Ethics Upside Down… How Permissive Abortion Spread Its Bloody Curse Throughout Society

By DEXTER DUGGAN

Earthquake predictions are a California staple, but a Golden State magazine in 1970 unwittingly foresaw a bloodletting that would take many more human lives than if a temblor were to knock the entire state beneath the Pacific Ocean’s waves nearly 50 years later, when the population would have grown to around 40 million people in 2019.
That massive slaughter would be due to the upcoming, often court-imposed Culture of Death.
In its September 1970 issue, California Medicine, the official journal of the California Medical Association, noted in an editorial titled “A New Ethic for Medicine and Society” that serious changes had begun in the way individual human lives were viewed.
“The process of eroding the old ethic and substituting the new has already begun,” the 1970 editorial said.
“It may be seen most clearly in changing attitudes toward human abortion. In defiance of the long-held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for every human life regardless of its stage, condition or status, abortion is becoming accepted by society as moral, right and even necessary….
“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. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death,” it said, adding:
“The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted, the old one has not yet been rejected.”
Rather than suggest that such unscientific schizophrenia and subterfuge should be renounced, the editorial concluded that physicians should roll up their sleeves and get ready to apply this denial of the Judeo-Christian medical tradition to their fellow human beings, both preborn and already born, in the interests of “quality of life and living.”
“It is not too early for our profession to examine this new ethic, recognize it for what it is and will mean for human society, and prepare to apply it in a rational development for the fulfillment and betterment of mankind in what is almost certain to be a biologically oriented world society,” the editorial said.
Although it didn’t predict the number of victims this “new ethic” would claim in coming decades, permissive abortion alone subsequently was thought to have taken more than 60 million lives from the time the U.S. Supreme Court imposed it nationally in 1973 until 2019. And that figure wouldn’t include other medicalized deaths, such as in states where “doctor-assisted suicide” later was legalized.
Nor does it include the loss of life from terroristic-tinted attacks across the land. This loss isn’t the result of rival gangsters having it out over disputed territory or drug traffic, but it bursts out at places of worship, malls, schools, and other locations of everyday life.
Life does seem cheaper in the U.S. But there’s a grim logic behind the irrational-seeming violence. It began with the semantic gymnastics and schizophrenia that the California Medicine editorial benignly accepted in hopes of a better, “biologically oriented world society.”
Veteran registered nurse Nancy Valko notes how the medical profession was affected by the entirely arbitrary revolution against protecting innocent lives. Valko is a spokesperson for the National Association of Pro-Life Nurses (nursesforlife.org), headquartered in Washington, D.C.
An article in the March-April issue of Defend Life magazine reported a talk that Valko gave in February at St. Andrew Apostle Catholic Church in Silver Spring, Md.
Defend Life is the bimonthly magazine of a pro-life organization with the same name based in Baltimore, Md. (DefendLife.org).
The article quoted her that she was working in a wonderful trauma unit at a Catholic hospital when the Supreme Court legalized permissive abortion in 1973.
“We had such a cohesive unit: The doctors and nurses worked together with a high degree of ethics,” Valko was quoted. “We saved people that no one thought could be saved.”
But after the High Court acted, “things started to change. I was shocked when I saw (ethical) divisions starting in our ICU,” she said.
The article reported: “Valko believes that the legalization of abortion led to a general corruption of medical ethics that spread throughout all medical fields.”
Although doctors traditionally had pledged themselves to the Hippocratic Oath, which forbade harming patients and forbade abortion, “all of a sudden in medical schools, they were coming up with new types of oaths” to replace it, Valko said.
Valko, who had a young daughter with a severe heart defect and Down syndrome, “was horrified when she discovered that her trusted pediatrician had given a ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ order for the child,” the article said, adding that the pediatrician reportedly thought Valko was “too emotionally involved with that retarded baby.”
After this experience, “I thought, this is how easily ‘choice’ goes to ‘no choice,’ which I saw over and over again,” the article quoted her.

