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.
The paper states:
“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’. […] 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…”
The news comes just after the ‘Euthanasia Coaster‘ hit the mainstream and alternative media, a proposed rollercoaster design that would ‘euthanize and execute’ its passengers. The creator of the coaster, Julijonas Urbonas, says the machine is engineered to take the life of a human being with “elegance and euphoria.” The coaster even met similar scientific reception as the concept of after-birth abortions, as the transhumanism science organization “HUMAN+” displayed the concept of the Euthanasia Coaster at the Science Gallery in Dublin from April through June 2011.
**Not long after posting this article, the writing for the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics on after birth abortions was removed from the website.
Google Plus ProfileAnthony is an accomplished investigative journalist whose articles have appeared on top news sites and have been read by millions worldwide. Anthony’s articles have been featured on top health & political websites read by millions worldwide such as Reuters, Yahoo News, MSNBC, and Bloomberg. Anthony is also a founding member of Natural Attitude, a leading developer of super high quality spagyric formulations. Read More