March 27, 2006
Posted by: Rusty at
09:09 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 27, 2006 09:18 AM (rUyw4)
Posted by: sandpiper at March 27, 2006 09:49 AM (Tl3bz)
Culling infants in a place like Netherlands or the U.S. can be attacked on moral grounds either by Christian or humanistic principles--that is, you can apply either the standards of God or Man. It would be easier to do the former, but still problematic. For one thing, the Dutch government may be reluctant to accept the authority of God in this case since He does not give reimbursement for neonatal intensive care, and therefore any demand of His to preserve badly damaged babies is tantamount to an unfunded mandate. Also, Christians overwhelmingly believe that God holds men individually accountable for their acts, hence no dissenting Dutch Christian can claim that he might be dragged into Hell if his doctor murders a child.
Attacking this on humanist grounds is much trickier of course because humanism permits Man to make the rules he must abide. Usually these are whatever moral opinions he happens to pull out of his wazoo and tend to be uncannily convenient. Hence, rich humanists who make their living spending other people's money on crippled kids they never have to see tend to have a different morality from medical humanists who spend 12-hour shifts propping up hideously deformed babies with zero outlook of participating in life. Since it's a contest of opinions humanist ethical debate, even among intellectuals, tends to degenerate quickly to name-calling and other shabby tricks like this case of playing the Nazi card. It's all very depressing.
Posted by: ShannonKW at March 27, 2006 05:49 PM (dT1MB)
34 queries taking 0.0231 seconds, 158 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.