I wish I had the gust to post this on Facebook. And the fact that I know that it would upset so many of my long-time friends is itself an indication of how ethically warped the political Left has become. In fact, “ethically warped” is a euphemism for a far more damning and accurate term.
[This one is pretty funny too, but it’s not really an ethics meme…]
My current state of legal residence has gone nuts.
On November’s Virginia ballot, Virginia’s voters will consider “Amendment 1,” which would:
Like the earlier Democratic attempt to sneak a Constitutional amendment past voters with a dishonest description on the ballot, this one employs misleading and deceitful language (“reproductive health” standing in for “the ability to kill unborn babies in the ninth month of pregnancy”) and belies Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger’s promise that she would govern as a “moderate Democrat.”
But wait…there’s more!
The Arlington County Board just voted to put aside $50,000 for families whose head of the household is an illegal immigrant and has been detained or deported by ICE. Moreover, the county won’t require families to prove detention or deportation or provide employment records. Each eligible family can get up to $2,000. The money will be distributed by Arlington Thrive, a non-profit organization that provides emergency financial assistance.
“This investment in our families is about the urgency we have seen in our community in the last month,” said Arlington County Board Chairman Matt de Ferranti. “And we are going to respond with care. and we are going to respond proudly. That’s what this $50,000 is toward with Thrive.”
Former Acting ICE Director and former federal prosecutor Jonathan Fahey said the county may be violating federal law, arguing, “Arlington County is putting aside money for presumably people that are not even legal in the country, as opposed to giving it to Arlington County residents or American citizens.” “But I think the one thing that’s really interesting about what they’re doing here, there’s this alien harboring statute, a federal statute that makes it illegal to do something that induces or encourages someone to come to the country illegally or to reside in the country illegally, and I think Arlington County has a real problem with that statute.”
“They’re going to induce more illegal aliens into Arlington County, which will also cost the taxpayers even more money,” added Fahey. “There’s probably so many things that could be done that are better for the taxpayers and the residents and the legal residents of Arlington County.”
Tim LeVier, who I believe is tied with Glenn Logan as the longest tenured commenter to your host’s ethics pronouncements, delivered as probing and ethical a suggestion for handling child birth surrogacy as I can imagine.
Here is his Comment of the Day on the post, “On The California-Texas Foiled Baby Murder Case, Part I: Prelude,” which, I must mention, is getting remarkably little publicity from the pro-abortion Axis news media. Gee, I wonder why…
The underlying problem in these surrogacy cases is that these contracts seem to be “early”. I’d like to read the actual contracts in these scenarios to see what they contemplated, if anything. In truth, the surrogacy contract should be accompanied by a fully funded escrow account and a trustee. Payments from escrow should be structured for specific milestones and performance. The contract should recognize the surrogate’s absolute right of autonomy, but contractually, “life of the surrogate” should be the only consideration when allowing the surrogate to terminate.
Let’s generate a fictional scenario where the couple will pay $50k (inclusive) for a surrogate. The escrow account should be funded at 200% or $100k. If you can’t fund this escrow account in advance, you don’t get to sign a contract.
Payment for attempt ($5k)
Payment once pregnancy is confirmed at 8 weeks ($5k)
Recurring payments for pregnancy support ($10k spread-out)
Success fee for birth ($30k)
But also, the extra escrow is for additional success fees for a multiple birth scenario (Twins/Triplets) ($20k/ea)
Have a condition for payment from escrow for “Failure to adopt” or “Termination of Contract” from the bio-parents. ($5k/ea)
Termination of contract should be clearly stated as the limit of the bio-parents decision-making once pregnancy is established.
Again, I don’t know how any thoughtful, ethical person could question the outcome in this case. Apparently the “intended parents” refused to agree that they would seek appropriate medical care for the child after he was born with a serious but medically correctable heart problem. Having been unsuccessful in their efforts to have the child aborted late term, these ghouls were going to get custody of the child and perhaps have a hospital administer “palliative care”…that is, let the baby die. Pleasantly, of course,
A legal battle, at least regarding the life of the child, was averted when the child was born ahead of the September 3 due date.
As with some of the other cases discussed in Part 1, how could a typical pro-abortion advocate who uses the standard pro-abortion rhetoric about women’s “bodily autonomy” argue that the parents could force the surrogate to undergo an abortion? Yet abortion activists are apparently immune to integrity, logic, and decency. The main thing is to get the unborn child disposed of.
