By Matthew Archbold
This time, he reportedly compared disabled children to deformed lambs that need to be culled. In an interview with none other than the Disability News Service, Councillor (yeah, they spell it that way) Brewer said that perhaps we should be treating disabled children like the runt of a litter of lambs which are often disposed of by smashing them against the wall.
"If they have a misshapen lamb, they get rid of it," he said. "They get rid of it. Bang."
Bang? That's sound fiscal policy, huh? And that's what it is, according to Brewer. He said that disabled people are just too expensive to care for so some may just have to go.
"We are just animals," Brewer continued. "You can’t have lambs running around with five legs and two heads. It would be put down, smashed against the wall and be dealt with." I always love when people say humans are just animals because the next sentence out of their mouths usually goes a long way toward proving it.
When asked if there was any difference between killing a lamb or a human being he simply said, according to Disability News, "I think the cost has got to be evaluated."
"It is not something I would like to do but there is only so much in the bucket," he reportedly said. "If you are talking about giving services to the community or services to the individual, the balance has got to be struck."
Now, you might just say that it's just one crazy old dude so who cares. But here's the thing -- he was just re-elected earlier this month to his old seat. That means that being pro-infanticide and culling the disabled is no longer a deal breaker in European politics. Sure, he may be eccentric but he's just fighting to keep taxes down, right? And if there's a fiscal problem it's not really a fiscal problem at all, it's just a wall shortage. Because remember, every fiscal disaster is just an opportunity to cull.
And who is the enemy? Those who stand between them and the wall.
And please don't think that it's just a European thing. We all just went through the Kermit Gosnell trial and the Live Action videos that showed killing babies outside the womb may not be as rare as we were led to believe.
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel who acted as a special health advisor to President Obama, reportedly said in 1996: "Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed."
Who judges who is a participant, I wonder? And how much participation is warranted for treatment?
New Hampshire’s Martin Harty, a freshman state legislator, resigned from office after saying he wished “defective people” could be exiled and left to die in Siberia. Still unclear if he understood that Siberia is not in the U.S., but geography is not really the main problem here, is it?
And who can forget that just a few years ago Supreme Court Justice Ruth Vader Ginsburg told the New York Times that "at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."
Two questions arise. Who is the "we" and who are those we don't want to have too many of.
No position is so radical in the 21st century as the radical commitment to love. No belief is so derided as the belief that every life is sacred. Maybe it has always been this way. Maybe it always will be. But whether it's in the name of racial purity or economic well-being, it ends up with some at the wall. Bang.