Toward the new future

Human Life Review, Winter 1999 by McFadden, J P

Obviously Mr. Singer has strong views on a wide variety of controversial questions, and is evidently still adding to the list: back home in Australia, he has recently argued "The case for Prostitution" (in The Age of Sept. 18, 1980); "We should recognize," he writes, "that those who earn a living by selling sexual services are fulfilling a socially valuable function." And, anyway, "Most fundamentally, they do not cease to be people entitled to our respect."

The really fundamental question is: Why would an official medical journal choose anybody with Singer's flabbergasting intellectual baggage to put its case against the Baby Doe regs? The obvious answer is-must be-that Dr. Strain and his associates agree with Singer. Oh, but only in re Baby Doe, surely not all the rest of it? Well then, let the AAP officially repudiate Singer. But we do not expect to see any such repudiation. Singer does represent the New Future, which is indeed committed to new ethics in all these matters. Consider: it is not enough to merely have the "freedom" to abort babies, you must make others agree that it is good to do so; leaving homosexuals alone isn't enough, you must agree that theirs is merely an "alternative life style," and so on, on and on. The arguments become almost identical in all cases-- are we not asked to agree that infanticide is really done for the good of the child?-because all such "social issues" are part and parcel of the new ethic, which is why Singer sees nothing wrong with lumping them all together at every opportunity.

Lest the reader think we exaggerate his views, be sure that there is much more (and worse) available: Singer is on record on just about every "ethical" question known to man (and, of course, if animals could read, he'd hit the best-seller list). But our point here is that he is the prototype "ethicist" for those review boards; he holds just the "right" views, and we can expect to see him and his type much sought-after to answer the questions that are the heart of the matter, namely, Who shall live? and Who Shall decide?

The New Future is even more awful than it seems. Even if the majority of Americans knew about what is involved, they would find it impossible to transfer Singer's inhuman notions to their family doctor. The grand strategic factor in the current War Between the Ethics is that the apostles of the New Future know precisely what they are doing-never mind what they may say-- while the mass of Americans don't yet realize there is a war, and those who do can scarcely believe that the enemy could seriously intend the predictable results. To be sure, the "old ethic" will not die: it is indeed based on the Judeo-Christian ethic, and it has been with us for thousands of years because, God knows, it is a human ethic. But of course it can be temporarily defeated, as it has been, often enough in history, whenever a militant, determined enemy has caught its defenders unprepared. Communism of course shows the lengths to which New Futurites can go-indeed, how "completely" they can succeed in setting up truly diabolical "utopias" ruled by inhuman New Men. But then Poland reminds us that, in the end, real men will remain, to rebuild human society. The urgent need now is to prevent things going as far as they can go, while there is still time to do so.