I’ve been wondering how long it would take us to get here.
I call it the IQ argument, and it’s the complete ethical underpinning of the abortion argument. Abortionists argue that it’s okay to kill an unborn child because it’s not a human being. Why is it not a human being?
Because it’s not conscious or aware of itself as a human being. More simply put, it’s IQ is too low.
In fact, we will eventually get to the point where IQ will really be the only reasonable definition for humanity. If you have an IQ below a certain point, you aren’t human and therefore it is okay for someone to kill you.
If you support the right of a woman to kill her unborn child, this is what you are saying.
What did you say?
Did you say “what about the sanctity of life”?
I’m sorry, but that’s a bible-based value, which changes everything.
If you believe that life has ANY sanctity whatsoever, then you are ipso facto saying that IQ has nothing to do with what it means to be a human being. Furthermore, you must also believe that abortion is morally wrong. You cannot have it both ways.
Or, maybe bypass the “IQ Rule” and go straight to the “Convenience Rule”.
Under the “Convenience Rule”, you have the right to terminate ANY life that provides some kind of obstacle – i.e., any life that depends on you and is therefore, inconvenient.
The Convenience Rule is certainly more advanced than the IQ rule, and would allow you to drop the kids and grandma off at the local Euthanasia center before shopping for groceries. It would also allow you to wipe out whole segments of a population that just aren’t convenient anymore – like, say… the Jews.
Have I made you uncomfortable?
Well, then maybe you need to reconsider your position on abortion.
But, let’s not end there. This site is, after all, about our civilization’s hell-bent race towards the final end – the Omega Shock.
If you’re looking for a sign that we are approaching the point where God is required to destroy us, look no further. God destroyed every civilization that murdered their children – every single one. We have been sacrificing our children since 1973. We’ve had 39 years to repent of that and stop. God may possibly allow us a total of 40 years to turn around. I have a feeling that He will not allow us to have more than that.
TEOTWAWKI before 2014?
Could very well be.
Ethicists Argue in Favor of ‘After-Birth Abortions‘ as Newborns ’Are Not Persons’
Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:38pm by Liz Klimas, The Blaze
Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.
Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”
The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.
The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.