I argued in a recent post that, because of its militant, totalitarian presumptions, Islam must sooner or later be destroyed if any other cult – including the cult of the Living God, YHWH our Lord Jesus – is to survive. Because God in Jesus assured us (Matthew 16:18) that his cult simply *cannot* be destroyed (which would only make sense, it being the cult of the Omnipotent One), we may be sure that, sooner or later, Islam certainly *will* be destroyed, or else by some mass apostasy of Muslims simply wither and vanish, as insane cults are wont eventually to do.
Insanity, after all, is autophagic. Like all error, it works its own destruction.
The post garnered more page views than any other we had published since our first few days of existence. Thanks, Western Rifle Shooters!
The estimable Laura Wood, an orthospherean shield mate of long standing in the culture wars, and an old friend, responded to my recent post on The New Castellation of the Eurosphere (which adduced the recent proliferation of bollards as its material) with an intelligent and forceful critique of my attribution of that castellation and all its dire cultural sequelae to the threat of Muslim terrorism. This post is a response to her comments.
Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.
Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”
The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.
I’m pleased to see that the left has, in fact, come around to the right’s argument that the grim logic of the abortionistas can just as easily legitimize postnatal infanticide as prenatal infanticide. I am obviously displeased that this acknowledgment has taken the form it has.
The exception of children outside the birth canal from abortion-logic was always unprincipled, and its abandonment now is not a deviation from liberalism but a fulfillment of it. “My body, my choice,” if taken as a moral imperative, doesn’t cease to be imperative ten seconds after delivery. After all, the newborn child is still dependent on its mother; dependency doesn’t cease the moment the baby slides squalling into the world. It still represents a constraint on her will and a drain on time and resources she might prefer to spend otherwise. It still represents an obligation, a duty, something transcendent that binds her and makes her unfree, and this liberalism cannot ever permit.
Has the work of a Christian ever been so difficult? Has any society ever merited so much punishment? Woe to this graveyard of a civilization.