The logical case for infanticide

So, by now I hope you have done your "homework" and have read the section of the article I directed you to. If not, go ahead and do that now. We will wait.  :)

Some sick stuff, isn't it? What Professor Peter Singer proposes should shock the consciences of decent people everywhere. After all, he advocates the right of parents to kill their children after birth:

Infants lack [characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness]. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. {Singer is referring to animals, which he believes to have more rights than infants.}

and

[K]illing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.

So here's the part that may surprise you (although a lot of you picked up on this, too): My overriding thought was that Singer’s argument is logical! Check it out:

[I]n discussing abortion, we saw that birth does not mark a morally significant dividing line. I cannot see how one could defend the view that fetuses may be 'replaced' before birth, but newborn infants may not be. Nor is there any other point, such as viability, that does a better job of dividing the fetus from the infant. Self-consciousness, which could provide a basis for holding that it is wrong to kill one being and replace it with another, is not to be found in either the fetus or the newborn infant. 

In other words, he is saying that if abortion is okay, then so is infanticide. It’s the only logical stance, and he’s right. He is showing us where moral relativism leads.

Singer is a consistent, honest liberal who understands the implications of his beliefs, even calling out other liberals who try to insist that infanticide is fundamentally different from abortion. Instead, he rightly argues that infanticide and abortion are not different in the least, and that birth is an arbitrary line drawn by abortion proponents to make themselves feel a distinction where there is none. 

It goes without saying that I do not agree with Singer's premise, and his beliefs repulse me. But his utilitarian, atheistic worldview is clearly stated. Remember how I’ve said that I prefer clarity to agreement? Well, Singer has -- with clarity -- shown us the worldview which stands in opposition to the Christian worldview. 

Liberals talk a lot about compassion and tolerance and love and acceptance, but when their philosophy is played out to its logical conclusion, it doesn’t look so pretty anymore. 

Despite his shocking views (or perhaps because of them), Singer is a darling of the academic left and has received heaps of accolades. However, your average American liberal (i.e. the nice guy next door, or the girl who does your hair) doesn’t have a clue where liberal thought ultimately leads. That is why I am grateful that Professor Singer lays it out and tells the truth.

And that is why I am honestly grateful to Gwen for doing the same. 

It’s so important to keep having the dialogue so people can make an educated choice about which worldview they will adopt. As Pope John Paul II said repeatedly, it is a battle between the Culture of Life and the Culture of Death. And we really do have to pick a side. Even Singer himself acknowledged this when he said of Pope John Paul II: "I sometimes think that he and I at least share the virtue of seeing clearly what is at stake."

Singer sees it, John Paul II saw it, and we need to see it, too.