After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? Or, What is the proper response to killing newborn children because they are a burden to a family… or society?
|March 1, 2012||Posted by Anthony under abortion, apologetics, atheism, Blog, Christianity and Culture, End Times, eugenics, family, General, Holocaust, human rights, morality, Obama, original sin, pro-life, science, scientism, Secular Humanism, taxation|
authors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argue that the same arguments that justify abortion of the fetus on demand likewise apply to the newly born. Here is the abstract:
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
|December 5, 2011||Posted by Anthony under abortion, apologetics, atheism, Blog, Christianity and Culture, Creationism, eugenics, evolution, family, General, Global Warming, Holocaust, homosexuality, human rights, Love, Malthusians, morality, original sin, philosophy, politics, pro-life, scientism, speaking engagements|
It is has never been more important to carefully examine what one believes and why they believe it. If you do not carry out this work, you may end up being nothing more than a useful idiot of the worst sort: directly bringing about the goals and ends of those you specifically repudiate as wicked and evil… condemning the communists, nazis, and eugenicists, while carrying out their work.
|October 20, 2011||Posted by Anthony under abortion, atheism, Blog, family, General, human rights, Love, morality, original sin, philosophy, politics, Secular Humanism|
if anyone is actually concerned about the plight of the poor and oppressed and the abuses by corporations, banks, and politicians- no doubt inspired by genuine concerns arising within a decent heart- I would challenge them to rely on more than their hearts and emotions, which can and do deceive and will co-opt the mind if it needs to. We must use our brains. We have to be thinking people. And we must be thinking people within the proper boundaries and context for thinking, that is… our thoughts must actually conform to reality the way it is.
All else may very well simply be self-deception.
|September 21, 2011||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, atheism, Blog, morality, philosophy, scientism, theism, theology|
Just as Aristotle argued that an actual infinite regress of cause and effect was just plumb impossible, necessitating a causeless cause, so too is a never-ending chain of moral ‘causation.’ In order for the term ‘moral’ to have any meaning at all- and even the amoral atheists behave as though it does- we must come to a point where we must allow that there is an entity which makes moral pronouncements because those pronouncements are good in themselves AND the grounding of the goodness of those pronouncements resides entirely within that entity. That entity, we call ‘God.’
|September 13, 2011||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, atheism, Blog, evolution, General, scientism, Secular Humanism|
In a recent post, I talked about Richard Dawkins’ discussion in his Delusion about why children gravitate towards fantasy and myth, etc, and alluded to GK Chesterton’s arguments about the ‘thought that ends all thought.’ This sentiment emerges in Chesterton’s book Orthodoxy in a chapter appropriately called The Suicide of Thought. The previous post was […]