Infanticide is real, Catholic bioethicist tells Tucker Carlson

[Stone]

Infanticide is real, Catholic bioethicist tells Tucker Carlson
Catholic bioethicist Charles Camosy told Tucker Carlson that Donald Trump is right that infanticide is real. Tim Walz, Kamala Harris’s running mate, signed legislation that effectively legalized infanticide in Minnesota.



Tucker Carlson interviews Charles Camosy
The Tucker Carlson Show

Oct 7, 2024
(LifeSiteNews) — “It’s absolutely true” that infanticide happens, a Catholic medical ethicist confirmed to Tucker Carlson recently.

It happens not only in the “abortion context” but with other individuals whom medical professionals deem unworthy of trying to save, Charles Camosy said during an interview posted on October 3. Carlson had asked him in the context of the 2024 presidential election and Donald Trump’s statements that Tim Walz and Kamala Harris support infanticide.

Professor Camosy teaches at Creighton University’s medical school. He frequently writes and comments on bioethical issues.

Doctors will slowly kill off babies, often those who are disabled, through “slow coding” or “show coding,” Camosy said. They ignore the wishes of the parents in doing so.

Tim Walz, the Democratic governor of Minnesota, has signed legislation that allows medical practitioners to deny life-saving care to babies who survive abortions, which is a form of infanticide.

Carlson questioned how it is not a crime to slowly kill off babies.

Camosy said it “should be a crime.”

He distinguished this from an adult making the conscious decision to forego chemotherapy or other extraordinary interventions. With infanticide or “slow coding,” the patient, being a baby, has no say in the matter.

Parents will also be pressured to abort babies who may have Down syndrome, Professor Camosy said.

He told Carlson:

We call it “comfort care” again. But let me give you another example of how this works. Sometimes, and very often, parents are encouraged to have abortions in these cases where they choose not to, they push back on the medical team, like if there’s a Down syndrome diagnosis, for instance, prenatally. The medical teams, this is well documented, will push them time and time again to have abortions, even very pro-life, very prenatal justice focused parents get bombarded by medical teams again.

Carlson said he has “lived” through that, alluding to a “false diagnosis” in his family.

Doctors have ways to kill off babies even when the parents refuse abortions, Camosy warned.

He shared a story of a baby born with spina bifida. “These teams will get so frustrated that they’ll say, okay, we can’t convince you to have an abortion,” Camosy said. “There’s still things we can do after birth,” under the guise of “comfort care,” according to the medical ethicist, that will lead to death.

“Isn’t that the opposite of your job?” Carlson asked Camosy, wondering how a doctor could remain in the profession if he pushes parents to kill their children.


‘Medical establishment’ embraces ‘Nazi eugenics’

Carlson and Camosy drew parallels between today’s medical practices to not only the pre-Christian west, such as discarding babies in Greece and Rome, but also Nazi Germany.

In fact, while doctors may consider themselves “anti-Nazi,” according to Carlson, they embrace the same eugenics practices of the Nazis.

The conservative commentator said:

And I just find it so interesting that we spend a lot of time 80 years later talking about the Nazis. And obviously the Nazis are bad. Everyone agrees with that very much, including me. But the one thing that we almost never mention is that before they started rounding up other populations, the Nazis killed hundreds of thousands – about 300,000 – Germans in hospitals. The disabled children, a lot of them had ‘comfort care,’ but it was murder, and we never talk about that for some reason. And it’s sort of weird to see the American medical establishment, which I think thinks of itself as anti-Nazi, it’s weird to see them embrace Nazi eugenics policy, because that’s exactly what they’re doing.

“At the early stages of life, yes,” Camosy confirmed, calling abortion a “sacred cow” to the medical establishment.

However, there is a “little more hope” with “end of life” issue, Camosy said, pointing out that the American Medical Association still opposes assisted suicide. However, as he noted, there are regular efforts to reverse this opposition.

Later, Carlson questioned why Down syndrome advocacy groups don’t say more about the “genocide” against their own people.

“I think they should be ashamed of their cowardice,” Carlson said. “But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t great disability rights groups.”

Camosy said he is hopeful disability rights groups can be brought further into the pro-life movement, as they have been effective opponents of assisted suicide and euthanasia.


‘The idea of fundamental human equality is dying’

Camosy warned “[t]he idea of fundamental human equality is dying.”

He pointed out a variety of troubling trends in how society is moving away from “fundamental human equality.”

He said:

We’re no longer on the trajectory of trying to live this idea out more consistently. We are now in a very different trajectory. People are losing their fundamental equality. We are thinking less about how to do this and more about, well, is it really being human that matters at the end of the day? Maybe it’s about autonomy, maybe it’s about rationality, maybe it’s about self-awareness. Maybe it’s about IQ. I’ve heard more and more people talking about IQ recently in ways that I find sort of disturbing, especially given what you said about Nazi Germany. And so, once you move away from fundamental human equality, you’re left with these trait x’s, I call them.

