"An infant is less aware of its own existence than a dog."

Proof?

"We put down stray dogs routinely."

Disagree. I worked in a veterinary hospital for several years, which entails a fair bit of communication with animal control. Stray dogs are not "routinely" put down. They are put down only after exhausting all efforts to locate the owner, and even then they are more likely to be sent to an animal shelter.

"Don't confuse your irrational sentimentality with reason."

I will stop confusing irrational sentimentality that frowns on infanticide with reason, when you and your ilk can show me what reason is.

The good professor starts with screening flaws, but finishes with the admonition to, "..bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society." Notice the subtle difference? Moreover, he starts by conflating ethics with morality ('moral obligation'), but finishes by accusing those who may disagree as being squeamish and irrational. In my first ethics lecture at university, the professor made it clear that ethics and morality are separate beasts. The same applies to ethics and legality (and morality and legality, for that matter). I for one do not appreciate such atrocious bait and switch, especially from someone who should (and does) know better.

It's too bad Carlin's extreme cynicism turned whatever wits he had to idiocy. Yes, I said it. Carlin was an idiot.

They've been doing this for centuries.

"Because we can!"

...most people who do it are downright bad at it. That they might take more time and care to be good at it without the perpetual axe of publish-publish-publish and grants funding hanging over their heads is another issue all together.

This is what Arab nations do for fun, apparently: build ever taller and more opulent structures. Woo.

Off-hand, I'd say you are a troll. At least, I hope you are. As a graduate student conducting research with humans, I can tell you quite honestly that every time I get back the ethics review of my latest proposal, I cringe inwardly at the revisions they require before granting ethics approval because it means more work from me. However, *each and every time* the result of applying those revisions is a better study design, and better study documentation. This is because you are forced to spell out your whole plan explicitly, rather than keeping it at the level of pseudocode, as it were. So while I used to regard the ethics review board as just a series of hoops to jump through, I've come to realize that they really are acting in my best interests too, and are helping me do better science. Ethics reviews HELP the scientific process unless you're some kind of quack.