6 votes

OMG: Psychotic Aussie "Ethicists," Yes, EthicistS argue FOR Killing Fetuses AND Healthy Infants!

"morally irrelevant" is what he calls them.

Contrary to the primary motivators (at least the publicly openly touted religious angle) of this wedge issue from the American political landscape, the crazed lunatic is simply carrying on the proud tradition of pre-WWII Anglo-American-Saxon Eugenicists.

And you thought Hitler simply faded away.

Now even if one were the most ardent 'pro-choice' advocate, I cannot fathom how any sane person could intellectually, or even medically argue that it would be a "good thing" to kill an infant, and call a living breathing soul "morally irrelevant."

It is simply utterly repugnant and disgusting; the brazen arrogance, and the gall of this eugenicist is shockingly psychotic.

Is nothing sacred in this world any more?

I mean, do you get brownie points for making psychotic comments for sheer shock value amongst your psychotic band of morally irrelevant clique of delusional ne'er do wells who cannot fathom that, that baby could be your child, sometime in the future?

Yeah, real hardy har-har.



After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Alberto Giubilini1,2,
Francesca Minerva3,4

1Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
2Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
3Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
4Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University, Oxford, UK

Correspondence to Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; francesca.minerva@unimelb.edu.au

Contributors AG and FM contributed equally to the manuscript.

Received 25 November 2011
Revised 26 January 2012
Accepted 27 January 2012
Published Online First 23 February 2012


Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that 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.



Uh... OM F G!

What is wrong with these NON-humans?

Oh right, they must NOT be humans!

Ethicists Argue Killing Newborn Babies Should Be Allowed
Shocking reminder that eugenicist beliefs underpin medical establishment

Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, February 28, 2012

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.”



Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

New arrival: but if his parents earn more than £60,000 each he will lose his Child Benefit from January Photo: Alamy

By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent
1:38PM GMT 29 Feb 2012

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

H/T: JDawson

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You all do know that John

You all do know that John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar has held these views since at least 1973. He believes that infants should be able to be terminated up-to 2 years of age. He is a firm believer in forced abortion, and population control. This stuff has been discussed since the 70's, in academia, here in the U.S. and it continues to spread. Check out his book Ecoscience; but be-warned, it is a textbook, so you might take it out of context. At least that is what he and the other two authors used as an excuse when confronted about the views found in that book, and other books by Holdren -"it's a textbook, and as such you're misrepresenting it and taking it out of context."

Oh, and speaking of Obama's Czars you should really read Cass Sunstein's book Nudge, if you want to see how they are truly manipulating people.

After Birth Abortion... will

After Birth Abortion... will that be covered by Obama Care? After all it will make it much cheaper to maintain the populace...It's Cheaper to terminate the life than to insure it...

Of course.

If they killed each other they could prove how right they are.

Free includes debt-free!

This blew my mind...

more evidence that there are EVIL ideas out there

in the pure logical minds of academia.

Many people fault me with being too coldly logical, but I knew since I was a teenager that this is the unavoidable conclusion of all the lies and propaganda that have been paraded around as "proven, unquestionable facts of science" for almost as long as the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax have existed.

Since the "scientific community" has ignored the truly scientific and medical definition of human life -- which begins (as Dr. Paul says) at fertilization -- and psychopaths in the "soft sciences" have substituted various philosophical, utilitarian or metaphysical definitions of "an individual person", it's only a matter of time and logic before someone advocates such an EVIL idea as infanticide.

Face up to the fact that IF we are "nothing more than animals with a higher brain function" who've gradually developed over aeons of time from 'simple' one-celled protoplasm, it is entirely logical to treat 'our infant members' like this. And yes, level of brain function would be the next 'criteria' to determine who is human and who is "a woman's right to choose" to dispose of.

