<div dir="ltr"><div>On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 7:08 PM, John Watkins <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:john.watkins04@gmail.com">john.watkins04@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
The eugenics connection is, I think correct. As for no one being<br>
"heartless" enough to kill a "defective" child post delivery, I direct<br>
you to noted ethicist Peter Singer. Money quote:<br>
<br>
"''I do not think it is always wrong to kill an innocent human<br>
being,'' Professor Singer told the rapt audience in Harold Helm<br>
Auditorium. ''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing<br>
a person.''"<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I know of Singer and his ideas - my point was that most people who would give birth to a child with a genetic defect (instead of aborting it) would be incapable of killing after it was born, after it was more (as it were) than an image on a sonogram. Would Wolfe's hypothetical "civil rights" groups really be looking for permission to kill retarded children five years after birth? How many people would actually take up on that? But if your designer baby didn't come out to spec, maybe you'd eventually decide it wasn't worth it... I think Wolfe's future is pretty dark, once you turn off the Broadway lights.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Matt </div></div></div>