Abortion, once you open the box all manner of evil jumps out!
“Academic says doctors ‘should have the right to kill unwanted or disabled babies at birth’
- Philosopher and medical ethicist Francesca Minerva argues that killing a newborn is little different to aborting it in the womb
- Even a healthy baby could have its life snuffed out if the mother decides she can’t afford to look after it, Dr Minerva suggested
Controversial: Francesca Minerva says doctors should have the right to kill newborn babies because they are disabled, too expensive or simply unwanted by their mothers
An academic with links to Oxford University has stated that killing newborn babies is no different to aborting them because they are not ‘actual persons’.
In her paper in the British Medical Journal, Dr Minerva, who is based at the University of Melbourne but is also a research associate at Oxford, suggested that killing newborn babies was no different from abortion.
The article, titled ‘After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?’ was written by her and Alberto Giubilini of the University of Milan.
The paper suggests newborn babies are not ‘actual persons’ and do not have a ‘moral right to life’ because they ‘lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to live of an individual.’
After receiving threats and angry messages, she asked for people to understand the perspective of her work.
‘This is not a political paper – this is not a proposal for law,’ she told the website ninemsn.
‘This is pure academic, theoretical discussion.’ (Really?, typical leftist clap trap)
In her article she says that ‘both a foetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a “person” in the sense of a “subject of a moral right to life.”’
She adds: ‘We take “person” to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.’
Dr Minerva and her research colleague continue: ‘What we call “after-birth abortion” (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.’
Right to decide: Dr Minerva argues a young baby is not a real person and so killing it in the first days after birth is little different to aborting it in the womb
As the hate calls came in, Dr Minerva told the website that she had not been expecting the overwhelmingly negative reaction. She said she believes her argument was taken out of its academic and theoretical context.
‘I wish I could explain to people it is not a policy, and I’m not suggesting that and I’m not encouraging that’.
She believes the majority of threats have come from religious or Pro-Life groups.
Professor Julian Savulescue, editor of the journal, said arguments about killing newborns were ‘largely not new’.
He said the goal of the journal was to ‘present well-reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.’
Rev Joanna Jepson, an opponent of late abortions, said what the ethicists had proposed was little more than infanticide.
The female vicar first came to public attention when she spoke out against a late abortion that had been carried out in 2001.
Doctors are permitted to carry out abortions beyond the 24-week legal limit if they believe a baby’s disability is serious enough, but Joanna argued that a cleft palate was a minor physical flaw, not a severe abnormality.
She revealed that, until she had surgery at the age of 19, her own face was disfigured by a congenital defect. Her upper jaw overhung her lower jaw, which receded into her neck. She posed the question: ‘Would it have been right to abort me?’
She said: ‘It’s misleading to call this ‘after birth abortion’. The pregnancy is already over, there is nothing to abort. What is being discussed is infanticide.
‘There is a logic to their point – if we consider it acceptable to abort a baby up until birth then why not allow it to die afterwards? It is just a difference in geography – within or outside the mother’s body.
‘Of course, I would see this a compelling reason to abolish late-term abortion, if infanticide is morally repulsive then abortion is too.
‘If a baby, because of it’s physical disabilities, is seen as being “incompatible with life” then we need to let life and death take its course. Becoming agents of death fundamentally changes doctor’s role as healer and physician, and it also has massive repercussions on society’s conscience shifting what is understood to be morally and socially unacceptable to become acceptable.
Of course motherhood is inconvenient, physically, emotionally, psychologically, financially – but this inconvenience is not allowed to become acceptable grounds for abandoning one’s child.
‘If a child or an adult has a life-changing accident or illness, do we suggest we’ll put them down because their goals and dreams now have to change?
‘My brother, Alastair, has great and huge goals and he goes after them with great courage. His Downs Syndrome does not stand in the way.
‘They are very different dreams and goals to my own but no less valuable or of contribution to society. At what level would Dr Minerva assign somebody’s meaning and value to be worth a life?
When infanticide was mandatory: How values have changed through history
While infanticide may seem an inhumane concept for many people, there have been periods in history where it has been accepted behaviour – and even a legal obligation.
In Roman culture, disabled infants were often abandoned after birth by parents who did not want or could not afford the financial burden.
The child would simply be left outside to die from starvation and the elements in a practice known as ‘exposure’. It was an established and acceptable procedure.
In 1912, Yewsden Villa (right) was excavated in Hambleden in Buckinghamshire, and researchers were shocked to find the bodies of 97 babies in a mass-grave.
