Evolutionist Professor Says Parents Should Be Allowed to Euthanize Severely Deformed Newborn Children

CHICAGO — A well-known professor and evolution adherent at the University of Chicago says that he believes parents should be allowed to euthanize newborns that have severe deformities or who are significantly ill.

“If you are allowed to abort a fetus that has a severe genetic defect, microcephaly, spina bifida, or so on, then why aren’t you able to euthanize that same fetus just after it’s born?” biologist Jerry Coyne asked in a recent blog post.

“I see no substantive difference that would make the former act moral and the latter immoral,” he said. “After all, newborn babies aren’t aware of death, aren’t nearly as sentient as an older child or adult, and have no rational faculties to make judgments (and if there’s severe mental disability, would never develop such faculties).”

Coyne stated that he believes the reason euthanizing ill infants is taboo in society is because humans are considered of more value than animals, a mindset that he said has been wrongfully propagated by religion. He predicted that as religion dies, mankind will become more accepting of euthanizing newborns, and infants will be afforded the same end to “torture” as do dogs and cats.


“The reason we don’t allow euthanasia of newborns is because humans are seen as special, and I think this comes from religion—in particular, the view that humans, unlike animals, are endowed with a soul,” he wrote. “It’s the same mindset that, in many places, won’t allow abortion of fetuses that have severe deformities. When religion vanishes, as it will, so will much of the opposition to both adult and newborn euthanasia.”

In his post, Coyne also pointed to the writings of moral philosopher Peter Singer and expressed his agreement with the Princeton professor.

As previously reported, Singer wrote in his book “Practical Ethics,” “When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the haemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Coyne said that he believes babies with painful or terminal conditions should be permitted to die through lethal injection, which he found to be more humane than withholding treatment.

“Withdrawing care may be legal, but in cases like this it causes more suffering than simply falling asleep after a lethal injection of, say, a barbiturate. In the future we’ll look back on our present society and say, ‘How brutal not to have been allowed to do that,'” he asserted.

However, some have expressed horror at Coyne’s suggestion, but said they understood the connections between the professor’s evolutionary beliefs and his persuasion that deformed or terminally ill infants should be relieved of their suffering because humans are no more special than sickly dogs and cats that are put out of their misery.

“[H]ow does Coyne justify his claim that infanticide and assisted suicide are morally praiseworthy? He relies on arguments that are based on his understanding of evolutionary biology. He claims humans are not a special or unique species, a point he bases on Darwinism,” wrote Richard Weikart for Evolution News.

“Coyne, like many secular intellectuals, sees morality as non-objective, because he thinks it is produced by random mutations, natural selection, and also changing cultural factors,” he noted. “He uses this moral relativism as a sledgehammer against morality (and religion) that he doesn’t like.”

Andrea Moury of the National Pulse made similar remarks.

“Though based on inherently flawed presuppositions showing a complete disregard of the dignity of human life, Coyne’s conclusion is logical. If one accepts abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide, nothing should keep him from also justifying infanticide,” she wrote. “Although initially limited to only sick babies, just as abortion is now permitted under any circumstances, this slippery slope’s unavoidable destination is the justification of infanticide ‘on demand without apology.’ One hopes the public will realize this before society reaches that destination.”

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has ChristianNews.net been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Striving to bring you the news without compromise and with Christ in focus, we press on despite recent changes in Facebook and Google's algorithms, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational site revenue. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News Network supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • landy fincannon

    Behaving as expected. GODLESS

  • Can we then euthanize morally deformed professors?

    • Trilemma

      Because that’s what Jesus would want you to do, right?

      • Atheism has no rational basis for objective truth or morality. Without transcendent revealed truth (the Bible) all is permissible, as godless communism demonstrated in the 20th century.
        Therefore, as Coyne can correctly see no moral distinction between abortion and infanticide, neither can there be a moral distinction between infanticide and Pol Pot. Hence euthanizing morally bankrupt professors must be legitimate and moral under Coyne’s atheism.

        • Trilemma

          Religion has no rational basis for objective truth or morality either.

