EDITORS' CORNER
Key Takeaways
- The article argues against the destruction of innocent human life, as exemplified by the recent celebration of the assassination of conservative figure Charlie Kirk by some academics, highlighting a disturbing trend in academia.
- It criticizes the development of genetic testing tools, like those from Herasight, which allow parents to screen and potentially destroy embryos based on their predicted health conditions, reinforcing a moral dilemma regarding the value of life.
- The author emphasizes that manageable conditions should not justify the termination of embryos and argues that consent or non-forceful actions do not render such practices moral, likening them to eugenics in principle.
OPINION
From time to time, it is sadly necessary to remind the campus death cult that it is wrong to destroy innocent human life.
The past few weeks have signaled that academia once again needs this reminder.
After the assassination two weeks ago of my former boss, Charlie Kirk, professors were left with three choices: condemn the killing of innocent human beings regardless of political views, not say anything at all, or celebrate the killing of an innocent human being.
Some chose the last option.
Professor Felicia Branch chose to remain a member of the campus death cult and share how she was “CELEBRATING” Kirk’s death. “[E]vil begets evil,” the University of Arkansas Little Rock law professor wrote, apparently blaming Kirk for his own death.
Southern University Professor Kelly Carmena, a fellow campus death cult member, said Kirk is not just “evil” but the “epitome of evil.”
“I will 1000% wish death on people like him,” she said.
Those are the more outright examples of celebrating the destruction of innocent human life.
Other professors are more subtle, deciding to put their time and effort into creating tools to help parents destroy innocent human-embryonic children. Under the guise of informing parents, companies like Herasight, profiled here, target the tiniest humans for killing.
Herasight is a genetic testing company developed by professors, including Alex Young at the University of California Los Angeles and former Duke University lecturer Jonathan Anomaly. Graduate students are involved as well.
In-vitro fertilization itself is a controversial practice, as is genetic testing, but for now it will work to just focus on what the tool tests for.
According to Herasight, its tool will be able to screen embryos for the possibility of Alzheimer’s, gout, glaucoma, inflammatory bowel disease, and breast cancer. Parents using IVF will then presumably use this tool to decide to destroy some of the “extra” embryos created through the process.
Some of these are serious conditions, but the logic behind the tool is itself flawed, even if you have no problem in general with genetic testing and abortion.
Let’s take something like gout.
It’s a pain, but usually manageable with some dietary changes, like not drinking alcohol or red meat. What the proponents of this tool are saying is that it is morally acceptable to help a parent kill their own human-embryonic child because it might, at some point in the future, develop a condition that can be managed by drinking less beer.
Other diseases, such as breast cancer, are thankfully treatable right now. Presumably treatment and survival rates will continue to improve in the decades to come.
Some of the other predictions are frankly absurd, such as claiming the tool can predict the likelihood an embryo will develop Alzheimer’s in 70 or 80 years.
Even if the tool could prove 100 percent accuracy it would still present moral problems because it involves the killing of innocent human beings. Advocates claim that their practice is not the same as eugenics because the killing is not forced.
However, consent alone does not make something moral. And the killing is in fact forced on the innocent human-embryonic children who are tossed in the trash because of Herasight’s tool.
The value of all human life is something the members of the campus death cult either don’t understand or choose to ignore. To make it easier for them, a good rule to remember is this – all lives matter and are worthy of protection from conception through natural death.
MORE: Portland State U. teaches ‘anti-bias’ curriculum in its daycare
