Shocking reminder that eugenicist beliefs underpin medical establishment
Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
A paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics argues that abortion should be extended to make the killing of newborn babies permissible, even if the baby is perfectly healthy, in a shocking example of how the medical establishment is still dominated by a eugenicist mindset.
The paper is authored by Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.
The authors argue that “both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons,” and that because abortion is allowed even when there is no problem with the fetus’ health, “killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”
“The fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant,” the authors claim, arguing that adoption is not a reasonable counter-argument because the parents of the baby might be economically or psychologically burdened the process and the mother may “suffer psychological distress”. How the mother could not also “suffer psychological distress” by having her newborn baby killed is not explained.
“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: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal,” the authors write.
The practice of infanticide has its origins in barbaric eras of ancient history, but it is still common is many areas of the world today, including China where the one child policy allied with the social pressure to have boys has resulted in a massive imbalance in the population. Studies have found that 40 million girls are ‘missing’ in China as a result of gender-selective abortion and infanticide. In India, there are 50 million less females for the same reasons.
In Pakistan, over 1000 babies a year are the victims of infanticide, which is rarely punished.
“The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand,” he writes.
Respected bioethicist Wesley J. Smith notes that the debate surrounding “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious,” which eventually led to events like the Terri Schiavo case, started with articles in bioethics and medical journals.
“Or to put it another way, too often bioethics, isn’t. On the other hand, to be fair, the ancient Romans exposed inconvenient infants on hills. These authors may want to take us back to those crass values, but I assume they would urge a quicker death,” he writes.
When do we get to Euthanize the Medical Ethicists who say Murdering Newborn Babies is Good for Society?
Friday, March 02, 2012
In an article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, scientists argue that killing newborn babies is ethically no different than abortion and should therefore be openly allowed in society. The paper says newborn babies are not "actual persons" and that they do not have "a moral right to life." (See sources, below.)
The authors of the article are mainstream medicine ethicists named Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. One is a former Oxford scholar. In their paper, they argue "The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual."
Several death threats have been leveled against the scientists, although it's hard to actually call them "death" threats since scientists who recognize no sense of life in newborn babies can't possibly be living themselves, right? At best, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are mindless zombies, so whacking off their heads with a chainsaw would seemingly be no more meaningful than turning off the switch to a hollow sack of skin that contains no soul.
I'm being sarcastic, of course, by using their own mad reasoning against them. They call the murder of infants nothing more than "after-birth abortion" and declare that "it should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is."
Can we still abort these scientists? Or is it too late for that?
Finally out in the open: The mass murder / eugenics agenda of abortion pushers
In one sense, it sure is refreshing to see all this admitted for a change. Instead of hiding behind the false explanations and excuse-making that we normally hear from the abortion crowd, we now get an uncensored, heartless attack on human life wrapped in a "scientific" paper of such arrogance and destruction that it can only make you wonder just how totally mad the medical scientists have now become.
If a human baby has no value to them, then probably neither does a young tree, or a newborn wild animal, or a seed sprout. Life is not sacred to the conventional medical industry; it is merely something to be exploited for power and profit. This is precisely the ethical context under which GMOs are pushed... or chemotherapy, or even vaccines.
In fact, the argument of these medical ethicists -- that babies may be murdered because raising them could create an undue burden on society -- is exactly the same logic of the vaccine murderers -- that it's okay if a few children die during a mass vaccination campaign because it reduces the health care burden on society. That's a lie, of course, because vaccines don't actually reduce the spread of infectious disease at all. They increase it, as Jon Rappoport covers in excruciating detail in his new course "Vaccines: Armed and Dangerous."
In attempting to explain why the Journal of Medical Ethics chose to publish a paper promoting the mass murder of newborn babies, its editor offered the following deplorable self-justification: "The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises."
Well-reasoned? Murdering babies is now "reasoned?"
Using human babies as vaccine guinea pigs
If the conventional medical industry sees nothing wrong with murdering newborn babies, no wonder it simultaneously has no problem using them as human guinea pigs on which mad medical experiments are conducted.
Over the last hundred years or so, pharmaceutical and vaccine makers have been repeatedly caught using babies as guinea pigs to test the "safety" of their deadly drugs and vaccines. Such events almost always end up murdering a few dozen children, an outcome which is labeled "scientific progress" because it provided fatality data to the corporate sponsors of the experiments.
These are, of course, the mad murder profiling behaviors of psychotic killers who nevertheless are widely commended and even heralded as world-renowned scientists in the realm of conventional (mainstream) medicine. Yet if anyone on the planet deserves to be justifiably killed by the villagers, it's these mad "scientific" baby killers and vaccine experiment pushers. As they recognize no value in human life whatsoever, they represent a clear and present danger to the safety of society and might best be dispatched in electric chairs or tightly-bound neck ropes before they unleash another Hitler-era holocaust of eugenics across the globe.