The babies had apparently all been killed shortly after birth, and the prevailing theory is that the site was near a brothel.
With a lack of contraception in Roman times, unwanted pregnancies would likely have been much more common, and the mass grave is another example that infanticide did not pose such an ethical dilemma in that era.
Archaeologists believe Romans did not consider infants to be ‘full’ human beings until about the age of two, and babies who died before that age were not buried in cemeteries, but instead in public or domestic areas.
However a Roman couple were entitled to raise a disabled child. In Sparta, there was little choice in the matter.
Newborns were seen as the property of the state and all babies were inspected by a community leader. If the child showed signs of deformity or ill-health, the parents were ordered to expose it.
Many parents in ancient Greeks would also expose their newborns because of sickness, financial pressure, or simply for being the ‘wrong’ sex in the male-dominated society.
Many religions had did not raise moral objects to infanticide, although Christianity and Islam notably rejected it.
Leaving the child to the elements was the preferred method to ‘dispose’ of the child, because it meant the child died of natural causes, which was a more ‘moral’ death than directly killing the child.
The practice generally died out, and was outlawed in the last years of the Roman Empire. However there are references to infanticide in many cultures in every historical era, and is believed to still take place in certain parts of India, Africa, and China.
China’s controversial ‘one-child’ policy leads to many children being abandoned after birth.
Trevor Stammers, a lecturer in medical ethics and former chairman of the Christian Medical Fellowship, described the viewpoint as ‘chilling’.
Gill Duval, of the ProLife Alliance, said every life is precious and added: ‘Everybody talks about what women want but women wouldn’t want this.’
Pro life advocate Jim Dowson concurred with Lord Alton’s statement ‘It is profoundly disturbing, indeed shocking, to see the way in which opinion-formers within the medical profession have ditched the professional belief of the healer to uphold the sanctity of human life for this impoverished and inhumane defence of child destruction.’
Julian Savulescu, the journal’s editor, said that the article’s argument has been made before by eminent figures.
He added: ‘I’m not defending practising infanticide. I’m defending academic and intellectual freedom.
Conclusion by Jim Dowson
Proof that the extreme left are firmly in charge of the abortion industry is easy to find: the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) – who pull in £25 million per year from holding the unenviable position of being the UK’s largest providers of late abortions (post 20 weeks) – is run by Anne Ferudi .
This woman’s husband is one of the world’s leading Frankurt School players. Frank Furedi (born 1947, in Budapest, Hungary) is professor of sociology at the University of Kent. Here , some of his protégés – like Dr Elli Lee – have openly argued (BBC moral maze) to legalize the killing of children up to the age of consciousness, perhaps 3 or 4 years of age!
A former student radical, he became involved in leftwing politics in the 1970s and emerged as founder and chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party.In the 1990s he was actively involved in humanist focused issues, especially campaigns for free speech.
Frank Furedi: Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party and leading Frankfurt School fanatic.
Furedi is a supporter of the British Humanist Association. He is also involved in the ‘Living Marxism’ organisation and the notorious lefty group ‘Spiked online’.
These are the people who fanatically promote and actually carry out the slaughter of tens of thousands of British babies every year in ‘private clinics’ across the country, and make a fortune from it.
These people are being paid to destroy our race and nation hidden under the banner of Liberalism, Women’s Rights and Equality. Millions of British children have been sacrificed on the alter of liberalism and yet most nationalists and patriots ignore the abortion issue.
Dear friends, it’s time to wake up. Our people are perishing at a rate of 500 per day in clinics like Furedi’s. No more I say, and I call upon all true patriots to defend our children from the Abortion Holocaust.
I hope the above article has given you a good overview of the magnitude abortion issue, but let us be mindful that websites, ideology or fine speeches do not win wars. Young men, stout of heart, and filled with a patriotic zeal and love of their people, win wars.
In 20 years our sons will have to boldly stand shoulder to shoulder in a Holy crusade to halt the onslaught of the Mohammedans as they rampage through our Continent.
Yes, we need strong political direction, but we need strong sons and lots more of them. Remember, the secret of survival for our people, nation and culture is our women – we need virtuous women willing to bear and nurture the seed of our race if we ever hope to survive.
May God grant us young men and women willing to bring forth a generation of warriors for Britannia’s darkest hour.”
If you have had an abortion and require assistance of any kind please contact Abortion Recovery Care and Helpline on 0845 603 8501.
Whatever your views on abortions are, killing babies is way beyond the pale!!!!
Make no mistake about it my friends, these evil bastards are actively promoting depopulation and genocide for US. Fully backed by the establishment (sic).