Some writers in Australia are putting forth the idea that after birth abortions should be legal. I find it incredible that this topic is in the news so soon after I had a post about the absurdity of suggesting that killing a three month old is okay since they are as dependent on the mother as a fetus is. Their basic premise is that, if a baby is born with a deformity or a medical condition, the parents can opt to have the child put down because it will be a burden. If this is the case, at what point do you draw the line exactly? What about the mother that drove her car into a lake so that she could be rid of her kids? How is that any different exactly? What if your child is disobedient? I guess some Muslims would agree, honor killings and whatnot. What if they’re not smart or good looking enough? Why should a parent be allowed to put down an downs syndrome baby and not an ugly baby? Of course, I think the authors understand this double standard because they also give permission to a mother to after birth abort a pregnancy because it would hurt her feelings to know that another person was raising the child. Wow. How is this any different than a psycho stalker screaming “If I can’t have you, no one can!” and stabbing the object of affection to death?

This sort of thought process is to be expected in the society we are becoming. In 2084, I discuss how humans are viewed as a product. Defective units are removed from service. This is the type of society that develops when people start weighing and putting value on individual lives and determining who should live or die. This is saying that your will is right and God’s will is wrong. This is saying that your judgement is superior to that of God.

Good luck with that.

Long Live the Constitution!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/