Famed physicist Stephen Hawking also sees no ethical violation in mass murder
Lest you think this genocidal streak among the so-called scientific community is limited to just a couple of medical whackos who wrote a paper in a science journal, recall the fact that famed physicist Stephen Hawking openly and adamantly insists human beings are nothing more than "biological robots" who have no souls, no consciousness, no free will and therefore no value as anything other than a collection of cells.
Snuffing out the lights on something that isn't really alive can't exactly be called murder, can it? So the bizarre view that human beings are not conscious beings with minds or souls is, of course, the prerequisite argument to justifying their mass murder.
"It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion."
- Stephen Hawking, the Grand Design
If free will is nothing more than an illusion, then that means you aren't responsible for your own actions anyway, so committing mass murder against others is morally neutral for you. Killing babies is of no consequence. Heck, you might as well just pick up a full-auto M4, march into a local high school, and start blasting away all the students, teachers and principal, then claim it must have been your biology that caused you to do it because according to Stephen Hawking, you have no mind or consciousness to begin with. That's the kind of madness the quack philosophies of people like Hawking end up promoting.
But it isn't just Hawking who believes humans have no value as conscious, living beings -- DNA discovered Francis Crick also pushed the same stilted beliefs:
"You, your joys and sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules,", Crick claimed in his book The Astonishing Hypothesis."
This view by Crick, just like the view of Hawking, is that human beings are merely biological machines that only appear to house conscious beings inside. A newborn is just a really advanced fetus, and a fetus is just a couple of cells, they might argue. So a teenage boy playing baseball at the local park is just an advanced version of a newborn, and we can murder him too, if we like. In fact, nobody is off limits from these genocidal maniacs because at no point in human development do psychotic scientific whackos like Hawking or Crick admit that consciousness enters the body, thereby achieving some degree of merit or value as a living, breathing, free-thinking being.
These same views are mirrored across the so-called "scientific" community, which has increasingly revealed itself to be a collection of death merchants, corporate sellouts, clinical quacks and hyper-arrogant God complex worshippers whose deepest dreams always seem to involve destroying humanity.
Such is the current aim of none other than Bill Gates, the Microsoft pioneer who now spends his time (and money) preaching the benefits of depopulation. I have no doubt Bill Gates also supports the view that killing babies is no different than aborting them in the womb, but since he hasn't publicly made that statement yet (and probably won't), this will have to remain mere conjecture.
Part of the justification of all this in the minds of these baby killers, by the way, is that parents should not have to raise deformed babies, and since many deformities aren't obvious until the moment of birth, parents should have the right to just euthanize the child right after birth, like putting down the family dog. Don't like your first baby? Shoot him and make another, they seem to suggest.
That's modern medical ethics for ya, huh?
I have a better idea: Why don't we stop causing birth defects in pregnant women in the first place? Have you noticed over the last 2-3 years how aggressively these baby-killing doctors are pushing for mass vaccination of pregnant women? Until about 2009, vaccine shots were never recommended for pregnant women because medical professionals knew the vaccines would cause either birth defects or spontaneous abortions (VERY common in women who are vaccinated while pregnant).
Do you see the real agenda behind all this? It's yet another depopulation tactic. Vaccinate all the pregnant women and you'll lose maybe another 10% of all the babies through spontaneous abortion. Bill Gates marks that down as a depopulation victory!
When do we get to abort all the mad scientists?
That there remains a group of mad eugenics "scientists" in our world who openly and unapologetically promote the mass murder of living newborn babies is itself disturbing enough. But what's really frustrating is that the rest of us can't just take a machete to these people because we are bound by a higher sense of honoring the value of life -- even the lives of those who are destroyers of life.
Because after all, if the argument is that we can openly kill people as long as such murders benefit society, then there's a really, really long list of people who need to be taken out, starting with many of the top death-merchant scientists who push all this madness. (But we don't do that kind of thing, because we're decent people, see?)
If we kill them at age 55, it's not really murder, remember. It's just a really drawn-out post-partum abortion, they say. In fact, according to these science psychos, you can kill anybody right up to the day they die and still call it an abortion. It's all just a matter of time, and time is an illusion, the physicists claim.
So get out your chainsaws, ninja swords and poison blowgun darts, friends. Saddle up and lock-and-load. There's some death to deal out on this here planet, and thanks to the likes of authors who are published in mainstream scientific journals, it's now a total free-for-all death derby on the human race!
If you kill enough people, you might even win a free subscription to the Journal of Medical Ethics!
Editor's note: Please don't actually kill anyone after reading this article. Some of the language used herein is presented in a tongue-in-cheek style of indignant sarcasm in order to draw attention to the outrageous absurdity of the medical ethicists being covered here. We do not condone actually killing anyone. Not even those who very clearly deserve it.