The Nazi ethics of the left 12

The moral foundations of our civilization are crumbling.

Law is the essence of civilization. Certain moral principles underlie all law. Chief among them is that murder is wrong.

Prohibition of murder, theft, fraud, and false witness is much older than the Bible, the Hammurabi Code, or any known codification of laws.

But now, as an intense hatred of humanity is spread by the intellectual elite of the Western world, some of whom even advocate the total elimination of the human species, murder is no longer a crime. It is what enlightened, responsible, university-educated people approve of and believe should become state policy.

Especially they advocate the murder of the most helpless and defenseless – babies and small children.

No doubt the same people who want to kill children because they cost too much to keep in energy, effort and money, will go on protesting against the judicial execution of murderers. They want to protect the guilty and do away with the innocent.

We, unfashionably, see the necessity to protect the innocent and do away with the guilty.

Of course we recognize the existence of moral dilemmas: the question of euthanasia will always remain a difficult one. Whether to kill out of compassion is a different moral question from whether to kill for one’s own convenience.

We hoped to hear an outcry of moral rage against the advocacy of legalizing child-murder by parental choice or state order. We are watching for columnists, pundits, opinion-formers to protest in the strongest possible terms.

We have found, heard, read only a few.

One who can be relied on for moral clarity is Bruce Bawer. He correctly labels the two “ethical scientists” who advocate the killing of children if they’re a nuisance to their parents or the state, Nazis.

[I learned about ] an article … by two individuals named Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. The former is connected with the Department of Philosophy at the University of Milan and with the Centre for Human Bioethics at Monash University in Melbourne; the latter is associated with the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne and the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at Oxford University. Both share the same job description. They are “medical ethicists”.

The point of their article is simple. They argue for the morality of what they call “after-birth abortion” – in other words, as they bluntly put it, “killing a newborn.” They say that such killing “should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.” They explain that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion” to “euthanasia” “because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.”

Their case for the moral legitimacy of “after-birth abortion” is this: a newborn, they say, has not yet “formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing” if you snuff her out shortly after birth. Though newborns, like fetuses, are indeed “human beings and potential persons,” a newborn is not yet “a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life.’” Giubilini and Minerva explain that for them, the word “person” signifies “an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.” Since newborns are not “persons” in this sense, their “alleged right…to develop their potentiality … is over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being” – for “actual people’s well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of.”

So speak the “medical ethicists” – one of them connected with Oxford, no less. It is all quite chilling …  Giubilini and Minerva – if I keep repeating their names, it’s because I want to make sure you and I remember them – are purportedly talking here about what constitutes humanity, but their very language is the epitome of inhumanity. And it is all too much of a piece with the language of the Western elite generally, which does a good deal of talking about the poor and the helpless and the greater good, but which, more often than not, is less concerned with attending to difficult real-life responsibilities than with puffing up its own image while making its own existence as smooth, comfortable, and problem-free as possible.

Nazi science: to be straightforward about it, that’s pretty much what Giubilini and Minerva are selling. And a lot of people in our time seem eager to buy it.

  • Harold

    You say a lot of people in our time seem eager to buy it – but I don’t see much evidence for them.  Pretty much everyone is against “post birth abortion”.
    Regarding the issue of defining when a human becomes a human, the experts mentioned by Frank will not be able to define it because it is not an objective matter.  It is a false hope that there is a moment of transition that we can objectively identify.

    Human is different from  a person.  My arm is human, but it is not a person.

    Society does not consider a zygote – (I think this is the term George was seeking for “fertilised egg” – he is correct, it is no more a fertilised egg than a fertilised sperm) or a blastocyst (divided up to a few mainly undifferentiated cells) as a person.   There is general tacit agreement of this, because we do not put massive resources into preventing deaths due to spontaneous abortion, like we do to prevent deaths due to cancer. 

    Society generally considers a baby after birth to be a person, and to kill one is murder.

    I can only see at the moment that we are forced to take a sliding scale view of this.  Abortion at a very early stage is of less importance than a later stage.   The “freedom” of the mother to choose at this point has more weight than that of the fetus.  At the earliest, this is the morning after pill or IUD.  I don’t have a moral objection to intervention at this time.

