Australian Medical journalists call for “After-Birth Abortions”..says infants “Aren’t People”

http://naturalsociety.com/medical-journalists-call-for-after-birth-abortions/#comment-96500

Stating that newborn babies ‘aren’t people’ and it is therefore acceptable to kill them, two ‘ethicists’ writing for the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics are now calling for after-birth abortions. The writers, who worked with Australian universities in the construction of their paper, say that newborn babies simply do not have a “moral right to life.” Furthermore, the paper goes on to state that the babies have no right to live as they do not offer “at least basic value” that would represent a loss.

Study authors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, both from the University of Melbourne, state in their paper that “after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.” They go on to say that while it is infanticide, they prefer not to call it that. Instead, they prefer the term ‘after-birth abortion’ — a term that avoids the true labeling of the proposed technique.

Authors of the paper write that simply being a human isn’t something that grants ‘a right to life’. It appears the paper authors believe that they are the ones who are to determine whether or not a human can live or die. Under this train of thought, then these ‘after-birth’ abortions are not limited to infants. In fact, if being a human does not grant a ‘right to life’, then so-called ‘ethicists’ could soon state that everyone with a disability no longer has the right to live. Does this sound familiar? From 1929 to 1974, the United States began forcibly sterilizing individuals they deemed to not be ‘fit to live’.

During this time period, around 60,000 people were forcibly sterilized nationwide under the admitted eugenics program. The authors of this paper are now recommending that certain human beings simply do not deserve to live, in the same manner of the U.S. government in 1929. The authors even take it a step further, going from sterilizations to full-blown murders — genocide on a larger scale.

“Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life…”

“Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

———-

thanks to bea for the link..

lots of discussion on this yesterday on the blog..posted for all today..keep in mind the co-author is the lovely lady in the picture..send her an email..i am sure she needs some reality checks..

401

~ by seeker401 on March 4, 2012.

15 Responses to “Australian Medical journalists call for “After-Birth Abortions”..says infants “Aren’t People””

  1. How about before death abortions, why don’t you volunteer.

  2. imho is 2extremes right now and We know or i know extremes attract
    is by ‘they’ design to advance ‘they’ agenda imho YES

  3. “What the response to this article reveals, through the microscope of the web, is the deep disorder of the modern world. Not that people would give arguments in favour of infanticide, but the deep opposition that exists now to liberal values and fanatical opposition to any kind of reasoned engagement.” Julian Savulescu, Editor, Journal of Medical Ethics.

    http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2012/02/28/liberals-are-disgusting-in-defence-of-the-publication-of-after-birth-abortion/

    Hi all. Can’t help but agree with Julian on this one. If we could stop being horrified for a minute. At the crux of it, the debate is a very old one, just when does life begin? These women are ethicists.

    “Minerva and Guibilini understand that others may hold a different definition of personhood and when this begins, but emphasize that for their argument, this is the definition that stands. The two also state that they are not advocating in this paper that the practice become law, but as ethicists it is their job to “put forward moral arguments.“ Minerva stated on the radio show that ”We didn’t write a proposal to suggest this should be legal.””

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/yes-we-are-serious-ethicists-defend-after-birth-abortion-argument-in-raucous-radio-interview/

    Let’s hear from Julian again
    “The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide – the paper repeats the arguments made famous by Tooley and Singer – but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands.”

    What was that…. the Netherlands?….. how do you give the Netherlands a reality check? ;)

    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Savulescu

      In some of his publications he has argued for the following: (1) That parents have a responsibility to select the best children they could have given all of the relevant genetic information available to them, a principle that he extends to the use of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and preimplantation genetic diagnoses (PGD) in order to determine the intelligence of embryos and possible children.[1]

      nazi much?

      His argument is based on the principle that killing is justified if some of those at risk of being killed stand to benefit from the killing and whether those benefits are more likely in a world in which the killing occurs. Thus, he concludes that even if embryonic stem cell research involves the killing of a person, it is justified.

      In 2009, Professor Savulescu presented a paper at the ’Festival of Dangerous Ideas,’ held at the Sydney Opera House in October, 2009, entitled “Unfit for Life: Genetically Enhance Humanity or Face Extinction,” which appears on Vimeo. [5] Savulescu argues that humanity is on the brink of disappearing in a metaphorical ‘Bermuda Triangle’ – unless certain eugenic steps are taken to correct what he considers to be aberrant human behaviour and overly liberal laws.

      hes a eugenics supporter..and so were the authors..and they werent both female..one was female and one male

      got a story on netherlands today that is very apt..

  4. Hang on to your hats!!!

    Draft Mental Health Bill 2011| Sterilizations at Any Age | Natural Society

    http://naturalsociety.com/australian-bill-allows-for-sterilizations-without-parental-consent-at-any-age/

    • I tagged that story onto my finkelstein monster post, another sadness in my country. It’s disgusting and terrifying at its worst.

  5. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/how-engineering-the-human-body-could-combat-climate-change/253981/

    climate change +bioengineering humans/ eugenics rolled into one

  6. […] Australian Medical journalists call for “After-Birth Abortions”..says infants “Are… (seeker401.wordpress.com) […]

  7. […] here it is: http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/australian-medical-journalists-call-for-after-birth-aborti… […]

  8. […] here it is: http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/australian-medical-journalists-call-for-after-birth-aborti… […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,002 other followers

%d bloggers like this: