FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR
So Just How Evil Is Abortion Anyway?
If You Can’t Put A Name On Evil, You Should Expect It To Never Go Away
Cynical realism is the intelligent man’s best excuse for doing nothing in an intolerable situation
– Aldous Huxley(HT: Brainyquote.com)
So just how bad is abortion? Fair question. Let’s engage. Does it pervert the practice of medicine? Is it Genocide? Does it devalue human existence? You don’t need an Or Statement here. Embrace instead the healing power of “And.” Abortion does all three of the things I suggested and is therefore an intolerable affront to decency and civilization.
Abortion is only tolerated by what Aldous Huxley once referred to as cynical realism. Like the proposed statue of Satan in Oklahoma; abortion is a clear and unambiguous argument that the American People may no longer have any meaningful commitment to basic decency. This drives the brave and morally courageous to gather in protest on the 41st anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.
Abortion has stained and perverted some aspects of the practice of medicine. On a practical level, it has lead to the continued operation of “Women’s Health Clinics” that display a level of care and sanitation that had previously been banished with the adoption of modern sterile techniques of medical practice. On a legal level, the desires of some to make abortions widely available has lead to widespread violations of laws protecting female minors.
Abortion has a sordid and underreported history as a eugenic tool. When you practice eugenics through subtraction, you basically have to resort to genocide. The Economic Whiz Kids who brought us Freakonomics took time out of their busy research day to inform us that aborting the right kind of children reduces crime in America. You could even clean up Mordor if you just got rid of the gosh-darn Orcs. A man named Kermit Gosnell put that ethic into ruthless practice in Philadelphia, PA and thereby became a coalmine canary for what was happening in at abortion mills all over America. I described the obvious racial skew in abortions performed below.
The New York State Department of Health reports that in 2008, almost 50,000 out of 118,000 abortions were performed on African-America unborn children. 54,000 out of the 118,000 pre-birth assassinations were directed at White unborn children. Assuming that New York State more or less “looks like America”, and that American demographics didn’t undergo watershed transformation in 2008, there is an obvious disparity between population proportion and numbers of abortions taking place in America today. 42.3% of New York State’s abortions involved a racial cohort representing 12.4% of the population. Less than ½ of the abortion procedures (46%) involved white children.
Abortion, as performed in Post-modern America, is used disproportionately against one racial cohort of our society in order to remove an unpleasant aspect of their continued presence in our population. It is a classical application of eugenics via subtraction. Abortion, as it is commonly practiced in Post-modern America, is therefore potentially genocide.
But does it really devalue life? I mean it isn’t me getting aborted. Isn’t that whole thesis just judgmental Churchianity at work? Pro-Abortion advocates will always ridicule any “slippery slope” arguments as logical fallacy. There is no logical way that disposing of this inanimate thing called a fetus could possible devalue the life of a human being already outside the womb.
This is disingenuous argumentation. A recent paper from the Great and Venerable Oxford University shows just how dishonest this disavowal of the slippery-slope devaluation of human life by widespread abortion truly is. “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” written by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva offers us the following logical syllogism to savor just before we sit down for lunch.
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue 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.
So abortion hits a uniquely sickening public-policy triple jackpot. It weakens our already struggling healthcare system by lowering standards and encouraging contempt for condign legal restraints to medical practice. It tends to be targeted against the poorest, most defenseless members of society in a eugenic fashion. Finally, the widespread acceptance of abortion upon demand, for any trivial cause almost mathematically has to cheapen the lives of every citizen in any nation that allows this practice.
“After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” could just as easily have read “After-birth abortion: you are not a unique and beautiful snowflake.” Karma collects with interest. Abortion is obviously and undeniably a detestable evil. Honor the moral bravery of the National March For Life. Do all that you can to advocate against abortion and the politicians working to make the next 55 million even remotely possible. Otherwise, we may well prove the veracity of another cheery quote from Aldous Huxley: “Maybe this world is another planet’s hell.”