    As the fetus develops, then the importance of termination grows.  The needs of the mother must be much greater in order to justify termination.  In fact, late stage abortion is very rare and usually only allowed under specific circumstances.

    After some period the importance of the child should be considered so great that  there is no interest of the mother that is great enough to terminate.  We currently think this time is somewhere before birth – perhaps 20-odd weeks. 

    There is much scope for deciding when this time should be.  G and M apparently propose that this time should be after birth:  almost nobody agrees.  At the other extreme, some think it should be at fertilisation – a position which is inconsistent with our concern for zygotes, so I reject that also.   Some say it should be at the point that independant life is possible.  If we use technology, then this becomes a shifting definition, so is of little use ethically.

    I don’t know exactly where it should be, but I believe that this is the only sensible way to address the issue.  

    Incidentally, when I read the article the first time, I mis-read “opinion former” as “onion farmer”.  I wondered why their opinion should be sought.

  • Ralph

    Some of my past comments have been aimed at showing how the lack of dealing forcefully with National Socialism led to horror. The NSDAP and American socialism are one and the same. No matter what you call it socialism can only bring suffering and  slow death.

  • Liz

    I could only imagine this happening in a place where the state controls everything and humans are simply drones in the system, mindlessly obeying Big Brother.  But thats exactly the direction we’re headed, with our current President,  and if people like this are taken seriously.  You’ll be permitted to kill a human infant, but not a fish, lizard, insect, etc.

    • George

      You’re right Liz , as I have gotten into heated debates with animal rights activists who will defend the rights of a turtle, frog, fish, snake , or bird but couldn’t care less about the life of a human being. According to them BIg Brother should protect the insects and rodent varmits and totally control the behavior and actions of people but in their minds— humans be damned !  If the left had their way , Big Brother ( the STATE ) would make decisions regarding who lives or dies and the citizenry or general populace will have absolutely NO regress whatsoever and if they attempt to do so could very well be prosecuted as criminals.  That’s more than scary but horrifying and yet people are pushing this agenda at an alarming pace . Sometimes I believe the world in general is losing it’s mind. At a time when we thought nazi-ism has ended , it appears that it is resurfacing once again.  

  • George

    This article is actually similar to the recent article— [ Questions of statism ].  It’s astonishing that those who are so pro-abortion and have no qualms about the taking of innocent infant life actually go “ballistic”  regarding the execution of a heinous serial killer on death row.  Also those overwhelmingly who call themselves pro-life  don’t on a large scale practive what they preach toward everyone but also engage in prejudiced overt hypocrisy. A mass murdering human “monster” can cold-bloodedly kill innocent human beings and when it comes time for him/her to meet their just punishment for the dastardy crime(s)  ,  we have liberals and their co-horts chanting and standing around the death row facility having “candle light vigils ” pouring their  ” bleeding hearts ” out for the murderous sicko. Then these same individuals wring their hands with such grief saying that the type of punishment rendered is  ” cruel and unusual ”  . Cruel and unusual ?  How about when the murderous cold bloodied murderer scumbag  tortured and  killed helpless and innocent human beings ? Was that not cruel ? Is that suppose to be considered unsual ? Who cares if it is cruel or for that matter or unusual ?   No we are not sinking to the level of the murderer  when just punishment is metted out for such a heinous crime and such people should not be given life long care and upkeep at tax payers expense in jail prison facilities.
                        I will admit that if there is any doubt whatsoever regarding the murder charge  then prison should be given instead of the death penalty so as not to execute an innocent human being which obviously can’t be reversed. I have also heard some wacko people say that we need a global nuclear war so as to reduce the world overpopulation and I have personally heard some feminists pushing the abortion issue as a form of disguised genocide ( and NO I’m not speaking of everyone on this issue so as not to be accussed of stereotyping everyone ).
                            Not only did the nazis who were lead by that madman Hitler engage in mass murder of the Jews but they killed people who were considered sick, helpless, weak, or considered to be a form of human parasite so as to engage in his “final solution” of  forming the  “perfect”  form of “master race” . As fa as I’m concerned , both the terms pro-choice and pro-life are misnomers.  No , I’m not getting off topic here I’m but making a relative comparison of what this article is talking about  [ the devaluing of life itself ] and it is indeed related to the previous article [  Questions of Statism ].  I’ve heard those who call themselves pro-choice become cold blooded having no regard for healthy innocent babies and use it as a form of post-conception birth control even when the embryo is advanced and capable of living outside of the womb and regard anyone who opposes such as “anti-choice”.  By  the same token I have seen those  who call themselves pro-life have no intent of adopting healthy babies when mothers who can’t take care of them put them up for adoption but they act like they care so much for the babies and regard anyone who opposses their views as “anti-life”.   I’ve seen the madness on both sides. We don’t have to ask the question of where do we draw the line when innocent , alive and well human lives are at stake here and it is evidently OBVIOUS.
                              Calling  after birth killing of babies “after birth abortion ” because they don’t like the term euthanasia doesn’t change the act itself. Let’s be blunt and call it what it is —MURDER  !!!!!!   .  Changing the name or terminology doesn’t change the murderous action being taken. This is how PC language or semantics comes into play to play manipulative mind games on our collective psyche .  At an era in time when world society should be advancing for the overall betterment in improving human life and existence it appears to me that we seem to be going backwards.  From a morality and ethical perspective , instead or PROGRESSING , we are actually REGRESSING !

