this shouldn't surprise you...the american left is just returning to it's progressive eugenic roots...they think, talk about and rationalize infanticide quite a bit....it's what they believe despite efforts to deflect...it's why they stand and applaud expansion of abortion through legislation that would have been thought unthinkable just a few years ago..it's what happens when leftists "think" too much
....
democrats and spence can claim one thing, defend and deflect...but the trend is clear, a very troubling direction for them.....incrementalism
democrats should propose a 2 year trial period so new parents can decide whether or not they really want to keep the thing
A few years ago, the Journal of Medical Ethics published an advocacy article entitled, “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?”
quotes from the editors of one of the world’s most prestigious bioethics journals :
“The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.”
“In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth’ abortion,’ rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus… rather than that of a child.”
“We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all circumstances where abortion would be.”
“Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.”
They write that adoption isn’t the necessarily the answer because “we also need to consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption.”
And the ability or disability of the newborn is not the issue because “having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children, regardless of the condition of the fetus.”
Princeton University’s bioethics professor Peter Singer became famous by claiming that newborn babies are killable because they have not yet developed the cognitive capacities to be considered a “person.” He wrote in Rethinking Life and Death, “Since neither a newborn infant nor a fish is a person the wrongness of killing such beings is not as great as the wrongness of killing a person.” In other words, to Singer, a newborn infant is the moral equivalent of a mackerel.
In a 2010 Harvard symposium on abortion and infanticide, Singer tied infanticide to the legality of abortion: “The position that allows abortion also allows infanticide under some circumstances.… If we accept abortion, we do need to rethink some of those more fundamental attitudes about human life.”
Singer is frequently quoted in New York Times, where he is also a recurring contributor.
Singer has an "impressive resume" and is probably regarded as a "highly educated" "critical thinker"