We are either "created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life..." or we are accidents of time, chance and matter, to be protected or disposed of at the will of the politically empowered. I have yet to hear a logical third option.


reading several of minerva's publishings, I am not so sure she is what it seems to be. I think this may be a case of examining the logical conclusions of moral positions. All her papers seem outrageous, but they all follow the formula of "given that society excepts this, it logically follows society should accept (outrageous thing.) This is a provocative way to get people to think. Notice in the comments how many pro-choice liberals were disgusted. Perhaps this will lead them to rethinking their own moral positions.

Fortune Favors the Bold

disregard the above

nevermind she's nuts

Fortune Favors the Bold


ditto LOL

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul


nevermind, mistake

Fortune Favors the Bold

I suggest

that Giubilini and Minerva be considered the first(and only) recipients of the "after birth abortion".

Anyone can see where this is going.
It's either them or us.
Let's make it them.

I don't see why you would let it bother you?

This medical choice is from a different sovereign country.
Are you a policeman of the world?


you're unfamiliar with history of eugenics movement.

because if you have researched it, it should be clear to you that this is a commonly shared view by the Ruling Class not just in British Commonwealth, but by those in US as well. They see YOU and Me, as but mere 'peons.'

You really think Monsanto makes DNA destroying products, purely out of profit motive?? For decades, when they don't even serve it in their own company cafeteria?

No, seriously? Really?

Think long term view of history.

But to use your own argument, to allude that my own disgust is same as being a policemen of the world, is exactly the kind of groundless meme put forth by the Ruling Class to stifle dissent.

I can equally argue using your own 'logic' that telling someone dismissively basically 'it's none of your business to comment on some lunatic overseas whose views are not uncommon amongst those here in US' is equally dictatorial.

Any critically thinking human HAS an opinion, on just about anything. A thought CANNOT be regulated, nor should it be.

The difference between yours, and my sentiments on this issue is, I'm not pushing for an invasion of UK or Australia to shut this idiot up, or even calling for an arrest by the State, against this 'bio ethicist.'



Clearly, nuance is lost on some, even here, when it comes to these topics:


Like hey, sure, a little bit of GMO even though about 80% of soy and corn are all GMO, and very difficult to get rid of it once it enters the biosphere, but WhyTF not? Let's use XNA, even though the current understanding of DNA is clueless on 90% of what it does. Let's just change it, create a synthetic one, let's drop it into the regular gene pool. That sounds so reasonable, practical and logical.


Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

So because i'm from Australia

I guess if i have an opinion on American politics i should be considered as a policeman of the world? What about my opinions on poverty and corruption in third world countries?

I think you need to clarify within yourself what it is to be a policeman of the world.

Letting them live is immoral

The moral arguments used against abortion do not hold because the fetus/newborn is not a person. They are of course human by species, but they lack what the defining factor of personhood: the mind. This is a difficult grey area, because there is no line you can draw after which they become a person -- it is a gradient, and thus any decision to kill them needs to based on sound medical judgement.

If you want to carry a deformed baby to term, fine.
If you want to raise it and pay for it with your own money, fine.
If you want to seek out private adoption agencies to pay for it, fine.

But if I ever have a terribly deformed child, I intend to kill it in the fetal stage, before it can suffer. I do not expect others to pay for its care. And I will not tolerate government interference in private medical matters.

If the human race accepts this,

What's to stop these wackos from taking it a step further and saying those who cannot produce an average IQ result "do not have the same moral status as actual persons?" And after that is excepted, what is to stop them from saying that the poor and middle class who are not politically connected "do not have the same moral status as actual persons?" We used to ridicule animals for eating their young, and say proudly "You see that is why we are human, and they are animals." What do we have to say to ourselves now?