    • Frank

      I would like to make a comment about the term “pro-abortion.” It’s called “defining your opponent’s position such that it immediately puts them in a bad light.” I am not pro-abortion; I am pro-freedom of choice. I am for a woman’s right to determine whether or not to let that clump of cells growing inside her to fully develop into another human being. I am pro letting that woman decide whether or not to accept the responsibility and all that it entails in caring for, feeding, clothing, and educating that new human being. Now let me make this perfectly clear – I am NOT in favor of late term abortions unless the mother’s life is in danger.
      And now to address the big question – when does that clump of cells become a human being. That question needs to have a definitive answer. That answer should come from discussions among those people qualified to help determine that answer such as biologist, medical doctors, neurologists, and other professionals. And once a criterion has been developed for determining when that transition takes place it should be written into law. I do not accept the Monty Python stance on this subject.

      • Jillian Becker

        Thank you, Frank, for your clear and rational statement of your position. 

        How is it, though, that the experts you list have not been able to arrive at the determination of when “that clump of cells become a human being”? They have had time enough. If they haven’t yet, when will they? Have they perhaps failed because it isn’t possible? 

        • Frank

          First of all making that determination is not a trivial matter. They are narrowing in on it as evidenced by laws prohibiting late term abortions. The conclusion that a fertilized egg is somehow a human is an emotional conclusion not a scientific one. And I would like to ask by what criteria have you arbitrarily determined they have had enough time? As far as being impossible, I won’t even bother to list some things that people in the past believed were impossible. But in the mean time there are laws governing what is legal and what is not. People who are opposed to abortion have the right to not have one. Please remember that freedom of choice does not automatically mean abortion; it means choice. And one of those choices is to give birth.

