Infanticide, as the name implies, is the murder of infants and is basically a form of euthanasia. As of yet it is not legal worldwide, but the same arguments used to legalize abortion can and are being used. If the born baby is deformed, has a defect or is unwanted why not just get rid of it? Again it will not have a good quality life so put it out of its misery. Some have even gone so far as to say that infants cannot be truly called alive until certain developments have occurred and tests have been performed. The two Nobel prize winners for discovering the structure of DNA support this view. James Watson, one of the prize winners, said, “If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system.” The “choice” he is talking about is whether or not to keep the child. His partner, Francis Crick, similarly said, “…no newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests, it forfeits the right to live.” In yet another attempt to justify infanticide, Johnathan Glover, a prominent voice in bioethics, says in his book Causing Death and Saving Lives, “…new born babies have no conception of death and so cannot have any preference for life or death.” Some, like Peter Singer and Helga Kuhse, two advocates of infanticide, have said that treatment, including food and normal care, of a child can be legally withheld for up to 28 days after birth since it is not yet alive.
But how often does infanticide really happen? Unfortunately quite a lot. Take for example the one-child policy in China. Abortions are done all the time to keep in step with this policy and if an “extra” baby manages to slip through then infanticide is the solution. In August 2000 Western media reported Chinese officials in Hubei province drowning a healthy baby in front of the “offending” parents. In India there have been surveys done which show that out of hundreds of families more than half have admitted to killing a child. Some have called this infanticide a “convenient management option” whether it be for population control, defects, etc. An interesting statistic about these two countries is their male:female ratios. On average a country’s male:female population ratio is 100:105. In India it is 100:93 and in China 100:88. This is evidence of sex-selective abortions and infanticide directed against little girls. What about all the non-reported cases around the world and those who won’t admit to committing the act? It happens far more often than we realise, and our culture has shown an ever increasing desire to legalize the practice as in China and perhaps several other countries. If abortion is legal then infanticide should logically follow.
As we have seen, abortion is murder. Based on the same reasoning infanticide is also murder. If it came in degrees of badness, infanticide would be even more heartless. Even based on what abortionists say about the beginning of life condemns infanticide as murder. However, the world is corrupted by sin and it sees no reason why infanticide should not be legalized following abortion. It is the exact same concept, it just deals with postnatal rather than prenatal children.
If infanticide becomes legalized world-wide the implications are huge. Why not then kill anyone who is a liability, or has a disease, or laughs too much and annoys you? After all that is what the reasons for infanticide boil down to: utter nonsensical excuses. There is so much effort being put forth to stop murderers in the world, but at the same time it’s being legalized with regard to abortion, etc. The world has no basis for any laws though since it has rejected the Gospel. Things like infanticide are proof of that.
We will now look at the reasons given to justify infanticide one by one. First, life does not really begin until a certain amount of time has passed after birth. This can range from 3 days to 1 year. The qualification for this life is rather arbitrary, but includes things like learning and communication. Interestingly enough Susan M. Ludington, former Assistant Professor of Nursing at UCLA, said, “We know now that from about 17-24 weeks, gestational age, all the systems are operational. The baby does respond, and early learning can occur.” This smashes abortion’s theory on life as well as infanticide’s. Even the abortionists would agree that response and learning are signs of life. In reality though infanticide’s “theory” about when life begins in absolutely ridiculous. It is incomprehensible to think how someone could actually, truly believe that that cute little, newborn baby is actually not alive yet. Funny though how they can tell if it’s dead.
Even when it is accepted that the child is in fact alive remember Johnathan Glover’s remark. Since newborn babies have no conception of life and death they cannot prefer life to death. I fail to see how this justifies killing them. It is just another excuse to take advantage of the weak, and in the cruelest possible way. I wonder if while Mr. Glover made this remark he had a true conception of what death really is. Perhaps we should have sent him on his way to find out according to his reasoning. After all it would be “merciful.” This again goes to show the stupidity of modern arguments that try to justify sin.
One of the most famous cases of infanticide was in April 1982 involving the “Infant Doe.” Infant Doe was born in Bloomington, Indiana with Down’s Syndrome and a deformed esophagus which prevented normal food intake. The parents were bent on killing this child. They refused to give their consent to corrective surgery and ordered the doctors to withhold all nourishment. Ten different couples expressed interest in adopting Infant Doe, but the parents refused to give up custody. An emergency hearing was held and the justices of the Indiana Supreme Court voted 3-1 in favour of supporting the parent’s wishes. In effect this is a legalization of infanticide. Infant Doe died on April 15th having only lived one day. This could have been prevented and the child could still be alive today. Mike Lorentay, one of the people who offered to adopt Infant Doe and teaches the printing trade to the retarded in Edmonton, Canada, said, ” I believe that every person, no matter who or what their ages, has a right to live. I’m not well off, but I’d pay for it (the correctional operation) and bring the baby back to Canada.” The attorney who represented the parents at the hearing coined the phrase “treatment to do nothing.” In response to this Columnist George Will, father of a happy Down’s Syndrome boy, remarked, “It is an old story; language must be mutilated when a perfumed rationalization of an act is incompatible with a straightforward description of the act…the broader message of the case is that being an unwanted baby is a capital offense.”
This was not a single isolated incident. Several cases happened early and turned out the same way. The parents refused permission to give care and the children died. Today Holland is a perfect example where over 15 cases of infanticide are reported every year.
The dominoes are falling and euthanasia is next in line. There is no way infanticide is justifiable under any circumstances. Sometimes parents cannot afford the expensive care needed for their very deformed, sick, retarded children, but that gives us no right to step in and kill the child. Once the best care that can be given is done then the child will die naturally without our deliberately killing it. Murder is against God’s law (Exodus 20:13). Population control or putting a child out of its misery are poor excuses.
Genesis 1:28 “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’”
