This attitude manifests itself in regard, for instance, to racism for example, where a modern progressive might criticize the slavery of a couple of centuries ago as if they would have known and acted better had they been a member of that society.
It shows today in the attitude of certain western churches in matters of sexual morality. The vast majority of African Christians object to the growing western movement to normalize homosexual sexual activity and bless its unions. But more, "progressive" westerners consider these people backward savages, not nearly enlightened as they.
It showed in the eugenics movement, popular among liberals of the early twentieth century, who seemed to consider certain handicapped people as somehow less human than they, and therefore in need of elimination from our society.
It even shows more recently in the call for abortions as a means to reduce the human carbon footprint. It seems fair to me that these people, if they are so concerned about reducing population, should think about eliminating themselves from the equation as a first gesture. But no, as in much of the "green" movement, it's always others who are asked to make the sacrifice.
But now, it seems to me, this attitude of superiority has reared its ugly head in a new and particularly sinister way.
Vaginal HIV gel fails to cut risk From Here...
A major trial of a vaginal microbicide has produced no evidence that its use reduces the risk of HIV infection in women.
It was tested in a trial involving 9,385 women in four African countries.
The risk of HIV infection was not significantly different among women supplied with the gel than in women given a placebo gel.
Lead researcher Dr Sheena McCormack, of the Medical Research Council, which part-funded the study, said: "This result is disheartening.
Professor Jonathan Weber, from Imperial College London, who also took part in the study, said: "It is unfortunate that this microbicide is ineffective at preventing HIV infection, but it's still vital for us as scientists to continue to look for new ways of preventing HIV.
This raises a number of disturbing points:
- This test involved exposing actual human beings (yes, liberals, even Africans are as human as you are) to exposure to a fatal disease.
- It involved over 9000 women, presumably half of whom were given an unproven product which was hoped (!) would prevent infection from this fatal disease, the other half of whom were given a placebo, that the researchers knew would provide no protection at all!!!
- These women would have neccessarily been ones who the researchers knew were not yet infected. Then they were, presumably, encouraged to participate in the very practice that the researchers knew would put them at risk of contracting this disease.
The only way the researchers would know that the results were, "disappointing" was that many of these previously uninfected women became infected, and that an equal number from each group suffered infection.
All of which begs the question; did Dr Sheena McCormack, of the Medical Research Council volunteer herself to be a part of this test? Did Professor Jonathan Weber, from Imperial College London volunteer his wife or daughter for the same?
Sad, of course, that this research has to be done at all.
H/t Catholic Culture via mcj