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

actually, you're right,

the same NON-humans who would argue that way, wouldn't stop themselves from actually realizing, and indulging in such rabidly insane eugenicist utopia.

in fact even in our Republic, states such as NC practiced eugenics especially targeting single black moms and making them infertile, because the State felt that they'd be a burden on LBJ's "Great Society" that they practiced it till 1974!!!

evidence suggests that England forbade its citizenry's exodus to America, unless they were of "good" Cambridge/Oxford stock, who'd survive to be able to rebuild Britain after the Nazis BlitzKrieged it into oblivion.

nope. wouldn't stop them at all, it would seem. unfortunately...

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Thanks for the nightmare

My word. This is one of the rare instances in which I wish someone would contract a horrible, quick-killing disease. Trample civil liberties? Yeah, wish wish you green skin and warts. Apathetically promote murder of newborns and teach others to not even see them as human. Die. Just die.

I couldn't read your whole article, or the link. I can't stand it.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

pardon moi, for the nightmares .o(

well, the Free Humanity's 'enemies' who come in well pressed suits, white labcoats, or even often endearingly cheesy elbow-patch professor sportjackets, the veneer of scientific gloss and 'informed authority' is possibly the most dangerous, subconsciously accepted meme within human society.

sometimes merely calling out a headline that shines light onto their evil proclivities, has its obvious downsides, even if the intent is to merely inform: wasn't my intent to give you nightmares.o(

Frankly, I don't blame ya for the nightmares; in my initial bout with my first "Red Pill," I couldn't believe how astoundingly evil some people could be.

Sure: rape, murder, kidnapping, pedophilia, torture are all insanely evil, when committed by a single lunatic, or even a whole group of one. But, what's even more evil is having an Ivy League/Oxford/Cambridge educated fraternity of self-professed intellectuals writing and 'legally' and 'morally' justifying policies that lead to institutionalization of those evil at govt statist levels, sometimes for generations, just for what essentially amounts to a bunch of psychotic power-mad lunatics doing it for kicks and bemusement/'sh*ts & giggles,' like the rest of humanity are some peons/pawns/toy soldiers/figurines on their devilishly childish boardgames with murderous consequences.

This Aussie-Italian douchebag is just another in a long line of sycophantic Santorum who delude that merely 'hanging out with' and being funded by the eugenicists with 9 figure+ bank accounts make them that they too are 'part of the club.'

Well, apparently he has never heard of Night of Long Knives or daily reports of micro-biologists who worked at govt/corporatist bioweapons lab routinely, mysteriously getting killed in the most gruesome manner possible: they always rid their own minions first.

Frankly, an apt-way for a soulless grant-whore to go, I'd say.

Still, such implausible conjectures aside, that still does not erase the reality that like Mengele before him, predictably it's always the most 'educated' are the candidates most likely to rationalize their own pychopathy with verbal flourish, becaus they actually have the conscious ability to 'logic' their way through. The psychopathy being that BECAUSE they're able to rationalize a brutal act at all, must mean (in their delusional minds), that they MUST be doing the right thing.

It's frankly no different than an executioner for the Vatican during the Inquisitions; he's been doing it for so long, it MUST be a worthy activity. Likewise, after meeting a few in the past, they literally rationalize to themselves in a no more simpler manner than a cop who regularly tasers anyone for mere non-compliance: 'since I'm doing it, and been doing it, and because I GET TO do it, it must be worth doing it'-meme.

Frankly, for all these reasons, the State cannot collapse in on itself faster enough.

By peer pressure or via natural intellectual selection, these psychotic lunatic statists & their minions MUST be purges from humanity, for once and for all!

Well, okay since I'm not naive, nor that utopian, suppose the price of liberty truly becomes generational vigilance taken on with the equal vim and vigor, the first time Humanity attained it, or took reigns of it.

Still, because I could only think that way if I had to think what a really scary sociopath would think like if I were writing a character for TV/film or a novel, it's boggles the mind how someone can make such murderously asinine statements and put it up for peer review.

It's as if Mengele had a whole guild to talk to. Oh right, he did, and there still are.

Never mind...

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul


I say, after-birth abortion for "people" who could even think up such a position :)