the possibility of more dumb kids being born.

The unalterable fact is that all human life is valuable, and any attempt to qualify it leads to unimaginable evil. It is not up to us to judge the worth of a child, whether he is in the womb or in the hospital nursery.

And let me dismiss the leftist counter-argument that we have capital punishment, therefore we do the same thing they advocate. There is a huge difference between judging the worth of a person and judging his actions. A moral society does not punish potential, it punishes behavior.

The value of a human being is intrinsic and immutable, and any attempt to categorize based on scholarly nonsense is a terrifying peek into the minds of people who are evil, and in a different time were concentration camp guards, or experts in the logistics of mass murder, or clerks in offices counting bodies.