Infanticide Goes Mainstream and Why Prolife Arguments Need an Update

LifeSiteNews ^ | 2/22/08 | John Jalsevac

[wagglebee]

February 22, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - There was a time, not so long ago, when pro-lifers, in an effort to galvanize the apathetic, would recount to them the disturbing opinions of a certain Princeton professor, Peter Singer, who, amongst other things, has long held that it is ethical to kill disabled newborn children.

For instance, in a 2006 interview Singer was asked point-blank: "Would you kill a disabled baby?" His response? "Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole."

"Many people find this shocking," he continued, "yet they support a woman's right to have an abortion. One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that, from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby." 

At the very least one should commend Singer for his logic, particularly for his disowning of the modern superstition that at birth a fetus somehow transmogrifies into a wholly new creature. If it's ok to kill a fetus, then it's ok to kill a newborn, Singer argues, there being no qualitative distinction between a fetus and a newborn, but only an accidental difference of position - within or without the womb. And any clear-headed logician would affirm that the conclusion follows neatly upon the premise, assuming the premise is true. 

But never mind that. The point is that, for a while anyway, and in the not so distant past, Peter Singer was the lone, wild figure standing on the farthest fringe of the ethics community, shunned by social conservatives and liberals alike - by the former as the very mouthpiece of evil, the very embodiment of the Culture of Death, and by the latter as much "too extreme".

* * * 

It is a funny thing, though, about the social left, with its ever fluid notion of truth and blind faith in the goodness of "progress" and "change", that an opinion that is one day deemed "too extreme", very soon becomes "edgy," and then "progressive" and, before you know it, "acceptable" or "ethical".

And so for pro-life activists it comes as no surprise that Singer's once-appalling opinions about infanticide have now jumped firmly into the mainstream, with the publication of a sober, though enthusiastic 10-page defense of newborn euthanasia in the prestigious journal of bioethics, the Hastings Center Report. With the appearance of this article, entitled "Ending the Life of a Newborn", infanticide has become no longer, "extreme", nor "edgy", but sits somewhere on the cusp of "progressive" and "ethical".

It is true that for the time being this may only be strictly true within the more educated, elite circles of the left; but history has proven time and again that ideas that gain momentum in the world's ivory towers inevitably filter down to the public. In this, the digital age, the age of communication, this process takes place at a breathtaking rate.

For the time being it is true that most people will continue to be appalled at the notion of newborn euthanasia; but, unless the acceptance of legalized infanticide amongst the leftist elite is vigorously fought with the proper intellectual and propagandist weapons, the idea will soon begin to be acceptable to the "man on the street" as well. Unless fought, the idea of infant euthanasia will filter down from the journals of bioethics to the newspapers and the news channels, in the same process of supersaturation and normalization that saw homosexuality go from being perceived as a grave crime against nature, society, and oneself, to perfectly normal, even commendable, in a little over a decade.

* * *

What really struck me, however, as I was reading the Hastings Center piece (besides, of course, the hard-to-ignore fact that the authors were defending killing newborn infants, including those who weren't suffering yet, but probably would suffer in the future) is how ill prepared we are to respond to the arguments presented by the authors. It seems to me that the pro-life movement is somewhat behind the times in its approach to responding to the core principles of the Culture of Death, especially in its newest incarnations.
While much of the pro-life movement continues to desperately try to prove to the opposition that the fetus is human, by showing pictures of the unborn child, or proving that the fetus can feel pain, the whole pro-death movement has moved on. With the advent of embryonic research, assisted reproduction technologies, and now infant euthanasia, the pro-life movement has simply attempted to adopt and adapt old arguments for a whole new fight, which calls to mind that old Scripture quote about new wine in old wineskins. 

"Human life," we point out time after time, "is a continuity that begins at conception and continues through to the moment of natural death, and since it is wrong to kill an adult, it is also wrong to kill a child, born or unborn."  

But this just won't do any more.

The cameras inserted into the womb have proven beyond a doubt that the uterus is not a twilight zone that suddenly transforms a formless blob of inhuman tissue into a hearty, healthy baby at the moment of birth. And hence it is somewhat condescending to our opponents to assume that the they are just so plain stupid that they can't tell that the fetus looks, acts, and feels like a human, and is a human, albeit in its nascent stage of development.

What we seem to have failed to recognize, therefore, at least with the necessary clarity, is that the humanity or inhumanity of the fetus is often no longer the issue - at least, not within the elite spheres of the pro-death movement. The pro-death movement has evolved into a subtler, more radical, and much more dangerous form, a form that requires new intellectual weapons to fight.

* * *

This whole issue of sanctioned infant murder, as explicitly espoused by the Groningen Protocol, is a dramatic case in point. Nowhere in The Groningen Protocol, and nowhere in Lindmann and Verkerk's extensive study of the protocol, do the authors demand that physicians determine whether or not the newborn child is "human". Nor do they attempt to determine of the child is a "person". Both the humanity and personhood of the child are taken for granted. Indeed, on several occasions the authors equate the unborn child with a newborn child, and both of these with grown adults.

Hence, no matter how watertight our arguments for the humanity of the fetus or the newborn child are, they would do nothing to counteract the arguments of Lindemann and Verkerk, which are based, not upon the child's humanity, but upon the issue of "quality of life".

