Australian Ethicists Call For “After-Birth Abortions” In Medical Journal…
There are some sick and twisted people in this world . . . then there’s these two “ethicists.”
Via The Blaze:
Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.
Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”
The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to “infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.
The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
Posted by ZIP on Tuesday, February 28, 2012, at 4:14 pm | 
Tweet
Murder!
And tomorrow’s argument would be that some adults are not fit to live, because really, what is the difference between the infant and the adult?
Retards of course prefer to ignore that human is a person from the conception. They are arguing from the conclusion that he’s not (which they never proved in the first place).
This is pure EVIL. Don’t be intimidated by it. Fight it.
Ethicists? More like Eugenicists.
Right out in the open, shameless evil, not the least bit of subtlety. Evil afoot in the world without a doubt.
I vote osama obama as the first test case.
A Post Natal Abortion.
It’s already happening in many countries. Baby girls are left to die, or outright killed.
Barry has in his plans for the next round of Deathcare mandates…. paid for by us.
Hey, Stymie! Looks like you and I just made it, kid.
This world is beginning to suck, Ralph. BIG TIME!
“such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
So when Barry thinks that the cost of raising a child is too great for Obamacare Insurance, his Death Panels will order a PNA (post natal abortion).
How about after birth abortions for assholes with no conscience?
Hell, another damn attack on private industry…baby sitting.
btw, this is the same warped thinking of Ubamas execrable science czar, John Holdren.
I have no words for how detestable these people are.
Is it too late to abort them?
I vote that they lead by example and offer themselves up as the first ones.
Waiting……
Well being of the family at risk???
How far behind this can killing the elderly, disabled and retarded be….
Now, the value of life can be figured in dollars and cents…..
When is murder appropriate? When the victim upsets either the state’s or the family’s budget.
These guys are completely and entirely right.
There is no difference between a developed fetus and a newborn. Either you are allowed to kill both or neither.
This addresses Deathcares concerns with the costs of a newborn.
It’s not much of a leap for it to be applied to the elderly, when the cost of care exceeds your lifetime allotment.
And we were told there won’t be Death Panels!
See what Santorum or Palin would respond on this. This amounts to “honor killings” whether in the womb, so many inches out of the womb, or whatever. It’s what the lousy business of it is.
These “ethicists” should consider “learning” a few lessons from the legacy of that gracious little woman Irene Sendler, or a Mother Teresa or other’s that we aren’t yet aware of.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/i/irena-sendler.htm
“Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would “forbid abortions to take place.” Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, “then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”
O’bama was an “ethicist” before these two Aussies ever surfaced. All birds of a feather.
Just when you thought you heard it all, these two sick degenerates up the bar once more.
Obama is a burden to society as a whole.
I’m just saying
Reprobates.
Ms. Hickster is right, this is an “honor killing”, in sharia a parent can kill a child at any age if they are embarrassed by them or they bring shame.
Jesus wept………
Infanticide is such a loaded term.
beyond the pale. these 2 assholes should have a price on their heads. i’d trade the innocent life of a newborn for those 2 any day.
“…..Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.”
———-
How bout if we extend the date of eligibility to 70 years, then put a bullet in the head of this ethicist?
These people would understand the Pro-Life point of view perfectly…if only they thought that murdering the Unfit was morally wrong.
It’s sick that these two would argue for legalizing murder rather than considering putting an unwanted kid up for adoption. They seem to think that everyone thinks like them, and that no person would ever consider adopting and raising a defective child.
Dr Mengele would be so proud. Seig Heil, scumbags.
I’ll guess that the new term for this will be ‘Retroactive Abortion’.
LThen what would be wrong with after birth abortions, say when a person is 45 or 50?
There is no stoppiing it when evil starts in the hearts of secularism.
Reminds you of Islam. Kill what you have no use for.
The bible says to comfort the feeble minded, not murder them.
And babies have always thought to be a gift from God. Where did that go?
What happened to “Suffer little children to come unto me for such is the kingdom of heaven.” ?
These so called wise people are so stupid, and evil!! I can’t even find words!!!!!!!!
Save the dingos but kill your child Typical liberals
‘Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life’.. here we go down the slippery slope of Nazi euthanasia of the ‘unfit’.. time for the left to step back take a deep breath and rethink their support for killing unborn humans.. but then Hitler was a leftist and had no scruples about human life either..
‘Hitler’s rise to power produced a completely new set of definitions. Guided by the over-riding principles of racial hygiene, racial purity, and national health, the Nazi regime seems fairly consistently committed to the removal of those unfit to live and produce inferior offspring. In 1935, the Nuremberg Laws provided for the forced sterilization of the unfit. Not only did Hitler have in mind such “inferior races” as Jews and Gypsies, he also included unfit Aryansthe mentally defective, severely handicapped, the incurably insane and the incurably sick.
