http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=93982004
Sun 25 Jan 2004
printer friendly email article
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?
.. 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...Surely anti-abortionists would agree? Their position is abortion is akin to killing a baby.
The words drew a furious response from anti-abortion campaigners.
If you think abortion is fine, why not strangle inconvenient new-borns? I think he is trying to draw out the fundamental flaw in the abortion debate.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIn European countries this probably wouldn't cause too many problems (perhaps a very slight favouring of girls, I don't know). But some societies are much more patriarchal, so it would result in severely skewed demographics. I believe that China, thanks to its one child policy, has a sex ratio at birth of about 125 boys to 100 girls!
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?
the abortion act (1967) makes termination possible if ' there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped'. No criteria are laid down to specify abnormality nor is a definition of seriously handicapped so the termination decision is left in the hand of 2 doctors whose decision will ultimately be based on PERSONAL judgement
"if able-bodied society were to accept that those with disabilities are equal human beings with rights, they would also have to abandon the notion that screening and abortion are benefits to society, and that the earlier a handicapped person is killed off the better for all concerned.
No consideration is given to the issue of the ideology of 'normality' or to the idea that the environment could be changed rather than the individual.
Heres a novel idea: lets ask the millions of people who have a 'defect' (shall we abort children who would be born with a speech defect too?) who are married, have jobs...in fact lead 'normal' everyday lives, should we abort future generations of children who may be born with a disability/'defect'.
To me this argument of selective abortion screams out the process called eugenics.
None of us are perfect, who would want to be?
if you argue for the case of this crazy professor then what you are basically saying is you support Hitlers idea of having the perfect race of people. Surely we have learnt something from history.