From Abortion to Infanticide, to Open Murder By Mrs Vera West
Previously I commented on the New York Senate pro-abortion Act, which permits the killing of unborn babies right up to the instant of birth, and beyond. Abortionists can kill babies that survive the abortion, even if they are viable, which by definition is infanticide. Naturally, nothing about this appeared in the Australian press, because it shows where the abortion industry ends up. Decades ago, it was argued that the problem of abortion was the restriction that it placed upon women, with one famous article by a leading feminist philosopher comparing it to be involuntarily attached to some famous violist, if my failing memory serves me well. So, how does that justify infanticide?
“In "A Defense of Abortion", Thomson grants for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, but defends the permissibility of abortion by appeal to a thought experiment:
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you. Thomson says that you can now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: this is due to limits on the right to life, which does not include the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something—the use of your body—to which he has no right. "[I]f you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due."
For the same reason, Thomson says, abortion does not violate the fetus's legitimate right to life, but merely deprives the fetus of something—the non-consensual use of the pregnant woman's body and life-support functions—to which it has no right. Thus, by choosing to terminate her pregnancy, Thomson concludes that a pregnant woman does not normally violate the fetus's right to life, but merely withdraws its use of her own body, which usually causes the fetus to die.”
Wow, that’s feminist philosophy for you. One would have thought that a kidnapping was more along the rape lines. If the pregnancy involved consent, and perhaps the woman even wanting the child up to the moment of birth, then changing her mind, then this famous argument collapses. Of course, it cannot be used to justify infanticide, and is inconsistent with it. Anyway, we need to ask, what next? J. D. Heyes hypothesises that active euthanasia of people the Left do not want to live is the next political cab off the rack:
There are numerous comments on the net by Leftoids saying that the Covington Catholic students, who did nothing while an American Indian activist beat a drum in their faces, deserve death:
As they did nothing, by definition, this means that the Left critics believe that these students deserve to die, simply because they are alive. As these students could be any of us, it follows that anybody would be a target for murder in the world of the Left. And, that is consistent with the death toll from communism, with some estimates being over 100 million people:
How can a group of people who claim to be politically correct support a doctrine dripping in blood? Again, we are not living in a sane society, but the lunatics now run the asylum.