” A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy” : Why atheists / secularists kill innocent human beings as “rights”.

” A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy”

…. Wesley J Smith…

In addition to  the depravities  they claim “rights” to in  private, secularists  claim “rights”  to killing innocent human beings – born or  unborn.

Of  course  these  so-called  “rights”  have  been developed  to  serve  the  secularists’  utilitarian approach to  “morality”  which  is  to  maximize  pleasure  and  minimize  discomfort.  If  this  approach  means  decapitating  unborn children its  “all good”  because  “mum”  may  need  to  get  back  her  bikini  body  to go  to  the beach.

Secularists  take this  approach  because  in their  atheist world view  a  boy  has  no  more  inherent value  than a  rat, a pig  or  a dog.



In the article  below  Dr. Kay Bailey  helps  the Jamaican population  understand   the secular  world view,  its  implications , objectives  and  outcomes. 

xxxx  E N D S  xxxx


Atheism In Public Policy: ‘A Rat Is A Pig Is A Dog Is A Boy’

Published: Sunday | March 9, 20141 Comment

Michael Eldridge (left) holds a dog at Chicago's Animal Care and Control facility while Adrian Densmore conducts a euthanasia exercise. Kay Bailey argues that the moral relativity emphasised by atheists, including a blasé view on euthanasia, poses grave danger to society's soul. - MCT
Michael Eldridge (left) holds a dog at Chicago’s Animal Care and Control facility while Adrian Densmore conducts a euthanasia exercise. Kay Bailey argues that the moral relativity emphasised by atheists, including a blasé view on euthanasia, poses grave danger to society’s soul. – MCT

Dr Kay Bailey, Guest Columnist

On March 2, 2014, King Philippe of Belgium signed into law a controversial measure permitting children of all ages to receive voluntary euthanasia on request. The conditions under which this is permitted include terminal illness, pain and suffering. A similar law has been in existence in the Netherlands for the last decade for children over 12 years, while the Groningen protocol (2004) provides guidelines for the euthanasia of severely ill newborns.

These laws seem so diametrically opposed to our instinctive empathy for children, and to the role of doctors, that one may well wonder what is the foundation for such policies.

Such policies are based on the responses to philosophical questions that have always engaged human beings. From the beginning of time, men have looked to the heavens and asked themselves how the universe came into being. There are fundamentally only two possible answers.

The first is that the universe – its origin, structure and existence – can all be explained by undirected natural phenomena. The other view is that the universe owes its origin, structure and existence to an intelligent and powerful creator.

There is currently no available scientific test, nor is there ever likely to be, that can establish without a doubt the veracity of either of these axiomatic claims. (An axiom is a truth claim that is believed but cannot be proven by experiment). As such, the validity of both claims must be assessed based on a comparison of the logical outcomes of each option on the issues of morality, human rights and free will.


The fact that we all recognise some actions as evil should lead us to contemplate the likely source of these moral ideas. A moral law should be a transcendent, objective, universal and timeless standard that is no respecter of persons regardless of human differences.

The existence of a moral law presumes the existence of a moral lawgiver. If there is an intellect who designed the universe and instituted the laws of physics, chemistry and biology, the character of this creator would also be the source of moral laws to govern the interaction of all human beings with each other and with the non-human creation.

If, however, the universe is all there is, without a single, objective standard on which to differentiate right and wrong, good and evil, everything is permissible. ‘Morality’ will become what is actually permitted by the most powerful in society, however that power is defined.


If the universe owes its existence to undirected natural phenomena, man is just another species of animal. Without a unique, inherent value to distinguish man from any other organism, there is no grounding for fundamental human rights.

If there is a creator or intellect who designed man and gave him abilities not found in other organisms, man is more than just another animal. His peculiar abilities endow him with a higher value and greater accountability for the use of those unique abilities.

Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University denies any such intrinsic value or dignity in human beings, and denounces such a claim as ‘specieism’. He supports abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, yet objects – on the basis of animal rights – to the killing of animals for food.


The third implication of a creator-less universe is that man himself, his thoughts and his actions are entirely the results of chemical, biological and physical interactions. In other words, man is fully determined. The absence of free will would have serious implications for the justice system, for how can you penalise someone for an action over which he had no control? The concept of ‘determinism’ is difficult for many persons to accept, but its logic is increasingly accepted by atheists. To quote Richard Dawkins, “DNA neither cares nor knows, DNA just is, and we dance to its music.”

It is generally held that laws governing society are based on the existence of both morality and free will. That is, one ought to do what is good, and the penalty for doing what is not good serves to achieve a desired end. Without a universal basis for defining what is good and without free will, the foundations for law are removed. The law itself becomes arbitrary, or serves the purposes of the powerful, but even arbitrary laws will have a social impact and may produce harmful outcomes.

In considering the Belgian euthanasia law, it could be argued that such a law was passed because the lawmakers did not acknowledge an objective, transcendent standard of right or wrong, and that the decision was purely utilitarian. (Utilitarianism seeks to maximise pleasure and minimise discomfort). As a result, the feelings of the child and the convenience of the parents and/or the State became the determining factors. Did it matter that many Belgian doctors told their Parliament that advanced palliative care is available to make the child’s life more comfortable? Is a child’s life still of value even though he or she has a terminal illness?

The logical inference from a creator-less viewpoint – an atheistic viewpoint – is that the child has no higher inherent value than the family pet that is often euthanised if it is in pain. The Belgian law is, therefore, a logical reflection of public policy made from an atheistic philosophical foundation that denies absolute morality and ultimate meaning. Wesley J. Smith encapsulates this implied moral equivalence between the value and dignity of human and animal lives as “a rat is a pig is dog is a boy”.

Every consideration of public policy must be preceded by a determination of its philosophical foundation. All laws are founded on some philosophy and have a desired end. Moral neutrality is a myth.

Dr Kay Bailey is a member of the Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and jchsadvocate@gmail.com.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s