Ask Peter Singer…
He said his original view, published in his book "Practical Ethics," that the parents should have 28 days to determine whether the infant should live has been modified somewhat since the book's release."So in that book, we suggested that 28 days is not a bad period of time to use because on the one hand, it gives you time to examine the infant to [see] what the nature of the disability is; gives time for the couple to recover from the shock of the birth to get well advised and informed from all sorts of groups, medical opinion and disability and to reach a decision.
"And also I think that it is clearly before the point at which the infant has those sorts of forward-looking preferences, that kind of self-awareness, that I talked about. But I now think, after a lot more discussion, that you can't really propose any particular cut-off date."
…Singer defended his previous writings that humans and nonhumans can have "mutually satisfying" sexual relationships as long as they are consensual. When asked by CNSNews.com how an animal can consent to sexual contact with a human, he replied, "Your dog can show you when he or she wants to go for a walk and equally for nonviolent sexual contact, your dog or whatever else it is can show you whether he or she wants to engage in a certain kind of contact."
Animal 'Rights' Zealot: Christianity Harmful; Infanticide OK
Oh yes, and scruples about killing termites.
Humans can always try to take a scientific theory and craft a moral or ethical system out of that theory. For many people, the theory of evolution is a popular source for moral systems because they believe, wrongfully, that the TOE tells them how things should be rather than how they are.
The theory of gravity does not make it okay to push people out of windows. And the theory of evolution does not justify death camps. Indeed, neither of these theories provide any moral or ethical guidance whatsoever.