The college’s submission was also welcomed by John Harris, a member of the government’s Human Genetics Commission and professor of bioethics at Manchester University. “We can terminate for serious foetal abnormality up to term but cannot kill a newborn. What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it okay to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not at the other?” he said. (Emphasis mine).
Isn't this exactly what all those extremist nutcase pro-life people have been predicting for years, only to be waved off as fools by choice advocates?
Proving what pro-life advocates have been saying all along: this is a slippery slope we are on.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone else find this logic resembling Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal"?
ReplyDeleteErin - Ironically enough, I used the same argument on other blogs when, uh, Denmark, I think, started euthanizing terminal patients without their knowledge. Slippery slope, indeed.
ReplyDelete---BubbaB
BubbaB - it was Netherlands. It was not only shocking to me when it was revealed that for 1 out of 8 patients euthanized, no one's permission had been obtained (not the patient, guardian, family) but even more shocking that the Dutch were apparently not too upset by this info.
ReplyDelete"there are none so blind as those that will not see"
ReplyDeletekind of sums it up.
when life becomes just a soup of matter and chemical reactions why should we care that much about it ceasing to react?
somedays the news reads like Revelation
Terri