As Wesley Smith writes, "It wasn't many years ago that almost everyone accepted that infanticide is intrinsically and inherently wrong. No more. With personhood theory and the 'quality of life' ethic increasingly permeating the highest levels of the medical and bioethical intelligentsia, we are moving toward a medical system in which babies are put down like dogs and killing is redefined as compassion."

It is not the intent of this editorial to formulate a response to these theories mentioned by Smith, but only to highlight them as significant, and requiring a serious and intelligent response. These terrifyingly subtle "personhood" and "quality of life" arguments require the full attention of pro-lifers, and especially a new generation of serious pro-life intellectuals and apologists. 

If we do not study and learn to devastate these theories at their most fundamental intellectual and spiritual core, then we will be left helpless and unprepared to respond as the pro-death movement increasingly uses them to justify embryonic research, destructive assisted reproduction technologies, infant euthanasia, and, inevitably, across the board legalized suicide, assisted suicide, involuntary adult euthanasia and who knows what else in the future.

[wagglebee]

If we do not study and learn to devastate these theories at their most fundamental intellectual and spiritual core, then we will be left helpless and unprepared to respond as the pro-death movement increasingly uses them to justify embryonic research, destructive assisted reproduction technologies, infant euthanasia, and, inevitably, across the board legalized suicide, assisted suicide, involuntary adult euthanasia and who knows what else in the future.

Unfortunately, he's right, the culture of death is gaining more power every day.

[wagglebee]

Pro-Life Ping

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[wagglebee]

Ping

[Flash Bazbeaux]

Hey, the Nazis were on to this years ago. This article makes it sound like the idea of infanticide is something new.

[wintertime]

the very embodiment of the Culture of Death,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I call them the “Death Eaters”!

[NoLibZone]

Is McCane for this?

Is this even an issue with conservatives any longer?

[exit82]

And to think, it was only 75 years ago the Nazis came to power.

One lifetime.

Their philosophies have only taken 63 years to take root in our beloved country. If you start with Roe v. Wade in 1973, then it only took 27 plus years.

[MississippiMan]

This article, disturbing but accurate, is a manifestation of just how far this society has fallen. And continues to fall, day by day. And IMO, it also brings home the most unfortunate reality that the GOP in its current state is no longer capable of putting up an effective fight against the rot of liberalism. The country has grown more liberal by the day, no matter how much of the government was controlled by the allegedly conservative GOP. Conservatism, as led by the current GOP, has been retreating in the face of liberalism.

The real problem goes far beyond the political realm, of course.

MM (in TX)

[MizSterious]

You only need one argument for most: pictures of the wee one in the womb. These new pics speak much more eloquently than anything I can think of to say. (And I know of at least TWO cases personally where these pics have save three little lives—one set of twins, and a single baby.)

[Anti-Hillary]

Obama SUPPORTS infanticide!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read this: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24481

[Clintonfatigued]

That is absolutely terrifying.

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

Interesting reading can be found at Wesley Smith's own website as well!

[redgolum]

The trouble is, to argue with someone that killing a baby is wrong, you both first have to have the idea that killing anyone for no reason is wrong. For someone like Singer, that is not even an issue. And that is the problem we are facing. Life beyond one's self is not viewed as "real" to many of this culture.

[wagglebee]

And IMO, it also brings home the most unfortunate reality that the GOP in its current state is no longer capable of putting up an effective fight against the rot of liberalism. The country has grown more liberal by the day, no matter how much of the government was controlled by the allegedly conservative GOP. Conservatism, as led by the current GOP, has been retreating in the face of liberalism.

The Whig Party of the early-to-mid 19th Century totally lost track of it's purpose and went rapidly downhill after the deaths of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster in 1852. By 1856 they collapsed over slavery and the southern Whigs mainly went to the Democrats and most of the rest formed the GOP. Within four years the GOP elected Lincoln president and the GOP (aided by the Civil War and Reconstruction) became the dominant party for the next several decades.

Today the GOP has abandoned its conservative roots and has become a slightly more moderate version of the Democrats. I'm all for seeing a new Conservative Party take hold on a national level; it will be bad for several years, but at least we will all be on the same page.

[Cicero]

Infanticide and bestiality both went mainstream when Princeton University offered a distinguished chair to Professor Peter Singer. I think Princeton should be held accountable.

[HoosierHawk]

Isn’t this “quality-of-life” issue really an attempt to appeal to the emotions of a secular, socialist society to more easily accept the elimination of the weak in an effort to help curb the burgeoning costs of the government-provided health care of those countries?

[KansasGirl]

Infant euthanasia, across the board legalized suicide, assisted suicide, involuntary adult euthanasia coupled with socialized medicine is a scary, scary proposition.

[ME-262]

In a twisted turn of events, as people become more sinful the only way our culture remains half righteous is that the worst among us who kill their own children have to continually convert the children of the righteous among us to their evil since they have not raised up their own heirs. If we train up our children to fight against this moral decay we could slowly gain a foothold by attrition. However we need to get the barren hippies out of our institutions of learning where they seek to convert our kids into theirs.

[SamuraiScot]

The pro-death movement has evolved into a subtler, more radical, and much more dangerous form, a form that requires new intellectual weapons to fight.

As with the Nazis, the Soviets, and for that matter the Aztecs, defeating the modern pro-death movement requires weapons beyond the intellectual ones. But intellectual weapons are the point of the spear.