Let me bring you this from the Sunday Times
John Harris, a member of the Human Genetics Commission, told a parliamentary meeting last week that he did not see any moral difference in aborting a fully grown unborn baby at 40 weeks and committing infanticide.
..yesterday he was reported to have said that he did not think infanticide was always unjustifiable. He did not believe there was any “moral change” that occurred during the journey down the birth canal.
Harris, who also advises Britain’s doctors as a member of the British Medical Association’s ethics committee, is said to have argued that there was no moral difference between terminating a foetus found by tests to have defects and one where the parents only discovered the abnormalities at birth.
Michael Wilkes, chairman of the BMA ethics committee, said Harris was simply trying to encourage logical and consistent argument. “There are many who might concur that there is no difference between a full-term foetus and a newborn baby, although the majority would see there is a substantial difference. Abortion is legal but termination after birth is killing.”
Interesting he is reported as presenting the argument that infanticide is OK because abortion is. I read his words the other way round - if it is wrong to kill children because they are "disabled" than I don't see the difference between that and a late term abortion for the same reasons, as he says, " He did not believe there was any “moral change” that occurred during the journey down the birth canal."