The next time someone discusses partial-birth abortion and sneers at the term "infanticide," just bring up this story out of Great Britain (via Patterico's Pontifications):
Doctors are urging health regulators to consider allowing the "active euthanasia" of severely disabled newborn babies.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology has put forward the option of permitting mercy killings of the sickest infants to a review of medical ethics.
It says "active euthanasia" should be considered for the overall benefit of families who would otherwise suffer years of emotional and financial suffering.
Yes, caring for severely disabled newborns can cause suffering for the family. Anyone who has been in this position or had relatives or friends in this position knows how difficult such situations can be. But is killing the baby the best option? Does this end "years of emotional" suffering? I highly doubt it. Most parents of disabled children that I have known talk about the adjustments and hardships they faced, but they accepted these things as part of life.
The most telling part of the article (for purposes of addressing those partial-birth abortion supporters) comes from one John Harris:
John Harris, a member of the official Human Genetics Commission and professor of bioethics at Manchester University, welcomed the college's submission. "We can terminate for serious foetal abnormality up to term, but cannot kill a newborn," he told The Sunday Times. "What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it OK to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not the other?"
What indeed? Let's ask NARAL, NOW, and Nancy Pelosi (who couldn't tell Rick Santorum when a baby is born).
CORRECTION: It was Barbara Boxer, not Nancy Pelosi, who couldn't tell Rick Santorum when a baby was born.
|