Life is Precious   (part II)      

Life is Precious   (part II)

By Kevin McCarthy 5/26/2020

(Note: Part I of this article appeared in Tuesdays edition – 5/26/20. We link back to a point in the article previous to where it ended in that installment)

The killing of a baby is justified because the baby does not meet the Leftist standard of personhood as provided by Giubilini and Minerva. In their view, it is only when a person is able “to make aims and appreciate their life” are they then morally subject to a “right to life” and, make no mistake, those “aims” had better be acceptable to the Left. Can you believe this monstrous illogic? Here is some more from these two dangerous ideologues:

“If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. So, if you ask one of us if we would have been harmed, had our parents decided to kill us when we were fetuses or newborns, our answer is ‘no’, because they would have harmed someone who does not exist. “

Whether Giubilini and Minerva studied the writings of Karl Marx, I do not know, however, their theories of human value are suspiciously reflective of that soulless, materialist icon. Whether it was Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin or Castro, each embraced the Marxist idea of human value. Marx saw human value as something that could only be produced through human labor. What was “labor” was specifically defined by Marx as that which advanced the State. Any labor, not in line with the interest of the State, was, therefore, not contributory to human value. This is why Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin or any number of Marxist tyrants had no reservations about piling high the bodies in their killing fields. Those unfortunate souls had been deemed “reactionaries” and “enemies of the State. . .deplorables, as it were and, thus, devoid of human value. Genocide was merely the means to an end and was justified by the advance of the all-powerful State; no different for them than clearing a forest to make way for a housing project or shopping center. In the same way today, the bodies of children, even those born alive, are tossed away like so much trash. The Governor of Virginia speaks openly about it, with dead eyes, as if he were speaking of removing a hangnail. We give such people the power to govern at our own peril.

Today, it’s the new Left intelligentsia, like Giubilini and Minerva, who provide the moral anesthesia for the likes of a Northam or a Alisa LaPolt Snow and the many minions of Planned Parenthood who hide behind the stealth wording of “a woman’s right to choose.” Now the word “choice” has expanded to also mean the right to choose which human has value and which does not, which is a person, and which is not, which person is to live, and who is to die.

And with an ultimate absurdity, Giubilini and Minerva comment on, is why they don’t see adoption as an alternative to “post birth abortion.”

“Why should we kill a healthy newborn when giving it up for adoption would not breach anyone’s right but possibly increase the happiness of people involved (adopters and adoptee)?

Our reply is the following: we also need to consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption.”

Can you believe this? We should kill the baby because “the mother might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption,” but would suffer none for having killed her child!? Have we gone mad?

The article concludes with this final assertion:

“If the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant, and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.”

I would counter with this: “if the killing of an innocent, helpless newborn is an unspeakable, unequivocal, monstrous evil and if the reasons to do so are rooted in the same reasons used to justify aborting a fetus, then should not the killing of a fetus be also viewed as an act of evil ?”

Asserting when life begins, when the value of a human emerges, when someone becomes a person should never become subject to the musing of anyone, certainly not haughty “professors” and certainly not the political regimes they empower.

Life is a mystery, but though a mystery, we do know, unequivocally, one thing about life: that it is precious, that we all desire it and will do almost anything to hold on to it. Thus, because life is precious and because no one knows with certainty when viable human life and consciousness begins, it stands to reason and in the interest of society, therefore, to err on the side of the determination that human life and rights begin at conception. We should, therefore, protect it, especially at its most vulnerable and mysterious stages.

It is a most essential human nature to protect life. The evil of abortion is not only the death of a child, it is also an assault on the soul of society. It cows society into extinguishing what is a fundamental, inherent human nature: to value the preciousness of life and to protect it. This is why those that have had abortions, overwhelmingly testify to the feelings of remorse and to the deep psychological scars wrought upon them. The knowledge that a fetus is a precious life is placed within each human heart by God. When a child’s life is cut short, the human soul knows to mourn such an immeasurable loss.

My aunt has mourned such a loss. Her son disappeared almost 50 years ago never to be heard from again. For all those years, every time she saw someone pass by who was of similar age, size and complexion of her son, she would pause to see if, maybe, this was her boy come home. Every knock on the door, every time the phone would ring, the possibility of life was stirred deep within her soul, as was the ensuing pain of disappointment each and every time. Even though, as the years and decades pile up, and all signs point toward one inevitable conclusion, she still waits for him to this day. That is the nature of a mother. She chooses life, and she will never let it go.

Spread the word. Share this post!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Follow by Email
%d bloggers like this: