Famed evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne argues killing of disabled newborns is ‘merciful’

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

_Abyssinia

Guest
Famed evolutionary biologist and author Jerry Coyne has penned an article arguing in favor of the euthanasia of severely disabled newborns.
Click to expand...
Mr. Coyne, a professor emeritus of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, argued in a post on his personal blog that the parents of infants who have “horrible conditions or deformities, or are doomed to a life that cannot by any reasonable light afford happiness,” should be able to legally kill the child in the U.S.
Click to expand...
m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/27/jerry-coyne-famed-evolutionary-biologist-argues-ki/
 
Well, he got one thing right, the first letter: “M”. I would replace the “erciful” with “urder” though.
 
Horrendous. No ethical framework whatsoever. He does not deserve the plaudits that his academic qualifications and status bring him if he uses them to say such things. It’s unbecoming.

So we move from so-called “assisted suicide” or “voluntary euthanasia” to Spartan-style infanticide of infants deemed to be “life unworthy of life” and dress it up as a “mercy killing” to make ourselves feel better, as if its out of sheer pity for the alleged meaningless, burdensome existence that these innocent souls should be deprived from living?
“…For as the Apostle with good reason admonishes us: “Those that seem the more feeble members of the Body are more necessary; and those that we think the less honorable members of the Body, we surround with more abundant honour.” Conscious of the obligations of Our high office We deem it necessary to reiterate this grave statement today, when to Our profound grief We see at times the deformed, the insane, and those suffering from hereditary disease deprived of their lives, as though they were a useless burden to Society; and this procedure is hailed by some as a manifestation of human progress, and as something that is entirely in accordance with the common good. Yet who that is possessed of sound judgment does not recognize that this not only violates the natural and the divine law written in the heart of every man, but that it outrages the noblest instincts of humanity? The blood of these unfortunate victims who are all the dearer to our Redeemer because they are deserving of greater pity, “cries to God from the earth.”…”
Click to expand...
— Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, (1943), encyclical
Click to expand...
“…Every man has the natural right to life and the goods essential for living. The living God, the Creator of all life, is sole master over life and death. With deep horror Christian Germans have learned that, by order of the State authorities, numerous insane persons, entrusted to asylums and institutions, were destroyed as so-called “unproductive citizens.” At present a large-scale campaign is being made for the killing of incurables through a film recommended by the authorities and designed to calm the conscience through appeals to mercy, to mercy killings. We German Bishops shall not cease to protest against the killing of innocent persons. Nobody’s life is safe unless the Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” is observed…”
Click to expand...
— German Bishops’ Pastoral Letter of 22 March 1942
Click to expand...
 
Who decides the standard of “happiness” by which someone is deemed worthy of life?
 
Vouthon said:
Horrendous. No ethical framework whatsoever. He does not deserve the plaudits that his academic qualifications and status bring him if he uses them to say such things. It’s unbecoming.

So we move from so-called “assisted suicide” or “voluntary euthanasia” to Spartan-style infanticide of infants deemed to be “life unworthy of life” and dress it up as a “mercy killing” to make ourselves feel better, as if its out of sheer pity for the alleged meaningless, burdensome existence that these innocent souls should be deprived from living?
Click to expand...
How frighteningly similar the attitude of some people are becoming to the attitudes displayed by the Nazi.

God help us.
Ut
 
As chilling as this is, this is the logically consistent position with accepting abortion. Peter Singer has been arguing this for decades (and I see that he is referenced in the article). From the article:

“Philosopher Peter Singer has argued that euthanasia is the merciful action in such cases, and I agree with him,” Mr. Coyne wrote. “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.

He’s right that there is “no substantive difference that would make the former act moral and the latter immoral.” Of course, his conclusion is that both actions are, therefore, moral when the reality is that they are both immoral.

Guys like this guy and Singer do pro-lifers a favor by being honest and logically consistent. It makes it more difficult for those in favor of abortion to hide behind pleasantries. I had an atheist philosophy professor back in college who was of the same ilk. He made me more sure than ever of the truth of the pro-life position.
 
Joe_5859 said:
As chilling as this is, this is the logically consistent position with accepting abortion. Peter Singer has been arguing this for decades (and I see that he is referenced in the article). From the article:

“Philosopher Peter Singer has argued that euthanasia is the merciful action in such cases, and I agree with him,” Mr. Coyne wrote. “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.

He’s right that there is “no substantive difference that would make the former act moral and the latter immoral.” Of course, his conclusion is that both actions are, therefore, moral when the reality is that they are both immoral.

Guys like this guy and Singer do pro-lifers a favor by being honest and logically consistent. It makes it more difficult for those in favor of abortion to hide behind pleasantries. I had an atheist philosophy professor back in college who was of the same ilk. He made me more sure than ever of the truth of the pro-life position.
Click to expand...
Agreed with all of that. Very sad – a horrific and frightening thing, but totally consistent.
That’s atheism. The academics decide they have power of life and death and can condemn the weakest.
 
Isn’t this the protagonist’s conflict in the Lois Lowry novel “The Giver”? The community was euthanizing people who had no value to the community, and the protagonist was the only one who recognized the moral problem with it.

We’ve reached a point when “respected” academics are publicly advocating that we adopt the plots of dystopian literature as public policy. :confused:
 
Brassring said:
Isn’t this the protagonist’s conflict in the Lois Lowry novel “The Giver”? The community was euthanizing people who had no value to the community, and the protagonist was the only one who recognized the moral problem with it.

We’ve reached a point when “respected” academics are publicly advocating that we adopt the plots of dystopian literature as public policy. :confused:
Click to expand...
Oh, I wouldn’t say “respected”. When he sticks to things he knows about, like biology, he gets along fine. Its when he says pretty much anything else that he falls off the deep end. I think most people recognize that about him.

God bless,
Ut
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top