Society’s Moral Compass

The Wanderer asked two commentators and a conservative political strategist about the consequences of permissive abortion corrupting medicine and morality.
Quin Hillyer, a veteran national conservative columnist, said: “Roe v. Wade has no basis in the U.S. Constitution or in the concept of either human or civic rights. By wrongly claiming that it is a ‘right’ to take an innocent life, it also turned medical ethics upside down.
“Absent severely mitigating factors, doctors ordinarily owe a duty in favor of life,” Hillyer said. “Roe tells doctors this duty not only is inapplicable, but actually contrary to their calling. Roe’s obligations are thus not merely neutral, but objectively anti-moral, and horribly dehumanizing.”
Victor Joecks, an opinion writer for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Nevada’s largest daily paper, told The Wanderer: “By incorrectly asserting that the Constitution guarantees the right to abortion, the Supreme Court has laid the groundwork for a conflict with religious liberties.
“No longer are abortion advocates satisfied with being able to kill preborn babies. Many now want to force religious individuals and institutions to perform a practice they find morally repulsive,” Joecks said. “That this argument is taken seriously shows how endangered religious liberties are today.”
Constantin Querard, a Republican political consultant, said: “Roe legitimized and legalized murder, so of course the effects on society were a general devaluing of life and a lowering of the moral bar across the board. After all, if killing babies is now okay instead of being one of the worst things imaginable, then how bad can other sins be in comparison?
“Petty theft and property crimes can’t compare to killing a baby, but since killing the baby is now legal, why get all worked up about petty theft and property crimes? Society’s moral compass isn’t designed to smoothly adjust to major shocks like Roe, so everything is thrown out of whack for a while,” Querard said.
“We now see people coming back around to the immorality of Roe and in defense of life, but it took tens of millions to die in the meantime before enough people woke up and started doing something about it,” he said.
A recent decision by the Kansas Supreme Court in favor of tearing apart larger preborn babies by cruel abortion showed the extent of the lunacy devised by the elite to try to justify the slaughter.
National Public Radio said the state high court’s decision cited the beginning of the Kansas constitution’s Bill of Rights, which says: “All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Rather than consider this plain guarantee of an inalienable right to life to include preborn humans, the lunatic judges twisted it to guarantee destroying their lives. The legal legerdemain used the routine pro-abortion lie that the issue is only the pregnant mother’s own body — although it dared not say “pregnant mother,” but only “a woman.”
By ignoring the other body involved in every abortion, the court performed the miracle of asserting that pregnant mothers have a total of four eyes, four ears, 20 fingers, 20 toes, and either the sex organs of both a male and a female, or two sets of sex organs of a female.
This gets even more complicated if the babies being destroyed are twins or triplets.

Bleeding Kansas

The Washington Examiner posted an editorial April 29 titled “Bleeding Kansas” to condemn the Kansas fanaticism. It began: “Six judges of the Kansas Supreme Court have earned themselves a lifetime of infamy (and perhaps a longer sentence of worse) with a monstrous ruling that the state’s constitution protects the right to dismember a child in utero” by using “preposterous reasoning.”
Noting that Kansas’ constitution, drafted in 1859, represented a victory over the slave trade, the Examiner editorial said that slave traders should have asserted that slaves were merely an extension of themselves, “and that controlling one’s slave was simply controlling one’s body.
“For both institutions,” the editorial said, “rest on the same demonic lie: that some people are not people, that these are rightly considered means to ends, tools for the ‘self-determination’ of others.”
The Examiner forthrightly condemned the court’s word-twisting wickedness: “Such egregious reasoning is appropriate for such an evil decision protecting such a barbaric act. Lawton Nuss, Marla Luckert, Carol Beier, Eric Rosen, Lee A. Johnson, and Daniel Biles formed the majority in this case. They deserve infamy.”
While pro-abortion media fanatics like The New York Times promote such atrocities with despicable deception, the Examiner concluded with admirable clarity: “The judges who perverted the law and mangled language in order to condemn babies to dismemberment will bear the shame of this ruling for the rest of their lives, if not longer.”
In a separate article, Examiner columnist Noemie Emery wondered why the Democratic Party’s abortion enthusiasts keep crawling farther out on their limb, now even favoring post-birth death that polls find minuscule support for.
Emery asked on April 30, “What prompted the abortion-enthusiast wing of the Democratic Party to throw caution, mercy, and sense to the wind this year, drawing the line after birth itself?”
Meanwhile, LifeNews.com on April 17 reported legislative testimony in North Carolina by Republican State Rep. Pat McElraft about babies born alive after abortions who were turned face down in saline fluid to die.
“Infanticide has happened here,” she said.
This is the reality of the slaughter that media propagandists, Planned Parenthood, and their Democratic Party allies proudly strut around for every day. Do they fancy that, without repentance, they will escape the justice of God forever?