Excerpt:
Sweden has approved gender-specific abortions, allowing parents to rid themselves of an unwanted daughter in a closely-watched ethics case…
Last month, I noted the opposition of the abortion-rights group Center for Reproductive Rights to the same practice in China, where the state’s one-child policy makes gender selection more important for parents. Sweden has no such restrictions; in this case, the woman already had two daughters and wants a son. CRR opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, putting their fright over what they call “fetus rights” over their objections to gender-specific infanticide.
At least Sweden remained consistent. Unlike the CRR, their decision reluctantly noted that the woman’s motivation was irrelevant if one accepts that someone can “choose” to end human life as a right. One wonders whether CRR will protest this decision in Sweden as they do in China, extending their intellectual confusion over the nature of “choice” as an absolute right.
Keep in mind that Sweden is the most secular nation in the world. What did we learn from the responses to our survey of atheists that would explain why they would support such barbarism?
We learned that atheists believe:
- There is no such thing as human rights or human dignity, objectively speaking
- There is no such thing as moral values or moral duties, objectively speaking
- The purpose of life is happiness in the here and now
- There is no ultimate significance to any actions – it doesn’t matter what you do, your end is the same
- Our actions are biologically determined, so we’re not responsible anyway
- There is no after-life, no accountability after death for actions
- Morality is determined by each person’s personal preferences, or arbitrary cultural conventions
On atheism, the weak have no objective human rights or human dignity, because people are just arrangements of matter, not creatures made in the image of God. On atheism, there is no purpose for the weak, such as the purpose of freely coming to know God, that would give them dignity and value, regardless of their social utility.
So, the strong can oppress the weak, even to the point of slavery or murder, in order to maximize their own happiness in the short time they are allotted to live. On atheism, why not? Why let anyone else offend you, burden you and diminish your happiness, if you can use force to silence or destroy them?
WINTERY KNIGHT 