Aleksandr Nikonov argues in the article that the birth of a disabled child for many families would be an unbearable tragedy, “a hell”, and that “the killing of the newborn is in fact the same as an abortion” (Clearly he also sees abortion as acceptable and tries to use this as some kind of justification for his bizarre proposal). He states that depriving infants, who will never be able to take care of themselves, of life is “true humanism”. He also calls to give parents of such children a right to euthanize their newborns
Mostert points out that Nikonovis not alone in this view and that some academics are actually saying something similar.
For one, Mostert says,
“Peter Singer has noted that: In any case, the position taken here does not imply that it would be better that no people born with severe disabilities should survive; it implies only that the parents of such infants should be able to make this decision. (Practical Ethics, 1999, p. 189)”Nikonov according to Mostert hasn't learned the Western trick of making killing much more acceptable when it's prettified. The pro-death crowd he says would recoil in horror at the description of finishing people off. Instead, they talk about euthanasia, aid in dying, dying with dignity - making the ugly beautiful. Most people don’t like ugly, but they do like beautiful. It’s simply a matter of lying often enough that the lie becomes desirable truth.
