Campaigners for infanticide will make their case in a gradual way. First, they won’t call it “infanticide” (killing infants) but “post-birth abortion.” The reasons are obvious. The word “infanticide” strikes horror into our hearts. But “post-birth abortion” makes it sound like the termination is simply an extension of abortion, which we are culturally adjusted to. Yet the terminology is grossly inaccurate. You can “abort” something in process like a pregnancy, but killing an infant is not an abortion, its an execution. Second, campaigners will advocate the infants born with terminal illnesses should be euthanized so as to prevent the infant’s suffering. That is the compassionate thing to do! Third, then the campaign will shift to children with chronic disabilities and all kinds of generative diseases and then move onto to any minor defect like cleft palates.

Yesterday I created a file on my computer marked “Infanticide.” I intend to start making notes, collecting articles, and finding materials about the subject. I’ve been thinking about doing it for a while and I’m convinced that now is the time to start gathering info and getting ready to deal with the subject. Let me tell you why.

I’m no chess grand master. I’ve read a few chess books, I know a few opening moves, some risky gambits – not enough to beat Chris Tilling in a game – but I know enough to hold my own. One thing I’ve learned about chess is that you have to think ahead, usually, at least two moves ahead. As a Christian in an increasingly aggressive secular culture, I believe, much like a game of chess, that we have to start thinking two moves ahead of the game. We have to identify what’s on, what’s next, and what is after that.

In terms of “what’s on,” that is obviously the same sex marriage (SSM) debate. Now I am opposed to SSM for various reasons, most of which will not convince most people! At the end of the day, SSM is about the attempt to compel government and society to affirm a person’s emotional attachments and choice of lifestyle entirely apart from any kind of sexual ecology. I think I have a solution to that debate which would get religion out of civil unions and government out of marriage – but that’s a different story. In any case, it’s time to face up. While there are some remarkably resistant hold outs – including Australia much to my surprise – the game is pretty much over. I’m convinced that SSM is inevitable. Nearly every non-Christian under 30 that I know is in favor of it. Even rugged beer swilling rugby stars are coming out in support of it. The writing is on the wall. While there might be a few pockets that hold out for longer, the barbarians will breach the gates sooner rather than later.

In terms of, “what’s next,” it will be euthanasia. In Australia, the Greens are already aggressively campaigning for it. The situation is probably similar in the UK and USA. There are several societies that are committed to its promotion (e.g., The Hemlock Society). Europe and parts of Asia already have it in places and will legalize it further (I think Holland even has “mobile” euthanasia clinics). In light of western individualism and stories about horrible suffering, euthanasia too, is probably coming. I reckon it will be an easier win for secularists since it reflects the choice of the individual, alleviates suffering, and does not interfere with anyone else’s relationships. It too is probably inevitable. While I am genuinely sympathetic to euthanasia (who wants to see people suffer?), it will lead to a de-valuation of the elderly, will result in reduced funding for palliative care, and will be used to knock off senile parents by kids who want to cash in on their parent’s nest egg.

Then as regards to, “what’s after that,” I am convinced it will be infanticide. 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. 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.

Read More

[Editor’s note: One or more original URLs (links) referenced in this article are no longer valid; those links have been removed.]