Thursday, March 1, 2012

Medical Journalists Call for ‘After-Birth Abortions’, Say Infants ‘Aren’t People’

Anthony Gucciardi, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

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.

Explore More:
  1. Medical Panel Pushes for Free Birth Control for Women
  2. Persistent Organic Pollutants Could Lead to Birth Defects in Half of All Newborns
  3. Government Announces Plan for Free Birth Control
  4. Infants Born with Low Vitamin D Levels Prone to Developing Lung Infection
  5. Second-hand Smoke Could Actually Cause Birth Defects
  6. Birth Control Increases Risk of Contracting, Transmitting HI
This article first appeared at Natural Society, an excellent resource for health news and vaccine information. 

Madhouse Medical Tyranny: When Health Becomes Sickness


This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.


Anonymous said...

I actually read the paper, and not one of the MANY "discussions" about it.

The paper was pretty clear that it was about babies who "appeared" normal, but were discovered to have some kind of abnormality or condition that would make a normal life, for the baby and the family, all but impossible. These are babies who, if the mother had been able to know about the condition, would have certainly aborted the fetus.

One focus of the paper was that the grief of losing a fetus was the same to a mother as losing a newborn baby. Thus, the "infanticide" would be ethical as far as the mother was concerned, and, after all, it would be HER baby.

This kind of infanticide is surely acceptable in a historic context, as well as a social one. It was actually common in the US even in the last century, before health care corporations and medical device companies were able to rape both taxpayers and patients in the name of "profits."

Anonymous said...

"These are babies who, if the mother had been able to know about the condition, would have certainly aborted the fetus."

You must not know much about mothers.

Anonymous said...

This is the most disgusting thing I have ever read. Abortion should be limited to the first 3 months of pregnancy only. Disgusting!

Anonymous said...

Wow,an apologist for eugenics and outright murder anon 1. Your mom must be proud. Perhaps that's why you didn't sign your name.

Unknown said...

WOW, this is just creepy. Written for The Journal of Medical Ethics, Killing a newborn baby because it is defective is insane. How far are they willing to extend the definition "after birth abortion" and hour,,week,,year,,or 20 years?

Anonymous said...

Remember: "My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path: For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood." --Proverbs 1: 15-16. One who advocates the murder of innocents ought to be shunned.

Anonymous said...

Anyone notice that a lot of those "papers" originate in Australian society? Maybe that is why we got the carbon tax.

Anonymous said...

Remember only Goyim babies are not people.

Anonymous said...

Lighten up, folks. Ever heard of SATIRE??? I didn't think so.

Jay said...

Are medical journalists persons?

Just wondering, as I listen to the soft breathing of my sleeping eight month old son.

Jay said...

Are medical journalists persons? Maybe we should make them pin swastikas to their jackets so we can see them coming. Yellow ones.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone doubt that Satan exists? Or that he has his minions? Are these slime kidding? Are they possessed? I think so. Are they going to drink their blood after these murders. Vampires.

Notice how they have us conditioned tht we can't see photos of this?

I want to see the photos and look us in the eye. Will we wake up then? They only get away with what we let them.

The most high will stand behind us. Be confident. They are worms.

Anonymous said...

With our super advanced society , we should be able to detect a featus' ability to become a sereal killer or a politicien and have it aborted before term ....
Goyim is hebrew for cattle ; Goy means cow , so if you are not some kind of jew , your dumb !

Anonymous said...

The people that came up with this idea of murder 'appear' normal. Obvioulsly a defectve gene to have ones mind so distorted toward the 'innocent'...Here is the suprise. Certainly, 'Retroactive Abortion' of all these genetically flawed indivduals as soon as they can be hunted down and corraled. Before they get a chance to pass this 'mental disorder' of a genetic imprint onto their offspring. FIND THEM and take action...They will cooperate, they wrote this nonsense and in favor.

Anonymous said...

Murder us still murder. God will avenge.

nuff said.

Anonymous said...

How short is peoples' memory?
How ignorant is the world?
I am German.
Under the rule of Hitler during "Third Reich" thousands and thousands of babies, children and grown-up people were put to death as "unworthy of life" verdicts.
Even going back to the line of argument of the Australian "study" makes things no better:
Who the heck will know what the mother WOULD have done if she HAD KNOWN that the baby will be disabled in some way???
Well, obviously, nobody does; so, they will get some "experts" to decide ... and experts of this type also decided about life / death in Hitler's "Third Reich".
Sorry, but we need no "ethicists" like that - they are just apologists for death.

Anonymous said...

The souls of the innocent (babies) will go to God, but where will the souls of these murders live...after HELL fire..

Anonymous said...

Remember the movie Solent Green in the 60's... is that next?

Anonymous said...

abortiion is murder as soon as the baby is concieved,,,,,,,,,,,,

Teacher said...

So, babies who are born aren't human beings? Then what are they? Turnips?? Why is it that in the US a person can go to jail for destroying a Bald Eagle's egg, but not for murdering a preborn human being? "Woe to those times when evil is perceived as good and good is perceived as evil." We are there...

Bluestocking said...

While I can recognize that there's some logic to the arguments against using extreme measures to maintain the life of people who are severely disabled (as callous as this may sound), the suggestion that not even healthy infants have an inherent right to life is an extraordinarily slippery slope on which human beings should never even remotely consider setting foot. Also, the decision whether to terminate or sustain life (either before or after birth) should never be the prerogative of an impartial official, but should always be the exclusive right of the individual and/or his or her family members. Whether people want to accept this or not, in certain circumstances where the person in question is faced with the nearly unavoidable prospect of a slow and painful death, a quick and painless death might be more merciful (which is why I'm pro-choice and also in favor of people having the right to self-terminate if they so choose).

Anonymous said...


Rachel said...

I agree. Satan is working his evil

Anonymous said...

Who are we to decide who should live or die, disability or not. Who created every intricate part of that baby, gave her a heart that beats and great to breathe? Who are we? What are we who would kill a child! It is the disabled that enable us to have compassion. Imagine a world without disability. I don't want to live in that world. Yes, I have a child with a disability, with Down syndrome.

Anonymous said...

Who will decide the length of time after birth to take a life? 1hr. to 18 or 21 years; skip those 21yrs and go to 60 years and kill them all above
age 60. Who will decide who is worth or unworthy to live? Does anyone think it isn't our right
to even think these things? This thinking is straight from HELL.

Cold War Gunner said...


These Progressive Socialists should be executed in the same manner. May GOD forgive them, for I cannot


Cold War Gunner

Mary Neal said...

Exorcist urgently needed for medical journalists!

Anonymous said...

no moral right to live, so that means we can put down most bankers and politicians then seeing that they have earned that right.

Post a Comment