Activist Post
According to Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, “after-birth abortion” is proposed as a form of “contraception” that would allow babies to be killed after they are born.
In a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics:
[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.Giubilini and Minerva believe that infants are a “threat” to parents because of their financial burden to their parents and that this justifies the murder of new-born babies.
In the Senate, Joe Pitts and Chris Smith spoke out against this ideology. Smith explains: “Giubilini and Minerva say the devaluation of new-born babies is inextricably linked to the devaluation of unborn children.”
Ann Furedi of the British Pregnancy Advisory Board stated that it was of no consequence to define the point when a fetus is subject to legal limitation with regard to abortion rights. Giubilini and Minerva agree with this summation by stating that “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,” such as “spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted” or “fetuses where abortion is permitted.”
By defining personhood as being established “some time” after birth, Giubilini and Minerva assert that a fetus has no claim to personhood, and therefore no right to life. They write that:
[I]n order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm. If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. … In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions. … Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero.Giubilini and Minerva support previous arguments for infanticide regardless of whether or not the baby were given a short lifespan due to a medical prognosis. Simply by being born the baby is regarded as an “unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.”
Supposedly -- Parents, relatives and even society should be enabled to force a mother to submit her child to infanticide because of the benefits that one less person would bring to our world. Giubilini and Minerva state that infants are dependent on parents just as fetuses are parasites to the mother’s body. And since no one can ensure that this person will not die prematurely in the future, the investment of resources, time and emotional support cannot be assumed to be a right of the infant.
During pregnancy, the development of the fetus can reveal defects that can legally warrant a partial-birth abortion. Giubilini and Minerva argue that this fact can be extended to after birth because a defective baby can be an “economical, social or psychological” burden because of the energy needed to care for the child. They say that “people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.”
The prevention of right to life for infants has another supporter in a study published by the Archives of General Psychiatry (AGP) that asserted pre-mature babies are at an increased risk for bipolar disorder, depression and a wide range of psychosis that would render them a danger to themselves and others later in life.
Marjorie Wallace, chief executive of SANE, a mental health charity, stated: “We already knew that premature birth may be linked to schizophrenia, but to see evidence linking it to a range of psychiatric conditions which required hospitalization is striking.”
While Giubilini and Minerva use eugenics agendas to coerce the public into believing that society would be better off without certain “burdensome” infants, an outright attack on fertility is taking place.
Dr. Martin Matzuk , professor of molecular biology, molecular and human genetics, and pharmacology at Baylor College of Medicine (BCM), is working on a birth-control pill for men that blocks the proteins essential for sperm production – rendering men “voluntarily” infertile.
The BCM has a long history of working to expanding the eugenics agenda with the use of genetic technologies; including collaboration with the German Nazis and their march toward using genetics to create a “better human race”. By looking for “justice as fairness” with the ethical practice of genetics and eugenics concerning applied science and social constructs. The advantage of eugenics ideology in genetic technology is viewed as “the greatest benefit of individuals with the least advantages.” And so by subverting the fact of eugenics in genetic advances will alleviate prejudice and make sure that the eugenics agenda is devoid of negative perceptions so that the genetically disadvantaged could be touted as the beneficiaries of eugenic applications in genetic technologies.
Last month, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) hosted The London Family Planning Summit (LFPS) where the BMGF secured funding for depopulation efforts in Africa, India and the Southeast Asian region.Melinda Gates believes that if she can prevent 40% of people who would otherwise have been born, she could justify her family planning scheme to make women healthier who’s “families are more successful and their communities are more prosperous.” Simply put: the BMGF has classified “unwanted” pregnancies as justification for killing people and they are focusing on eventually eliminating this number to reduce the world’s population. Africa, a big focus for the BMGF is being targeted along with Muslim nations.
In this propaganda cartoon, the depiction of brown and black women as disfigured potatoes having much more fun because they have fewer children is not only offensive, but telling of how these global Elite view the people they purport to be “saving”.
