The horrors of infanticide, euthanasia and medical rationing all stem from the disregard for human life shown by abortion. We as a society decided that some human lives could be ended legally by execution for no crime (or perhaps that most grievous crime of being unwanted). At this point the lives of all human beings were weighed against a perceived value. A price tag was put on life, a price tag based largely on how convenient it is to save your life and at what cost in time and treasure. We went from understanding that the sanctity of human life should be protected at all times to deciding whether either our own life or the life of someone else is worth living based on an illusion that we are reducing their pain, and by a reality that tells us that living too long makes us a burden on our families and on society.
This is clearly admitted by Peter Singer in his work Practical Ethics (Cambridge 1993):
“…we will have confirmed the suspicion of supporters of the sanctity of human life that once abortion is accepted, euthanasia lurks around the next comer - and for them, euthanasia is an unequivocal evil. It has, they point out, been rejected by doctors since the fifth century B.C., when physicians first took the Oath of Hippocrates and swore 'to give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel'. Moreover, they argue, the Nazi extermination programme is a recent and terrible example of what can happen once we give the state the power to [kill] innocent human beings.
I do not deny that if one accepts abortion on the grounds provided in Chapter 6, the case for killing other human beings, in certain circumstances, is strong. As I shall try to show in this chapter, however, this is not something to be regarded with horror, and the use of the Nazi analogy is utterly misleading. On the contrary, once we abandon those doctrines about the sanctity of human life that - as we saw in Chapter 4 - collapse as soon as they are questioned, it is the refusal to accept killing that, in some cases, is horrific (emphasis mine).”
Singer has repudiated the greatest cultural norm that was once extolled by our society: valuing the sanctity of every human life. Mr. Singer and others like him have replaced the sanctity of human life with the sanctity of death.
Death is the answer and for Singer and others a way to make the world better because their twisted Utilitarian philosophy is stuck in the mentality of Brave New World where pleasure is the ultimate good. “In modern bioethics, nothing is, in itself, either valuable or inviolable, except utility.” (Professor John Keown the Rose Kennedy Professor of Christian Ethics at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics as quoted by Wesley Smith in his book Culture of Death.)
The utility principle is a bizarre philosophical principle that uses the supposed common good to take away the right to life of a human being by imagining the good (measured solely in pleasure). This dangerous and dehumanizing philosophy has found a foothold in American society where these dangerous policies not only threaten the lives of unborn children, but all human beings. At any moment a life can be determined to be too expensive to be worth saving. Peter Singer is wrong, the refusal to kill people is the right thing to do.
Telling the disabled and elderly that society does not value them stems from the lack of value that has been given to the lives of unborn children. Once we start to weigh the value of human life against other considerations we have already lost because we are trying to measure the immeasurable value of a human life against something incomparable to it.