Are You a Person "Worthy of Protection?"

A pro-abortion professor, Dr. Mark Mercer recently argued:
Mercer argued that there is nothing ethically troubling about abortion, at one point suggesting that a baby isn’t a “person” until around 18 months of age.....
Mercer agreed that the unborn are human beings, and that abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being, but argued that the notion of “human being” is not a “morally relevant concept.” Individuals are not special by virtue of their “species membership,” he said, but become “persons” and worthy of protection because they possess certain “ethically salient properties” such as the ability to experience pain or pleasure, self-consciousness, and rationality. (emphases mine)

This reminds me of the mental gymnastics on display in a discussion between Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Rick Santorum in 1999 on the subject of partial birth abortion.  Life begins not at conception, but when you "bring your baby home?"


Next consider Virginia Ironside who said she would "put a pillow over my child's face if it was "deeply suffering." The questions that begs to be asked is who gets to define "deeply suffering?"

Then, just for the heck of it, consider Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw who said that we all probably know at least a "half a dozen people who are no use in this world."  He suggests putting them in front of a committee and having them justify their existence.  And let's not forget his appeal that "chemists discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly...deadly, by all means, but humane, not cruel." I think a review of history will show us that Adolph Hitler took him up on that challenge.

Returning to the issue of abortion...Media coverage of the abortion issue uses subtle language choices to influence the debate; choosing who is a "foe" and who is a "supporter." If you believe in the sanctity of all life you are an "abortion foe."  If you subscribe to the belief in "abortion rights" you are a "supporter." Why would they do that?  Why are the people who want to save the lives of the unborn the "bad guys?"

To help us figure this out we need to remember that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, said: "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it"

Maggie, as any good progressive would, supported the concept of Eugenics.  She had quite a few things to say about building that new race.

Mercer, Ironside, Shaw, Sanger...what they all have in common is a progressive world view and would probably refer to themselves as socialists or progressives.  Hillary Clinton describes herself as a progressive.  And what this means is that they all have a collectivist view of the world.  The individual is not important it is the collective that matters. I am not sure what kind of mental gymnastics one has to go through to avoid the realization that the collective is actually made up of a bunch of individuals, but I'm sure it is quite strenuous.

Ideas and world views have consequences.  If the world view is focused on the collective, it becomes increasingly easier to ignore the "individual" to the point that they become something "not human."  De-humanization leads to horrors.  History has shown us this.

How much has this progressive view infiltrated our society?  I would say quite a bit when we see in the news that Oklahoma House overwhelmingly passes fetal pain bill. We need a law to say it is wrong to inflict pain on a fetus?

Finally consider the Complete Lives System proposed by Ezekiel Emmanuel: Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions.  These "principles" include age-based prioritization of allocating medical care as well as a discussion of "promoting and rewarding social usefulness."  I think George and Maggie would approve. (And, for the record:  "Yes Virginia, there are death panels in the new health care law."  They have nicer names but the result is the same as far as I can determine.)

I am not ignoring the realities facing us.  I am merely asking you to consider the vast difference between people who have principles and values that say every life is precious and worthy of protection and those whose principles consider that only those deemed to be socially useful are worthy of protection.  Which group of people do YOU want making tough decisions?

If you get sick, Republicans want you to die quickly--Alan Grayson

Image via Wikipedia

There is an interesting video at youtube that lists some of the statements made by our elected officials that are of concern.  If you also consider that Alan Grayson also said recently on a radio program that, "Everyone who shouted 'Drill Baby drill' should be rounded up and thrown in jail" and Nancy Pelosi wanting to conduct investigations into who is funding the opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque there is a pattern that bears consideration.

To be fair, Nancy Pelosi did later add that maybe we need to look into the funding of the Mosque would be good too.  If you have not seen Peter Johnson Jr.'s commentary on the Mosque issue I recommend it.  He does the best job of expressing where I stand on this issue. 

That said, I'd like to share my reaction to Alan Grayson's remark.  When I heard him say this I wondered how he reconciled the "Complete Lives System" proposed by Ezekeil Emanuel.  The above link takes you to a paper written by him and some of his colleagues: "Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions."  Among the eight simple principles for allocation are classified into four categories according to their core ethical values.  The one that concerns me is the "promoting and rewarding social usefulness."  I do not mean to say that I don't recognize that there are and will be times when there are shortages.  I just want to be assured that the individuals who are making the decisions have a strong moral base in the sanctity of life.  Have and will hard decisions need to be made? Yes.  I just want us to strive to make those decisions on certain basic values.

I believe that our system of government was established as a Constitutional Republic in order to ensure that we continued to make decisions based on our core principles.  We are abandoning the system of checks and balances and that is not conducive to using those core principles to make tough decisions.  This, coupled with statements made by the Fabian Socialist, George Bernard Shaw, urges us to take a closer look.   In this video GBS recommends that people come before a sort of "panel" and be asked to "justify their existence."  If they are not doing their share or perhaps a little more then he ultimately suggests some sort of humane gas to end that existence.

That sounds scary, but I do not intend to use it as a "scare tactic."  If you entrust your well-being to someone whom you have elected to represent you and those you love I believe you need to know their character and on what basis they make their decisions.  You don't have to agree with everything, but it's good to know when times get tough that the person has a core set of values that doesn't change.  I'd like to also add, for your consideration, a recent article that came to my attention via Hot Tea Radio.  The comment was titled: "Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Mo, which cancer drug has to go?" (or something like that :-)  The link takes you to an article that includes the phrase "death panels."  I know that phrase has been labeled a scare tactic, rhetoric, and/or propaganda, but I urge you to take a closer look at what people mean when they say that.  If my medical options have to change for whatever reason, I believe the decision-making should remain as close to my family, my doctors and myself as possible.  I feel that the further away it gets, the more like a "death panel" it becomes.  And it won't necessarily look like a "panel."  It will involve the slow, steady, and dispersed establishment of various restrictions and regulations that you might not even know about until it hits close to home.

This all leads me back to something I read in The Road to Serfdom.  Hayak writes on page 6:

"...the fatal flaw of socialist planning (is that) it "presupposes a much more complete agreement on the relative importance of the different ends than actually exists, and that, in consequence, in order to be able to plan, the planning authority must impose upon the people that detailed code of values which is lacking....and why, even democratic planning, if it were to be successfully carried out, eventually requires the authorities to use a variety of means from propaganda to coercion to implement the plan."

My belief in our system of government does not reflect an opposition to change.  It reflects the belief that the farther removed the decision-maker from those who are impacted by those decisions the more danger there is in abandoning those principles and values that are so important.  The checks and balances are there for a very good reason:  our government and country consists of flawed human beings. 

Related articles by Zemanta

• Nancy Pelosi Calls For Probe Into Funding Of Opposition To 'Ground Zero Mosque' (huffingtonpost.com)
• Nancy Pelosi: Mosque Opposition Should Be Investigated (rightpundits.com)