Posts tagged Ethics
Faux-Darwinian Ethics

After concluding that the distinguishing attributes that bifurcate "non-human animals" and "animals" (humans) are ability to reason and capacity to suffer, Dawkins and Singer determine that there is more moral reprehensibility in terminating the life of a horse than a human fetus. Singer goes on to suggests that eating meat without thought to how the livestock is reared and slaughtered is akin to Germans turning their heads as Jews were slaughtered in droves. Additionally, the gravitas for deciding whether one should eat meat should be to the same degree one decides to have an abortion. At which point, Dawkins concedes the moral high ground to Singer—as Dawkins confesses his taste for meat. As to whether a line should be drawn on grounds for ending life, both are agreed that an exact line cannot be set, and propose a continuum in its stead. Behold the Darwinian perspective—without regard to the less than sanguine thesis of Darwinian evolution, i.e., survival of the fittest—sans image of God, dominion over the earth, and an impetus for love of neighbor.

I will close with the words of the inimitable Chesterton:

Nobody has any business to use the word 'progress' unless he has a definite creed and a cast-iron code of morals... For progress by its very name indicates a direction; and the moment we are in the least doubtful about the direction, we become in the same degree doubtful about the progress. Never perhaps since the beginning of the world has there been an age that had less right to use the word “progress” than we. - G.K. Chesterton, Heretics, 16.

Think About It

Here are some interesting facts on three perspectives of the pro-choice position: The Racist is Pro-Choice

The beloved feminist pioneer, Margaret Sanger, is oft quoted, "No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her own body." A less famous quote by the founder of Planned Parenthood is, "Eugenics is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems."

To ensure we are all on the same page, eugenics is the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. If you’re wondering why this philosophy of controlled breeding sounds familiar, see Hitler in Nazi Germany. Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics: which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing reproduction by those considered unfit. Sanger's eugenic policies included compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded.[1]

Here’s a fun fact: Did you know that Blacks and Latinos represent 25% of our population, but account for 59% of all abortions. Referring to this statistic, Dr. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., said, “abortion is the white supremacist’s best friend.”  If you disagree, I would encourage you to try to find an abortion clinic in an affluent part of town.

The Misogynist is Pro-Choice:

Since 1971, China has aborted 336 million children, many of them forcibly.[2] Being that many Chinese families would prefer a son, China’s One Child Policy-a policy that Joe Biden applauded this past year on his trip to China- has increased the rate of abortion of females, thereby accelerating a demographic decline.

This misogynistic mindset is not simply a *them* mindset, but happens frequently here in the U.S. In May of 2012, a pro-life group called Live Action sent actors posing as pregnant women into Planned Parenthood clinics, asking a series of questions to elicit information on sex-selective abortions. If you’d like to see what they found, click here. On multiple occasions, the United States Congress has debated legislation that would outlaw the practice of sex-selective abortions. But the legislation ultimately failed to pass in the House of Representatives.

The Capitalist is Pro-Choice

This point it quite simple: Abortions cost money; spent money necessitates money gained. One might retort, most abortion clinics are non-profits. True, but government grants and funding to Planned Parenthood in the last reported year 2009-2010 was $487.4 million. Ironically, this not-for-profit organization gave $12 million to the campaign of their largest proponent, President Obama.[3] Never mind the fact that their CEO receives a salary of more than $400k a year.

It’s important to understand that while P.P. is granted non-profit status, abortions account for a majority of their profits. They parade the fact that abortions represent only 3% of services rendered. But they forget to mention that abortions generate 33% of their clinic's profits. If you would like to refute that the abortion industry is a Big Business, please see Kermit Gosnell: Philadelphia physician who made close to $1.8 million per year doing legal and late term abortions.

Don't even get me started on the political utilitarian ethic that deems it cheaper to kill a child than pay for its healthcare, food, childcare, education, etc.

While the media would like you to believe that the pro-choice position is the more sensible, progressive and tolerant one, I hope to have shown that there is a much darker side to this debate that is not likely to surface.

[1]. Porter, Nicole S.; Bothne Nancy; Leonard, Jason. Public Policy Issues Research Trends. Nova Science. 126. [2] http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=39913, Accessed June 27, 2013. [3] http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/25/planned-parenthood-has-spent-12-million-to-re-elect-obama/. Accessed June 27, 2013.