Infanticide is unthinkable, right?

Everyone but a few nutty extremists is appalled and nauseated by infanticide. No reasonable person is calling for it to be legalized. Is it possible that infanticide is the coming battle? Sure it is. To see thirty years forward, remember thirty years back, and recall what used to be unthinkable. People have become comfortable, and are getting comfortable, with surprising things. As people get comfortable with euthanasia, infanticide will increasingly be promoted. Of course it won’t be called “infanticide,” but

“Already we have seen a vast array of philosophical arguments put forward for it by Peter Singer. Last year there was a big hoopla when two Melbourne academics advocated that new born infants are not persons and infants are not therefore not entitled to the protection that personhood conveys. More recently, the spate of ‘post-birth abortions’ performed in Philadelphia has provoked outrage, though much of the media has deliberately muted their response.[see Balance and Bias] Added to that, Planned Parenthood has recently defended infanticide: If you pay money, you are owed a dead baby! I think infanticide is a logically consistent corollary of abortion. If you are going to terminate a child in utero, then let’s be honest, going six inches down the birth canal can hardly change the infant’s legal rights or ontological status. So infanticide is just a logical outworking of abortion. But a cruel, bastardly, and barbaric logic is still cruel, bastardly, and barbaric regardless of how internally consistent it is.” — Infanticide: The Coming Battle, by Michael F. Bird

There comes to be a slippery slope when the logic that got you to one point takes you to the next point. There really is no bottom. It’s just perpetual decent.

The situation isn’t hopless. Seeing it coming, there are things we can do to get ahead of the “Barbarians with Law degrees from Harvard.” The first thing, and maybe the most difficult, is to clearly understand, and reject, the logic that’s been driving us downhill.

Advertisements

4 Replies to “Infanticide is unthinkable, right?”

    1. Yes; sentiment seems to be moving against abortion, but maybe in favor of euthanasia. That suggests they’ll try to present infanticide as a form of mercy killing. Bird makes a good point about getting inside their decision loop. It would be good if we could take the initiative and set the terms of the debate.

  1. “That suggests they’ll try to present infanticide as a form of mercy killing.”

    Yes, I have heard the argument that it’s better for a child to die than to live with a disability, or to live with parents who don’t want him. But that’s irrelevant. It’s a lie and a distraction.

    At least in the case of a child produced with the “wrong” person, the parents (the mom, I guess) see that they’ve done a terrible thing and want to take it back. They see, all of a sudden, that’s it’s monstrous to make anyone live with the consequences. And it is, but there you go. Now, in the case of a child who might be born with some kind of terrible disorder, well, I can’t say much. Killing the poor baby is just beyond disgusting. They are lying to themselves if they say they’re trying to spare the child.

    1. Yes, I have heard the argument that it’s better for a child to die than to live with a disability, or to live with parents who don’t want him. But that’s irrelevant. It’s a lie and a distraction.

      Like the “it’s a parasite, not a person” claim isn’t?

      Dehumanzing someone so you can kill them does generally involve a lot of lies and hand-waving.

      Same way that “mercy killing” is more about the ease of life for those who aren’t sick.

Comments are closed.