Evil comes in a variety of shapes, sizes, sounds, and smells. Many people (particularly liberals, progressives, and non-believers) are uncomfortable with the idea that monstrously evil individuals can also have the capacity to laugh, love their dogs, love their children and parents, be part of a community, and have a pleasant appearance. These people would prefer to see evil as a function of some psychological/physiological abnormality rather than attribute it to a “choice” for which the individual is fully responsible. In this view, evil people should have nothing in common with us; they are some bizarre, diseased branch of humanity.
The reason for this delusionary view of reality is simple. It is rather frightening to confront the notion that if evil is a “choice” open to all human beings, then “I” am also capable of choosing evil. It gets worse. Just as most evil people seem absolutely convinced that they are right and are oblivious to the evil that they perpetrate, or seem totally unaware that their ideas are perverse and corrupt, then how do I really know that I am different? Maybe my ideas are perverse and corrupt, maybe my actions are reprehensible and I am oblivious and unaware of their true nature. Let’s face it, just about everybody thinks they are right. “All of a man’s ways are proper in his own eyes…” (Proverbs) No, anyone is capable of choosing evil, even those who seem to be perfectly normal and just like us.
Let us then confront evil in the form of two young smiling faces; one a handsome young man, Dr. Alberto Giubilini; the other a rather pretty young woman, Dr. Francesca Minerva. Both hold PhD’s in philosophy from prestigious universities. At some unknown twist or turn along their path to academic “enlightenment” Dr.’s Giubilini and Minerva traded in their souls and humanity for some perverse and profoundly evil ideology they call “ethics.”
They are co-authors of an article in The Journal of Medical Ethics (2/23/12), entitled, “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” They argue – quite logically and coherently – that if it is justifiable to “kill a human fetus” then it is also justifiable to “kill a newborn human” because “merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.” Infants are not “persons” in the sense that they have a “moral right to life…in these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions.” (For those who are unfamiliar with the term “after-birth abortion,” it used to be called “infanticide” or “first-degree murder.”)
Please note that Minerva and Guibilini apply this principle to fully healthy babies who are simply unwanted by their parents. However, they do raise the question of putting the baby up for adoption: “Why should we kill a healthy newborn when giving it up for adoption would not breach anyone’s rights but possibly increase the happiness of people involved (adopters and adoptee)?”
They provide us with an interesting answer to this question: “On this perspective, the interests of the actual people involved matter, and among these interests, we also need to consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption…we are suggesting that, if interests of actual people should prevail, then after-birth abortion should be considered a permissible option.” (Makes perfect sense to me.)
As could be expected, the suggestion that it is perfectly all right to kill a healthy newborn baby because putting it up for adoption would cause the mother “stress” has raised a storm of controversy. The editor of The Journal of Medical Ethics, Julian Savulescu, decried what he called the “hate speech” directed at the authors of the article. He also added that the pushback against the article shows that “proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.” (If the values of a “liberal society” include murdering newborn babies then count me as a member of the fanatical opposition.)
Savulescu also defended the article by pointing out that “infanticide is practiced in the Netherlands” and that these arguments have already been advanced by well known “bioethicists” such as Peter Singer and Michael Tooley. “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics …is to present well reasoned arguments based on widely accepted premises…the authors proceed logicallyfrom arguments which many people accept.” Of course, in Nazi Germany the premise that Jews were a mortal threat to the Aryan people was also a “widely accepted” premise and genocide was practiced in Nazi Occupied Europe and Russia.
What is most frightening of all is the banal, matter-of-fact manner in which these highly educated academics build a case for the murder of babies. In fact it is the deadly logical consequence of an atheistic worldview in which human life has no inherent value but only as much value or non-value as is assigned to it by those in power. It is the deadly logical consequence of a worldview that values self-indulgence and self-gratification above any other consideration. The “sexual revolution” of the 60’s led to the acceptance of the notion that unlimited sexual freedom is a basic human right; sexual freedom must include unlimited access to contraception and abortion because pregnancy and babies bring with them a powerful dose of reality and responsibility (what a way to ruin the fun!); once these premises become “widely accepted” the next perfectly logical step, as Mr. Savulesco points out, is that newborn babies can also be put to death. Opposition to these ideas then becomes a fanatical attack on the “values of a liberal society.” It is obvious to any thinking person that there is no end to the horrible evil that can result once we have started down this path. If we do not turn things around soon there will be hell to pay. There is one consolation though…Dr. Mengele would have been awfully proud.
Rabbi Moshe Averick is an orthodox rabbi, a regular columnist for the Algemeiner Journal, and author of Nonsense of a High Order: The Confused and Illusory World of the Atheist. It is available on Amazon.com and Kindle. Rabbi Averick can be reached via his website. .