Here is a shocking - and yet, not so shocking - report from the Telegraph detailing a new bioethicist defense of infanticide. Taking a line right out of the pro-life book, Profs. Giubilini and Minerva of Melbourne University argue that the differences between a newborn child and a pre-birth fetus are merely semantic. They reach very different conclusions than pro-life advocates, however, arguing that this similarity means infants "are not persons in any morally relevant sense." "Morally relevant," we're told, means the ability to value your own life, and feel loss on death.

If this is shocking to your sensibilities, that's good. But this argument should not be entirely unexpected, and as the article points out, it's not new. In ancient pagan societies, infanticide was not uncommon; in Sparta, it was routine; in urban China, it bordered on policy; and more recently, Prof. Peter Singer (also hailing from Melbourne) has joined these beacons of human kindness by promoting similar practices. Singer has been called the most influential philosopher in the second half of the twentieth century, and now it appears his disciples would like to give us the first half in re-run; should we be surprised that this position resurfaces in a world that has rejected any "morally relevant" underpinnings?

What is perhaps more surprising about the article is the moralistic tone that Savulescu - editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics - adopts, calling out the article's violent detractors as "opposed to the very values of a liberal society." Not to defend any person issuing death threats, but on what grounds can Savulescu call them out? "Arguing and engaging" can be fruitful, to be sure, but there must also be a degree of common ground to engage on, and where are we to find that in this debate? Perhaps in the mutual lack of respect for human life.

All this is to say that Savulescu's "liberal society" - where even the "moral relevance" of my life is subject to debate - is not a place I would ever choose to live; I like to think that where morals exist, they are always relevant.