The surrogate’s contract contained a clause obligating her to submit to an abortion if the “intended parents” demanded it. The lawyers who drafted that contract should be sued for legal malpractice, and there are arguable ethical violations as well. I am wondering how common such contracts are, and how often they are enforced. For human beings cannot sell themselves into slavery or otherwise contract away their “unalienable rights.” That contract provision is unenforceable as against public policy, and should be made illegal by statute.
Republicans should pass the bill in the House and make Democrats show their lack decency when they vote it down.
Ethics points:
Yesterday, an ugly abortion controversy was resolved by the birth of “Baby Gabriel.” Here the legal/ethical gray areas involving hired surrogate mothers and the legal/ethical not-quite-so-gray areas regarding legal abortion mated to create a monster.
Upon learning that the baby gestating in their surrogate’s womb was not perfect (the unborn boy had a congenital heart defect), a California couple decided to exercise a provision in the surrogacy contract and force the mother-by-proxy to undergo an abortion. Instead, the surrogate fled to Texas, where abortion is illegal. Thanks in part to the intervention of Texas AG Ken Paxton (who is running for governor), the baby in question was born. Now there is a dispute over who gets custody. The birth mother has decided she wants the child anti-abortion activists have named “Gabriel.” The couple that wanted to have him killed wants him too.
Guess which I would choose, were I the infant.
I’ll examine that mess in Part II, but ahead, from the EA archives, is the last post Ethics Alarms had regarding the generally messy ethics issue of surrogate motherhood, from 2016, Pre-Unethical Conditions: Surrogate Mother Contracts And Making Babies With Jerks…
John Paul submitted a thorough and perceptive comment on the recent post about Massachusetts adopting a law permitting abortion right up until birth.
I was reminded that my Nobel Prize-winning biology professor when I was a Freshman in college, George Wald (perhaps the best teacher I have ever had, and I’ve had some great ones), said, “To me, the question of when an unborn person acquires the status of a human being appropriately protected by law, morality and ethics comes down to two choices: at birth, or at conception. Any other dividing line is arbitrary. Given those choices, I have to conclude that it must be birth.”
Here is John Paul’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Abortion On Demand Up To Birth”:
“How can you honestly and sincerely defend the new Massachusetts abortion law? If you can, how do you look yourself in the mirror or sleep at night?”
Going to play (a little bit) devil’s advocate here, because I was genuinely curious. I too am horrified that such a law could be passed. I wanted to know what reason could even come close to anyone think this is a good idea. How could anyone look at this, say, “that seems good,” and sleep at night without having the fires of hell consume their dreams?
Desperate, I searched the internet, and this is what I came up with.
1. The language of the law does not permit women to abort babies after 24 weeks. It allows physicians and doctors to rely on professional judgment without fear of prosecution.
2. Abortion is so broadly defined that it includes miscarriages and stillbirths.
3. A patient’s mental heath might change after the 24th week.
4. Late term discovery of fatal fetal abnormalities discovered.
5. Late term severe (but non-fatal) abnormalities discovered.
6. Mothers having to travel out of state for abortion services.
7. Keeping the decision between doctor and mother.
8. The belief that viability is not a adequate legal dividing line.
9. The belief that the government should have no say in abortion at all, and this is the only way to guarantee it.
10. Political/ideological commitment to abortion.
11. Life of the mother.
There might be more. Most of what I have seen falls into one of these categories. If anyone has any to share, feel free to add to the list. However, just because it is a reason doesn’t mean it’s even a good reason or a well-thought-out reason.
I have two simple questions for pro-abortion (or perhaps “pro mothers and doctors being able to kill viable infants at will” is a more accurate label…a bit long, I admit) advocates.
How can you honestly and sincerely defend the new Massachusetts abortion law? If you can, how do you look yourself in the mirror or sleep at night?
Abortion will now be allowed at any time before birth in Massachusetts after Governor Maura Healey (D, or course: what other party would do this?) eliminated the state’s abortion limits yesterday. Previously, the Bay State had allowed abortion only up until 24 weeks. Now a fully developed unborn infant can be killed any time during the 40-week gestation cycle, even second before birth. That means that the child could be delivered via C-section and instantly be protected by law as a living human being, but an unborn infant at the exact same state of development and fully viable can be murdered in the womb after the mother’s water has broken and contractions have begun.