Carlson shared his own view of equality.

“God doesn’t care what your IQ is. It has nothing to do with whether or not you have a soul,” he said. “You have a soul because you’re a human being.”

“Your soul is identical in value to mine. You may have an IQ twice mine,” he said. “You may be three times as rich as me. It doesn’t matter. None of that matters. Just to be clear about my view on this.”


‘Brain death’ contributes to dehumanization

Camosy said the concept of “brain death,” which was developed in the 1960s, has contributed to the dehumanization. He referenced a committee from Harvard University that suggested individuals on ventilators have “brain death,” which will allow for organ harvesting.

The Harvard medical school dean opposed this proposal, according to Camosy, pointing out the guidelines were being pushed just to harvest organs. “And so they changed the document. But it’s still, even with the edited document, it’s very clear, and this is historically well known, that this is what happened,” Camosy said.

However, people with “brain death” are clearly alive, since these individuals can still gestate, for example. “They can fight off infections. If you cut into their body, they release adrenaline, and their heart rate speeds up,” Camosy said.


‘We should have reverence for death itself’

Later on in the interview, the pair continued discussing death, particularly in the context of war.

Carlson said:

I’m probably make myself super unpopular for saying this, but I remember when Osama bin Laden got shot to death and I hated Osama bin Laden. He killed a friend of mine. Actually, I’m not for Osama bin Laden, but I thought…When someone dies, we should have reverence for death itself. I mean, we can be happy that someone who is attacking us is gone and the threat is gone. I think that’s worth celebrating. But we should never feel glee watching a human soul be extinguished. I just don’t. I think that’s a really ugly habit to get into. And it diminishes us and turns us into monsters. It turns us into Osama bin Laden-type people.

Shortly after, Camosy asked if a “revival” could be happening, asking Carlson about his experience traveling around the country recently.

“Do we see other human beings as fellow human beings, as people with souls whose lives inherently matter, whether we like them or the life they’re living or not… how do we see ourselves?” Carlson asked.

“Do you really believe you have the right to kill someone, except in self-defense?… Only God has that power,” Carlson said.

He said “rapid technological advances” in the past 80 years have led to a “hollow culture” where people “think they’re God.” The “recognition” of this problem is leading to a “spiritual yearning” and a “kind of revival,” Carlson said.


Some ethicists gave in to ‘fear’ with the COVID jabs

The pair discussed several other topics at the end of the interview, including bodily autonomy when it comes to refusing the abortion-tainted COVID jabs as well as the cultural harms of contraception.

“Anyone who forces a vaccine on somebody, by definition, is not respecting patient autonomy,” Carlson said. “If I’m telling you you’re required by law to put some drug in your body that you don’t want, how am I treating you as a human being? I’m treating you as my slave, as a subhuman.”

Camosy agreed there is a disconnect between people who support “autonomy” for so-called “reproductive rights” – i.e. the destruction of unborn babies in abortion – but not the jabs.

Asked by Carlson what ethicists said at the time, Camosy said many were taken in “by fear.”

“Don’t we have ethicists precisely for the moments that are ruled by fear?… When we lack a clear consensus on the right direction and when our judgment is muddled by panic, that’s exactly the moment we need clear thinking ethicists, correct?” Carlson asked, laughing at how many were “swept away” during the panic.

Camosy said “conscience is the place where you meet God in the most profound way.”

“We ought to respect people’s conscience rights to choose not to take the vaccine,” Camosy said. “But it’s so interesting that those arguments sort of evaporated in light of all that fear.”

Carlson then shared how he had noticed the supporters of birth control were the same ones pushing other “anti-fertility” positions. He has previously criticized birth control, as reported by LifeSiteNews.

He said:

The reason I’ve had cause to rethink all this is because I’ve noticed that almost every major push from the public health community and certainly from our politicians is anti-fertility. That’s what they’re focused on. It’s the one right you possess is the ‘right’ to have an abortion. That’s the only. You don’t have the right to speak freely, to have control of your own money, to gather with like-minded people, to protest or petition your government, none of those rights still exist.

“The only right you have is the ‘right’ to end your pregnancy and of course to prevent it in the first place through birth control,” he said rhetorically. “And I just, I’m sensing a theme where I’m not a genius, but I have noticed that the thread that connects all of their main concerns is the same and is they don’t want you to have kids. And why is that?” he asked.

Camosy pointed out that women do want to have more kids but have fewer. There could be economic factors at play, Camosy suggested.

Carlson pointed out that leftist Senator Elizabeth Warren “wrote a wonderful book” about the “two-income trap.” This is the idea that consumerism and women in the workplace has driven up the cost of goods, which means families feel like both parents then have to work, which continues the cycle.

People want to “be with their own children,” Carlson said.

Camosy said the “two-income trap” is embedded in our society.

Carlson denounced it as “so rotten and anti-human,” adding, “It’s denying people the true source of joy.”