“The position that allows abortion also allows infanticide under some circumstances. . . . If we accept abortion, we do need to rethink some of those more fundamental attitudes about human life”

So argues Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer, who openly advocates for infanticide post delivery to spare society the great cost of caring for the disabled. You know, just in case those docs don’t catch ’em all in utero. Fun guy, huh?

He’s right, by the way. The society that accepts abortion as the moral norm has no qualms with infanticide. Maybe that gives me hope post-Gosnell that since we (well, some of us) are still capable of outrage, maybe we have a chance to roll it all back.

Singer, however, makes the point in hope of continuing the moral decay and pushing it just a tiny bit further so as to allow post-delivery infanticide. If we can kill the fetuses, why not kill the infants? He says children have no “moral center” until the age of 2, therefore it’s ok to kill ’em. (Virginia Ironsides would agree).

Read Wesley Smith for the rest, including why we must be careful with our language in combatting the likes of Singer. A taste:

Defenders of Peter Singer like to say that his critics are just too dull to understand what he is really saying. As proof, Singer’s defenders note that opponents of his views often compare him to Hitler. And it is true: Some are so appalled by his advocacy for the permissibility of infanticide that they reflexively wield der Führer’s bones as relics of evil against him, thinking the analogy a sure-fire argument winner. It isn’t. Singer is not a Nazi. Moreover, most people today roll their eyes at any and all Hitler comparisons as hyperbolic clichés. Besides, the infanticide Holocaust that took place in Germany between 1939 and 1945 was more the poisonous fruit of decades of eugenics advocacy than it was the result of tyrannical political leadership.

Also note: The language of eugenics was harsh and hate-filled, e.g., “the fit versus the unfit,” calling babies with disabilities “weeds,” and the like. In contrast, Singer and his supporters don’t spout vilification of “useless eaters” from the rooftop. Instead, they speak passively and seemingly ooze compassion, which effectively shields them against widespread censure. Alas, in our unprincipled, postmodern era, one can support (and engage in) the most odious actions and still be praised—so long as the actions are justified as prevention of suffering. If you doubt it, just look at the recent rehabilitation of Jack Kevorkian—who wanted to experiment on people being euthanized2—yet was the subject of a recent fawning HBO biopic in which he was portrayed by Al Pacino.

What else would Singer consider the norm for ending the life of a baby? Susceptibility to diabetes? Alcoholism? Homosexuality? Wrong sex? Crooked nose? No hair? Just sayin’.

The abortion-ain’t-cool-but-those-gay-folks-sure-are attitude at CPAC reminded me of a movie I saw a while ago, the type of movie you see on obscure channels on Sunday afternoons. It was about a woman who receives a diagnosis from her geneticist husband that their baby (excuse me, fetus) would likely be gay. Dad wants to abort it. Mom struggles because her brother is gay, but of course the family doesn’t accept him. Quite the drama. And it reminded me of something Rush said eons ago: if there ever were a test for pre-natal diagnosis of homosexuality, gays would jump on the pro-life wagon as fast as they could.

Maybe then it would be cool to be pro-life, right?


9 Responses

  1. […] “The position that allows abortion also allows infanticide under some circumstances. . . . If we a… Share this:TwitterRedditFacebookEmailLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]

  2. One other thing. To call Singer a “bioethicist” is to participate in double speak. There is nothing ethical about any of it.

  3. PJ, this may have been your best blog ever! I was outraged when I first heard of Singer but now post Gosnell I’m even more outraged that he’s taken seriously in some quarters. Afterall, what’s the difference between a baby in the womb and one out of the womb? Nothing. If you can find reasons to kill it while still in the womb then the same reasons apply after it’s out of the womb. To a purely rationalist mind, there is no difference.

  4. My lefty brother is a HUGE Peter Singer fan. My brother is also nuts and I haven’t spoken to him in a year and a half.

    I got one of Singer’s books from the library and was beyond appalled!

    • I will have to check it out, too, though I have a weird thing about library books (not cds!). They just feel … dirty (I promise I don’t have OCD. Just a Virgo lol!)

      I can’t imagine dinner conversation would be much fun when you know where someone’s beliefs truly stand. An open admiration of Singer would signal such. I have the same problem with some family members, too.

  5. […] Junkie Mom lays out where that slippery slope ultimately, and inescapably leads! So argues Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer, who openly advocates for infanticide post delivery […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: