The pro-aborts knew all along life begins at conception.
Those who pushed through Roe v. Wade had an agenda they wished to advance. They knew they had a lot of work to do to overcome the disdain and abhorrence people naturally feel towards abortion, contraception, and other aspects of their Culture of Death they sought to implement.
As proof of this, let me direct your attention to an editorial published in a medical journal called California Medicine. Within their September 1970 Vol. 113, No. 3 edition, they published a now-infamous op-ed piece titled, “A New Ethic for Medicine And Society.”
Let me give you the highlights.
The article starts out great, admitting the obvious: “The traditional Western ethic has always placed great emphasis on the intrinsic worth and equal value of every human life regardless of its stage or condition. This ethic has had the blessing of the Judeo-Christian heritage and has been the basis for most of our laws and much of our social policy.”
It goes on immediately to add this is the basis for Western medicine to “preserve, protect, repair, prolong and enhance every human life.” But then the article goes on to describe a change in the medical world of titanic proportions. It claims “unprecedented technologic progress and achievement” remains the driving force to “undermine and transform” the “traditional” role of medicine and social order.
The op-ed goes on to claim this “new ethic” remains necessary for three reasons. First, it is necessary to accommodate a world whose population growth remains “uncontrolled.” Second, the California Medicine article adds there are just not enough resources available for the number of people living on the planet. Third, they assert a “new social emphasis” has risen on “the quality of life” as the reason this “new ethic” remains a social good.
In the next paragraph, the op-ed gets drills down to the heart of the issue and lays bare the intentions of this “new ethic:” “…[T]his will of necessity violate and ultimately destroy the traditional Western ethic with all that this portends.”
What exactly is this “new ethic?” What do they intend to happen? They tell you in the next sentence: “It will become necessary and acceptable to place relative rather than absolute value on such things as human lives, the use of scarce resources and the various elements which are to make up the quality of life or of living which is to be sought.”
The authors then inform the reader this “new ethic” has already been taking root, and they foresee drastic consequences for philosophy, social life, economics, and politics in this country and worldwide. They point to attitudes toward abortion as their first example of their social engineering already in effect.
They lament, “Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent.” Then the op-ed in the next line admits the lie they are trying to pull over on everyone: “The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone already knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous intra- or extra-uterine until death.”
The op-ed admits “semantic gymnastics” are necessary to reconcile adherence to this “new ethic” on abortion. When everyone knows life begins at conception, they admit it is “ludicrous” to expect people to support abortion. To get over this barrier of the Natural Law, they say they have implemented a necessary “schizophrenic sort of subterfuge” to confuse themselves and others.
The California Medicine article assures the reader this “new ethic” will prevail. They base this on belief that man’s newfound ability to control the population of his own species will limit the distribution of limited resources to those who adhere to this “new ethic” of relative, rather than absolute, value of human life. They then admit control over this may be voluntary or it may be forced upon others. They admit birth control and “death control” (I take it as an honest term for what we now call euthanasia) could be used to decide who gets to live and must be killed off.
The op-ed ends by urging all medical professions to examine this “new ethic” and to be ready to implement it in every branch of its field. After all, they claim, this is all for the cause of the “betterment of mankind.”
They were right. They prevailed. God, have mercy.
What do you make of this manifesto, of sorts, for the implementation of this quality of life metric for human value?
Please leave your thoughts below.