Mechanisms as Guides
With both President Obama and Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, saying that “science” should be the guide for health care concerns, a fundamental question of science and ethics must be noted. While the discussions around the implications of amoral science are certainly in order, there is a fundamental deception in the words of the President and Secretary Sebelius. This deception is accomplished by making “science” some sort of self-existing entity that is able to solve problems apart from (religious, especially Christian) morality.
This is because science is a methodology. By any definition, science is not a guide. It can be a formulaic process as we all know from high school physics — the “scientific method” as it is called. It can be a mechanical representation of an idea (like theology, philosophy, and evolution), or it can be a functional emulation of a concept, like computer aided design and engineering when building automobiles, airplanes, and space vehicles. In no case is “science” ever the guide. Science does not create ethics and it does not dismiss ethics. It lies outside of ethics and use of it must be constrained by ethical principles.
But in a rhetorical coup de gras, Obama and Sebelius have succeeded in persuading much of the population that science is a suitable ethical guide. This leaves the American populace with little to expect from the Left’s nationalized health care except an ethic that will force abortion and practice genocide.
Whoa! Where did you get that idea!
Who ever thought that there would be a slippery slope from abortion to justified infanticide by the President of the United States? When pro-life advocates said so in the 1970s they were laughed at. But today’s genocidal President has placed votes for just that practice, on four occasions. And his reason for infanticide was to protect Roe. This president is one sick puppy.
Who ever thought that the feminist push behind Roe would bring a homosexual rights revolution that would promote eugenics even further? Again, the pro-life movement knew these things in the 70s. And again we were laughed at. But the reality is that the Left has not abandoned its eugenics heritage and continues to promote the principle.
Yes, in the 70s even we thought these things were far-fetched and unlikely. But it’s really amazing what 35 years can do to a national conscience. With a populace more interested in winning an unwinnable lottery, watching stupid people try to win money on television, and pretending that being in school is the same as getting an education, it is no wonder that we are in this state. We are no longer a nation that is a moral and religious people, and that leaves us vulnerable.
If President Obama and Company continue to succeed with their rhetorical manipulation then life is at risk. That, too, seems far-fetched. But wait another 35 years, if you are able. The so-called slippery slope did happen and it is still happening. It is the inevitable result of public stupidity that is unwilling to address the consequences of both behavior and ideas. It is necessary for our very survival that these Marxists be rejected.
