My fellow water swiggers, I’m in a very cheerful mood today, but this is just too much.

From the Telegraph“Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say.”

Well, yes.  As Catholic, I would agree with that statement.

Oops, except that said “experts” and I are looking at the thing from completely, catastrophically opposite angles:

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.

Just glance down again at that quote from C.S. Lewis about the difference between Christians and Materialists.  I don’t post these things out of mere whim.  This is an example of the horrid logic about short-term “happiness” spawned by the latter.

We [i.e., the ‘experts’] take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

Read the rest, if you can stomach it.  And be sure not to miss the part where the fellah in charge defends his crew against the “witch hunt” mentality that their paper has stirred up.  It’s so unfair!

I suppose I could say “damn you” to these so-called experts, but it strikes me that they’re doing a pretty good job of taking care of that biznay themselves.

(N.I.C.E. explained, for those unfamiliar with the reference.)

UPDATEGoldberg from the Couch.  After my posts:

The “ethicists” essentially agree, as a categorical matter. Killing a baby is akin to aborting a fetus — so go ahead and kill babies! In other words if you place no moral weight on a fetus, they argue, you should place no moral weight on a newborn either. Conversely if you invest enormous moral weight to a newborn, argue the pro-lifers, you should invest at least some moral weight in a fetus as well.

The moral difference in worldview is total, but the terms and logic are remarkably similar.

Conclusive proof that the G-File is a secret port swiller!