The Return to Moloch’s Furnace
At The European Conservative, I have a report on the battle in Malta to keep abortion illegal—Malta is the last nation in the EU that completely bans killing children in the womb: “Old Europe’s Fight To Save Its Young.”
In 2017, Dr. Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago complained that the residual effects of Christianity were holding Western civilization back. How? It was Christian ethics, he said, that were preventing legal infanticide from making a comeback.
“The reason we don’t allow euthanasia of newborns is because humans are seen as special, and I think that comes from religion, in particular, the view that humans, unlike animals, are endowed with a soul,” he wrote. “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.”
Many philosophers share Coyne’s views. Princeton bio-ethicist Peter Singer argues that only religious superstition is keeping us from killing infants, a practice he believes to be perfectly ethical. As he wrote in Practical Ethics: “Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all.” For Singer, the baby-killing of our bloody pagan past is a source of nostalgia rather than horror.
Canadian cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker of MIT doesn’t go quite as far as Singer, but likely shares his views. In 1997, Pinker wrote in the New York Times that laws against infanticide were difficult to defend:
To a biologist, birth is as arbitrary a milestone as any other. No, the right to life must come, the moral philosophers say, from morally significant traits that we humans happen to possess. One such trait is having a unique sequence of experiences that defines us as individuals and connects us to other people. Other traits include an ability to reflect upon ourselves as a continuous locus of consciousness, to form and savor plans for the future, to dread death and to express the choice not to die. And there’s the rub: our immature neonates don’t possess these traits any more than mice do.
In his test balloon essay, Pinker quotes the Michael Tooley’s 1972 essay “Abortion and Infanticide,” in which the professor of philosophy makes the case that personhood rather than humanity is what confers human rights, and that infanticide could be permitted “up to the time an organism learned how to use certain expression.” Tooley himself noted that he would establish “some period of time, such as a week after birth, as the interval during which infanticide will be permitted.”
Parents who find out that their child is ‘imperfect’ too late to procure an abortion should, in Tooley’s view, get another crack at it. He writes: “Most people would prefer to raise children who do not suffer from gross deformities or from severe physical, emotional, or intellectual handicaps. If it could be shown that there is no moral objection to infanticide, the happiness of society could be significantly and justifiably increased.” The happiness of the rejected infants, of course, is of no consequence.
Coyne, a professor of ecology and evolution, also proposes a change in policy. He implied that it is only because of Christianity that we are squeamish about infanticide. It is time we got over such superstition:
It’s time to add to the discussion the euthanasia of newborns, who have no ability or faculties to decide whether to end their lives. Although discussing the topic seems verboten now, I believe some day the practice will be widespread, and it will be for the better. After all, we euthanize our dogs and cats when to prolong their lives would be torture, so why not extend that to humans? Dogs and cats, like newborns, can’t make such a decision, and so their caregivers take the responsibility. I have done this myself to a pet, as have many of you, and firmly believe it’s the right thing to do. Our pain at making such a decision is lessened knowing that dogs and cats, like newborns, don’t know about death and thus don’t fear it.
For years, pro-life ethicists and activists have been told that citing prestigious scholars advocating for infanticide constitutes the slippery slope fallacy. After all, we were told, one can find an academic to advocate for nearly anything, but nobody actually takes them seriously. But if the history of the 20th century tells us anything, it is that crackpot intellectuals can give us mountains of cracked skulls.
On August 2, 2020, a study titled “Healthcare professionals’ attitudes towards termination of pregnancy at viable stage” released by the Research Foundation Flanders and Ghent University found that 89.1% of medical professionals and 93.6% of Belgian medical professionals indicated that infanticide is acceptable in certain circumstances. Of those surveyed, 87.9% “agrees that Belgian law should be changed to make this possible.” Further, they agreed that infanticide should be an option even when the baby’s condition is “non-lethal”—in short, naked eugenics. All the surveyed medical professionals supported late-term abortion for babies with “fetal deformities.”
Infanticide has already been de facto legal in limited circumstances in the Netherlands for some time. Children under the age of one with a terminal prognosis can be euthanized under the 2004 Groningen Protocol, which one journal described as an attempt “to regulate the practice of actively ending the life of newborns and to prevent uncontrolled and unjustified killing.” Inherent in that description, of course, is the idea that infanticide should be regulated rather than banned and that killing some babies can be ‘justified.’ An expansion to child euthanasia in the Netherlands is forthcoming.
Child euthanasia may soon be coming to Canada, as well. Suicide activists have been advocating for ‘mature minors’ to be given the ‘right’ to euthanasia for several years; now, some medical professionals are also asking government to legalize infanticide. On October 7, 2022, Dr. Louis Roy of the Quebec College of Physicians told the Canadian House of Commons’ Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying that, in the view of his organization, euthanasia for infants under the age of one should be legal if the baby in question has “grave and severe syndromes” or “severe malformations” or “prospective of survival is null, so to speak.”
A national newspaper published an editorial with the jarring title: “Canada must not become a country that kills disabled babies.” Roy responded to the horror of Canadians by condemning those opposed to infanticide as ‘politicizing’ the proposal.
It bears noting here that Canada already kills disabled babies; over 90% of children diagnosed with Down Syndrome are killed by abortion. Infanticide advocates rightfully note that there is no moral distinction between a child shortly before birth and a child shortly after birth, and thus the line between late-term abortion and infanticide is often a hazy one. In 2012, the national statistics office, Stats Canada, revealed that 491 babies had been born alive and left to die after abortion between 2000 and 2009. Despite the obvious implications of infanticide, conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper remained blasé when questioned about it in Parliament: “All members of this House, whether they agree with it or not, understand that abortion is legal in Canada.”
The Democratic Party in the United States has become a devout defender of infanticidal abortion practices, as well. Democrat governors regularly veto bills that offer protection to babies that survive an attempted abortion (an occurrence that is rare but does happen), the most recent being shot down by Governor Katie Hobbs of Arizona. Democratic senators have voted down bills making it a felony for a doctor to harm or neglect an infant who survives an abortion attempt, despite testimony from both medical professionals and abortion survivors themselves exposing and decrying the practice. In practice, the Democratic Party supports the view of some philosophers that some infants can be killed—or at the very least, should be denied protection under law.
In 2014, the conservative agnostic columnist Douglas Murray penned a chilling column for the Spectator titled “Ethics for Atheists:”
As the West became increasingly post-Christian, Murray wrote, “we may have to accept that the concept of the sanctity of human life is a Judeo-Christian notion which might very easily not survive Judeo-Christian civilisation. Those who do not believe in God and who stare over that cliff … may realise that only three options remain open to us. The first option is to fall into the furnace. Another is to work furiously to nail down an atheist version of the sanctity of the individual. If that does not work, then there is only one other place to go. Which is back to faith, whether we like it or not.
A decade on, it seems apparent that those atheists who are staring over that Spartan cliff are chillingly comfortable with their conclusions and enthusiastic about leaving the sanctity of human life in the rear-view mirror. There are ethical atheists, but there is no atheistic ethics. There will be no atheist version of the sanctity of the individual. Singer, Pinker, and Coyne aren’t interested in faith, either. And so, it seems, it is to the furnace of Moloch that we will return.
As always, I’ve got plenty of other short, regular culture updates on The Bridgehead, and you can get a copy of Prairie Lion: The Life and Times of Ted Byfield here and here, and my other books here. Thanks for reading!