that Savulescu is not participating here. He's a creative writer, and we would all benefit from further defense of his editorial decision. I can see a decent defense in favor of the publication of this piece. I just can't see it defended as a peer-reviewed, original piece of scholarship. It isn't. It's a provocation, and even a cursory reading of Savulescu's excellent authored articles would reveal that he must understand this. He is one of philosophy's great contemporary provocateurs, but he has always been careful to play that role in a reasoned, careful, and well-researched manner. In this episode he has fallen off, and his record should hence receive a small black mark for it. I hope that the professional philosophers who are following this episode can turn it to good account. There is much to be discussed here about the state of philosophy's social role in the U.S.; about the contemporary nature -- and the recent evolution -- of the academic philosophy journal; and about the current quality of peer review itself, at least within philosophy. Moja Nowa Skrzynka If killing babys for financial reasons to you are "liberal values" or "reasoned engagement" and it fits to "Medical Ethics" so you are pretty brain washed. And a second thing. This "ethical" "liberal" "scientists" who propose it -- do they practise their "research" for public money? Do they receive money from tax payers? Surely I and most of society would see our money invested better to some poor children than