the infant? What is so difficult about that? Your claim about entitlement to life is still begging the question, though, as is your claim that the paper attempts to justify unethical behaviour. Whether or not it's permissible is precisely the point the paper addresses. (And if it succeeds in justifying it, then that shows that it's justified -- and so what's the problem after all?) I still don't know what you're driving at with the potentiality point. I still don't buy your claims about euphemism or obfuscation. Whether or not the terminology was necessary or the best is one thing; but I don't think that anything was smuggled in: that an explanation of the term was offered is proof of that. I suspect that the chance of publication would have been just as high, though, just because the whole point of an ethics journal is to test moral propositions; and the idea that by doing so one is or could be an accessory to murder is simply nuts. BellaDonna70 "Your claim about entitlement to life is still begging the question ..." May the difference between you and a baby be represented as the difference in age? Yes. Do you claim entitlement to your life? Yes. Can you feel pain? Yes. Can the baby feel pain? Yes. Are the vast range of physiological human processes the same in the baby as they are in you? Yes. Unless you arbitrarily redefine as "better", the life you live due to your age as