Infanticide and Science

Infanticide and Science

I’ve written about abortion before on this blog, but today I want to examine it from a different angle.  I want to talk about why evolutionists accept and promote abortion as well as the science behind abortion. This will not be a comfortable article for me to write. Abortion and children are a very personal subject for me. My mother was adopted as an infant, and she was born after the Supreme Court had legalized abortion without restriction.  She could have been aborted, but fortunately for me and my family, she was not.   This article will talk about why evolutionists accept and promote abortion as well as the science behind abortion.

Let’s talk first about the science behind what goes on with abortion.  Abortion advocates claim that infants in the womb are merely a “blob of cells” and thus not alive.  However, the science behind this is patently absurd.  However in order to demonstrate this, we need a working definition of life. defines it as follows: “the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaption to the environment through changes originating internally” Essentially this definition means that, in order for something to be alive, it must be able to reproduce itself, metabolize nutrients, and change things internally to fit with the environment. Cells do all of these things and thus must be assumed to be alive.  Cellular death happens regularly, throughout the life of a human being. However, this is not the same as bodily death. Bodily death involves the eventual death of all the cells in the body. As a procedure, abortion causes bodily death to the baby, and sometimes to the mother as well.  For infanticide supporters to claim that the baby in the womb is merely a “blob of cells” does not change the argument because the cells make up the body of the baby.  Ending the life of those cells ends the life of a baby.

In general, most evolutionists are onboard with the infanticide activists. This is surprising, because, in an evolutionary context, it makes no sense for an organism to kill its own children.  Let me explain that. Evolution demands that organisms reproduce and that their offspring survive, mostly.  It requires this to account for the massive variations among the various kinds of organisms.From an evolutionary perspective, everything is about passing on genes.    This demand means that there is a high likelihood for a male lion, for example, to kill cubs that are not his so that he can mate with the females and pass on his genes. However, once the new cubs come, this same male lion will defend them with his life, because they are his. Infanticide happens in the animal kingdom, but almost never does it happen that a parent kills it’s own infant and, when it does, usually it is that the baby is born sick, deformed, or already dead.

So how then do evolutionists justify infanticide in humans, where one or both parents actively seeks to end the life of their child? Consider this quote from evolutionist Dr. Barbara Burke, a professor of science at California State Polytechnic University. “Among some animal species, then, infant killing appears to be a natural practice. Could it be natural for humans too, a trait inherited from our primate ancestors,…” In other words, infanticide is no big deal, we come by it naturally from chimpanzees.

When, then, is it a problem to kill a child? Are they human at any point in the womb? Evolutionist Elie Schneour, Chairman of the Southern California Skeptics says this

“Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. This is a fundamental tenet of modern biology that derives from evolutionary theory, and is thus an anathema to creationism as well as those opposed to freedom of choice. Ontogeny is the name for the process of development of a fertilized egg into a fully formed and mature living organism. Phylogeny, on the other hand, is the history of the evolution of a speceis, in this case the human being. During development, the fertilized egg progresses over 38 weeks through what is, in fact, a rapid passage through evolutionary history: From a single primordial cell, the conceptus progresses through being something of a protozoan, a fish, a reptile, a bird, a primate, and ultimately a human being.  There is a difference of opinion among scientists about the time during pregnancy when a human being can be said to emerge. But there is a general agreement that this does not happen until after the end of the first trimester.”   This is utter rubbish and Ms. Schneour knew it when she said it. The “ontogeny recapitulates phylogenny” myth has been debunked for over one hundred years.   In fact, ten years before Ms Schneour spewed the above nonsense, her logic was completely debunked by Sabine Schwabenthan in an article for Parents magazine.

“The development of the child-from the union of the parent’s cells to birth- has been studied exhaustively. As a result, long held beliefs have been put to rest. We now know, for instance, that man, in his prenatal stages, does not go through the complete evolution of life-from a single cell to a fishlike water creature to man. Today it is known that every step in fetal developmental process is specifically human.”


If evolutionists know this, then why do they accept infanticide? The answer lies in a quote from Joseph Sobran,, written in the magazine Human Life Review in 1984.

“So the abortion debate has its roots in two alternative ways of imagining the unborn. Our civilization, until recently, agreed in imagining the unborn child on the pattern of Incarnation, which maximizes his dignity; but many people now imagine him on the pattern of evolution, as popularly understood, which minimizes his dignity.” In other words, since man is no longer made in God’s image, and is instead a highly evolved animal, there is no reason he cannot be simply killed at will. His life no longer has any value, even in the womb.

Evolutionists accept and promote abortion for a number of reasons, but there can be no denying, as Ms Schwabenthan pointed out above, that the child is fully human the entire length of the development process.  Therefore, it is reasonable to say that, since the child is human throughout the development process, that abortion ends a human life. Taking that a step further, if abortion ends a human life, then that life has to have been given due process of law, convicted, and sentenced to death, else it is murder or self-defense.  I’ve never heard anyone try to argue that abortion is self defense therefore it must be concluded as follows: Since a child is fully human throughout every stage of development, abortion ends a human life. Since abortion ends a human life without due process of law, it must be considered either murder or self-defense. Since, in the vast majority of cases, babies are no threat to the life of the mother, there is no alternative left but to consider abortion exactly what it is, that being the intentional, deliberate, calculated, cold-blooded murder of a baby.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s