Margaret Sanger, call your office.

This is not specifically an anti-abortion rant, this is about a morally repugnant “panel of ethicists” in the UK stating that there is no moral difference between abortion prior to birth and murdering babies after birth because they are “morally irrelevant”. I guess I should be thankful that they have now “ethically” linked abortion to sanctioned murder…but I can’t find anything here to be grateful about.

I read this article in the UK Telegraph yesterday and quite frankly, I found it so profoundly disturbing that I couldn’t respond right away. I truly have been sick to my soul about what this means and where we are headed as a global society.

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article’s authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

“We take ‘person’ to mean 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.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

Was Friedrich Nietzsche right? Is God dead?

Or we just killing Him as we kill our own souls, leaving empty husks – just sentient skin sacks of meat that are devoid of any redemptive value?

It is amazing to me that a panel of medical “ethicists” place themselves in a position to pronounce what is morally “irrelevant” when they clearly are possessive of no ethics and totally devoid of any semblance of morals. This is the ultimate extension of the “it isn’t a baby, it is just a clump of cells” reasoning of the pro-abortion crowd.

When the murder of a living being can be excused because they are “morally irrelevant”, what exactly stops a government from deciding that there are adults who are “morally irrelevant”? These are the evils of socialism/Marxism/communism folks – couple this amorality and the power to enact such things and you have the recipe for tyranny.

If you are a “progressive” and you support abortion in any shape or form, you support the murder of children. Period. There is no middle ground. These “ethicists” are showing you where your current position will ultimately lead. The leader of the panel puts himself squarely in the camp of American “progressives”, liberals and Democrats by stating:

He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

Ann Coulter once said that abortion was the holy sacrament of the liberal religion, I think that this confirms her hypothesis.

Please note that the support of abortion and abortionist organizations like Planned Parenthood comes from the institutional Left in America – curiously, these are the same people who support PETA, the Animal Liberation Front, will starve a fertile California valley to save a minnow or sue Sea World for slavery on behalf of some whales. These are the people who try to personify animals and inanimate objects while dehumanizing people. These are the folks who use Orwellian language to cast abortion as “women’s health issues” or “reproductive rights”. I don’t get the logic but that form of schizophrenia (holding mutually exclusive beliefs at the same time) seems to be a feature of “progressivism”, not a bug.

This is the kind of logic that gets society embarrassingly “enlightened” people like law student Sandra Fluke, the Pelosi shill that testified before Nan’s show hearing this past week:

I’ll personally volunteer to pay for Sandra’s birth control pills because people this devoid of logic do not need to reproduce.

Far from being evidence of an enlightened and logical society, this is an example of a society rushing headlong toward decay and decline. These are the same visions held by the Frankfort School, the Fabian Socialists, Mao during his “Great Leap Forward”, Stalin during the Russian famine of 1932 and yes, Hitler’s Third Reich.

Matthew 25:40 quotes Jesus as saying:

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

There is such a thing as good and evil in this world. There is nothing relative about death and even if you disagree about when life begins, there is nothing “morally relative” about taking life from an innocent, living, breathing human child.

May God have mercy on our souls.