          Pol Pot was responsible for the deaths of 1 to 3 million healthy adults. It was not done out of compassion to relieve inevitable suffering. Mr. Coyne is only suggesting painlessly killing those who would otherwise suffer a slow, painful death by dismemberment inside the womb or by withholding treatment after birth or by natural causes in spite of treatment. You’re making a false analogy.

  • meamsane

    Well then, this professor should have no problem defending 1930’s/40’s Nazi Germany and there extermination of 6 million Jews and others since humans are no more special than dogs!

    • Trilemma

      This professor would probably say it’s morally wrong to take 6 million dogs from their homes and exterminate them. So, this professor would not defend the Holocaust.

      • meamsane

        Dogs and men are Interchangeable, huh?

        I wonder if the Dr. here (Or you) is familiar with the Nazi “Euthanasia” Program, since he makes similar arguments for the Euthanasia of children?
        Out of 23 Nazi Doctors in the Nuremberg Trials 16 were convicted and 7 were sentenced to hang which was carried out in June of 1948. And some of those were convicted of “Euthanizing” Handicapped children.
        In 1939, the Nazi’s had doctors and nurses inform them of any children under the age of 3 years that showed any signs of either mental illness or physical handicap. In Nazi Ideology, they were not “worthy of life”?

        • Trilemma

          Nothing in this article would indicate that Dr. Coyne considers dogs and men interchangeable. Nor is there anything to indicate he would defend the Holocaust or euthanizing handicapped children. But when it comes to suffering, why do Christians generally show more compassion for dogs than they do people?

    • Robert

      You can thank Stanford university eugenics ptogramsb in California for much of what went on in Nazi Germany. Stanford scientists developed the blue print and they were oh so happy and excited to use the Nazi concentration camps to see it carred it out . The money came from rich Americans to the Rockerfeller foundation And even rich american Jews

  • Trilemma

    If you are allowed to abort a fetus that has a severe genetic defect, microcephaly, spina bifida, or so on, then why aren’t you able to euthanize that same fetus just after it’s born? I see no substantive difference that would make the former act moral and the latter immoral, – Jerry Coyne

    This is very true, either both are moral or both are immoral. However, it is more humane to end the life of a newborn baby with these serious conditions by lethal injection than to end the life of a fetus by current abortion procedures. There would need to be laws to prevent abuses of euthanasia.

    Mr. Coyne seems to believe that religion says animals don’t have souls like humans but the Bible says animals are living souls. Mr. Coyne also thinks religion will vanish. Fact is, as long as there are humans, there will be religion.

  • FoJC

    Many predatory animals eat the weak and sick among their favorite (available) prey. Predatory people kill helpless babies because they deem them too imperfect for “happiness”. This man needs to be kept away from all disabled children, maybe even all disabled people.

    Animals don’t watch television shows, read books, or do live research about people, studying us and our behavior. Humans are more than animals. That said, animals as we know them now are not how they were created by God to be, in the Beginning.

  • 615GEJ1

    Mr. Coyne is blind and is no threat to those who can see!

  • Reason2012

    He’s just proving how evil the mythology of fish to mankind evolution is, pretending a human being is no more valuable than a rat. It’s how they help convince women to slaughter 60 MILLION of their sons and daughters these past few decades, blood_sacrifices on the altar of personal convenience.

    2 Chronicles 7:14 “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

    James 5:16 “.. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.”

  • Robert

    The truth hurts so here it is ..We would be a lot better off today if those children would euthanize all evolution professors. Every last one of them.

    • Trilemma

      ISIS thinks the world would be better off if all Christians were euthanized. You think the world would be better off if all evolution professors were euthanized. Same mindset, different target.

  • Robert

    This is so easy to choose keep the children get rid of the evolution professors. Every last one of them.

  • mr goody two shoes

    Fathers who love their children unconditionally as their Heavenly Father loves th

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    Nazi Eugenics Policies Are Sweeping the Country: Oregon’s Final Solution

    Yesterday, I covered the fact that a judge in Tennessee is sterilizing prisoners in exchange for knocking 30 days off of their sentence. The rationale comes straight out of the Nazi playbook in which the state will decide who breeds and who does not.

