According to Peter Singer’s argument, human beings have a certain property that makes it morally wrong to kill them. The inherent property possessed by human beings increases their value and arguably overcomes any decision aimed at terminating life. However, infants do not possess the same property. Therefore, the fact that the properties are not evident in infants, Singer deduces that this does not make it morally wrong to kill them. He conversely considers the fact that some people who may have valued the infant may feel wronged. Such bestowing of value to infants by a section of the society emanates due to diversity in thoughts and believe. From the analysis this argument as presented by Singer, it is clear that it is based on the fact that he is of the opinion that killing an infant is less serious compared to killing a person. Therefore, it is correct inference that according to Singer, infants are less human and do not possess the same fundamental rights enjoyed by human beings (Lodp, 2013).
Singer also advances the notion that infants who are rejected because they are physically handicapped are better off dead. Critical analysis of this sentiment shows that Singer believes that unwanted infants should not be subjected to the suffering that comes along with being raised in a hostile society or family. Instead of being discriminated on the basis of their physical appearance, abortion is a better remedy to the problem of infants being physically disabled. Therefore, Singer fundamentally supports his arguments by referring to the contemporary plight of human beings. From his illustrations on the development of the fetus during the early stages of pregnancy development, Singer tries to prove that the fetus cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence. His assumption is that, during the early stages of development, the fetus is not a fully grown life form or human being that can feel the pain of being killed.