The flagship newspaper of Utilitarianism never disappoints. In its latest edition, The Economist makes the case for fair trade human reproduction. It argues that it is time for a system that allows the “commissioning parents” of a surrogate child to prove that it was “obtained legally and fairly”.
Cold calculus is stock-in-trade for The Economist. If John Stuart Mill had a test-tube baby, it would be The Economist and its Benthamite dogmas.
We should pay attention to it because it is the Bible of the Davos set, and that elite is the locomotive force for the globalist zeitgeist.
Surrogate pregnancies are the means to an end, which is to provide children lifestyle ornaments to every modern permutation of “family”. In this brave new world the child starts and enters life as mere property — ink on paper if it’s lucky, but often just words between buyer and seller mediated by a broker.
The dozens of brothers and sisters conceived in vitro are much worse off, but morality is never the concern in the article. The siblings are as invisible as they are inconvenient. They are by-product chattel to be discarded or left in suspended animation according to the whims of the most ruthless form of primogeniture ever devised.
Worshiping at the altar of algorithms that nudge human behavior and action, The Economist has fetishized humans as biochemical developments with an unfortunate emotional evolutionary inheritance, which indulges religion and other vestigial psycho-social deformities.
It is hostile to any religious morality even as the newspaper demands that its own creeds be embraced for moral reasons.
When it is not fawning over mercantile motherhood, it is extolling the end or circumvention of human life in the name of a greater good.
In the April 29th edition, The Economist threw open its straw men closet in an article about birth control in Nigeria. We are warned that failing to embrace the cult of birth control leaves you one turban short of joining Islamist terror outfit Boko Haram.
There are only “modernisers and obscurantists”, declaims the author, who insists that national prosperity is accomplished through low fertility rates, which beget more education, especially for girls.
It is an insidious, technocratic nihilism that has left the likes of Russia, Germany, France, Japan, and China in demographic crisis. Rich nations on the verge of extinction are highly prized in this age, despite the admonitions of Mt 6:24 and Lk 12:16-21.
The lead article in that same edition of April 29th was about addressing death’s cost-benefit curve. To illustrate the piece, a wilted rose adorned the cover. In other words, humans are of value only until they have lost their bloom, and then it’s time to compost them. “A better death means a better life, right until the end,” reads the homily.
In a companion survey, it found that people place a high value on “being at spiritual peace” before they die. It’s the material issue, yet the newspaper is unable to address it since it does not have a place on a curve.
The Economist has excised any capacity to apprehend mortality because mortality is to bring sin, suffering, and salvation into focus. It has no comprehension or need of such quaint anachronisms.
That is why we should be terrified of the implications of the artificial womb.
The Economist marveled at the results of a Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia experiment sustaining lamb fetuses in plastic bags for 23 weeks. The plan is to one-day use these artificial wombs to allow very premature babies to get closer to full-term, which would be a good thing.
Who doubts, however, that in the world of poorly supervised and regulated embryonic research, there are not already humans being “grown” in similar ways?
We already know that for-profit embryonic organ and tissue trafficking is rife in the US, despite its illegality. We already know that you can carve up babies with near impunity. There is little reason, consequently, to be confident that private, and even government funded laboratories, are not already conceiving humans for no other reason than to destroy them for spare parts or better research specimens.
The Utilitarians and their Pragmatist brethren represented by The Economist wish to change the perceived value of human life from a bell curve to one that looks more like the one at the bottom. Artificial wombs are a way to get there, and they are skilled at getting us to agree with them. Lord, have mercy.