A retired English physician has advocated guillotining disabled children.

He's just advocating post natal abortion. What's the big deal? Of course, the pro life crowd has been predicting this for years...

Peter Singer, call your office.

We should test out the guillotine on the good doctor first just to make sure it's ready for business. Sheesh, glad he's not my doctor!

Sometime between now, and the era of "Soylent Green" this could well come to pass. Already our society is divided along lines of those who can work and pay tax (assets); and those who cannot and receive tax money to stay alive (liabilities.) In general, the assets really wish the liabilities would go away. Add another thousand years of population growth, wars and major disasters and..... "we'll" be hearing this again.

Well, you keep hearing Bush talk about the impending social security disaster. Comrade! Don't panic! You can always be proactive.

On a more serious note: it is obvious taking an extremist stance on something like this will not work. We discard human DNA every day (shedding skin). We will need to draw a line at some point. Currently it is defined as doable until some semi-arbitrary time after gestation, and is delegated solely on the parents, and this seems adequate to me.

I really don't see a difference between this and the now common practice in America of aborting Down syndrome children when the chromosomal abnormality is noted. At least guillotining is fast and doesn't involve dismembering the babies slowly while they're alive. It's morally consistent with abortion. What's the moral difference between killing a foetus pre and post partum?

How about instead of allowing crinimals in england to run rampent why dont they bring back the chopping block and the hooded headsman and start beheading a few of those vicious crinimals