It seems that Peter Singer, a "bioethicist" at Princeton has sounded off that it is ethical to kill babies after they are born. Based on the information in the article, I found Dr. Singer's position to be dangerous and alarming, but also encouraging in a way. Still and all, he is rather inconsistent in his beliefs, as I demonstrate.

First of all, Dr. Singer is quoted as saying, "from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby." I agree with him wholeheartedly. However, when asked if he advocates killing babies after they are born, he says, "yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole." Assuming (as I do) that he supports abortion on demand, he has just taken a self-contradictory position. If the foetus is the same as the newborn baby from an ethical standpoint, then why does he feel the need to justify killing the newborn? Speaking to the same point, he says, "Non-persons are allowed to be killed." Presumably, all foetuses are "non-persons," whereas only disabled newborns fit that qualification.

The "moral absolute" on which Dr. Singer bases his views is, as he puts it, "we should do what will have the best consequences for all those affected by our actions." This philosophy is known as "utilitarianism," and it has a major, gaping flaw: How can we say which course of action will have the "best consequences" when we cannot know with any degree of certainty what those consequences will be? This is brought into stark relief when the issue of killing a baby is considered. Who among us can possibly know that this is in the best interest of the baby being killed? How can we know what sort of person the child would grow into, or how it would affect the parents? For that matter, in the case of abortion-on-demand of a healthy foetus, just what "consequences" are being avoided by this act? Dr. Singer's position exhibits the arrogant hubris that is all too typical among adherents of post-modernism.

At the end of the day, I do find some encouragement in Dr. Singer's assertion that "there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby." My hope is that someone who is considering an abortion will see this, realize that Dr. Singer is correct (even academic boneheads manage to pin the tail on the donkey from time to time), and choose to let her baby live. After all, the Lord is a master at taking evil and turning it into good.