The moral right to kill those who don't meet your standard

Just recently the Sydney Morning Herald, Friday Mar 2, 2012 and then Andrew Bolt in the Telegraph  pointed out how Philosophers have argued that "since" a foetus and a newborn are equivalent in that they lack a sense of their own life and aspiration then killing them, even if they are healthy can be justified on grounds like the mother is unwilling to care for it.
Now we have in such arguments long been told that the "slippery slope" objection doesn't carry any weight, however here we have clear evidence of just this when one has moved from arguing for abortion of a foetus to arguing on the same grounds for the killing of a newborn.
Some might object that we don't want to give an emotive response to these sorts of objections but as being more than a rational being, namely, emotionally geared as well, we do not fear responding in part this way.

However, two things follow from what these "philosophers", Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are arguing. And that is that on grounds such as "lacking a sense of their own life and aspiration" then you can readily apply this to people with disabilities and things like alzheimers and the like and then decide to do away with them as well, something historically already we have seen in the days of Hitler's regime. It is not good enough to say neurologists and psychologists can determine self-awareness, for in a foetus case, this is built upon a grab bag of presuppositions and one's worldview. After all, the problem of defining  person is evidence of the clash of different worldviews already such as the Christian / Biblical Worldview and that of secular humanism.

If some find this a "well reasoned argument", then we need to point out that some things in life are morally repugnant, and even most who hold a worldview that cannot account for such repugnancy admit that. So people readily admit that torture of children and adults is morally repugnant, that a person such as a mass murderer are "evil", Pol Pot comes to mind, as does Idi Amin of Uganda, or more recently as evidenced by the viral video about kony. What I am suggesting is that ideas are not argued in a vacuum as though they have no impact on ones life. I would argue that what one does in private arising as it does out of their worldview, their ideas and things they value work out in everyday life. It effects how a person relates publicly to others. As someone once put it - ideas have legs!

What Christians must keep on saying is that a person is valuable because they are made in God's image. And that image is stamped at conception. Infanticide has been with us a long time, the Romans practised it, but that doesn't mean we have to. Euthanasia is not a valid option either.
And when you add to the mix that all people are sinners, that is, they are guided by the promotion of self to the detriment of others, this is not the kind of thing you want mankind determining. After all our politicians regularly stuff up things they are meant to oversea and bureaucrats likewise do not leave you with much confidence.

The words of Alberto and Francesca are chilling when they argue

if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.

So economics and 'being put out' becomes reasons for killing someone they that seems to justify any murder. How would the legal system then prosecute murders? Would it be on the basis of 51% don't like such and such? or other people have been upset by seeing or being effected by the murder of a loved one or someone they know? The ramifications for the order and rule of society would be horrendous.

However, in the end I suggest that people who put forward such ideas live in a world where they don't have a basis for or being able to account for morality in which case they really ought to deal with the ramification of their godless ethics where might and majority rules, regardless of right and justice.

Somethings to ponder eh?

regards
Gary

Secular Humanism's inconsistent Worldview in regards to morality

I recently listened to a talk by Dr. Phil Fernandes { #36562.mp3 lecture } where he observes that the humanistic manifesto of secular humanists makes clear that they are not consistent with their own stated Worldview.
For example, they assert that all moral values are autonomous - that is, each person decides for themselves what is right or wrong, what is moral or not. Then just a few paragraphs later they state that they are "for any sexual act between consenting adults." This seems very open and even handed, not at all like those Christians who are frigid and haters of sex.
The impression is that they are not against anything, after all, their moral values are decided upon by the individual and yet this provides a dilemma for them. They phrased their statement very carefully. They are against rape, that is the act which involves the nonconsent by some adult, and it is only OK when between adults, sex between adults and children as the movement NAMBIA advocates is wrong on their Worldview. On this we applaud them for we too agree that such things are wrong. But here's the kicker, Why, given that each person decides their own moral values individually is rape and sex with children wrong! On their worldview they say something is universally wrong yet they have asserted that one's moral values are determined individually.
We need to push them about this inconsistency because their worldview doesn't allow this declaration, even if it's silently inferred, that somethings are Universally wrong.

Trying to ground morality in either the individual or the community is a dead end. The grounding of moral values in the individual as expressed above is either emotive, based on emotions or perhaps the same thing, just asserting your own preferences. We will speak of the societal based morality another time. For now we can see the atheist who proudly adheres to the humanist manifesto is in a sticky situation.

So all is not well with Atheism as Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens would declare!

God Bless,
Gary