Ethicists Argue Killing Newborn Babies Should Be Allowed

Ethicists Argue Killing Newborn Babies Should Be Allowed

Shocking reminder that eugenicist beliefs underpin medical establishment

A paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics argues that abortion should be extended to make the killing of newborn babies permissible, even if the baby is perfectly healthy, in a shocking example of how the medical establishment is still dominated by a eugenicist mindset.

The paper is authored by Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.

The authors argue that “both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons,” and that because abortion is allowed even when there is no problem with the fetus’ health, “killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.” Continued


Comment: Some real sick minds out there still today. The evil humanist mindset of the state, will Obama care reflect these ideas? Probably, the women are bellowing about "Womens Healthcare" while they really mean abortion or death.

 

Not looking good for long term prospects...

 

This is bullshit. It is academic research - the authors don't 'argue' in favor of it, they do study issues that are controversial, and often very unpalatable. That's what they do.... they research and provide information. Nothing more.

 

Yep its getting pretty evil out there

 

You mean like Obama Science Czar?

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet

Book he authored in 1977 advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet

Direct quotes from John Holdren's Ecoscience

Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal
Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions
Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn't harm livestock
Page 786-7: The government could control women's reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control
Page 838: The kind of people who cause "social deterioration" can be compelled to not have children
Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size
Page 942-3: A "Planetary Regime" should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born

 

That there is even a question is monstrous.

 

Oh yes they most certainly do.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? -- Giubilini and Minerva -- Journal of Medical Ethics

 

Is it Sunstein or Holdren who argued that one is not a real human being until they are two years of age?

 

Please don't 'educate' me on things I have already educated myself on. There is a vast difference between research on topics that are outside the social norm, and those who promote that research as an appropriate policy.

Dr Zeke Emanuel (brother to Rahm).... suggested that children up to the age of 2 are not 'fully formed human beings' and are therefore 'less valuable' in terms of health care resources.

For the record, I have serious issues with the Emanuel brothers - and anyone else who wants to implement these 'solutions'.... but that does not mean that legitimate research should not be undertaken to study those issues. Hysterical overreaction to legitimate research is pathetic.

 

NEITHER, as Cali Girl posted, they were writing ABOUT those who have suggested such inhumane acts.