Two contemporary issues are converging more potently than ever before: homosexuality and abortion. How so?
First, unless you’ve been missing in action for a while you’re well aware of the recent push to legally compel religious people to violate their conscience on matters of what marriage means.
There are those who would construe the issue as though declining a customer asking for a wedding cake for a gay wedding is the same as preventing the ceremony from happening (despite the fact there is another baker just down the street who would do the job). Absurd, yes, and false, and dishonest, sure, but emotionally satisfying for those willing to lie to push for the gay agenda. What’s really going on here is not anti-gay hate but anti-religious hate. And not merely hate, we are now faced with a situation where not only are religious people being legally forced to violate their religious beliefs but this situation is also one where a constitutional right (blatantly spelled out in the US Constitution) is being entirely disregarded for a different agenda. As it stands, the law can compel people to violate their conscience if their conscience is of a religious nature.
But there is another area of life where moral objections to involving oneself in certain controversial acts are challenged.
So now the situation includes forcing people to either fund or participate in abortions, despite moral objections.
What connects these issues? Conscientious objection. It’s worth mentioning conscientious objection to war and the draft was a very popular thing in the 1970s. Moral conscience was treated as a valid reason to change the law. But on the issue of being forced to participate in or contribute a gay wedding or being forced to participate in or contribute to an abortion, these objections tend to be motivated by religious beliefs. And somehow being of a religious nature makes these objections invalid.
So what can be done about this obvious double standard? An idea is already provided.
You’ve probably heard the term “potential person” being used in defense of abortion rights. But did you know that same term is being used to expand abortion rights to kill infants as well?
The three stories linked above are all about the same instance of a paper published by medical experts claiming infants are not “persons” yet, they are merely “potential persons”. Now it’s bad enough to claim we don’t know when life begins and then deny personhood to a child in the womb and all civil rights including the right to life (pretending we actually knew the child is NOT a person). But, and I can’t believe I’m about to say this, there is actually something worse: denying a recently born child personhood and all civil rights – including the right to life.
You thought eugenics died with the Nazis? You were wrong. And, of course, we are subjected to further distortion of language and logic trying to justify medicalized killing:
Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are associated respectively with Monash University, in Melbourne, Australia, and with the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, at the University of Melbourne.
They argue that both the fetus and the new-born infant are only potential persons without any interests. Therefore the interests of the persons involved with them are paramount until some indefinite time after birth. To emphasise the continuity between the two acts, they term it “after-birth abortion” rather than infanticide.
Their conclusions may shock but Guibilini and Minerva assert them very confidently. “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.” This assertion highlights another aspect of their argument. Killing an infant after birth is not euthanasia either. In euthanasia, a doctor would be seeking the best interests of the person who dies. But in “after-birth abortion” it is the interests of people involved, not the baby.
The astoundingly evil thing of killing children is often justified by pretending we know things we really don’t know and inventing new distinctions without real differences (medicalized killing is medicalized killing, I don’t care if the killing is done with the interests of the people involved instead of the presumptuous interests of the baby). Science cannot answer the question of when life beings, and it certainly can’t tell us when personhood begins. Science is not equipped to answer questions like these. That’s where philosophy comes in. But abortion rights advocates cop out on these questions, too, by arguing we don’t have to know the answers to these questions – we can simply ignore them by calling the child a “potential person” or the even more ridiculous term “pre-person people“. And you know what, these semantic games have worked for them pretty well so far. Why don’t we give it a try.
I propose we start calling gay marriage “potential marriage”. I don’t suggest this as a genuine position; I mean it as a means of bringing more attention to the asinine semantic game being played already in the intellectually and morally fraudulent defense of abortion. We, the defenders of children inside and outside the womb, should make the case that western society’s standard for what qualifies as injustice has been convoluted and insubstantiated and entirely undercut by pretending the killing of children merely for someone else’s convenience is a civil right. If killing babies is not evil I’m not sure how we can call anything evil. If killing children (the most innocent of us) for other people’s convenience is not injustice how can we call anything injustice?
By what standard can we say declining to bake a cake for a gay wedding is injustice when we praise the killing of children and trash those to speak out against it?
Let’s put the gay mafia and abortion mafia on defense. Call gay marriage “potential marriage” and see how they try to defend a double standard when we use their own propaganda against them. They want to play semantic games. Fine, let’s play.
abortion, anti-religion, babies, bigotry, bullies, children, eugenics, extremism, fraud, health care, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, public policy, relativism, scientists