Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Infanticide...or "mercy killing"?

Euthanasia for infants being discussed in Britain

The Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has made a statement that the medical community should consider withholding and withdrawing life saving medical care from infants born with severe life-threatening and permanent conditions; and, in some cases, they endorse euthanasia as a possibility as well.

Anyone who has read this blog knows that I have advocated against abortion and against stem cell research for one primary reason – it cheapens human life and places us on the verge of a slippery slope that we don’t want to step out onto. This announcement from the Britain Obstetrics society confirms my contention.

While I don’t have a problem with withdrawing or withholding treatment (I feel that is a medical decision that should be made by the parents from an informed point of view), I do have a serious problem with the notion of euthanasia. This, in my opinion, mirrors the Kevorkian notion of assisted suicide except for the fact that an infant can’t commit suicide. So it’s, in essence, unassisted suicide which, by definition is murder. Yes, I have a problem with that.
Infanticide is a word that we should all get used to, because it is a word that we will soon be hearing more of. There are people, mainly "reproductive rights" groups who advocate infanticide for mothers who do not wish to be mothers. This is abortion rights to the extreme. Some have editorialized that one’s humanity should not be recognized until that person has the capability of self-awareness, and therefore anyone who kills the self-unaware should not be held to the same standard as someone who kills an adult. This is the slippery slope of which I speak and it’s not fictitious.

Look around, people, this is what’s going on in society. We make arguments along moral relativist lines for things like abortion and stem cell research without realizing what the next step is and, believe me, there are people who are making some convincing arguments for infanticide. I’m wondering where we, as a society, draw the line?

Today we argue for "euthanasia" of babies as a means of mercy killing. What will it be tomorrow? If we advocate for mercy killing of someone with spina bifida, well then what about a child born blind? What about a child born with a clubbed foot? The same arguments can be made for killing these infants and then what have we become as a society?

I see the link between these arguments and abortion/stem cell research. To me, they are intricately connected which is why I argue adamantly against both. We can’t have human life cheapened in a culture of moral relativism, because it soon becomes a threat to us all.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hey John,

Isn't funny how the folks that are pro-abortion that usually fight with you on every subject don't feel inclined to address this subject?

The silence is loud and clear isn't it?

Robert

John The Patriot said...

Robert, you're right in so many ways. Such is life in the world of moral relativism.

Moral relativists don't condemn bad behavior, they look for a way to explain it. And if it's REALLY bad, like murdering infants if they look funny, then they just ignore it. In the eyes of a moral relativist, the worst thing one human being could do is "judge" someone else's behavior. I'm not sure why this is, but I believe it's because most moral relativists are engaged in bad behavior themselves and they feel that if they don't condemn someone else's bad behavior then maybe that someone else would return the favor. Everyone gets to do their "thing". Everyone is happy. Look at Clinton. Who was defending his adultery as "private".

However, there is one person who the moral relativist will attack and "judge" with ire. That person is the moral absolutist, the one who recognizes bad behavior and calls it what it is. It's OK to pass judgement on them. We are called narrow minded, bigoted, hateful, insensitive, racist, sexist, homophobe, theocrat, nazi, fascist, Christian radical, archaeic, old-fashioned, ignorant, etc (did I leave any out?). Just look at Bush. He gets attacked every day for being a moral absolutist.

Basically, we (the absolutists) see right and wrong, they (the relativists) see shades of grey.