Today’s New York Times Magazine carries an opinion article that strives to further normalize infanticide as an acceptable medical practice. (Registration may be required to access article.) The issue, apparently, isn’t whether life is sacrosanct but whether it is our duty to eliminate suffering— even if it means eliminating the patient. But if this is so, than almost anything can be justified. Moreover, note how the issue of “choice” is abandoned, since babies, by definition, can’t choose to be killed. And if “suffering” is the primary issue, than there is no way to limit these killing procedures to the dying. The Netherlands proves it. Oh yes, and the author did not bother to check about how infanticide is already undertaken in the Netherlands. He just assumes that strict guidelines will protect against abuse. Never mind that killing is abuse, such naive assertions are belied by the facts on the ground. Talk about terminal nonjudgmentalism!
You have a decision to make: double or nothing.
For this week only, a generous supporter has offered to fully match all new and increased donations to First Things up to $60,000.
In other words, your gift of $50 unlocks $100 for First Things, your gift of $100 unlocks $200, and so on, up to a total of $120,000. But if you don’t give, nothing.
So what will it be, dear reader: double, or nothing?
Make your year-end gift go twice as far for First Things by giving now.
