Friday, August 17, 2012

New Medical Ethics: Designer Genes For Your Baby, and 'after-birth' Abortions

image source
Nicholas West
Activist Post

I can't escape the incredible irony that humanity is descending into a new Dark Age even as we technologically advance at the most rapid rate in the history of our species.

However, we have apparently permitted a technocratic elite with a warped sense of ethics to dictate our evolution ... once again.

A Telegraph article entitled, "Genetically engineering 'ethical' babies is a moral obligation, says Oxford professor" cites the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Julian Savulescu, as advocating the arrival of genetic cleansing for those who might have a propensity toward "personality flaws." And, furthermore, that this cleansing is a sign of good parenting and a strong concern for society.

Now, I'm sorry to issue an ad hominem attack right out of the gate, but since Savulescu introduces the subject of genetic evaluation, this guy's family tree goes back to Romania (perhaps central - think Transylvania) - home to such distinguished rulers as Vlad the Impaler, Vlad's descendant Prince Charles, and power-mad collectivist, Nicolae Ceau┼čescu. I'm not saying there is a direct genetic connection between this esteemed academic and brutal psychopaths, but perhaps we should encourage Savulescu to study himself first and foremost ... just to be sure.

Anyway, we often like to say in the alternative media, "You can't make this stuff up." Well, someone has, and they are intruding upon our otherwise potentially sane reality.

The Journal of Medical Ethics has now set itself head and shoulders above the rest as the most Orwellian-named collective of openly bragging social engineers to which the medical profession has thusly given voice.



The first outlandish story that emerged was immediately lambasted even by some readers of alternative media for being a hoax, until it was fully documented to have come from the Journal's own website: "after-birth abortions" up until the age of three. Because, after all, infants aren't people, so experts must be right to pose the question, 'Why should the baby live?'
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 is, 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. (Source)
This line of thinking is echoed by Savulescu, who uses the inherent concern of parents to offer their children the best of what life has to offer as a reason for them to pre-determine what type of life has value, and which does not.
So where genetic selection aims to bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society, we should allow parents the choice. 
To do otherwise is to consign those who come after us to the ball and chain of our squeamishness and irrationality. 
Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children. 
They are, after all, less likely to harm themselves and others. (Reader's Digest)
Notice that the persuasive argument of parental choice quickly morphs into the "what is good for you is good for society" argument. By conflating the two, it conveniently opens up the door for collectivized state control of life itself.

It is also concerning that these comments were made to Reader's Digest, which seems like a clear propaganda campaign to popularize the concept of "rational design," as opposed to presenting it for peer-review in less widely read scholarly medical journals - even his own.

If the black-and-white deterministic view that a rational need to eradicate the potential to harm oneself or others based on countless variables sounds logical to you, then please consider where this type of thinking has invariably led: extermination by dictators. In other words, the ones doing the rationalizing are also very important in this equation.

So, just a quick quote from another self-proclaimed ethicist only concerned with the well being of society and for doing a service to those who might have a difficult life ahead of them:
He who is bodily and mentally not sound and deserving may not perpetuate this misfortune in the bodies of his children. The people's state has to perform the most gigantic rearing-task here. One day, however, it will appear as a deed greater than the most victorious wars of our present bourgeois era. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1924)
This philosophy which led to the estimated deaths of 350,000 Germans (including a few doctors/executioners hanged later at Nuremberg) is now believed to have been a precursor to the even more indiscriminate killing to follow, as indicated by this brief summary of the "T4 program" signed by Hitler in October of 1939 as a "mercy killing" of the sick and disabled.
Code named Aktion T 4, the Nazi euthanasia program to eliminate 'life unworthy of life' at first focused on newborns and very young children. Midwives and doctors were required to register children up to age three who showed symptoms of mental retardation, physical deformity, or other symptoms included on a questionnaire from the Reich Health Ministry. (emphasis added) 
A decision on whether to allow the child to live was then made by three medical experts solely on the basis of the questionnaire, without any examination and without reading any medical records.
Each expert placed a + mark in red pencil or - mark in blue pencil under the term 'treatment' on a special form. A red plus mark meant a decision to kill the child. A blue minus sign meant a decision against killing. Three plus symbols resulted in a euthanasia warrant being issued and the transfer of the child to a 'Children's Specialty Department' for death by injection or gradual starvation....
The Nazi euthanasia program quickly expanded to include older disabled children and adults. Hitler's decree of October, 1939, typed on his personal stationary, enlarged 'the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death.' (Source)
Of course, any involuntary form of euthanasia should more properly be called eugenics, which is invariably where this mental disorder of reasoning leads -- that reasoning being that in order to value some humans, you must extinguish others.

