-Caveat Lector- : Post Birth Abortion? : Scholars toss around question of killing newborn humans : by Lance Waldie and Christopher Corbett : Should it be permissible, perhaps legal, to kill three-month-old : newborn babies? If you think that question is absurd then you are out : of touch with the sophisticates teaching the next generation of : leaders in our universities. : Consider Steven Pinker. He�s handsome. He�s famous. He teaches at MIT. : He�s being called the "next Carl Sagan" (the original Sagan recently : passed away and is now getting an attitude readjustment about : creationism). : Pinker claims he doesn�t believe in killing babies, and that it is : "immoral." Yet the logic of a recent article he wrote for the New York : Times Magazine (November 2, 1997) seems to lead readers in the : opposite direction, raising eyebrows in much of the academic and : journalistic world and giving renewed publicity to the idea that : newborn infants are not human, and perhaps candidates for destruction. : How did such a dangerous discussion get started? And where might it : lead? : ARE BABIES PEOPLE? : Pinker is an evolutionary psychologist, and he is attempting to : understand mental faculties in light of the supposed evolutionary : process that shaped them. His noted book, How the Mind Works, is the : most recent attempt to popularize evolutionary psychology, which has : been described as an all-encompassing theory of human behavior. If : you�ve ever heard of the "fat gene" or the "gay gene" then you�ve : heard of evolutionary psychology. : Pinker believes that the gene, not God, created the human race. He : says the brain�s activity is determined by its genes, and he "sees the : mind as a computer --- or more precisely, a series of advanced : computing modules, designed to perform certain tasks." Just as running : is a function of the legs, Pinker believes the mind is simply a : function of the brain. : Being human, then, is defined by a "scientific" evaluation of your : brain-mind function. And how does Pinker, the scientist-god-king, : define it? : Dr. Pinker says that if newborns have a right to live then "they must : possess morally significant traits that we humans happen to : possess....among these are a unique sequence of experiences that : define us as individuals, an ability to reflect on ourselves, and to : form and savor plans for the future." : He continues, "Our immature neonates [newborns] don�t possess these : traits any more than mice do." : There you have it. Babies = rodents. : WHO DECIDES? : Don�t think for a minute that Pinker is on the outside looking in. : He�s not alone in what he thinks and teaches. Dr. Francis Crick, a : Nobel Prize winning scientist, said two decades ago, "No newborn : infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests. If : it fails these tests it forfeits the right to live." : Others share his view. : Consider what Michael Tooley, a philosophy professor at the University : of Colorado, says in his book Abortion and Infanticide: "New-born : humans are neither persons nor even quasi-persons, and their : destruction is in no way intrinsically wrong." He pegs the start date : for humanness at somewhere around three months after birth, although : he told us in a phone conversation that he�s willing to let scientists : like Pinker hash out the exact timing based on ongoing research. : Gee, that�s reassuring. : So let�s get back to Pinker. He writes, "Neonaticide has been : practiced and accepted in most cultures throughout history." He seems : to believe that the killing of newborn babies is an act of rational : survival strategy --- one that is traced as innate in humans! He comes : to this conclusion through research done by Martin Daly and Margo : Wilson who did a study on the birth of newborns to a remote tribe of : people in Africa�s Kalahari Desert. : Through research on this one tribe, whom Pinker apparently believes : are closest to our evolutionary apelike ancestors, Daly and Wilson : found that 1.2 percent of all babies are killed at birth. Their : findings are little more than a guess at best, but they are published : as factual; Pinker generalizes the data and passes it on to justify : his own evolutionary presuppositions. : Speaking of a newborn child Pinker writes, "A new mother will first : coolly assess the infant and her current situation and only in the : next few days begin to see it as a unique and wonderful individual." : Later he says, "Full person-hood is often not automatically granted at : birth." : After presenting his case for the normalcy of neonaticide, Pinker : begins to morally philosophize by asking the question, "So how do you : provide grounds for outlawing neonaticide?" Although using quotes from : Tooley, Pinker does stop short of advocating neonaticide, but as : columnist Michael Kelly wrote in the Washington Post, "Close enough, : close enough." : A REAL THREAT : Andrew Ferguson, recently writing in the Weekly Standard magazine, : concludes an article on the subject by writing, "For the moment Pinker : wants merely to normalize neonaticide --- to make us see it not as a : moral horror but as a genetically encoded evolutionary adaptation." : Pinker wrote a reply which said, in part, that it is "unwise" to : ground morality "on dogmas about souls endowed by God." : Why make such a big deal about this? : For this reason: Steven Pinker teaches at the Massachusetts Institute : of Technology (MIT), one of the most prestigious institutions of : higher learning in this country. Michael Tooley teaches at the : University of Colorado. They influence the minds of the next : generation. : It appears as if Pinker, through his terminology alone, is attempting : to dumb down America�s students and general population, and soften us : up for eventual legalization of infanticide. Don�t think that it won�t : or can�t happen. After all, abortion was considered to be unthinkable : to most Americans thirty years ago. : Giving newborn and soon-to-be born children names like neonate and : fetus is a great way to de-humanize humans, and thus justify their : extermination <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
