« A Mind for God | Main | Obama the new front runner? »

May 23, 2007


Pete Ross

The moral revulsion directed at the father of the abandoned pre-schooler is misplaced. We find it shocking for a father to deposit his child in a drop box, but what would have been a better alternative? A father capable of abandoning his own child can do no more humane thing than to deposit the child with a church run orphanage. The father certainly was defective, but can we blame him for recognizing his shortcomings and giving his child a chance with people who would love him?



Actually the drop-off boxes or whatever you want to call them are the same as many hospitals, fire stations, and police stations have in the US. The reason being is after giving birth a mother can have very significant hormonal changes and it is a way to prevent hurting her baby. So it is not OK to abandon your baby but it is a much, much better alternative.

Resident Atheist

Perhaps the 'intuitive part of us which recoils at the idea of a little boy being abandoned by his father' is a evolutionary tool that has been bred for specifically because it propogates the species.

I don't particularly care for the theory that the religious have a lock on human dignity. That implies that atheists are unable understand compassion, morality, or simple humanity. Just because we don't have some higher authority demanding it from us, it does not mean that these traits cannot be justified on their own merit.

'Survival of the fittest' is a cute cliche to describe evolution (I would argue inaccurately). That does not mean that all people that believe in evolution like the fact that the strong usually survive. We can still fight the effects of the theory we believe in.

The comments to this entry are closed.