To quote bible scripture about blemishes in order to defend the right to abort unborn babies, is unacceptable. God's sanctity of human life is clear from His Word, science proves the viability of humanness within the womb, and disabled people evince their worth in far greater ways than some able-bodied humans. All of us are made righteous who believe in the Lord, the old life passes and the new comes. So many possibilities of a purpose-filled existence for everybody.

When a woman is pregnant, all manner of urgers come out from under their rocks to influence her to comply with their often odd even jaundiced world views.

It is a time of unique vulnerability. It seemed that every time I left my wife alone there was some nag in her ear heaping on the guilt over something or other. You get the lot and often it is almost invariably other women, some who claim 'professional' expertise and 'knowledge' who are the worst enemy.

It is a time when the man must be steadfast, an anchor in a troubled sea.

I entreat all young couples contemplating children to agree from the outset that they will rely on the GP and medical specialist first and last, and that well in advance they will fully inform themselves on the scans available and plan for them.

As well, very few women(?!) and even fewer men comprehend that the best years for childbirth are in the mid-twenties. Having children later is fraught with all sorts of serious risks that multiply with age. While the media might showcase a celebrity who has a (reportedly) healthy child later in life, the odds are very much against it, so get the priorities right and heed Nature.

Mothers should advise their sons not to waste nice young women's years too, but that is another thread.

Part 1
“Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say”

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.
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.
The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent1:38PM GMT 29 Feb 2012
Daily Telegraph

The Article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics created a furore around the World.

The two ethicists argued that rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

But what is all the fuss about? It is a logical question to be asked. As the majority of people gradually accept the "truth" of the ideology preached by Professor Dawkins et al, that life has no other meaning than what man himself makes of it, and that there is nothing beyond life, then surely in our human overpopulated finite world we have to deal with such matters logically.

Part 2
With any other animal, or plaque we choose to cull to protect the diversity of species and resources, or dispose of the unwanted. Why shouldn’t we do the same with the human species? If they have no economic value or are going to be a cost, then it makes sense to kill off those that will be a burden on a family or a society. Also it would be more humane for that individual. After all it makes sense to cull out the weak and non productive animals in commercial circumstances. We could reduce the already immense social costs that excess, especially useless human beings impose on the taxpayer. Further with our aging societies around the world and the extension of lives beyond their useful economic life except where people have created sufficient wealth not to be a burden, culling would seem appropriate. . In nature the weak and infirm are usually killed, and man is part of nature. Unlike in nature, man with his evolved intelligence has developed the means of killing humanely.

The arguments of the two ethicists is in line with the philosophy that is becoming increasingly pervasive in modern life and which is dominating the secular world. Since Professor Dawkins and those of similar mind have militantly launched atheism as a philosophy to determine all aspects of human life, it is inevitable that society will suffer the consequences, even if the consequences not intended by those same learned people.

The atheistic materialistic philosophy (ideology) developed by Marx and Engels in the 19th century wrought untold human misery in the 20th through rise of Communism (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc). The 19th century materialistic philosophical works of Nietzsche undoubtedly influenced Hitler and the rise of Nazism, again producing untold human misery in the 20th. I am sure that those thinkers who were influenced by the social disorder and ferment of societies during their time would have not fully comprehended the dire consequences for humanity of the influence of their works, even Marx.

Part 3
The consequences of modern individualistic atheism are more subtle, compared to the class or race uber-menschen (or at least interpretation) based mass philosophies of the 19th century which saw the atrocities of the 20th century.

Basically it preaches that 'life' has no other meaning than what man himself makes of it himself, and that there is nothing beyond life. In which case, despite whatever humanitarian principles those altruistic atheists may propose, many of their brothers and sisters become quite totalitarian minded. Another inevitable consequence is, 'life' will be interpreted in a very utilitarian manner. Then all acts from abortion to infanticide, euthanasia right through to genocide for the culling of excess humans in our overpopulated world, to the humane killing of those who are not or are no longer economically productive, are logically sound even though some atheists might feel squeamish about going this far.

So I agree with Bren

Dear Bagsyl,

<<Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion>>

From a legal point of view, I agree.

From a moral point of view, I don't.

Even while the babies could be "morally irrelevant", the act of murdering them is nevertheless very morally relevant and sinful.

However, the state is not the guardian of morals and has no moral authority to prevent those who behave immorally from doing so. Those who kill others, be they human or animal, born or unborn, will surely pay a heavy price for it, whether in this lifetime or thereafter, but that's a matter between them and God - it's nobody else's business.