...what difference does the rationale behind the abortion make? Or, for that matter, what difference does the locale of the infant, of which the example above is merely a one that is post-natal as opposed to pre-natal, make? Once one accepts that awarding the status of 'human' is to be contingent upon ridiculous criteria such as a point in space-time (i.e., inside the uterus/birth canal vs in a sewage pipe), or even more variable criteria such as the pregnant woman's feelings mental health, then truly events such as these shouldn't even bother anyone at all. Or perhaps the only issue in this instance is that the human conscience is forced to contend with the unmistakable physical evidence that abortion involves killing, either by chemicals, dismemberment in a prayerful abattoir, or drowning/suffocation in a sewer pipe in Eastern China.At the time, a great many, perhaps even a significant majority of those who would otherwise support fetuscide saw the fecal suffocation of a born-alive human infant as a step too far. Yet today, a mere year later, there are indicators that this population of pro-aborts who still possess a still, small sliver of a conscience about killing a born alive human infant is tapering toward zero. And in the process, the age at which a human may be killed for the crime of being inconvenient is rising. For some, even children old enough to be kindergarteners qualify to be unceremoniously rubbed out:
Anecdotal evidence by leaders of prolife groups such as Created Equal and Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust said in interviews that not only do they see more college students willing to say they support post-birth abortion, but some students even suggest children up to 4 or 5-years-old can also be killed, because they are not yet “self aware.” “We encounter people who think it is morally acceptable to kill babies after birth on a regular basis at almost every campus we visit,” said Mark Harrington, director of Created Equal. “While this viewpoint is still seen as shocking by most people, it is becoming increasingly popular.”If the value of human life is based upon anything else than its own intrinsic God-given worth, then there really is no reliable, objective rubric to decide at what age it becomes impermissible to kill a child. The goalposts can always be moved, based upon the rationale of the rationalizer, in the Overton Window of the present zeitgeist. And, as we've observed, when it comes to offing the inconvenient, this window is steadily enlarging.
Campuses where the high school, college students, local activists and staff members of Created Equal have encountered this opinion include Purdue, University of Minnesota, and University of Central Florida. And at Ohio State earlier this year, the group captured a debate on video between one of its members and an older woman on campus who defended infanticide. “This is the whole problem with devaluing human life at any stage—it will naturally grow to include other groups of humans; in this case, born humans as well as preborn humans,” Harrington said. “[I] talked with one young man at the University of Minnesota who thought it was alright to kill children if they were under the age of 5 years old, as he did not consider them persons until that age.” Kristina Garza, spokeswoman for Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, a prolife organization that often sets up anti-abortion displays on campuses along the West Coast, said her group also frequently encounters college students who accept infanticide. “For those who are firmly for abortion, because they understand it kills a human being, it’s very easy for them to accept killing a human being after birth,” Garza said. “There is this notion that is common on campus, that it’s OK to kill babies because somehow we don’t become human until we are self aware. A common number that is going around is 4 years old".
As for the trend, Garza said there’s an explanation for it. For one, the arguments put forth by Peter Singer and other philosophers who support infanticide are given as reading assignments to college students. Singer wrote in 1979 that “human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons … [therefore] the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”
The horrors produced by 20th Century authoritarian regimes featuring weaponized unbelief apparently weren't enough to instruct the West that the religion of secular liberalism was a one-way ticket to nihilism. I'm doubting that this will either...after all, if 57M in the US, 336M in China, and 1.73B worldwide isn't enough, then I'm really not sure what message will penetrate.
One wonders what other wonderful developments will occur, as the population slowly de-Christianizes and enters an age of new paganism.
Oh, and happy Halloween everybody. At least when you and / or your child dresses up as ghouls, it's only make-believe.