Lindsay Clancy has been set free due to a mistrial. To many people, this should have been a simple open-and-shut case. She murdered her children and should be found guilty. To others, the broader question of whether people can be held to account while suffering from a so-called mental illness dominated the discourse. It is quite the spectacle. The feminist movement, at least the more radical aspect of it, seems content to argue that women can’t be held responsible for their behavior when their hormones are out of sorts. This has sparked the sharing of countless memes showing this was the general attitude of men starting the feminist movement in the first place. Women wanted to be equal in all aspects. All except for one, it seems. They wish to reserve the right to blame their behavior on their emotions. Something men could never get away with themselves, but all throughout history, were content allowing women to do so. Logic would dictate a guilty verdict would be the more desirable outcome for feminists. Women will never be viewed the same again, as the result of this trial has shown that women can hide behind their emotional problems. Perhaps that is part of the bigger plan. There seems to be a psychological element to this, with a larger agenda looming in the background. Perhaps that agenda is the final destruction of the traditionalist view of women as mothers and caregivers. The trans movement has already attacked women’s identity with the absurd notion that men can identify as women. When men compete and win against women in sports, the message is that men can be better women than women. In some ways, this situation can also be compared to the mass shooting narrative we see play out so often. A deranged individual, taking psychotropic drugs, just snaps and goes on a murder spree. Is that what we are supposed to take from this? Any woman suffering from post-partum depression can suddenly snap and kill her children? That is the message many men are hearing, as the internet is rife with stories of men leaving their soon-to-be wives because they “stand in solidarity with Lindsay.” Could there be another agenda? One meant to simply destroy the value we have for life in general? Let’s tie some pieces together, shall we?
In 2013, The Journal of Medical Ethics published a disturbing article entitled Afterbirth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live? The authors argue that any reason excusing an abortion in general should be enough of a justification to kill the child after it is born. People may be thinking about disabilities like Down syndrome; however, the authors make it clear that this applies in all cases, even where the child isn’t disabled. There are two reasons being argued to justify this frightening mentality. One, a newborn fetus is not seen as having the same moral status as the mother; therefore, if it places any burden on the mother at all, killing it is justified. Secondly, the newborn is not considered a person in the sense that it is not old enough to have developed any life goals of its own and because of this, terminating its life causes no real harm to anyone. The authors suggest that the only moral value the newborn has is whatever the mother assigns it, and that will likely be zero if the baby causes any burden to her or even the community. Exactly when do children start developing real life goals? Like abortion itself, that is a real slippery slope. The authors contend that morality, or personhood, doesn’t start until a newborn is no longer dependent on the mother, can develop life goals, and basically has agency of its own. Is this where we want to be? A place where life itself has been so demoralized that we no longer place any moral standard on the most innocent among us? A world where a newborn baby is seen as nothing but a burden, and killing it is the absolute right of the mother? The authors discuss adoption as an alternative to after birth abortion, and their conclusion is just as disturbing. They argue that adoption is not always a viable option if it places the mother in psychological stress due to the loss of the child. They also acknowledge the possibility of severe trauma resulting from after birth abortion, but insist that it cannot be assumed to be more traumatic than adoption.
Read Full Article: https://thewashingtonstandard.com/darwinism-marxism-the-loss-of-value-for-human-life/