To implement the euthanasia program, special carbon-monoxide chambers were constructed. According to Milton Meltzer:
Between December 1939 and August 1941, about 50,000 to 60,000 Germanschildren and adultswere secretly killed by lethal injections or in gassing installations designed to look like shower stalls. It was a foretaste of Auschwitz. The victims were taken from the medical institution and put to death…. (Never to Forget, New York: HarperCollins, 1976:131.)
Robert J. Lifton makes the following assessment:
Of the number of people killed in the T4 and the 14f13 projects, the following statistics are usually given: adult mental patients from institutions, 80,000 to 100,000; children in institutions, 5,000; special action against Jews in institutions, 1,000; concentration camp inmates transported to killing centers (14f13), 20,000 (Klee estimated that at the end of 1941, some 93,521 `beds’ had been emptied for other uses [70,000 patients gassed, plus over 20,000 dead through starvation and medication] – in other words approximately one-third of the places for the mentally ill.) But these figures may well be too low; twice these numbers of people may have perished. The fact is that we do not know and shall probably never know. Elements of deception, imposed chaos, and the destruction of many records make anything like an accurate estimate impossible.’…
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id16.html
This from Kenneth at C2…
I Am Imperfect…
Frightening.
gastorgrab says:
February 28, 2012 at 5:04 pm
I’ll guess that the new term for this will be ‘Retroactive Abortion’.
Rush coined that term long ago, IIRC around the time he would do ‘caller abortions” on air.
@Anonymous Coward,
I first heard Rush while driving through the Central Valley, he was still in Sacramento… I was scanning the am band, and stop on this guy… just in time to hear him do one of his caller abortions.
One of the funniest things I had heard on the radio in a long time.
This conclusion is the same as rationed healthcare for elderly patients (aka “death panels”), based on bureaucratic measurements of the value of human life. The sentiment is even more monstrous when applied to newborns because they have no say in the matter. This sick state of affairs is the end result of state-controlled healthcare. Human life is relegated to a budgetary concern, lest it burden “society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pre-persons
“The Pre-persons” is a science fiction short story by Philip K. Dick. It was first published in Fantasy and Science Fiction magazine, October 1974 shortly after his famous mental breakdown in March 1974.
It was a pro-life response to Roe v. Wade. Dick imagines a future where the United States Congress has decided that abortion is legal until the soul enters the body, which is specified as the moment a person has the ability to do simple algebra. The main protester — a former Stanford mathematics major — demands to be taken to the abortion center, since he claims to have forgotten all his algebra.
Dick said of the story in 1980:
In this … I incurred the absolute hate of Joanna Russ who wrote me the nastiest letter I’ve ever received; at one point she said she usually offered to beat up people (she didn’t use the word ‘people’) who expressed opinions such as this. I admit that this story amounts to special pleading, and I’m sorry to offend those who disagree with me about abortion on demand. I also got some unsigned hate mail, some of it not from individuals but from organizations promoting abortion on demand. Well, I have always managed to offend people by what I write. Drugs, communism, and now an anti-abortion stand; I really know how to get myself in hot water. Sorry, people. But for the pre-persons’ sake I am not sorry. I stand where I stand: “Hier steh Ich; Ich kann nicht anders,” ["Here I stand, I can do no other"] as Martin Luther is supposed to have said.[1]
The fulfillment of Nazism.
Ethics is an entirely contrived discipline (oxymoron) used to justify behaviors good and bad. The whole thing is a crock.
A Down’s kid is a million times more valuable than these godless cretins. Someone told me once that people with Down’s are angels on earth. Sounds about right.
Before the nazis released their genocidal mania upon Jews the first mass murders they committed were of the feeble minded and whomever they considered genetic inferiors.
http://www.e-reading.org.ua/bookreader.php/71701/Dick_-_Complete_Stories_5_-_The_Eye_of_Sibyl_and_Other_Stories_%28v3.0%29.html
Any decent human being using this logic must consider that abortion should NOT be allowable, unless killing a newborn is also acceptable. While reprehensible, this idea is the perfect illustration of why abortion is wrong.
How long before our society is a live version of “Logan’s Run”?
I suggest these two douche bags they out their theory on each other and let us know how it works out.
@dba…vagabond
Go back and research the Eugenics of the first part of the 20th Century, and how it lead to the Nazi camps.
The language being used now is identical, the Newsweek cover on Obama’s dumb opponents, several studies on how conservatives are less intelligent, even brain damaged.
The parallels to then and now are staggering, and frightening.