To be fair, now, the home of my birth and happy childhood isn’t the only barbaric state with such an immoral law. Alaska, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and the District of Columbia of course, also believe that being able to kill living and viable infants in the womb is a human “right.” Peter Singer, the Princeton ethics professor, once caused an uproar when he said that as long as we were allowing abortions up to birth, why not let the mother see her baby first after it is born and then have the option to kill it? He was right: morally and ethically, either homicide is exactly the same. The distinction between born and unborn at that point is arbitrary and a legal fiction, created to let mothers feel better about a monstrous act.
You have to truly be a blind ideologue to proudly post something this blazingly stupid on social media.
Let’s begin with the pairing of a trans pride flag with the Palestinian flag…the poster is irony-challenged. Jade then pronounces conservatives incurious, a contention that she doesn’t bother to support. I, for one, am curious how dedicated progressives continue to maintain scientific, legal and economic nonsense despite year after year of being embarrassed by their policies.
Then the tweet really gets rolling. Thoughtful people and ethicists believe abortion is “bad” because it involves ending a human life for the convenience of another human who is more powerful. The act would still be the same—homicide—if the Bible had no perspective on the matter at all. Similarly, we don’t believe theft is wrong because the Ten Commandments say so, but because civilization couldn’t exist if it weren’t prohibited.
It is something of an accomplishment that each of the three declarations is more moronic than the one before. “Immigrants are bad because Fox News said so” is a masterpiece of dishonesty and confusion. First of all, no one among conservatives says “immigration is bad.” Presumably Jade means illegal immigrants, but is so addled by the deceitful rhetoric of the Axis of Unethical Conduct that she doesn’t know the difference. I’m surprised she isn’t curious about that.
No, illegal immigrants are bad because they are breaking the law, and breaking the law is almost always bad by definition. Fox News doesn’t need to say so: statutes say so, court opinions say so, experience and common sense says so, Kant says so, Dostoevsky says so, and Hammurabi says so.
And yet the last line still wins the Ignoramus Blue Ribbon. Capitalism is good, not because Ronald Reagan said so, but because capitalism has, over the last 250 years, made the United States of America the richest, most productive, most influential and most creative nation on Earth, with the highest standard of living, the most innovation and the greatest number of contributions to civilization over that period.
You can’t argue with someone who posts nonsense like this. Well, you can, but I won’t. Jade complains about conservatives being incurious, but is so doctrinaire that she doesn’t have enough curiosity herself to check facts and history to find out if she knows what the hell she is talking about.
And she doesn’t.
Christina Applegate is touring to promote her memoir, “You With the Sad Eyes,” hot off the presses. The “Married With Children” star writes about her illness, multiple sclerosis, and also the abortion she had when she was 19.
“In late April 1991, I fell pregnant,” she writes. “I want to turn away from what happened, but it’s all recorded in my diary. There are moments in my life that are too painful to force into narrative or meaning, so I’ll let my voice from back then speak.” And she does:
“I love this being… I always felt that if I ever got pregnant when I knew it was the wrong time, I wouldn’t have any problem having an abortion. ‘Oh, whatever. It isn’t even a baby yet.’ That’s bullshit. This creature’s incredible — makes me feel whole, safe…I’m fucking pregnant, and I’m killing my child on Thursday. I’m thinking, ‘Where the fuck can I go to recuperate from murder?’…His family will hate me when they find out that I killed their family member because they don’t believe in it. But I can’t have this baby because I have work to do to entertain this fucking world. Besides, I can’t… now.”
Then she says hello and good-bye to the unborn child she is going to, in her own words, murder:
“Hello, little thing. I feel you every moment of my day. Such a tiny existence. Such an immense effect you have. You are a miracle. A tiny handed miracle. I love you, but you know your fate. It’s not your time. I know you didn’t make that decision, but it can’t be your time. You will live on, though. You will live through another. I hope you will forgive me… But mommy can’t be with you right now. But know she loves you — more than any other miracle.”
—Quirky but perceptive Madison, Wis. bloggress Ann Althouse, commenting on the Times’ “Americans Are Turning Against Gay People” yesterday.
