Re: Killing babies morally OK medical ethesist says
In the original article I see this paragraph explaining one of the reasons why killing your child is moral:
Note how it becomes the State's interest when the State pays for your health care. This is probably my main concern with state controlled health care. If the state pays for your health, the state has a financial interest in your behavior and your value becomes your economic value to the state. The main health care concern becomes not the health of the patient, but the cost to the state, which it perceives as a zero-sum game. If you have a child that will need life-long health care, it is best for the state to simply pay to kill the child. If you are old and have expensive medical problems, it is much better for the State to pay for your euthanasia.
Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care
. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.
In my opinion the idea that there is intrinsic value in human life comes from the idea that we are all spiritual beings created by God. The materialist sees life as just a collection of chemical and electrical processes, ultimately deterministic. Reject God and we all become children of goo, not children of God.
“To preserve the government we must also preserve morals. Morality rests on religion; if you destroy the foundation, the superstructure must fall. When the public mind becomes vitiated and corrupt, laws are a nullity and constitutions are waste paper.” – Daniel Webster, 4th of July, 1800, Oration at Hanover, N.H.