For innocent souls, Chuck Asay’s cartoon (above) may be a puzzlement—surely our nation would never descend to the level of Nazi Germany’s policies . . . would it? For the information of those of you who may be "history-challenged," Hitler sought to “purify the race” by exterminating not only Jews and Gypsies but also by sterilizing all “defectives,” that is, anyone mentally or physically handicapped.
You may be thinking, “Isn’t this cartoon a little over the top?” Sadly, if anything, Chuck Asay’s cartoon was a bit too timid. Too polite. Too gentle.
In yesterday’s newspaper, Princeton professor Peter Singer was quoted as having said: “Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all.” (emphasis added)
Peter Singer is a “bioethicist.” He cites Darwin to justify his view that “the life of a newborn baby is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog or a chimpanzee.” (emphasis added)
It would be a mistake to dismiss Professor Singer as merely a wild-eyed mad man. Unfortunately, Singer is not alone in his “scientific” views. Nicholas Provenzo (Libertarian commentator) says, “It is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome, because a person with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive.” (emphasis added)
How many of our nation’s policy makers agree with these views? Probably more than we realize. And, how soon will National Healthcare become a reality? When the available dollars for healthcare become too few and the demand too great, who will get tossed out of the life boat first? If you "can’t save everyone," who are the “expendable” ones? Survival of only the “fittest”?
If it is “moral” to abort a “defective” fetus or kill any other inconvenient infant or person, how soon will it become immoral not to? In a society convinced that resources are limited and that catastrophe lies ahead, it is not far-fetched to anticipate the day when abortions will become mandatory for “defective” infants (or an excess of infants), and euthanasia will be required of the “marginally productive” and any others who are “inconvenient.”
You may be thinking, “Isn’t this cartoon a little over the top?” Sadly, if anything, Chuck Asay’s cartoon was a bit too timid. Too polite. Too gentle.
In yesterday’s newspaper, Princeton professor Peter Singer was quoted as having said: “Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all.” (emphasis added)
Peter Singer is a “bioethicist.” He cites Darwin to justify his view that “the life of a newborn baby is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog or a chimpanzee.” (emphasis added)
It would be a mistake to dismiss Professor Singer as merely a wild-eyed mad man. Unfortunately, Singer is not alone in his “scientific” views. Nicholas Provenzo (Libertarian commentator) says, “It is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome, because a person with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive.” (emphasis added)
How many of our nation’s policy makers agree with these views? Probably more than we realize. And, how soon will National Healthcare become a reality? When the available dollars for healthcare become too few and the demand too great, who will get tossed out of the life boat first? If you "can’t save everyone," who are the “expendable” ones? Survival of only the “fittest”?
If it is “moral” to abort a “defective” fetus or kill any other inconvenient infant or person, how soon will it become immoral not to? In a society convinced that resources are limited and that catastrophe lies ahead, it is not far-fetched to anticipate the day when abortions will become mandatory for “defective” infants (or an excess of infants), and euthanasia will be required of the “marginally productive” and any others who are “inconvenient.”
3 comments:
What a horrific possibility! I think I am stunned that any person would be shameless enough to make statements such as these.
And what if abortions were easier than they already are? What if those people who considered them felt justified because they believed the life of that child was virtually worthless? What about all those people who cannot have children of their own? It's hard enough to adopt already. (We looked into it about 3 years ago.)
In the words of Dr. Seuss, "A person's a person, no matter how small." It is astounding to me that people have no regard for human life. I was so disgusted when Obama said if his daughters had unwanted pregnancies he would support abortions, because they should not be "punished" for making a mistake. What it boils down to is society is growing more selfish, and it's all about instant gratification and zero consequences.
What's really frightening is when you know people personally who would agree that abortion was okay. They may not think they are acting like Hitler because his enfamousy was so wide-spread. It is a terrible reality when your own family no longer has the same values and values life less than convenience. You then begin to wonder if you were raised in the same family... :( Sad but true. Victor has to deal with this on a regular basis from his side of the family and it has had a direct impact on our family... :(
Post a Comment