In the last century we've watched as things that have been taboo in the past, have become the norm for our society. Until 1930 all Protestant denominations condemned contraception as a sin. Legalized abortion made murdering our children legal in the 70s, and in the 90s some in the pro-death camp were still saying they wished that it was "rare" which, let's face it, admits that there is something wrong with tearing another person apart limb by limb. But that facade of ethical belief is now falling away, as some in the anti-life camp proclaim that the real evil in this world is adoption and that abortion in itself is actually great.Well, this is actually largely true, and so far as birth control goes, my opinions don't really apply beyond the use of prophylactics, being, as I am, male. I feel that a person has their right to choose birth control over bringing a child they can't support into the world, which probably makes me a Bad Catholic. But the birth-control argument is really just preamble into the article, and more or less a lead-in to the last line, which is a link to an article on Life Site News with some quotes regarding prominent pro-abortion personalities who are operating anti-adoption websites.
To be fair, there's a disconnect there. Being pro-abortion and anti-adoption don't go hand in hand any more than being Christian and pro-Crusades do. In point of fact, I consider all three of the crusades to be some of the Church-on-Earth's largest mistakes in all of human history, and while I respect existing legislation regarding the matter (which is virtually non-existent here), I happen to prefer adoption over abortion. So this particular point boils down in this way: the one is not the other - post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Evil, however, has a way of outdoing itself, or at least taking it's sickening actions to yet another level, and that's what I couldn't help but think of when I ran across this post on CMR this morning.The post in question deals with some arguments for early-life euthanasia, which is a subject I'm not intimately familiar with, but from concept, I can hazard a few short points. For one thing, euthanasia is not intended for use when a hard life is ahead, but for when life is no longer worth living. While my own positions are mixed on the acceptability of assisted suicide, on euthanasia itself, I'm pretty clear: nobody has the right to decide whether another person lives or dies. I've heard the argument that, in much the same way that a guardian can determine medical treatment for their minor wards, they should be able to make this decision, and I flatly say that that's ridiculous.
We've traveled along this merry road towards moral relativism for quite a while as a society, since long before I was born, and others have suggested that this is the direction we've been headed in for some time.Moral Relativism is necessary to within degrees. To paraphrase the Boondock Saints, there are always going to be certain moral codes that every man of every faith can embrace. But there are other moral rules that aren't absolute, things that you don't have to be criminally insane (or at least maladjusted) to disagree with, such as the Church's anti-birth-control position. And a big part of that is precisely because our society (and, to a certain extent, American society) is multicultural. We are not a Theocracy, and for some moral codes, there can be no justification made beyond the religious or spiritual, freedoms which we are guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Now Alberto Giubilini and Francesaca Minerva have published and article titled: "After birth abortion: Why should the baby live?" asking the questions that some who have watched history unfold these past decades have suggested was coming.Well, there's the old slippery-slope argument, which has always been shown to be a self-fulfilling prophesy. Unfortunately, I couldn't examine the article itself, as the paper's abstract makes it clear that the title is not meant ironically, and that the argument really is as Cam and others have presented it.
After all, if life is devalued to usefulness rather than possessing any sort of innate value in itself, than this question is bound to come up. When you strip away the morality of a country and base value on utility, then what value is a new life if it's parents decide they don't want it?Well, now, that's the thing, isn't it? This is a genuinely slippery slope, one I can't really believe we're actually standing at the top of, and looking down, going "I think I can make that". Life is not and should not be reduced to net income or net loss. While such calculations may have economic consideration, economics is not the primary concern here. Life has a dignity all its own and should be defended.
And it's all because our society has lifted up a new idol, and will defend it at all costs. They will not admit that sex has consequences.This line, I'm "quoting for truth", having encountered the given sentiment myself far more often than I would like over on the NS forums. Pregnancy naturally follows sexual intercourse, and is its consequence, and you don't need to be religious to think that, or have more than an eighth-grade understanding of mammalian biology. We can delay it, we can reduce the risks, but we can't eliminate it. No form of contraception provides the 100% protection level.
The problem comes in when we see the pregnancy and resulting childhood only in terms of the financial and temporal burden they represent, and not as the gift and delight they can be. The greatest and most lasting act a man or woman may do is to raise a child. Why should we throw that away for a few more years of party-going or to further our career?
I'm not saying one should start breeding immediately. That's preposterous. I have no intention of having a child until I'm at least established in a career and can afford to raise it. But to delay too long invites the possibility of losing that chance forever, and studies have shown that older parents are more likely to produce children with birth defects. So give that a thought.