Reflections From a Murky Pond

One can rarely help laughing at the antics of jackasses, except when one is forced by their evil or incompetence to take direct action against them. Even then, one can get a chuckle out of theire pleas for mercy and for the pain to stop. 😉

Take as an example the Democrats fluid stance on gasoline prices and who is to blame for them.

Democrats: That’s (Not) The President’s Fault!

For eight years gasoline prices, when they went up, were President Bush’s fault. Now, with their boy, Obama occupying the White House, even higher rising gasoline prices can’t possibly be his fault – even though he campaigned on attacking the oil industry and has, directly and through his proxies, said that he would raise fuel prices in order to make his constituents’ “green energy” corporations profitable.

Yes, the opinions of Democrats are still laughable. They, of course, should be grateful for that. It means Americans haven’t been forced to take direct action against them and their pain hasn’t really started yet. 😆

The article by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva entitled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” recently published in the The Journal of Medical Ethics presents Mankind with an immediate and profound ethical quandary.

It is not the quandary of whether or not there is an ethical imperative for Giubilini and Minerva to be killed for advocating infanticide in a venue that could, as Ezekiel Emanuel’s opus proves, affect medical science and policies. The ethical imperative to kill these would-be baby-killers is so obvious that it almost goes without saying.

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.

Any society that will not protect its children and kill threats to those children is pointless, and exercise in futility, and eventually doomed to failure and dissolution. Hence, there is no quandary about whether or not Giubilini and Minerva need, from an ethical standpoint, to be hunted down and exterminated. It’s self-evident.

Would-Be Baby-Killers At Large

Alberto Giubilini

Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics
Room W925, West Wing, Level 9
Menzies Building (Building 11 & tallest on campus)
Wellington Rd, Clayton Victoria, AU
Alberto.Giubilini@monash.edu

Francesca Minerva

The University of Melbourne, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies
Room 1.23, East wing, Old Quad,
Parkville, Victoria VIC 3010 AU
francesca.minerva@unimelb.edu.au
Tel: +61 3 8344 9951

Nor would it be overly fruitful to dwell long upon the conflict between ethical imperatives and the strictures of mortal law. That’s a conflict that people resolve on a daily basis and is a normal part of living in a society where, perforce, law and justice cannot be the same thing and often widely diverge out of perceived necessity.

The True Man will make his decision as to either follow an ethical imperative or the law based upon his discernment of the overall risks and benefits to his people. The Low Man will decide what to do based upon the costs vs. benefits to himself. In either case though, these are decisions made daily and both True Men and Low Men may reach the same conclusions as to how to act on any given imperative.

No, the ethical quandary is whether or not there is an ethical imperative to exact punitive and deterring measures upon Julian Savulescu, Editor, Journal of Medical Ethics who provided them with a dangerously high profile venue, and Professor Sergio Bartolommei, University of Pisa, who provided Giubilini and Minerva aid and comfort in the actual writing of their treatise on infanticide.

The Would-Be Baby-Killers’ Enablers

Julian Savulescu (Left) & Sergio Bartolommei (Right)

Is there an ethical imperative to kill Savulescu and Bartolommei for the heinous acts of enabling the infanticidal vermin, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva to publish their advocacy of “Post-Birth Abortions” where it could potentially do the most harm? Will some lesser act or acts of retribution and defensive measure suffice? Does no action need to be taken against them? That’s the real ethical quandary in this case.

My first instincts are that there is certainly an ethical imperative to take harsh action against Giubilini’s and Minerva’s enablers and that their deaths might be required for the sake of society’s overall health. Savulescu willfully chose to publish the would-be baby-killer’s paper and Bartolommei had the opportunity to quell their efforts at the start but chose to abet them instead.

Yet both of these men have professional duties that might preclude their refusal to enable Giubilini’s and Minerva’s evil. They also may, as True Men must, have weighed the possible harm that what amounts to censorship might cause vs. what harm such a paper might cause.

Not knowing Savulescu’s and Bartolommei’s motivations for providing aid and comfort to Giubilini and Minerva, I can’t say for certain that there’s an ethical imperative to take any action at all against these two men. Yet, likewise, I cannot think ill of or speak out against anyone who, after consideration, arrived at the opposite decision and chose to kill them.

It’s an ethical quandary. All one can do is apply reason to it and follow one’s conscience wherever it leads them.

~*~

UPDATE: The Journal of Medical Ethics has deleted the online pre-publication of the would-be baby-killers’ article! It looks like the outrage of right-thinking people scored a small ethical victory.

Equality quells Liberty in any society where they have decided that equality of result or outcome is their goal, as opposed to equality of opportunity. In those circumstances Equality actually precludes Liberty because it allows neither the freedom to succeed to the best of one’s merits nor the freedom to fail if one’s merits fall short.

An American President would never have apologized to feral vermin after they murdered American soldiers. An American President would never for a moment allow anyone to forward the idea of turning American soldiers over to those feral vermin for a sham trial.

Obama Is The Sorriest President Ever

But there is no sitting American President. There’s only the worthless, selfish, narcissistic boy, Obama. His only real concern about this whole debacle is how it will influence his reelection chances and what course of action(s) his handlers will instruct him to undertake.

By one means or another Americans must change that.

A picture is worth a thousand words and sometimes you find one that perfectly distills an idea. The image below is a definitive example of this.

Ask Not…

There’s not much else to say. This has always summed up the Blacks’ various movements and it, and the core of the OWS rabble, perfectly distill the ideology of modern Liberalism.