Evil, however, has a way of outdoing itself, or at least taking it's sickening actions to yet another level, and that's what I couldn't help but think of when I ran across this post on CMR this morning. We've traveled along this merry road towards moral relativism for quite a while as a society, since long before I was born, and others have suggested that this is the direction we've been headed in for some time. Yet society at large always seems to cover our eyes and say "No! That evil isn't possible here! We know that's wrong! That will never be accepted!" right up until the moment when it is and the majority of people embrace the idea as the latest and greatest thing (or at least something that's so necessary that it simply must be allowed).
And do you want to know what's next? It's already in the medical journals. It's laid out for us. At least one country (in practice) has already decided it's a compassionate option if a doctor and the parents says that a child wouldn't have the wonderful perfect life they've imagined (because we're all guaranteed a wonderfully perfect life, right?).
Now Alberto Giubilini and Francesaca Minerva have published and article titled: "After birth abortion: Why should the baby live?" asking the questions that some who have watched history unfold these past decades have suggested was coming. After all, if life is devalued to usefulness rather than possessing any sort of innate value in itself, than this question is bound to come up. When you strip away the morality of a country and base value on utility, then what value is a new life if it's parents decide they don't want it? After all, a person is a person based on a choice someone else makes these days and so it's natural to extend that twisted thinking to another level:
"Failing to bring a new person into existence cannot be compared with the wrong caused by procuring the death of an existing person. The reason is that, unlike the case of death of an existing person, failing to bring a new person into existence does not prevent anyone from accomplishing any of her future aims. However, this consideration entails a much stronger idea than the one according to which severely handicapped children should be euthanised. If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet." source.So there you have it. One of the next great evils already being floated around at the academic level, which will eagerly be handed down as something that should be considered in "rare" circumstances and finally be held up as a great good to free women from a tiresome burden that "she didn't choose." And it's all because our society has lifted up a new idol, and will defend it at all costs. They will not admit that sex has consequences. And they've proven over and over again that they're willing to kill to preserve that "right" even if it goes against reality as it's experienced by humans since the dawn of existence.
We must all speak out against these great evils. To be silent is to consent to what is happening. It might now be cool or trendy at the moment, but it's necessary if we're to stop the downward spiral of history towards this new and horrible future. And it's necessary if we're going to undo many of the evils already perpetrated against the unborn.