    If this were the only Nazi Master Race/Eugenics program sweeping America, this article might be considered to be on the hysterical side. However, the state of Oregon is beta testing euthanasia for the terminally ill as well as the mentally ill. Oregon is also kidnapping children from parents who they claim not smart enough to raise their children. Yet, in these cases, the state has no identifiable criteria and no reports of child abuse of neglect. We are even witnessing the microchipping of employees by an American corporation. This is a brand of justice that can best be described as “Just us”.

    Oregon’s License to Murder the Disadvantaged

    Senate Bill 494, recently introduced in the Oregon Legislature, would allow the starving and dehydrating of patients who suffer from dementia or mental illness.

    “A perfect illustration of the danger this bill presents can be seen in a situation involving an Ashland, Oregon resident named Nora Harris who suffered from Alzheimer’s disease. After moving into a memory care facility, Nora eventually lost the ability to communicate her wishes. She lost her fine motor skills as well, which prevented her from using utensils. Hungry, she would eat and drink what was offered to her, but her husband sought a court order to require the nursing home to stop assisting her. However, the court would not deny Nora basic sustenance because that would have violated Oregon law. Now Oregon legislators are pushing to remove this legal protection and issue a license to kill!”
    Oregon’s Nazi Eugenics Breeding Program

    Amy DeFabbrini, 31, and Eric Ziegler, 38, have lost custody of both of their sons. The eldest son, Christopher, was taken by the state of Oregon shortly after he was born. Five months ago, the state took their second child, Hunter, directly from the mother’s womb at the hospital. Both children are now in foster care. Oregon’s Department of Human Services has removed both boys, using the justification that the parents are too mentally limited to be good parents and no supporting criteria was offered to support the kidnapping of the two children.

    What is a good parent? No abuse or neglect has been found, but each parent has been found to have a degree of limited cognitive abilities. However, if there is no violation of the children’s welfare, then what is the justification for removal? What is the cutoff point for IQ scores that permits the state government from stepping in and removing children. Where is the probable cause, the violation?

    The Common Sense Show ……………

  • The General

    Strange that everyone agrees that the Third Reich was truly evil, and yet a “well-known professor” can advocate exactly what the Reich did – “life not worthy of life,” humans deciding that other humans can be killed, legally, and all in the name of compassion.

    • Trilemma

      The Third Reich did not kill six million people in the name of compassion. They did it out of hate. The Third Reich killed millions of healthy people. This professor is only suggesting painlessly killing those who would otherwise suffer a slow, painful death. You’re making a false analogy.

      • LibertyisEssential

        No, he is talking about all sorts of conditions. Plenty of hemophiliacs live productive lives. What about club foot, cleft palate, Downs Syndrome, a missing arm, Siamese Twins. Where will the line be drawn?

        • Trilemma

          In his blog post, Mr. Coyne did not mention any of the conditions you bring up. He was only talking about extremely serious conditions which, in some cases, are already legal reasons for abortion or for withholding of treatment. Which is more compassionate of a doomed newborn, to make it die a painful death or a peaceful death?

  • George Jenkins

    Here’s the main point. The professor is absolutely correct. A lot of the comments ignore the “if ” at the start of this statement. ““If you are allowed to abort a fetus that has a severe genetic defect, microcephaly, spina bifida, or so on, then why aren’t you able to euthanize that same fetus just after it’s born?” biologist Jerry Coyne asked in a recent blog post.
    “I see no substantive difference that would make the former act moral and the latter immoral,” he said.” “.
    Our society has sunk so low that it is willing to accept abortion. Well, if killing is okay just before birth, why is it wrong 15 minutes later? Coyne is correct. There is no substantive difference. Both killings are evil, but there is really nothing significantly different between the two.

  • Randolph Reynoldson

    Don’t let the Government have control over your health care. They will make choices that are not your choices!!!!!!

  • MEP1101


    • Trilemma

      Right about what?

  • Gena B

    “why aren’t you able to euthanize that same fetus just after it’s born?” he asks? Because it would be considered murder. How horrible. The way he is talking about it that humans are just a biological blob and if they don’t come out right, trash it and try again. That comes from someone who obviously doesn’t believe we have a soul. How sad for this guy, he doesn’t have any hope, so yes, to him life is nothing and death is nothing.

  • Dianne

    Luke 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.