The irony is, they call this the Information Age. We can carry the combined learning of Humanity in our pocket, so why are we becoming so dumb? Even our “brightest lights” struggle to tell right from wrong.
I’ll illustrate just one area of our confusion with some news stories.
This week, for example, we saw the Internet meltdown when a small child and a gorilla were together in the same enclosure. A decision had to be made. Quickly. A chiId’s life was in danger.The decision was made to save that child. The gorilla was shot. It’s unfortunate, but necessary, right?
Faster than you can say “trigger warning”, the story gets spun with the “why did the gorilla have to die” angle.
We saw similar outrage with the whole “Cecil the lion” debacle. An adult in America feared for his personal safety because of an outpouring of internet rage. Threats of harm against someone for shooting an animal half a world away.
Earlier this week, I read about a historical case of a doctor charged with strangling a born-alive abortion survivor from when saline abortions were still the preferred method. People were uncertain what to do when the baby survived the procedure and was clinging to life. Hippocratic Oath or no, the nurses and one doctor were said to have stood in shocked silence as the abortionist in charge allegedly choked the infant to death.
I’d like to call this an anomaly. But we recall the legislation supported by no less than the President himself (then Senator) denying medical care to born-alive babies that survive the abortionist’s macabre craft. We could also point to the failure to answer direct questions when representatives from Planned Parenthood were asked what would happen to a child that survived attempts to abort it.
But that isn’t the worst of it yet. Medical ethicists (!) from no less prestigious a school than Oxford, have pressed this issue still further. They make one statement with which l can totally agree. But they take it to places that are as dark as they are absurd.
The headline summed it up succinctly. “killing babies no different from abortion, experts say.”
I agree, actually. The very ambiguity abortion advocates base their argument upon (who can forget the “above my pay grade” quote?) forces us to accept the possibility that the baby they are working to destroy is just as alive as you or me.
But they reversed the logic. Already convinced as they are that abortion is a morally viable option, they pressed the obvious similarity between a late-term fetus and a newborn child in the other direction. They renamed infanticide, calling it by the dishonest Orwellian name “after-birth abortion.” By the same logic, ante-natal infanticide would also be a valid term for abortion.
They used all the familiar arguments about “potential life” and “not actual persons” and lacking a “moral right to life.”
I don’t know where to point the blame for us collectively losing our senses. We’ve rejected moral absolutes. We humanize animals and reduce people to animals.
We are incensed over a gorilla or lion being shot, but can’t even figure out when a child’s life is valuable enough to save.
If we’re truly wanting to “make America great again” we might want to begin by treating human life as precious.