        • George

          Actually there has been enough time and it has been bypassed.  My  point to Frank is that this was never at any time considered a trivial matter. I have NEVER considered a fertilized egg to be a human being. First of all the term “fertilized egg ” is a misnomer. According to medical experts and biologists rfegardinmg human anatomy and human reproduction ( concerning the X and Y chromosomes and human genes )  the male germ is dominant.  The use of this misleading terminology makes it appear that the male germ is only some form of “fertilizer” and that only the female egg has value or true life cvomposition. In fact I was at the 1990 American Atheists convention and a guest speaker was Bill Baird ( pardon if his last name is misspelled ) and he spoke on this issue of abortion  he even said himself and I agree with him that calling a newly fertilized egg/sperm union a human being is like calling an acorn a tree.    He’s right  and I have never taken that position. In fact  I  was never talking about that issue to begin with. My comments were strictly addressing a fully developed embryo that has fully developed but only now growing. At this point it is no longer a clump of cells or a glob of flesh or a piece of meat as some describe. At this point it is fully developed and no more development is now taking place but rather it is simply growing inside of the womb. As I stated before— No baby chooses to die , so the term choice is also a misnomer.   What choice does a fully developed baby have ? I’m tired of people putting words in my mouth and making claims that I never said . Where  is the choice for the biological father that wants to have , love and raise what is equally his offspring as well since we’re on the subject of choice ? Frank says he doesn’t like the term “pro-abortion” , well then , I in turn don’t like the term “anti-choice”. It works both ways .  I have yet to see those who refer to themselves as “pro-choice” to tell their colleagues to “knock it off ” regarding that form of misleading and dceitful language terminology and speak out against it ,  but now they rant & rave if someone uses the term pro-abortion.  I find the hypocrisy and double-standard astounding.  

      • George

        In reply to Frank :

                          Your point is well taken Frank and in turn let me make something perfectly clear as well.  I have no intent of telling any woman what to do with her body. My position is addressing this is concerning a separate life entity within that body.  Women say — ” It’s my body”  as if the matter is closed and the biological father to be has no say in the matter.   Men are saying —.  ”  I have no intent of controlling YOUR body but considering that the growing fetus or embryo within your body is as much mine as it is yours , then as the biological father of that unborn , I have  just as much a right to have a say toward the fate of that body, and I decline to be so easily dispensed with , so don’t you dare tell me I have no say “.  So while we’re on the subject of getting things straight —-let’s get this straight also once and for all. 
                      I was even shocked when I read an article from a feminist who was a local chapter head of a feminist organization who even herself stated that if the mother doesn’t want the developing baby  and the father does,  that she should bring the baby to term and turn it over to the father to have what is equally his child as well. I was actually in shock to read that from a feminist . If I find the article again  , I will post it.  My argument all along on this matter   [  STATISM   ] or in the article in question addressed AFTER BIRTH ABORTION and the conversation did indeed get OFF TOPIC and began discussiing at conception and the developing fetus within the womb which I had repeteadly stated numerous times to no avail that this was NOT what the article was about.  I don’t know how many times In have to say this but it is apparent that no matter how many times I do , certain individuals still don’t get it and I’m starting to get tired of having to cover the same thing over and over again and it’s starting to wear thin with me.
                  I don’t see individuals who call themselves pro-choice speaking out against the inflammatory language ( such as the term “anti-choice ” directed by those of us who consider  ourselves pro-life and have a position of defending the unborn who are capable of living on their own outside of the womb. When I see SOME individuals who refer to themselves as pro-choice and   have no qualms of engaging in late-term abortion or even post birth infanticide , then I do indeed have a problem with that and  stand firm in that position. If you had bothered to read my previous ststement, I made it perfectly clear that my comment was NOT directed at you specifically but a general comment regarding the issue at hand. People who have read my many contributions on this website know beyond any doubt whatsoever that no one has defended women as much as I have since we’re on the subject of getting things straight —–it works both ways. I respect your right to express your views on this matter and I in turn ask that you respect mine—— that is being fair and just.  Now that we got that straight , we can move on .

        • Frank

          You have clearly stated your position on this matter more than once. I have stated my position which agrees with yours with regard to late term abortions. But we obviously disagree on some other points. It was not my intention to get into a pissing contest. Let’s just agree to disagree on some points and move on.

      • George

        Frank , you’re still repeating the same thing that I just covered and I have also said repeatedly . I have just posted to let’s move on and now moments later you’re repeating the same thing over again. I have been trying to avoid any  “pissing contest”.  Your original post was referring to your feelings on the term  “pro-abortion” and I responded by stating my feelings on the term  “anti-choice ” . I’ve been saying let’s move on several posts  ago.  Yes it’s obvious that certain things we do not agree on  so let’s leave it at that and concentrate on what this website is all about to begin  with and that is SECULAR FREETHOUGHT from a conservative perspective. Thank you sir .