Violence Against Women and Sex Selection Abortion


Wesley Smith at NRO has an interesting article about the vicious gang-rape in India and the possibility that sex-selection abortion might have played a role in it. Sex selection abortions have been the norm in China and India for a few decades. Because of the social pressure to make sons, daughters are often killed before they are born. This in and of itself constitutes are crime against women in the first place, but it has other ramifications and consequences. In societies where men greatly outnumber women, unmarried men commit the majority of the crimes.

From Smith’s post: “Growing evidence suggests that in countries like India and China, where the ratio of men to women is unnaturally high due to the selective abortion of female fetuses and neglect of girl children, the rates of violence towards women increase. “The sex ratio imbalance directly leads to more sex trafficking and bride buying,” says Mara Hvistendahl, author of Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men. A scarce resource is generally considered precious, but the lack of women also leaves many young men without marriage partners. In 2011, the number of cases of women raped rose by 9.2 percent; kidnapping and abductions of women were up 19.4 percent..” This is a quote from a Time essay by Erika Christakis.

This will hopefully wake us up to unintended consequences of snuffing out human lives before they are born.

Our Dangerous Obsession With Health


Wesley Smith has written a fine column at the First Things “On the Square” site. He draws from another terrific article by Yuval Levine at the New Atlantis. Both of these articles tackle a similar issue and is our society’s unhealthy preoccupation with avoiding any kind of suffering and supply our every whim whether it is good for us or not. We used to be a society that was concerned with cultivating virtue or even justice and equality. Today, if is about our desires and the avoidance of discomfort or suffering of any type.

There is nothing wrong with promoting health, but when health becomes the primary purpose of society, it becomes an excuse for immediate gratification and hedonism. In the words of Levin: “Unbalanced and unmoored from other goods, [health] can become a vessel for self-absorption and for decadence. It can cause us to abandon our commitment to our highest principles, and to mortgage the future to avert the present pain.”

Levin and nailed it in my view. We murder our unborn children mostly because they are a terrible inconvenience to us, and then we murder other children in order for many to give birth to the one kind of child we want at the right time. This is not about justice, it is about hedonism.

If you want two very insightful articles on what ails our bioethical sensibilities, read Smith here and Levin here.

Infanticide Advocate Peter Singer is Awarded Australis’s Highest Civic Award


Princeton University’s Professor of Ethics Peter Singer has been appointment as a Companion of the Order of Australia (he is a native Australian). I will not mince words on this one. This is a new low for the government of Australia. Here are some of the things Singer has advocated:

He is best known for ethically endorsing infanticide. According to Singer, people are not human persons unless they can do certain things. This is called functionalism, and it leads people to regard certain human beings as being in a class of “human non-persons.” For example, Singer does not think humans reach “full moral status” until after the age of two. He supports non-voluntary euthanasia of human “non-persons” fo0r any reason. Not liking the color of their eyes, they cry too much. they pooped on your carpet, they threw up on your nice clothes, they are a girl and not a boy. Mind you, this is the same chap who gets all choked up about the use of animals in research because is multiples animal suffering. Instead of appealing to the more noble aspects of human nature, where we exercise those properties that make us truly human (compassion, defending the weak and defenseless), Singer would have us eat our young the way brute beasts do. Furthermore, he would commend us for it. We used to demarcate between barbaric societies and civilizations that did such things. Now we have become the barbarians, but according to Singer, that’s just fine.

In keeping with this disgusting, misanthropic philosophy, Singer supports using cognitively disabled human beings in medical experiments instead of animals. The laboratory animals, you see, have a higher “quality of life” according to Singer. How does he know that? Well they can do more. They can walk, groom themselves, feed themselves, and defecate without anyone’s help. The mentally disabled person it still essentially a person, but Singer doesn’t let that get in the way. People who cannot do are not people any more. They might even be trapped inside a body that no longer works, but Singer does not let that get in the way either. As far as he is concerned, person is as person does. He forgets that must BE something to eventually DO something. He has gotten the cart before the horse and we have abortion on demand, euthanasia in Holland and Brazil as the result of it.

Singer has also defended bestiality. These are, according the Singer, “mutually satisfying activities” between humans and animals should not be opposed. Now, pray tell, how does Singer know that the animal is enjoying it? Is he also Dr. Doolittle and can talk to the animals? This is disgusting. We used to think such people were sick in the head (not to mention to horrific sexually transmitted diseases you can get from such activities), but Singer thinks they are just alright.

Singer started the “Great Ape Project.” This project would establish a “community of equals” among humans, gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, and orangutans. The day one of those creatures asks me for admission to such a project, I will think about it, but for now, they are too busy killing each other in the wild and spreading their feces all over each other to care about it.

Singer has also questioned whether “the continuance of our species is justifiable.” Do we need any more evidence of his own self-loathing?

Finally, Singer believes “speciesism” — viewing humans as having greater value than animals — is akin to racism. Oh, just between you and me, racism is a HUMAN concept. Bringing animals into it is a category mistake of the first degree. Humans are exceptional among the creatures of the earth. We and we alone are the stewards of the earth and its resources. The animals don’t give a rip about such things and it is not even on their cognitive radar. Human exceptionalism is the basis of human law, human rights, and everything from property values, antislavery movements, anti-genocide activities and so on. Without human exceptionalism, we become no better than the animals.

Singer’s philosophy is perverted. It takes what is profane, disgusting and devilish, and calls it morally upright. It is the result of misanthropy and self-loathing and he wants use to hate ourselves as much as he hates himself. His philosophy produces a society that is unworkable and objectionable in every way. He should not be rewarded, but derided.

Dick Cheney’s Heart Transplant


Because people have asked me to comment on the Dick Cheney heart transplant, I thought I would make one entry about it. Readers of this blog will recognize that I have very conservative leanings when it comes to subjects such as politics and health care. Also, the organ transplant waiting lists are local and federal. The decision to put someone on the organ recipient list is a decision that is between the patient and their physicians. I do not think the government has any right to intercede in the decision because it is a private decision. The shortage of organs can be addressed in other ways, but it seems to me that rationing by the government is simply wrong and contrary to the founding principles of our constitutional republic.

Having said all that, Cheney waited 20 months to receive his heart, and he was given no special treatment. You can argue that a younger person should have received this heart, but why? Cheney waited his turn. His age was, in his doctor’s opinion, not an important factor. Therefore, we should go with his doctor and not some bureaucrat.

Nevertheless, the best story on this comes from the inimitable Wesley Smith.  Read his view here.  It says it all.