Posted on 07/18/2017 10:32:11 AM PDT by Heartlander
One would think that by choosing that title, Coyne should restrict his discussions to questions of science that touch on questions and explanations about how and why life changes over time.
But Coyne–as many Darwinists do–takes the question beyond science, and extrapolates evolutionary theory into questions of morality, philosophy, and ethics.
And now, he is promoting the propriety of infanticide. From, “Should One be Allowed to Euthanize Severely Deformed or Doomed Newborns?”:
If you are allowed to abort a fetus that has a severe genetic defect, microcephaly, spina bifida, or so on, then why aren’t you able to euthanize that same fetus just after it’s born?
I see no substantive difference that would make the former act moral and the latter immoral.
After all, newborn babies aren’t aware of death, aren’t nearly as sentient as an older child or adult, and have no rational faculties to make judgments (and if there’s severe mental disability, would never develop such faculties). It makes little sense to keep alive a suffering child who is doomed to die or suffer life in a vegetative or horribly painful state.
Coyne makes the boringly predictable claim that since we euthanize our sick pets, we should also kill seriously ill and disabled babies. He then explains why he thinks the reasons we resist that meme are wrong, and indeed, irrational. From his blog:
The reason we don’t allow euthanasia of newborns is because humans are seen as special, and I think this comes from religion—in particular, the view that humans, unlike animals, are endowed with a soul.
It’s the same mindset that, in many places, won’t allow abortion of fetuses that have severe deformities. When religion vanishes, as it will, so will much of the opposition to both adult and newborn euthanasia.
Well, no. As I have written repeatedly, human exceptionalism can include religious views, but it definitely does not require them. As Coyne’s advocacy proves, once we reject human exceptionalism, universal human rights becomes unsustainable, and we move toward the manufacture of killable and exploitable castes of people, determined by the moral views of those with the power to decide.
Moreover, some of the most vociferous opponents of infanticide are disability rights activists–who are generally secular in outlook, liberal politically, and not pro-life on abortion. But they see the euthanasia and infanticide agendas as targeting people with disabilities. The advocacy of Coyne, Peter Singer (see below), and others of their materialistic ilk proves they are correct.
Besides, if allowable abortion is the lodestar, then any baby could be killed. At the very least, the killable categories of infants would include babies with Down syndrome, dwarfism, and even, cleft palate–all reasons given for late term abortion.
Adding heft to that argument, Coyne cites the advocacy of Singer to validate his own position. Singer believes all babies are killable as so-called human “non-persons,” and moreover, he has infamously used Down babies and newborns with hemophilia as examples of acceptable infanticide subjects.
Coyne concludes with the believe that contemporary times will be looked down upon as “brutal” for not allowing infanticide:
In the future we’ll look back on our present society and say, “How brutal not to have been allowed to do that.”
Coyne’s odious advocacy is the logical outcome of accepting the following premises:
Many scientists bemoan the fact that so many people refuse to accept evolution as a fact. Without getting into that controversy, perhaps they would be better off ruing the fact that ever since Darwin published The Origin of Species, so many of the promoters of that view also couple it with anti-humanism and a moral philosophy that was judged a crime against humanity at Nuremberg.
In the Darwinian view of humans as animals, what would cause us to stop practicing animal husbandry within our own species? Reduce the meaning of "human" to "just another animal", and eugenics is fair game. Scientific data for animal husbandry is well supported. Eugenics is only abhorrent to those who recognize that there is something transcendently special about humans.
(It should be noted here that we are talking about Darwinism not ‘evolution’ per se. I think that everyone agrees that random genetic changes occur in nature. Darwin put forth the idea that all life came from a single common ancestor and changed without design, goal, or purpose (i.e creator) and humans are merely another animal – and our brain and morality developed as such – as he put forth in Descent of Man – and On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life)
Natural selection and the birth, death and transformation of species over time (including the evolution of humans from common ancestors to apes 7 million years ago) either did or did not happen.
