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.”
