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.
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.