• Darwinian Biologist Endorses Killing Handicapped Babies Who “Suffer”

    Darwinist biologist Jerry Coyne endorses euthanasia for severely handicapped infants. Here are Coyne’s arguments, with my replies. "The question of whether one should be able to euthanize newborns who have horrible conditions or deformities, or are doomed to a life that cannot by any reasonable light afford happiness, has sparked heated debate. Philosopher Peter Singer has argued that euthanasia is the merciful action in such cases, and I agree with him. 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." I agree with Coyne that there is no moral difference between aborting a handicapped fetus and killing a handicapped baby. I believe that both are profoundly immoral. Coyne condones such killing. "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)." Many people aren’t “aware of death” — normal infants and toddlers, people with severe traumatic brain damage, people with Alzheimer’s disease. Heck, people who are sleeping aren’t aware of death at the moment. How does this that justify killing them? A severely handicapped newborn wouldn’t be aware of rape either. Just how is it that “unawareness” of an evil act justifies the act? If anything, unawareness makes the victim more vulnerable, and ought to spur those of us who are aware to offer innocents greater protection, not less protection.

    Read full story...

  • Darwinian Biologist Endorses Killing Handicapped Babies Who “Suffer”

    Putting aside the shock, outrage and eugenics-disguised-as-science, I am reminded of a TV show that, in its regularly, socially relevant storylines, addressed this disgrace rite on point.

    As always, for the last 50 years, Gene Roddenberry beat sociologists and psychologists to the issues at hand.

    On ST:TNG, in The Enemy, Geordi - Lavar Burton - is captured by a Romulan on a desolate planet where LaForge was trapped due to a transporter problem. They begin to talk as humans r wont to do.

    The Romulan - John Snyder - eventually bcums fascinated by Geordi's visor. After xplaining he was born blind, the Romulan asks, "and ur parents let u LIVE?????". Geordi's retort is emphatic!

    In the fictional, positive, accepting galaxy of The Federation, ALL life is allowed to rise as hi as possible to the human condition. Geordi, as chief engineer, obviously has xcelled in bcuming complete.

    What a crime it IS to deprive post-natal PERSONS the privilege of bcuming fully actualized. I once worked under such a man. His clinic treated, xclusively, all manner of debilitating disorders. His charges achieved, to us, unbelievable goals, gains and stations in life. Of course, EVERY visitor/observer evoked identical astonishment. His favorite rejoindre was, without missing a beat, "so what's YOUR xcuse!!!???????".

    PII