By preventing births, the film says that 600,000 people would not be born. Contraception as a first step in the global Elite’s plan to depopulation by appearing to help save lives of women could be quite effective.
RELATED ACTIVIST POST ARTICLE:
New Medical Ethics: Designer Genes For Your Baby, and 'after-birth' Abortions
You can support this information by voting for it on Reddit HERE
BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW
8 comments:
These people are sick and deeply disturbed. You can tell that their Satanic roots are coming to the surface. These secret societies have been practicing child sacrifice for a long time. I hope the public isn't dumb enough to openly join them in sacrificing infants. The Depopulation program is ruthless. These kids need to be loved and protected. Thanks for the article. These "scientists" need to be stoppped by law or law enforcement or both.
"sick and deeply disturbed" Doesn't even come close. I would hope that this never gets off the ground and good people everywhere will see through this for what it is.
So human sacrifices of babies at their satanic rituals is not enough? Now they want to find ways to legitimize it in the public domain just as they did with homosexuality? (They are all practicing pedophiles and sodomists.)
What arrogance! Who are they to tell us that they "choose" to call it. Well, I choose to call it human sacrifice.
I bet they will waste no time in putting the harvested organs of those babies to use in promoting their own rejuvenation programs. Ever you ever wonder how people like G H W Bush, Henry Kissinger, and Prince Philip are still around; and the "Queen Mum" lived to be 103. Drinking human blood must have amazing "anti-aging properties" we don't know about.
Who are these perverted "people" and where do they come from? They are definitely "Lucifer's children", the children of the Nephilim.
Dale observes:
If you check out the sources Posel uses, you will find that they usually take you another Posel article in which she totally misstates the agenda of people like Melinda Gates.
Offering contraceptives becomes "forced sterilization." Seeking to give poor people the ability to plan their families is said to be a program to kill 90% of the world's population (6 billion murders).
That a pair of scientists want to extend abortion to the period after birth is just that: the opinion of 2 people.
Ann Furedi of the British Pregnancy Advisory Board is cited as agreeing but if you read the source,no such agreement is made. The entire article is about late abortions and their rarity and the lack of a need to change the law.
Posel is known for using sources which are actually her own propaganda pieces. Also, if someone makes a statement, she is willing to ascribe it to the entire "global elite."
A proposal by 2 people, taken out of context, is nothing but a proposal by 2 people. Contraceptives are not forced sterilization; claims that abortion decisions should be up to the woman are not "a global agenda" to kill infants after they are born.
But it sure creates an attention-getting shock to hear such lies. Posel is not a journalist; she writes 2-3 articles a day, using herself as a source and misquoting others. Her favorite trick is to "quote" someone partially and then finish the sentence in Posel's words. Like this: Melinda Gates said "I want to be sure to".....ensure that 6 billion people can be killed to create a sustainable population.
This kind of fraud is typical of Posel. Beware.
She is manipulating not with facts but distortions and fake sources.
The beginning of this goes back to Margaret Sanger - founder of Planned Parenthood. She often spoke of sterilizing those found as unfit, differing religions, etc. There are several articles she wrote about eugenics in the 1920s.
It's just becoming more mainstream just as abortion or any other previously thought abnormal activity.
Very sad.
But they are children... Holy Sh*t These people are so F-ed up!!! What are they gonna do? Go into third world countries and shoot babies in the head? F8ck them!!
Are they really trying to make us think its better to murder a newborn than to think before and control contraception? Well, we had the notion of worthless life before and that quickly drove the stituation to an insane extreme. Looks to me they wanna tear down all taboos that protect life and the individual (well, they'r collectivists we know - happy slaughtering!)...
anyway, sociology is very clear how to handle the problem of poverty due to kids in a sane and sustainable way: create fair economic chances and educate the women. Read Jean Ziegler on this, he was reporter on the right for food for the UN.
Maybe these blood thirsty psycho-sociopaths can be stopped with some of the pre-crime technology being rolled out.
Post a Comment