z46\doc\web\2000\10\pot.txt (1990) Francis J. Canavan writes that The
selective aborting was practiced by "civilized" greek society


To wit:


Infanticide


Sir Alfred Zimmern, despite his German name, was an Englishman and a 
professor at Oxford University. In 1911 he published what is still an 
excellent book, The Greek Commonwealth, on the culture and civilization of 
the pagan Greeks of the ancient world. The following long paragraph is 
taken from pages 330-331 of the 5th edition, published by the Oxford 
University Press:


It has not been easy for admirers of the Greeks to admit that Greek theory 
and practice condoned the deliberate exercise of checks upon the growth of 
the population. Yet the evidence shows us that such was indeed the case.


When a child was born it remained, by a custom universal, so far as we 
know, at least down to the fourth century, within the discretion of the 
father whether it should be allowed to live. On the fifth day after birth, 
at earliest, new-born infants were solemnly presented to the household and 
admitted to its membership. Up to the time of this ceremony the father had 
complete power of selection, and, what is more, it appears that this was 
quite frequently exercised, particularly in the case of female infants; for 
the provision of a dowry for his daughters weighed heavily on a Greek 
father's mind, and what was easier than to evade it by pleading inability 
at the outset?


When it was decided that the infants were not to be "nourished" they would 
be packed in a cradle, or more often in a pot, and exposed in a public 
place, the poor mother, no doubt, hoping against hope, like Creusa in the 
Ion, that some merciful fellow-citizen might yet take pity on its wailing. 
It is strange and horrible to think that any day on your walks abroad in a 
Greek city you might come across a "pot-exposed" infant, as the Athenians 
called them, in a corner of the market-place or by a wrestling ground, at 
the entrance of a temple or in a consecrated cave, and that you might see a 
slave girl timidly peeping round to look if the child might yet be saved, 
or running back to bear the news to the broken-hearted young mother.


For though the custom was barbarous, and promoted, if not enforced, by a 
barbarous necessity, the Greeks who bowed before it still remained 
civilized men and women. "I beg and beseech you," writes a husband in a 
Greek private letter which has lately returned to us from the underworld, 
"to take care of the little child, and, as soon as we receive wages, I will 
send them to you. When ­ good luck to you ­ you bear offspring, it if is a 
male, let it live; if it is a female, expose it.


The world has changed, of course, since those distant pagan days. But how 
much the world has change ­ how much have we changed ­ in the 20th century! 
In 1911, Zimmern thought than an educated audience would be shocked at the 
idea of putting deliberate checks on the growth of population. Seven 
decades later, schoolchildren are being taught by almot all the social 
studies textbooks used in the public schools that they have no higher duty 
than checking population growth.


Zimmern also assumed that modern readers would find it horrible to think 
that, if they could take a walk around ancient Athens, Corinth, or Thebes, 
they might come across infants exposed to die of starvation. Today, with 
more tender sensibilites, we let them starve to death in closed hospital 
rooms. But the babies end up just as starved and just as dead.


We don't like to talk about that: nonetheless, we are ceasing to be 
shocked. The mere fact that infanticide is now a controversial issue is 
significant. In 1911 there would have been no controversy over the 
proposition that killing infants through the denial of care is simply wrong 
and not to be done.


A profound shift in attitudes toward human life has taken place in this 
century, and is still going on. The legalization of abortion was a very 
important step in this process but, as the current discussion of the 
obligation to keep infants alive shows, the process is not yet finished. It 
fact, it has only begun.


A news report that appeared in the New York Times a few years ago throws a 
cold, clear, light on our contemporary mentality:


"Faced with a growing number of malpractice claims and the rising 
expectations of patients, a significant number of the nation's doctors have 
either abandoned the practice of obstetrics or are seriously considering it."


In the most revealing remark in the whole report, the Times quoted a doctor 
in North Carolina who explained why he quit the field of obstetrics: 
"There's an attitude that says, 'We're going to have fewer babies, so we 
want a perfect baby."'


Another doctor commented that unfortunately a baby doesn't always turn out 
perfect. "Twenty years ago it was considered an act of God. Today there are 
no more acts of God. They expect you should have been able to do something."


We want a perfect baby, and if we don't get one, it must be someone's 
fault, therefore we sue the doctor. The Times naturally did not mention it, 
but the same attitude often explains the decision to abort or to allow a 
deformed infant to die.


We must admit that from a purely secular point of view, killing infants 
makes a kind of sense. If there is no God, then there are no acts of God. 
If this world is the only one there is, and this life is the only one we'll 
ever live, why should we let our uniquely precious lives be marred by 
taking care of less than normally healthy children?


It is a grim kind of sense, however , and one that will appeal only to 
people who hold a certain view of the world and have certain expectations 
from it. As the less admirable features of ancient paganism re-emerge in 
our society, we shall indeed be more free to pursue happiness on our own 
terms, but it will be rough on children and other weaklings who get in our way.




(1990) Francis J. Canavan, S.J. is a Professor Emeritus at Fordham 
University, where he taught Political Science for 22 years (1966-1988), and 
an Editor of Human Life Review. He was an Associate Editor of America 
magazine (1960-1966), and his articles and reviews have appeared in several 
dozen journals both in the U.S. and Europe, including Catholic World, 
Communio, Etudes, Modern Age, Theological Studies, and the Women Lawyers 
Journal. His most recent books include Freedom of Expression: Purpose as 
Limit and Edmund Burke: Prescription and Providence (Carolina Academic 
Press, 1984, 1986)> Father Canavan is also the regular Commentary columnist 
for the newsletter catholic eye, in which the sixty essays in [Pins in the 
Liberal Balloon] first appeared.