The fundamental inability to prioritize the sanctity of human life on the part of progressives has struck again. California Governor Gavin Newsom has allocated some $50 million toward ending euthanasia for pets according to the Sacramento Bee:
Specifically, Newsom’s budget calls for a $50 million one-time general fund allocation to the UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program to develop a grant program for animal shelters, with a goal of helping local communities “achieve the state’s policy goal that no adoptable or treatable dog or cat should be euthanized,” according to the budget summary.
Though the idea of “no kill” animal shelters is not without merit, it’s maddening to witness the constant devaluing of human life among progressives like Newsom amid so many crises we’re confronted with on a societal level. Infanticide masquerades as a cause, the addiction epidemic continues to fester, and a profound sense of hopelessness grows unabated.
More to the point, when it comes to actual human beings, euthanasia is now actively encouraged in California.
As the National Review reports:
Ironically, as the governor works to save animals from death, California not only legalized assisted suicide but allows encouraging suicide to the terminally ill, and moreover, promulgated a regulation granting access to doctor-prescribed death to dying patients who are involuntarily committed in psychiatric hospitals due to mental illness.
However, it should all come as no surprise considering progressives have deconstructed morality, tradition, and the very idea of sanctity into oblivion. Their values are completely at the mercy of whim and fancy. Worse, these values often corrode into monstrous proclamations.
Take contemporary philosopher Peter Singer. Singer, a lauded professor of bioethics at Princeton, is notorious for such vile and outlandish statements as the following in his very own FAQ found on his website:
Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.
Singer is not only an ardent advocate for abortion, he actually dehumanizes newborn infants as well. This is nothing short of madness.
But wait, there’s more! Singer considers the very notion of the sanctity of life to be a worn, outdated ideal as he states in his very opening line for a piece in Foreign Policy:
During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments. By 2040, it may be that only a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists will defend the view that every human life, from conception to death, is sacrosanct.
Again, Singer is a highly influential philosopher and a professor at one of the world’s most prestigious universities. He’s even considered by many to be one of the world’s most highly regarded ethicists today.
One is reminded of how necessary and vital something as deceptively simple as Thomas Aquinas’ Great Chain of Being remains. At the very least, it offered some semblance of meaning and coherence to existence. One could find a secure foothold in the grand scheme of things. More importantly, human life was afforded sanctity and proper dignity and not relegated to the bottom of the barrel as so many secular progressives insist upon doing. That’s not hyperbole or political pandering either. The foul dogma from the likes of Singer proves it. Worse, progressive politicians like Gavin Newsom keep falling for it, hook, line, and sinker.