The “did-it-actually-happen-or-not” isn’t altered by or dependent on, or in any way related to how it might happen to affect morality in human behavior.
In other words, “people who believe in evolution behave worse than people who don’t” isn’t proof one way or the other of the factfullness of the theory of natural selection as understood in today’s biological sciences.
I have an issue with this.
They have very neatly defined "evolution" as "genetic change". And, yes, everyone knows that genetic change happens -- red hair, blue eyes, tall, short -- you can see genetic change in families all around you. And, since "genetic change" is a synonym for "evolution", therefore everyone now admits that "evolution is true".
No.
That oh-so-neat definition is designed to end the argument, and I don't accept it.
If "evolution" is at all interesting, then it needs to explain how one species becomes a different species. We're not talking about bacteria adapting to medicine and becoming resistant to that medicine. We're talking about dinosaurs becoming birds, or lions becoming leopards or whatever.
Science has a hard time settling on the definition of "species".
Science has a very hard time explaining how a species becomes a totally different species.
The notion that "genetic change" is simply "evolution" glosses over the science which is not really settled.
First thought that occurred to me as well. While Darwin is and should be deeply respected for what his studies contributed to science, his conclusions led to most of the terrors of the last century. The Eugenics movement isn’t the only direct result of Darwinism. Marxism, Communism, their cousins Fascism and Nazism, even the environmental movement’s neo-pagan worship of Gaia can find their roots in Darwin’s forceful disregard for the Creator in his studies of the Creation.
“Does Darwinism Lead to Infanticide Acceptance?”
I would have to say no because in the U.S., the majority of abortions are had by women who probably have not the slightest idea of what Darwinism is.
We abort millions of healthy fetuses and you make an issue of
aborting damaged ones?
I disagree. I would argue that their ignorance is no accident. The left has done it's job very well; they've removed God from the "classroom" (and public life in general) and replaced it with moral relativism.
The result? If giving birth to your child is inconvenient, abort it. And why not? If the woman is unaware that every human bears "the image of God", it becomes nothing more than so much "tissue" - it's life subject to the whim of the mother.
Hitler was clean-shaven except for his mustache.
Thus we know he used a razor.
Hitler created the Nazis.
Thus the invention of the razor created the Nazis.
(IOW: Not this sh!t again! Puhleeze, this is the worst sophomoric non sequitur. And that even grants you there is such science as “Darwinism”)
We abort millions of healthy fetuses and you make an issue of
aborting damaged ones?
Nothing in my post says anything about supporting any kind of abortion whatsoever.
I am against all abortions. Period.
A damaged fetus is not fit and is perfectly disposable in this mind set, a mind set that can be expanded to include those who do not think fitly either. That is to say that believing outside of what is politically acceptable could be declared to be unfit for the progressive development of society.
“I would argue that their ignorance is no accident. The left has done it’s job very well; they’ve removed God from the “classroom” (and public life in general) and replaced it with moral relativism.”
Seems like many would still believe but abort anyway, thinking they can always pray for forgiveness, and perhaps even be forgiven.
there is that pesky God given natural right to life thingy
Far be it from me to make any claim as to who should be forgiven, however, I do stand in trembling at this admonition:
"On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’"
Matt 7:22,23
Lord have mercy on us, that we are not amongst that number...
“Far be it from me to make any claim as to who should be forgiven,”
They may feel that they don’t have the time for investing in forgiveness and they probably wouldn’t think it fair that they should have so much patience in the first place. Some abort with no qualms and too many are giving birth to babies for the wrong reasons.
I think Singer has said he wanted to be able to abort up to two year olds.
Maybe not but the Judges that legalized abortion certainly do.
Perhaps, but it’s not the judges who are knocking them up. However, in some cases...
Evolution leads to much worse. I have lost all respect for Coyne as a philosophically clear thinker.
Evolution leads to much worse. I have lost all respect for Coyne as a philosophically clear thinker.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.