Unethical Ethicist
One of the British government's leading advisers on genetics has provoked an uproar by suggesting it may be acceptable to kill babies with ''defects'' soon after birth.
Professor John Harris, a member of the British Medical Association's ethics committee and author of 15 books on the ethics of genetics, was asked during a debate on sex selection, what moral status he accorded an embryo.
He responded by endorsing infanticide in cases where a child has a genetic disorder that remained undetected during pregnancy and suggested there's no moral difference between aborting an unborn baby and killing an infant once it's born, reports the London Telegraph.
Said Harris: ''It's not plausible to think that there is any moral change that occurs during the journey down the birth canal.''
...''People who think there is a difference between infanticide and late abortion have to ask the question: What has happened to the fetus in the time it takes to pass down the birth canal and into the world which changes its moral status? I don't think anything has happened in that time.
[Full Story]
Well he is correct in the fact that a moral change does not occur as it passes the birth canal. In fact their is no moral change from conception on. This unethical ethicist seems to make exactly the same points that Princeton's unethical ethicist Dr. Pete Singer makes. They both say there is no difference between late term abortions an infanticide after birth.
Known as 
This natural logical progression does help less "gifted" thinkers focus on real issues though. It removes the "moment of birth" from the equation and I believe it assists the prolife movement in that the decision simply becomes "Do we have the right to kill this 'whatever it is' at any time up to an arbitrary point that we decide upon? And if so then can't that arbitrary point be changed by us at any time too?" Then the truth begins to hit. We're killing people. That's what I think anyway. That's what I hope anyway. And Peter Singer is, unfortunately, my fellow national (Australian) Sorry :(
Good -- then I am glad America has taken him.
Dr. Peter Singer is an INTERNATIONAL hero. I came to the same philosophy as Dr. Singer's on my own. What the anti-euthanasia terrorists NEVER take into consideration is the BENEFIT of euthanizing severely deformed babies: preventing them from a lifetime of misery for themselves as well as FORCED ENSLAVEMENT of OTHERS to take care of them. That benefit to EVERYONE far outweighs the brief amount of pain the baby might feel being stuck by the euthanasia needle. Sorry -- all the Christians and god-lovers are dangerous and insane for REFUSING to take THIS part of the equation into effect.
Furthermore, all Christians and anti-euthanasia terrorists are unpatriotic anti-American cowards for REFUSING to stand up for what is right and making the tough decisions like Dr. Peter Singer proposes. Hypocritically, these same god-lovers gush over and defend police and military people when THEY kill or murder innocent people, even when they could have made choices to kill fewer, and support them for "making the tough choices".
In contrast, the following choice exists between eating meat versus eating some vegetarian source of protein:
1) a lifetime of excruciating confinement and torture for the animals and a momentary luxury from the pleasure of eating meat for you
2) freedom from terror and murder for the animal versus a minor inconvenience for you.
2 is CLEARLY the better choice. It is the choice predicted by game theory. It is the choice predicted by Dr. Singer's theory of utilitarian preference. And THIS is what "animal rights" MEANS. The right to equal consideration in a utilitarian argument. Period.
Unfortunately, it is clear that going to war against those who actively fight to make the WORSE of these choices in both the euthanasia case and the vegetarian case is the ONLY way to educate and make all the meat-eating anti-American un-patriotic cowards in this world get these ideas into their insignificant brains.