Is the Church of England in favour of infanticide?
The Church of England and the Christian Medical Fellowship burden of the logic presented by Singer and Harris. These church bodies argue that passive euthanasia should be an option in the case of a child born with a severe disability. The CMF is nervous about the use of the term "euthanasia", but this term clearly covers the scenario envisaged in their analysis: deliberately withholding treatment in order to shorten a person's life.
There's a legal difference between passive and active euthanasia -- the latter involves a deliberate action intent on ending a life -- but whether that difference amounts to much ethically is a matter of some debate.
The term "infanticide" would be rejected by the church and the CMF; but supporters of Singer and Harris might point out that this is merely an emotional repugnance on their part. Infanticide is the killing of a child. Passive infant euthanasia is stepping aside from a child and allowing him or her to die. Is there much of a moral difference?
Comments
Not surprising. The church of england is quickly losing any right to call itself christian.
G.
What a topsy-turvy world; we defend proven tyrants from the death penalty but look for arguments to kill innocent children.
I notice disabled groups and individuals are gravely concerned about these proposals.
PB
There is a difference between refusing agressive therapy in a dying child and specifically killing an infant because an underlying disability is "burdensome". . It is clear the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists seek active euthanasia. They have deemed infanticide as a viable option to abortion. You are very correct in pointing out their philosophy mirrors that of Peter Singer. The statements from the Church of England do not adequately distinguish their position from that of the Obstetricians. If there is a distinction, the stance of the CofE needs to be clarified.