Log in
Monday, 17 July 2017 14:01

Evolutionist Claims “Survival of the Fittest” Makes it OK to Euthanize Disabled Newborns

Written by  Wesley Smith

The evolutionary biologist, Jerry Coyne, writes a blog entitled, “Why Evolution is True.”

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.

Read more at LifeNews

User comments

There are no user comments for this listing.


New York

Mostly Cloudy

Humidity: 53%

Wind: 22 mph

  • 22 Sep 2017 79°F 66°F
  • 23 Sep 2017 84°F 67°F
Don't Forget To Like BlabberBuzz