Friday, March 24, 2006

Another illustration of the inconsistency and moral bankruptcy of the Left

From an older post on Pharyngula:


When moral absolutists try to apply simple-minded, black-and-white reasoning to a complex situation (and defining a human being is certainly a complex problem), you get criminal travesties like this one:
A sailor's wife was pregnant with an anencephalic child, whose probability of surviving or of ever being conscious was zero. She, reasonably, wanted an abortion.
But the Congress had decided -- that no federal funds should be used to pay for abortions except where the life of the mother was at stake. As a result, Tricare (formerly CHAMPUS) the agency that covers military families, refused to pay the $3000 the abortion would cost.
The family sued, and a federal court ordered Tricare to pay, and the abortion went forward.
Then the Justice Department (with John Ashcroft as Attorney General) sued the family to recover the $3000, out of the sailor's pay of less than $20,000 a year.
The Justice Department just won. A panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that, under a 1980 Supreme Court precedent upholding the Hyde Amendment -- a parallel provision to the one in question, but applying to Medicaid recipients rather than to military families -- the law was valid and the government didn't have to pay for the abortion. Consequently, the family has to pay the money back.


Our guardians of purity have magnified the pain of this family and willfully and vindictively punished them for the 'crime' of a biological imperfection. I call that evil, pure and simple. There should have been no question in this case that an abortion was necessary.



But then later in the article, the author of this disaster (PZ Myers) says this:

People with severe spina bifida can be intellectually and socially capable, fully human, but a young family with limited resources ought to have the privilege of making a choice about whether to shoulder the responsibility before the fetus has acquired those mental capacities. I presume we now have a government that will force families to take on that burden, but will refuse to pay any part of the price.


Well, the author seems to be contradicting himself. He IS willing to pay for abortions, so that "sub-humans" -according to his reductionist definition- might be eliminated, but to actually care for these creatures, even when "fully human" -such as in the case of spina bifida patients- is something he is NOT willing to pay for.



Well, as anyone can see, he IS being consistent; consistently evil in his application. He is reducing children to economic computations. Children that might contribute to society, OK. Children that may contribute but in the end will cost society more -spina bifida patients- have to go. And as for anencephalic patients who can never contribute, get rid of them immedietely. Because they are not human to being with, they must be eliminated.


He's down on the right side of my sidebar. A well-learned, profoundly misguided man.
<< # St. Blog's Parish ? >>