The above historical example is not to highlight one single worst villain, but to demonstrate a worldview which keeps cropping up again and again within the halls of government-endorsed medicine and science.

In fact, eugenics has a long history established in America well before Hitler's arrival ... and apparently continues long after his death.

As noted in a piece of criticism linking some of the current euthanasia policies of the Netherlands with those that began in Nazi Germany and later morphed into open eugenics, Wesley J. Smith highlights:
It is important to note that throughout the years in which euthanasia was performed in Germany, whether as part of the officially sanctioned government program or otherwise, the government did not force doctors to kill. Participating doctors had become true believers, convinced they were performing a valuable medical service for their 'patients' and their country. (Source)
It is for this reason alone that if we must have such genetic testing done for the sake of saving humanity, or ensuring the greatest safety and happiness for all, then only with proper logic can it be argued that we have a "moral obligation" to start with the leaders of governments worldwide, and their minions in academia and science who through their justifications make democide that much more efficient for singular psychopathic leaders to carry out.

However, I'd much rather embrace technological advancement in a way that increases the options for self-determination, rather than breed a perpetual zombie race with happy smiles on their genetically designed faces and not a critical thought within their sterilized minds. Even if occasionally a Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot shows up, along with their enablers. Because with that same dangerous natural freedom, so too can minds of great wonder and peaceful intentions develop and hopefully offer an opportunity for sustained enlightenment of the human race.

Perhaps we should then focus more on revisiting history, where such heavenly ideas as designing the perfect human have only led us to hell; and seeing current parallels, learn to throw these ideas in the trash upon first sight.

Based on the poll numbers within the Telegraph report about Savulescu's statements, wherein 80% of readers disagree with his argument, humanity shows at least some indication of learning from its past blind faith, and perhaps still has enough time to further increase its resistance against the virus of social engineers and their designer babies.

Please weigh in with your own views about the pros and cons of "rational design" in the comment section below.

Read other articles by Nicholas West HERE




BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW


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

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

They ARE experts, in killing and enslaving people. Please save us from the experts!

stevor said...

Let's abort THOSE PEOPLE who dream this up. Obviously, they are a MENACE to society! (and maybe continue on to Washington)

stevor said...

If they allow up to 3, what's to stop them from saying it's okay to KILL ANYBODY who gets in their way at ANY AGE, especially if they don't go along with THE AGENDA (New World Order)

Anonymous said...

Murderers always disguise themselves in medical ethics.

Jessica Heitman said...

Excellent end to the article. I like what you said about zombie-like smiles and sterelized minds. Thats what I feel separates me from others already, since I have neither. A world filled with these creatures sounds worse than the occassional madman, indeed!

sapien said...

The Bad Nazis were absolutely right. Sick and children with mental retardation should be eliminated from the genetic pool. It only makes sense when one thinks about it though., If one just acts on emotions alone, OOOH THE HORROR, IT'S KILLING BABIES! yes, it sounds horrible.
But Nature will take care of us soon enough. We are exterminating ourselves with weak genes, allowing almost any sick child to survive and when they grow up they of coruse give their weak genes to their own children and the cycle gets worse. No wonder people are SO sick today.
Growing up as a child myself I do NOT remember ONE single kid in my school of 500 children to have allergies or cancer or any of the hundred diseases children now carry.
As I said, Mother Nature will be soon taking care of us. Already viruses are mutating and the olde diseases are coming back. Tuberculosis, anyone? Just you wait, 20 years from now people will be dying en masse. And I am usually right when I predict tings. While a teen in the 1980s I predicted Communism will fail within 10 years and I was correct.
People wanting to have children should be tested and checked. It only makes sense, but one has to actually think about it. Hard. Which as it appears you are not able to do. Don't even try, it you might get hurt.

Anonymous said...

As someone who has had a few cerebral palsy and trisomy cousins, I can agree with the sentiment, reasoning, and economics of allowing doctors to abort a baby at birth.
I've seen more than 100 years of life "cared for" (read RAPED and BEATEN in various institutions, public, private, and even religious) and seen the effect on what were the most productive, socially, and professionally, families.
Then, after the short, miserable, 24 to 29 years these relatives lived, trying to prepare to go to yet more funerals where "truth" about what has happened comes out.

There weren't many trisomy babies running around in the centuries prior to this one. CP babies invariably "died" at birth, also. Wow, our ancestors were horrible when they founded this country, huh?

Anonymous said...

Trouble is that this is the historic genetically control freak family that is, and has been, taking over the world by by insinuating themselves into our governments for the last 100 years.

Anonymous said...

"...that reasoning being that in order to value some humans, you must extinguish others." this is actually a pre-requisite for evolution to take place; the lesser valued genes needs to be taken out/die off so that the "new and improved" can dominate in future offspring (if not they would quickly drown in the majority of substandard genes).

