So Right, And Yet So Wrong

One is left with the conclusion that the function of ethicists is not to help us tell what is ethical and what is not, but to carefully, in the most sophisticated fashion, rationalize the most debased and barbaric practices as being somehow "ethical".

For example:

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

For years, we've pointed out that every argument for abortion is also an argument for infanticide. I've called murders of children "fourth-trimester abortions".

Now, these ethicists from Oxford University -- OXFORD!! -- are admitting I've been right. But of course, since abortion can't be wrong, that must mean that infanticide is OK. That's right, just as I've always written here, there is no morally significant difference between a baby before birth and and one after birth.

It's all about the killing.

Look for calls to legalize infanticide in order to avoid "back-alley" infanticide.

Gee, I wonder who'll they'll say you can kill next?