.. appears to be a reasonable question as to who should be aborted? After all, if abortion is subject to no objective terms of morality, then there isn't really anything wrong with it. Hence, the mother may choose it, the mother's parents or boyfriend or husband may choose it over and above the mother's wishes (being a minor, for example), and perhaps even the government may choose it where it deems it advantageous to do so. And even if the government does not coerce the abortion, it can certainly make it more acceptable. It already does so from a socio-political standpoint, after all, when Victorian adherents in Parliament championed the Abortion Law Reform Bill in order to make the choice more comfortable for doctors and women to make. Why not economic then, such as this proposal to pay for the abortion of handicapped babies in order to save on welfare benefits?
|The Australian Parliamentary Group on Population and Development has been slammed by Queensland Senator Ron Boswell for holding to Nazi-style eugenic ideology on the abortion of disabled children.
The pro-abortion group had made a submission, signed by 41 Australian MPs, to the parliamentary committee that is examining the issue of abortion in Australia. The group said paying women a Medicare rebate for second-trimester abortions would save the government about $180,000 a year, due to the high costs of caring for handicapped babies who are allowed to be born.
|Source: Lifesite news|
Like a bridge crumbling when its supports are broken from underneath, one beam at a time: that's what happens to law and order when objective notions of right and wrong are discarded.