"Scientists can’t tell us if it’s right to kill a baby with a developmental disability, despite how well they might marshal evidence about the baby’s life prospects or her capacity to think or move on her own."
Science is a method of gathering evidence to confirm or disprove a hypothesis. In no way is science a method of determining the value of a life. A hypothesis can be proven or disproven with evidence. If that can't be done you're not doing science. The value of a life and other questions without quantifiable answers are to be discussed in philosophy. Fact-based policy will prevent policy makers from banning "assault weapon looking" guns when they mean to ban those with high fire rate. A rational science driven society would mean policy based on data not, an anti-humanist movement to destroy diginity which is what this article seems to be implying.
"Scientists can’t tell us if it’s right to kill a baby with a developmental disability, despite how well they might marshal evidence about the baby’s life prospects or her capacity to think or move on her own."
Science is a method of gathering evidence to confirm or disprove a hypothesis. In no way is science a method of determining the value of a life. A hypothesis can be proven or disproven with evidence. If that can't be done you're not doing science. The value of a life and other questions without quantifiable answers are to be discussed in philosophy. Fact-based policy will prevent policy makers from banning "assault weapon looking" guns when they mean to ban those with high fire rate. A rational science driven society would mean policy based on data not, an anti-humanist movement to destroy diginity which is what this article seems to be implying.
Edit: A ton of tiny typos