|“Ethicists” declare the killing of this child “permissible,”
its potential “morally irrelevant.”
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? is the title of an article in the current issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics by Alberto Giubilini, of the Universities of Milan and Melbourne, and Francesca Minerva, of the Universities of Melbourne and Oxford.
The paper is summarized thus:
By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
The feeble-mindedness and moral nullity of this argument is established by the use of the term “after-birth abortion,” a contradiction in terms introduced to establish the moral equivalence of abortion, which is now legal throughout the “liberal” Western world, and infanticide, which is still deemed to be murder.
But this crass effort to manipulate opinion by the misuse of words is totally unnecessary. Self-evidently, it makes no significant moral difference whether a human being is killed immediately before, or immediately after, birth.
But by resorting at the outset of their argument to philosophical fraud, the authors accomplish something that they should, given their beliefs, have avoided at all costs, which is to draw attention to the moral equivalence between the killing of a perfectly healthy infant and the practice of abortion.
As it is, they have succeeded in creating a surge of opposition to the extraordinary evil of murdering, yearly, literally millions of perfectly healthy human beings, with the sole justification that their human potential is of “no moral relevance” — a morally depraved nonsense that reveals the banality of the evil espoused by the liberal-left that dominates the thought of the Western establishment.
The argument is framed in a vacuum.
No consideration is given to religious scruples, for in the “liberal” West, religion is dead and all but the unenlightened are atheists like the evolutionary biologist and Oxford University professor of the Public Understanding of Science, Richard Dawkins, for whom Christianity is a contemptible delusion.
No consideration is given to the propagation of the race, for in the “liberal” West, there is no such thing as race, the difference between a Chinese and a Zulu being a purely social construct, notwithstanding the liberal’s professed delight in human diversity.
No consideration is given to the broader implications of declaring the murder of a newborn child “permissible.” Yet if a newborn child lacks “morally relevant” potential, how many of us can truly claim to be different?
But though the case for child murder is made in isolation, one should be under no illusion about what is to follow. As the corpses of little children pile up, the lack of a “morally relevant” potential will be advanced to justify slaughtering the occupants of every mental hospital and every geriatric ward. This has long been the goal of the Fabian left: to exterminate the halt, the sick, the maimed, and every other kind of “useless” eater.
What passes for “liberalism” provides justification for all the horrors of Nazi and Communist totalitarianism. As they plan for the installation of diminutive gas chambers in every maternity ward, the medical “ethicists” are surely already working to justify the profitable recycling of tissues and organs of those of no “morally relevant” potential.
What distinguishes the vileness of this Western liberalism from the vileness of Nazism is that its racism is the the self-hating racism of a dying civilization rather than the predatory racism of an empire. The West has been turned upon itself for the greater enrichment of a plutocratic and globalist elite.
That the liberal-left program for the the annihilation of Western civilization and its people is based on no ethical system whatever, is evident from the way in which its proponents respond to their critics. Thus, according to the editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Prof Julian Savulescu, referring to death threats received by the authors of “Why should the baby live?”
… those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”
Bravo. An exemplary refutation of every argument: find a few nutters threatening violence, preferably skinheads with “fuck off” or “Heil Hitler” tattooed on their foreheads, and use them as a pretext for smearing all opponents as far-right-wing extremist Nazi, fascist, racists.
Which explains why the liberal-left cannot do without the fringe right-wingers, such as Britain’s BNP, EDL, British Freedom Party, and the dimwitted knuckle-dragging oafs that these parties attract.
But the vast majority of ordinary people who have never acted in an abusive or threatening manner are in total opposition to the legalization of infanticide and the destruction of their own race and nation by a liberal elite that sanctions the slaughter of millions of healthy humans in utero while condemning as racists those who oppose the replacement of their own people and the destruction of their culture through a combination of state promoted abortion, psychological manipulation under the guise of K to middle-age education and mass immigration of people differing from the indigenous population in race, culture and creed.
|Image source. The recent rise in fertility reflects the fertility
of the philoprogenitive immigrants from North Africa and else-
where who are replacing the indigenous Italian population.
But the conclusive ethical case against the authors of “Why should the baby live?” is to be found in their names.
Their names are Italian and Italy, with a birth rate barely half the replacement rate, leads the World in the globalist-driven program of national self-destruction.
Italy, will endure, and it will be occupied by people calling themselves Italians. But these will be “new Italians,” not the descendants of the now dying generation. They will be the descendants of people from Africa, Asian and the Middle East, a mongrelized population whose “morally relevant” potential will be defined not by a religion or a culture, but according to the needs of a globalist elite.
This is a point one might have expected the public intellectual (or at least the publicly funded intellectual), Richard Dawkins, to have considered and discussed. But apparently, it is a point too abstruse for Oxford’s present-day successors to such moral and intellectual heavyweights as Bishop Robert Grosseteste and C.S. Lewis.
But things may yet go astray. The Muslims who seek to settle and occupy the West could yet come out on top. On top, that is, of the plutocrats now seeking to remodel the World in their own interest. In which case, we can look forward to a future when the Atheist dons of Oxford are replaced by God-fearing mullahs who understand that their powers and privileges depend on caring for, not destroying, the people.
But by then, rather sadly, the European peoples will have been submerged and largely displaced by others.