Where does pro-choice end and pro-life begin...?

[Cyxeris]

Government adviser: killing children with defects acceptable
NICHOLAS CHRISTIAN


A GOVERNMENT adviser on genetics has sparked fury by suggesting it might be acceptable to destroy children with ‘defects’ soon after they are born.

John Harris, a member of the Human Genetics Commission, told a meeting at Westminster he did not see any distinction between aborting a fully grown unborn baby at 40 weeks and killing a child after it had been born.

Harris, who is a professor of bioethics at Manchester University, would not be drawn on which defects or problems might be used as grounds for ending a baby’s life, or how old a child might be while it could still be destroyed.

Harris was reported to have said that he did not believe that killing a child was always inexcusable.

In addition, it was claimed that he did not believe that there was any ‘moral change’ that occurred between when the baby was in the womb and when it had been brought into the world.

He did not say how old a child might be while it could still be destroyed

Harris, who also gives advice to doctors as a member of the ethics committee of the British Medical Association (BMA), is understood to have argued that there was no moral distinction between aborting a foetus found by tests to have defects and disposing of a child where the parents discovered the problems at birth.

The words drew a furious response from anti-abortion campaigners. The Pro-Life lobby group, who had members present at the meeting, noted what Harris had said and condemned his words.

Julia Millington, the group’s spokeswoman, said: "It is frightening to think that university students are being educated by somebody who endorses the killing of new-born babies, and equally worrying to discover that such a person is the establishment’s ‘preferred’ bioethicist."

However, Michael Wilkes, the chairman of the BMA’s ethics committee, claimed that Harris was simply trying to encourage debate and consistent thinking.

He said: "There are many who might concur that there is no difference between a full-term foetus and a new-born baby, although the majority would see there is a substantial difference. Abortion is legal, but termination after birth is killing."

In the past, Harris has spoken of the need to allow people to buy and sell human organs as a means of increasing supplies for transplant operations.

He also recently expressed support for the sex selection of babies for social reasons.

He said: "If it isn’t wrong to wish for a bonny bouncing baby girl, why would it be wrong to make use of technology to play fairy godmother?"

[elektro80]

[Cyxeris]

I dont mean this to promote either camp; pro-life or pro-choice, but one is forced, by the argument that there is no fundamental difference between a full-term fetus and a born infant, to substantiate the difference, if one is to stay a pro-choice course. The line was drawn at partial-birth, and not an apparently renowned figure in medicine has crossed that line stating that there is no difference, and that the termination of a born infant is not inexcusable.

This makes for interesting discussion, as now the pro-choice camp are challenged to substantiate, in medical and scientific dialog, the difference between a full-term fetus and a born infant if they are to take a stand against this sort of eugenic license.

The pro-life camp basicly has nothing new to add to the situation, as to them, stem-cells are as significant and precious as an infant, and this person's statements are no more substantial than those of the pro-choice camp. The argument is the same. If they go about escelating their position regarding the matter in response to these statements, than they are admitting that there is a difference in significance between a fetus and a post-fetus, and would thus help in eroding their arguments for the protection of the former.

In any event, the rules seem to have changed, and now the pro-choice camp may have to take a more pro-life stance being that a member of the medical community itself is essentially working to eliminate the barrier that they, themselves, have adhered to: birth. After all, what is the fundamental distinction?

Cyx

[mosc]

[elektro80]

Roaches are sentient. Government advisors are not...

[elektro80]

Even though both reproduce at the same rate..

[Cyxeris]