Sounds more like a woman who thinks she's smart because she's educated. There is a world of difference in the two. All of the education in the world won't make a stupid person smart.

Bad SF movie is right. Hate to say it - but it reminds me of pre WW2 Germany's eugenics programs. Kill the retarded, the mentally deficient... can this woman not know the history of what she's proposing?

Or did she have her compassion surgically removed?

She knows exactly what she is proposing. The Germans knew exactly what they were doing. Pleading ignorance is not an option for these people.

That Pre-WWII "German" eugenics program was quite popular in the Pre-WWII United States. Eugenics was quite a populer concept with the educated and elite in the U.S. The whole Abortion movement is based on the Eugenics concept that not all are worthy to live.

Meacher should be heartened though, Al Quaeda has found a use for the poor disabled souls that manage to make it past the butcher's knives and through a perilous childhood.

The rather worrisome thing is that if severely disabled children are so categorized, then if the parents choose not to abort will the government eventually deny health care to the child?

Seriously, can't you think of situations in which you would rather be dead than be forced to endure? I know I can. And I suspect that in her own clumsy way, that's what this baroness is saying.
In other words, if I were to lose my ability to think and do for myself, I certainly hope there would be someone who loved me nearby to pull the plug.

Let us not think for a moment that such sentiments are limited to those across the pond. We have a number of Peter Singer anus-lickers right here at home.

Infants, for example, are seen as non-persons. According to Singer they may therefore be killed with far less justification than would be required if they were understood to be persons. Certain adults to whom labels such as "persistent vegetative state" (PVS), "profound mental retardation" and "dementia" are attached may also be killed with less justification, according to Singer.

It would be okay, for example, to kill a "non-person" if you did it because everyone else's preferences would be more likely to be fulfilled if that individual were removed from their lives: that's one justification Singer gives for letting parents kill newborns expected to become disabled children. If parents, freed of responsibility for the disabled infant, were able to try again, says Singer, both they and the non-disabled child they'd ultimately raise could expect to live happier lives.
...
Another justification Singer offers for killing a "non-person" is that it frees "persons," or society, from what they may see as the "burden" imposed by the life of a "non-person." In Practical Ethics, which is often used as a textbook, Singer advocates making it legal to kill disabled infants up to 28 days after birth as well as older "non-persons with disabilities."

Personally, I find this frightening. As they talk about "disabled" and "mentally deficent", I have my own fears. I have Asperger's Syndrome, and I can't help but suspect that a form of autism would be considered "broken enough."

Let's broaden the abortion rights law to include aborting persons after birth who are not "viable" or wanted, and we can start with Ms. Meacher.

"The whole Abortion movement is based on the Eugenics concept that not all are worthy to live."

Right on the mark. But try reminding African Americans, or pro-abortionists, of the racial eugenics origin of Planned Parenthood and their founder, Margaret Sanger, and you will called a racist and misogynist.

Is anyone else thinking of Stephen Hawkings?

I hope Margaret Sanger was filled with remorse when she faced her Maker for the ideals and atrocities she recommended for those she disapproved of.
Her opinion of black people is well documented,
that's what planned parenthood is all about.
Some call it a black genocide taking place in
this country.
We crossed a deadly line when we crammed the
federal abortion law down every states throat.
How many millions of children have been taken
from their mothers wombs with violence?

I brought up pre-WW2 Germany because they made no secret at all about their disposal of those they considered deficient.

Here stateside, we didn't set up facilities to euthanize the deficient. Sterilization? Yes - that happened. Killing outright? Not that I've been able to find.

...but where are they going to get future members of the House of Lords?

Sadly, that great classical liberal Winston Churchill is turning over in his grave.

This is the issue with "Quality of Life" augments it a rebranded form of Eugenics. First it deciding who to abort based on physical and mental capacities and then it move to population control. The NAZI part were socialist and one of the reason why we most all fully look at idea governments want to implement. Though marxist talk about religion in the name of socialist and communist thought millions were killed in the 20th century.

I've seen that bad SF movie. Its title is: "Our Future".

You think this is bad, consider that doctors routinely recommend the abortion of children determined to have Down's Syndrome.

Now consider that we are on the verge of finding the genetic root of Autism. (No, it's not Mercuritol - I mean, Thimerosal.) What do you think will happen when the genetic test for Autism is readily available?

Abortions; lots of them. The Autism Rights movement has coined a word for this: Eugenicide.

On the plus side, we've got another story out of the UK where a lad named John Smeaton tells it like it is.

The Nazi term was Lebensunwertes Leben, life not worthy of living. The baroness has picked some fine folks to emulate. The only part missing after liquidating these lives is liquifying them - Soylent Green is people.

Don't forget Tuskegee. A product of the US Public Health Service. Or the attempted extermination of Native Americans. There's plenty of shame in history to spread around, the Germans have no corner on the market.

We have conveniently minimized our own genocidal policies, as we did it in a "kinder and gentler" manner more recently. However, when the US Army wore blue, our murder of races we felt beneath us was an accepted institutional policy.

Or the Spanish on the many races of Central and South America.

But I digress.

The point is that infanticide has been an established feature of human nature for recorded history. Attempts to control this tendency, rationalize it, institutionalize it, or hide it in plain sight continue to this day. That doesn't make it moral.

In March, 05 I wrote a humorous satire about this very thing. In retrospect, I still think it's not bad. View it here.

As a mother of a baby that died from anencephaly this article makes me sick! The minutes I had with my daughter mean more to me than anything on Earth. Is it in the baby's best interest to die a cold sterile death or the experience love from their families? Who are they do decide that a baby should die because of their physical or mental difficulties? Next thing you know you're going to be able to abort your baby based on their eye color.

This Meacher is on par with al Quaeda, apparently, in her thinking.

This is what happens to fat, content, affluent societies that have lost there way. The end up stupid, and immoral.

And, their members can't type.;>)