If you think that Orwell’s Satire only applies to the former East Block (albeit USSR), you are perhaps not well-informed enough, dear friend. Today, this new concept “After-Birth abortion” is now celebrated as another achievement of “liberal” (albeit pro-choice pro euthanasia pro gay marriage Christians bashing) secularism, and people who question its ethical justification are tagged with “hate-mongers”, as an expert for practical ethics of a highly respected university (indeed it’s Oxford) tries to explain, he is also the editor of Journal of Medical Ethics, where a thesis was presented by two authors which sparks internationally outrage:
This article has elicited personally abusive correspondence to the authors, threatening their lives and personal safety. The Journal has received a string abusive emails for its decision to publish this article. This abuse is typically anonymous. [...]
As Editor of the Journal, I would like to defend its publication. The arguments presented, in fact, are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris (note by editor: Singer is famous for advocating euthanasia of the elderly and the infirm) in defence of infanticide, which the authors call after-birth abortion.
The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide – the paper repeats the arguments made famous by Tooley and Singer – but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands.
Many people will and have disagreed with these arguments. However, the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises. The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible. The authors proceed logically from premises which many people accept to a conclusion that many of those people would reject. [...]
This is hate speech. The kind of thing that incenses people to violence.
What the response to this article reveals, through the microscope of the web, is the deep disorder of the modern world. Not that people would give arguments in favour of infanticide, but the deep opposition that exists now to liberal values and fanatical opposition to any kind of reasoned engagement. (as for the “hate speech our respected expert refers to, click Here to see and judge for yourself)
Now, with a lot of academical concepts and nebulous formulation, our respected expert tries to tell us that when applied “in consideration of maternal and family interests“, infanticide becomes legal “abortion”, and if our secular world loves abortion and anyone who opposes abortion is certainly a bigot, then people who oppose infanticide are also bigots. The logic is really clear, thanks to the “scientific” and “academical” training of our experts and advocates for infanticide.
If a newborn baby is not different to a foetus, that is, an “inferior”
human being (Life unworthy of life?) in the eyes of pro-choice crowd, then where shall we draw the line? Perhaps people can argue, that mentally retarded people are also “inferior” and thus can be subject legally to killing? Like a Russian Journalist proposed two years ago (from Bio-Edge):
Two Russian mothers have won the right to rebut a journalist’s argument that handicapped children should be euthanased. Aleksandr Nikonov, of the popular tabloid Speed-Info, wrote a column contending that children with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities should be killed so that they don’t suffer, in what he termed “post-natal abortion”.
Snezhana Mitina, mother of a 10-year-old son with Hunter’s syndrome , and Svetlana Shtarkova, mother of a 3-year-old son with severe brain damage, were outraged. They filed a complaint with the Russian Union of Journalists which decided that Mr Nikonov’s words were extremist.
The two women say that many Russians share his ideas. “The opinion expressed by the author is not unique; statistics show that one-fourth of Russians share similar views,” Shtarkova told the journalists’ union on February 2. “Complete strangers come up to me in the street and tell me that I’m depraved and deserve my fate. Doctors and social workers refuse to do their jobs, just because my child is severely disabled.”
Mr Nikonov was unrepentant. He told the Radio Liberty “If you want to bring up a child with Down syndrome, you can do it. But if you don’t, you can euthanase him. Why is prenatal abortion legal, and postnatal abortion is not?”
This incident underscores Russia’s reluctance to care for its citizens with disabilities who are widely regarded as burdens for society, says Radio Liberty.
The mental affinity of our highly respected experts for bioethics to this reporter is apparent. Only, the former will insist on calling themselves “humanists” and “tolerant”, “liberal”, in a word, superior beings to Christians who are “fanatics” (as the respected Oxford expert calls them).
These two reports bring one’s mind to something awful happened 70 years again, and call it Godwin’s Law if you like to, but you can’t deny that there is a similarity:
Less than 6 months after his election in 1933, Hitler introduced the “Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring.” It decreed compulsory sterilization for persons characterized by a wide variety of disabilities. It has been estimated that by 1939, 200,000-350,000 persons had been sterilized, many of whom subsequently became victims of the ““euthanasia”” programme. [...] These and other laws prepared the ground for the Nürnberg Laws of 1935, which, while directed primarily at Jews, also regulated marriage among people with disabilities. [...] By the end of 1938, the regime was receiving requests from the families of newborn or very young children with severe deformities and brain damage for the grant of a “mercy killing” (Gnadentod). In particular, a petition was received in respect of an infant named Gerhard Herbert Kretschmar, the so-called `Knauer’ child, who had been born on 20 February 1939, blind, with one leg and part of one arm missing, and who was described as an “idiot.” Hitler ordered Karl Brandt, his personal physician, to visit the child in a hospital at Leipzig. Brandt testified at his post-war Nürnberg trial he had been instructed that if the facts provided by the child’s father proved to be correct, he was to inform the physicians in Hitler’s name that “euthanasia” could be carried out – which it was, on 25 July 1939.
It is arguable that the `Knauer’ case was the catalyst for all that followed, although it could equally be argued that Hitler’s dedication to “euthanasia” was such that its introduction was inevitable at some point in the mercifully brief history of National Socialism. [...]
In May 1939, Hitler had instructed Brandt to pave the way for the killing of children by setting up a body entitled the `Reich Committee for the Scientific Registering of Serious Hereditary and Congenital Illnesses’. By a decree dated 18 August 1939, doctors and midwives were ordered to report all cases of “deformed” newborn. Even before war came in September 1939, the Nazis had thus established a government sanctioned process for murder. Two laymen made a preliminary selection of cases, which was then reviewed by three medical professors who determined the fate of the child. If selected for ““euthanasia””, the child was transferred to one of a list of special hospital wards for killing.
As early as July 1939, Werner Heyde, who was to play a prominent role in the ““euthanasia”” programme, attended a meeting at which he learned of the imminent killing of the adult mentally ill. As with the `Final Solution’, ““euthanasia”” provided a perfect confluence of the two essential elements of National Socialist ideology – the biological and the economic.
In a report prepared for Hitler in the summer of 1939, another of his personal physicians, Dr Theodore Morell, having reviewed a survey carried out in the 1920s of the parents of severely handicapped children, wrote: “A number of parents expressed the view: `If only you had done it (i.e., ““euthanasia””) and then told us that our child had died from an illness.’ There is a lesson for us there. We need not suppose that we cannot carry out any salutary measure without the consent of the sovereign people.”
It was clear that the regime could expect no great negative reaction to the programme from the general populace. A survey conducted in April 1941 revealed that 80% of the relatives of those murdered by the programme were in agreement with the decision, 10% spoke out against it, and 10% were indifferent.
It has been suggested that this policy of `official secrecy’, where people knew while pretending not to know, and only a very few protested, was an invitation to denial and moral indifference on the part of both the German establishment and the German nation as a whole. It laid the foundation for a similar reaction to the `Final Solution.’ If people did not protest at the murder of their own relatives, they were hardly likely to do so when Jews, Gypsies, and foreigners were slaughtered. (Source: Holocaust Education and Research Team)
I don’t have to explore the affinity, the fact speaks for itself.