telling us what is a good thing to do and what is a bad thing to do. I don't believe for a moment that the authors could physically terminate the life of a newborn baby. I also don't believe that they would want to go down in history as baby killers. JeromeFJ Mindlessly unethical, subhuman vermin. Savulescu has the reasoning capability of a dog. Eric Christenson I wondered aloud when I first heard of this article whether it was with a straight face.... The logic is unassailable....a foetus just before birth is morally only very slightly different than a baby just after birth, so killing the baby-to-be is only very slightly morally different that killing the baby that is. However, each of us that are reading this argument has traversed, gradual degree by gradual degree, day by day, event by event, along some trajectory that started with a cell or three of no particular moral consequence but now finds each of us in a position where there is no question about the moral wrongness of someone terminating our lives prematurely. The inescapable conclusion is that there can be no single, well-defined point at which the decision to end a potential or developing life changes from one which is clearly not wrong to one which is clearly wrong. Just as clearly, such fuzziness is a very difficult thing to deal with, and there are advantages to relatively simple rules -- for example, it is relatively easy to decide if a punishable