Skip to comments."Ethicists" advocate for the acceptance of incest
Posted on 07/26/2018 7:46:11 PM PDT by ReformationFan
Some of you reading this may remember a time when the word ethics was a meaningful term and ethicists were people who sought to discover and define right and wrong. In these modern times, however, our society lurches back and forth with breakneck speed from moral relativism to progressive totalitarianismeverything is moral, except for telling someone that their behavior is immoral. In this post-modern society, the task of ethicists is now to find ways to justify nearly everything. They are explorers without compasses or mapsbecause we no longer have any objective authority on what is right or wrong in the first place, ethicists must instead attempt to soothe the guilt of the masses by assuring them that everything they wish to do is ethical.
There are a few examples you will probably be familiar with. Peter Singer of Princeton is a so-called expert in bio-ethics who promotes infanticide as a moral way of dispensing with unwanted babies. The Journal of Medical Ethics featured an article advocating for the same thing back in 2012 with the charming title, After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live? Ethicists have also been called upon recently to justify euthanasia, assisted suicide, and other forms of mercy killing. Many seem happy to oblige, and cheerfully offer up evidence that the Judeo-Christian principles that formed the foundation of Western Civilization are hopelessly outdated. Killing the innocent used to be unethical, but it turns out we were wrong about that. More such discoveries are sure to follow.
And as ethicists discover that nothing is really wrong, things are getting weirder. Armin Navabi, the founder of Atheist Republic and the author of Why There Is No God as well as a co-host of the Secular Jihadist, tweeted yesterday that there are a few moral barriers in our society (now liberated from the belief in God and thus any concept of objective morality) that must fall. There is nothing wrong with incest if it can be guaranteed that it doesnt result in procreation, he wrote. This means that homosexual incest among consenting adults is okay and attempts to separate two sisters or two brothers who are attracted to each other are unethical.
As shocking as that sounds, this isnt the first time this has cropped up. In 2014 an Australian judge noted that pedophilia and incest might no longer be considered taboo, and noted that if a brother and sister should conceive, they could simply abort the baby. The same year, the National Ethics Council of Germany voted two-to-one to call for the decriminalization of incest, explaining that, Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo. The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family. Fortunately, Chancellor Angela Merkel ignored the advice of her ethicist luminaries.
And so it goes. Nothing is wrong anymore, and so everything must be right. The field of ethics has been, in many cases, reduced to a snarl of confusion as scholars attempt to justify the proclivities of a sex-crazy culture and the extermination of any hapless offspring that come into existence as the result of casual coitus. Infanticide, euthanasia, suicide, incestmore is sure to come. There are no brakes on this train, and I strongly suspect that we will not be happy with where it takes us.
Rationalization is not ethics. It is rationalization.
the sex positive agenda has been pushing for an end to moral judgments regarding sexual pairings of ANY kind for 7+ decades now. Most of their objectives have been reached. Then again they achieved a lot by 1972 and then retreated into the shadows for awhile because of public backlash.
That's why it's best not to complete seeking God in language, although language can be an effective tool to help someone develop the power to escape language. That is, language can be used to demonstrate its own lack of a extant tether to what's real.
Even the most accurate treasure map doesn't contain the gold to which it accurately points. Same with Truth and God. So if you study your map for 10000 years and find no gold, that doesn't mean the gold doesn't exist.
But back to this guy ... common fool ... on a road to Hell.
Oh, Lord, not this too! This cannot be seen as ‘acceptable’ ever. We know about the genetic damage + the moralistic damage. Both very extensive. No, this is not acceptable as a so called lifestyle.
Gemetic damage? Not a problem! Abortion leads the way! /s
Gee, who figured the homosexual revolution was going to lead to revolutions in pedophilia, real beastiality, incest and (gulp) polygamy?
Of course, the real invention was immoral sex, period, just for heteros. That paved the way for homos which paves the way for all the really weird stuff.
This is why you never trust “the experts” on anything! Period! If you have half a mind, do your own research and read widely.
Now, this is a no-brainer here. These so-called experts are flipping disgusting and should frankly be institutionalized away from society.
I hate to say it but with all the things we already accept and celebrate there is zero justification we can give to stop those who want to practice incest.
Not just "pairings" (i.e., two participants): "Groupings" consisting of three, four [cough - Islam - cough!], or more members must likewise be officially permitted and even approved!
The right to "cluster-f**k" must be upheld, and even taught in elementary school!
You are a bigot if you don't smilingly assent!
Well, that didn’t take long.
I’ve always thought that “ethics” were morals for people that didn’t have any.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.