LINK

NYTimes looooves infanticide...

Our sense of what constitutes moral progress is a matter partly of reason and partly of sentiment. On the reason side, the Groningen protocol may seem progressive because it refuses to countenance the prolonging of an infant's suffering merely to satisfy a dubious distinction between ''killing'' and ''letting nature take its course.'' It insists on unflinching honesty about a practice that is often shrouded in casuistry in the United States. Moral sentiments, though, have an inertia that sometimes resists the force of moral reasons. Just quote Verhagen's description of the medically induced infant deaths over which he has presided -- ''it's beautiful in a way. . . . It is after they die that you see them relaxed for the first time'' -- and even the most spirited dinner-table debate over moral progress will, for a moment, fall silent.

Most of the examples they use to support it are in countries where the alternative to infanticide was starvation...and in those countries, once the famines no longer threatened, it was abandoned.

In Africa, twins were killed...because they die (not enough milk). But it hardly happens now that milk is available...

And most of the Dutch cases can be treated: but inconveniently.
Maybe the NYTimes should ask an adult with Down's syndrome or with spina bifida if they would have preferred to be killed...but no, I doubt the author is even aware that such people exist...