It's been said that your belief system determines your actions and no doubt, evolutionism is the belief system of Savulescu, Minerva and Giubilini (and obviously was of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot).

I am not telling anyone which belief system to adhere to but food for thought; why has powers all over the world joined together with such force to pave our minds with evolutionism - in spite of all its apparent absurdities, the above being just one of them?

Anonymous said...

Do we truly have more 'genetic based' diseases NOW as compared to THEN? Really?? Think about the environmental pollution that's been allowed to steadily increase over the past five decades and there's your answer.

Soft kill is quickly becoming mandated hard kill.

Anonymous said...

What morons have come up with doing this kind of BS? Behavior is easily modified.... just behave a certain way for lets say....5 days and you will be off in that direction. They are real good at doing this to the masses....probably cause most people are unaware how to recognize it. Watch this will become common practice soon and the sad thing is it will be embraced. If you don't believe me than why do most smokers don't even smoke in their house because it common behavior. Steered and didn't even know it. I really can't wait for the shit house to fall cause this is f'n ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

genetic discrimination coming soon to a theater near you!

Anonymous said...

"Natural selection"...it's worked for millions of years to create stronger, smarter, healthier organisms and weed out the weaker, sickly, slower, less intelligent in order to improve the species. Modern man's "sentimental" nature has encouraged him to let the weak, sick, less intelligent of our own species survive long enough, in many cases, to procreate and pass on defective genes to future generations. And on it goes, generation after generation. It's as if Nature has destined Mankind to ultimately destroy itself. If we don't wipe ourselves out with an artificially created virus or a nuclear winter, we will eventually be a race dying from congenital diseases and deformities, mental retardation and weakened immune systems. Either we become extinct due to our irrational hate for each other, or our irrational love for each other.

Anonymous said...

If all the odd and weird people are eliminated, humanity will die out. When massive natural (or man made) disaster strikes the planet at an unknown time in the future, it won't be the conformists who save the day. Fill the world with "good" i.e. conforming personalities and you will destroy those with the radically different modes of thought needed to solve "unsolvable" problems.Morality aside, the power crazed "experts" will end up killing the goose that lays the golden egg that feeds them. Sad for the masses, if this cannot be stopped, but hopefully some "defective" humans will escape and get to repopulate the planet. That's what happens when you try to genocide a population of bacteria with antibiotics.

Maybe this happened already in the past. Atlantis, anyone?

mothman777 said...


As there are many thousands of different DNA combinations anyway that can come from any one man and his partner, as we are told, then if they can just pass over one sperm or ovum with a blatant defect and simply select another entirely natural combination that is perfect from the same man and woman, then what is the problem one might say? All well and good if a soul can be spared from having to endure an entire lifetime with some unendurable disease that could easily have been avoided, such as EB, or Epidermolysis Bullosa, which renders a child’s internal and external skin as fragile as a butterfly’s wing all their lives, with terrible painful blisters forming all over the body every day.

But what if crazy scientists with blinkered views about people who have genes which allow them to believe in God get their way, and start vaccinating people against religion, because it is said by some in the Pentagon to be harmful?

GM babies are the real nightmare, and Pentagon scientists are already doing experimentation on building soldiers that possess supernormal physical abilities.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/10198593-pentagon-seeking-ways-to-vaccinate-people-against-religion-and-vmat-2-gene-with-a-virus

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/07/3-billion-super-soldier-program-10.html

The problems of enormously strong individuals, bred for the army, purely for the purpose of killing, without any compunction, with zero moral or spiritual values are easy to envisage, at least for those who actually possess moral and spiritual values.

Let them loose on leave on a weekend and watch the chaos ensue. I have met with soldiers of today on leave, and when one is sitting with you repeating, extremely seriously, in a conditioned hypnotic daze ‘I just want to kill’, even without having had a drink, you can see they are seriously psychotic after all their training. I have other things I could say on that issue, but I hope that gives you a rough idea about what is coming, already.

The principle could be abused to produce soulless robotic workers who just respond to commands, thereby becoming the ‘ideal’ citizens, like paving stones on legs.

We don’t have intelligent or spiritual enough people in positions of influence at present that could make a sane choice in this matter, though on the issue purely of screening out diseases that would cause extreme suffering to individuals and their carers, then I think that is not a bad idea in itself, though the go-ahead for that most definitely should not mean the simultaneous go-ahead for GM babies, which will very surely lead in an obvious direction with horrific consequences.

Anonymous said...

Think - Steven Hawkins.

Anonymous said...

Parents should be able to abort their children for as long as they live. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Parents should not choose to abort for light and transient causes.

Okie said...

If you believe in abortion your mother should have too!

Post a Comment