That's not an argument for abortion. But it could exacerbate that issue, sure.
Don't play on their playing field and accept their premises. Why he should have stepped down was that he used this as an argument for abortion and against more pro-life pregnancy centres. Not because he stated the fact that there may be additional strain on a budget as a result.
Not only that. He's implying that he's in favor of killing people on such an arbitrary basis as intelligence. In fact, he's implying that he'd be in favor of killing people who cost the state more money than they contribute, like old people, poor people, etc.
It truly is a monstrous thing to say, as if saving some money justified murder. He clearly doesn't value human life. Not a good look for a politician. Perhaps worse of all, he didn't even realize how badly saying that would be received. That kind of idiocy would put him pretty early in the eugenics line he suggests.
It truly is a monstrous thing to say, as if saving some money justified murder. He clearly doesn't value human life. Not a good look for a politician. Perhaps worse of all, he didn't even realize how badly saying that would be received. That kind of idiocy would put him pretty early in the eugenics line he suggests.
That's because the notion that every human has inherent value is fundamentally a Christian notion. It was not a feature of even the greatest civilizations pre-Christianity. In fact, the pagan Romans mocked Christians relentlessly for it, calling Christianity "the religion of women and the poor."
As our society rejects Christianity more and more, it is inevitable that more of this will pop up. You cannot destroy the foundations of a house, and expect it to stay standing. Too many people ignore the lessons of history and take the benefits of our civilization for granted. The atrocities of the twentieth century were the result of trying to create "new" and "rational" systems of morality. The same thing happened during the 18th century French Revolution, as well.
It likely would.
That's not an argument for abortion. But it could exacerbate that issue, sure.
Don't play on their playing field and accept their premises. Why he should have stepped down was that he used this as an argument for abortion and against more pro-life pregnancy centres. Not because he stated the fact that there may be additional strain on a budget as a result.
Not only that. He's implying that he's in favor of killing people on such an arbitrary basis as intelligence. In fact, he's implying that he'd be in favor of killing people who cost the state more money than they contribute, like old people, poor people, etc.
It truly is a monstrous thing to say, as if saving some money justified murder. He clearly doesn't value human life. Not a good look for a politician. Perhaps worse of all, he didn't even realize how badly saying that would be received. That kind of idiocy would put him pretty early in the eugenics line he suggests.
That's because the notion that every human has inherent value is fundamentally a Christian notion. It was not a feature of even the greatest civilizations pre-Christianity. In fact, the pagan Romans mocked Christians relentlessly for it, calling Christianity "the religion of women and the poor."
As our society rejects Christianity more and more, it is inevitable that more of this will pop up. You cannot destroy the foundations of a house, and expect it to stay standing. Too many people ignore the lessons of history and take the benefits of our civilization for granted. The atrocities of the twentieth century were the result of trying to create "new" and "rational" systems of morality. The same thing happened during the 18th century French Revolution, as well.
Well said.