Assuming the scientific approach to reasoning that I mentioned in my last post I'd like to pose a question and situation to each of you.
Reproducing.
Animals (excluding at this point in time Humans) undergo a certain aptitude for reproduction. They seem to know when to have children, and when it is fruitful to keep the children they have had.
For example, the American black bear normally gives birth to two or three cubs at a time. If by chance she only gives birth to one then she will abandon the baby because it's not economical to her to raise one baby when she can save her strength and resources for two or three later on.
Mice. Mice will examine there offspring after birth and if any of them are small or she doesn't think they will survive she kills them.
This infanticide can be seen in numerous species of animals, including those we are closely related to: the primates.
Now, if we follow the evolutionary trend, the idea of infanticide seems to be a biological choice for women who do not have the means or resources to take care of her offspring, or if upon birth the offspring is found to be pseudo-incapable of survival. By Darwinistic evolutionary standards this is permissible.
Now, if we look at a comparison of our DNA compared to that of other primates we see a 99% similarity. But, as Dr. Lawrence Cuningham has said, "what's significant is that 1% difference. It is a kind of moral evolution that takes place within humans."
This moral evolution is what cause human mothers to keep her child even if the means are not available and even if her child suffers from a life altering disease.
What is more powerful, moral evolution or Darwinistic evolution? Should infanticide be allowed because it is part of our evolutionary heritage, or outlawed because of out 1% moral status?