@JCM:
Oh yes, H!tler was an admirer of Margaret Sanger and her friends. I have no doubt these vile misanthropic zealots have an agenda to perfect humanity by ridding the planet of anyone and anything they consider inferior or in competition, themselves excluded of course. Some kind of whacked out Utopian fantasy. Thanks alot 52%ers. You’ll be in front of the Death Panels first.
So now the abortionists can call infanticide “After-Birth Abortion” since so many people are used to and accept that term, instead of calling it what it really is – child murder.
Just like the Nazis called genocide “The Final Solution” of the Jewish “problem” instead of what it really was – mass murder.
History repeats itself over and over. Now the brown shirts wear three piece business suits.
I used to wonder how if Liberals were worried about overpopulation, why on earth would they mandate national health care. It seemed counter-intuitive.
Now it all makes sense. They want to exterminate all the “undesirables”.
@The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
—————————————————————————————-
FUCK you, you evil pieces of Satanic shit.
and how will these unworthy infants be murdered?
plastic bag over the head; a spoonful of poison; an injection to the brain?
will they be buried or taken to the lab for their parts?
I still marvel at the insane stupidity of women that carry a baby to just weeks of it’s birth – then – decide they don’t want it. Late term abortion should be an automatic murder charge, along with the doctor and staff that aided. If a baby is born viable, taken home from the hospital and the mother places a pillow over it’s head a charge of murder is waged against her…. I want to see charges against the mother and the medical staff that assisted in a late term abortion as well. But, this idea is outright state sanctioned euthenasia. At what age would it end?
I thought Hitler tried Eugenics. The results were disappointing, as I recall.
@bobdog-
Yeah, they had to rebuild much of Europe after our ‘dummies’ went in and kicked the shit out of his ass.
The editor of the publication that allowed this theory to be published is openly shocked and confused at the backlash and vitriol he, the publication, and the paper writers are receiving.
He is also amazed blogs would actually cover this ‘opinion’ as a news story.
He is also shocked and outraged at the readers’ comments on those sites that are not so kind to all parties involved. He’s even appalled at what he deems as “death threats” to himself and the writers. “Hate speech”, he contends.
This is hate speech. The kind of thing that incenses people to violence.
What the response to this article reveals, through the microscope of the web, is the deep disorder of the modern world. Not that people would give arguments in favour of infanticide, but the deep opposition that exists now to liberal values and fanatical opposition to any kind of reasoned engagement.
[...]
Many people will and have disagreed with these arguments. However, 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. The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible. The authors proceed logically from premises which many people accept to a conclusion that many of those people would reject. [...]
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/02/%e2%80%9cliberals-are-disgusting%e2%80%9d-in-defence-of-the-publication-of-%e2%80%9cafter-birth-abortion%e2%80%9d/
THIS is what happens when over-educated people decide they could’ve created a much better world.
The fact that Hitler and his league of cold blooded, heartless, maniacal “logical” Nazi doctors had the same “liberal values” for segment(s) of society Hitler and his “logical” thinkers ‘reasoned’ were problematic to the orderly society he and his ilk envisioned. ANYONE can come along and decide to draw a dividing line and place fellow human beings (no matter what age, ideology, religion, mental capacity, race, etc.) on one side and they themselves on the other as the righteous and deserving of life.
Our humanity is NOT based in the ability to hold power over others in gauging their worth of/in life, but in realizing our strengths are only worthy in and of themselves if we use them for the betterment of others weaker than ourselves. People are not ‘knock-offs’ of some high-end designer. All people come from the very same designer.
What these people actually believe is they can do so much better is the holocaust.
Note:
From “This is hate speech” to “that many of those people would reject. [...]” prior to the site link is an excerpt from the editor’s diatribe/response/defense about justifying publishing the article. My ‘bold’ emphasis didn’t work out so good…
Infanticide is now being called, “After-Birth Abortions”?!?!?! They are absolutely lost and forsaken of God.
gastorgrab says:
February 28, 2012 at 5:04 pm
I’ll guess that the new term for this will be ‘Retroactive Abortion’.
=====
You know, my husband has been using that term (in jest) for years. Never actually thought it would come to pass.
While I find infanticide revolting I can think of a number of post birth individuals whose “abortion” would be beneficial.
Only liberals could have thought of such a concept as this.
I can’t begin to be civil regarding this post, it is simply too offensive a notion.
They think they can use 50 cent words to coldly justify killing human beings.
Look how they describe the vile philosophy of eugenics using intellectual gibberish. This does not change the nuts and bolts bottom line of their depravity.
Murderers, masquerading as great thinkers who we should honor for their insight and intelligence.
