So here it is...

One of the historical arguments against abortions--particularly late term abortions--has been that such openness to terminating human life as late as the third trimester could lead to a call for termination of life immediately after birth. And here it is:

LONDON -- A leading British medical college has called on the health profession to consider euthanasia for seriously disabled newborns.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology has said that "active euthanasia" should be considered to spare parents the emotional and financial burdens of bringing up such children.

"A very disabled child can mean a disabled family," it says in a formal submission. "If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome."

Morals aside, there are present at least a few problems in this short passage alone . Firstly, what is "very disabled?" Will that be a term defined by doctors at the time of birth? What if the disability is caused by the doctor during the birth? How much proof will a doctor have to provide to "prove" that the killed child had a 'qualifying disability?' Secondly, the 'informal submission' claims that this procedure will prevent late term abortions. If these children aren't going to be considered "aborted babies," then what do we call them? Beyond that, the argument in favor of abortion is often that the "fetus isn't a child, but a developing children, and since it is developing and therefore dependent on the mother's body to survive, it must be the mothers choice." If we are going to allow, to quote directly from the 'informal submission, "interventions to kill infants," where do we draw the line?

The call comes in the college's submission to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which is conducting an inquiry into the ethical issues raised by the policy of prolonging life in newborns. The submission states: "We would like the working party to think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best-interests test and active euthanasia as they are ways of widening the management of options available to the sickest of newborns."

It is not officially calling for the introduction of active euthanasia, but wants it openly debated. The proposal has been supported by several leading geneticists and medical ethicists.

Joy Delhanty, a professor of human genetics at University College London, said: "I think it is morally wrong to strive to keep alive babies that are going to suffer many months or years of ill-health."

But John Wyatt, a consultant neonatalologist at University College London hospital, called the proposal "social engineering."


"Once you introduce the possibility of intentional killing into medical practice, you change the fundamental nature of medicine," he said.

This should not be a debate. It is utterly despicable that such horrific ideas should even be brought up for debate. Abortion has lead us to a complete and total devaluation of human life to the point where we now are debating whether or not it is morally OK to murder a child once he or she (the culture of abortion that I have grown up in has labelled babies as "it" as a generic term. I think this is probably an intentional attempt to paint the child as being less than human.) has been born. It is simply shocking and disgusting. How long before this debate leaves Great Britain and is taken up by our own Liberal "progressives?" God help us.