I despise these psychopaths.
Let’s start the “After-Birth Abortion” process with them.
Can Armageddon be far off?
Well, just like that NOW spokesmouth said, abortion is a wrenching decision for women. Won’t it be an enormous relief when the government exercises its “Constitutional Right” to make the decision for them.
Folks,
I could be wrong… But I am reading this as A Modest Proposal, a savage dead pan mockery of the current situation.
Rodney G. Graves says: February 28, 2012 at 9:27 pm – I could be wrong… But I am reading this as A Modest Proposal, a savage dead pan mockery of the current situation.
You might be onto something there. Couldn’t bring myself earlier to read the entire paper but looking it over in full now the positions are so overblown that mockery may well be the point. For example – Killing a newborn is arguably a better option for the birth mother because the finality of death will be less damaging than years of agonizing over the possibility of seeing her adopted child again.
Gives a whole new twist to the term “Abortion on Demand”.
The first pillar of health care professional ethics is simply put in Latin: primum non nocere (first do no harm).
Apparently those two idiots don’t know that. Ethicist seems to be a term for “full of shit”.
I have been watching an actually good for a change documentary on PBS called Auschwitz…….
amazing parallels to what is going on here..
Dirty Bastards
What do you expect – Australia has had 18 years out of the last 30 under left wing government. Of course the communist/environmentalist crowd were going to produce this breed of academic. Theres worse to come before we see the end of it.
What kind of occupation is an “ethicist” anyway? Or is it a religion?
Well, as they don’t specify how far after birth the ‘killings’ ought to be done, I suggest we start with them, right? By their own reasoning, if 4 hours or 4 minutes after birth is acceptable, then 40 years, in their cases, ought be acceptable too! In the interest of ‘fairness’ of course!
AND I propose that I be allowed to do these ‘ after-birth ‘procedures’ with my Craftman power tools….let’s see just how long it takes them to scream for the God they don’t believe in, cool?
LOL…aftually, the word for this is ‘homocide’ but why bother with words and descriptions ‘they’ don’t like, right? Murder is murder, be it br or after, birth….dead is still dead!
a few things:
**these people are trying to play GOD. I am thinking this is not going to bode well on the judgement of their souls.
** by this reasoning, most of Hollyweird would be deemed “unfit” for life, and I am thinking a lot of HOllyweird might support this, waiting to see if there are any stars who will vocalize this.
** by this reasoning, our entire civilization would have failed long ago. anyone doubt our Final Judgement is not imminent ?
________________
Albert Einstein
The Mathematician/Physicist who had a learning disability and did not speak until age 3. He had a very difficult time doing maths in school. It was also very hard for him to express himself through writing.
Alexander Graham Bell
Had a learning disability
Cher
Has dyslexia
Thomas Edison
Edison is the great inventor who had over 1,000 patents and his inventions are in various fields used in our daily life. In his early life he was thought to have a learning disability and he could not read till he was twelve and later he himself admitted that he became deaf after pulling up to a train car by his ears. He first captured world attention by inventing the phonograph. His most popular invention is the electric light bulb. He also developed the telegraph system. He also became a prominent businessman and his business institution produced his inventions and marketed the products to the general people.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Roosevelt had Polio, was governor of New York State then elected President of the United States for 4 terms
Ludwig van Beethoven
(famous musician) Beethoven is the greatest German composer and musician who was deaf at the later part of his life. In his early life he was famous as a pianist. He got the primary knowledge of music from his father, who was a musician. He has some mysterious power which led him to create famous compositions one after another. He went to Vienna and learned from some of prominent musicians. After the age of 28, he started becoming deaf and his personal life was not so peaceful.
He composed many piano sonatas such as Waldstein, Appassionata, etc.
Stephen Hawkings
World famous Physicist/mathematician and author of A Short History of the Universe Stephen Hawkings is considered as the greatest scientist of the twentieth century after Einstein. Hawking’s big bang theory and black hole theory has turned the attention of the world. He is the Isaac Newton Professor of Mathematics of the University of Cambridge. Though he is now nearly paralyzed, he is teaching through a computer supported a machine by which his words are compiled. His physical illness could not make him stop form his research. His famous book is “A Brief History of Time”.
http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/article_0060.shtml
termination of leftist fools will work better
Not eugenicists, because no criteria necessary.
This is what the LORD says: “A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are no more.”
I agree with the author of this article: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/matthew-archbold/ethicists-argue-for-post-birth-abortions#ixzz1nnhH3Jle
“It’s almost a pro-life argument in that it highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument.”
As outrageous as the suggestion of ‘after birth abortion is, frankly it is no more outrageous than abortion itself.