Kill Healthy Newborns argues Medical Ethics Journal

Would you kill this newborn?

Killing newborn babies is no different to aborting them, and has been labelled “after-birth abortion” by two Professors in a leading British medical journal.

They say that ‘foetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons’.

This article calling for the introduction of infanticide for social and medical reasons, has been published by the Journal of Medical Ethics, entitled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” It states, “After-birth abortion (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

The article, written by Alberto Giubilini of the University of Milan and Francesca Minerva of Melbourne University, argues that “foetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons” and consequently infanticide should be made as legal as abortion. They suggest some reasons for taking a baby’s life, such as when a woman has been abandoned by her partner and feels unable to bring up the child alone.

Lord Alton, co-chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group, said that infanticide was the “chilling and unassailable” logical step for a society that permits killing a baby one day before birth.

He said: “That the Journal of Medical Ethics should give space to such a proposition illustrates not a slippery slope, but the quagmire into which medical ethics and our wider society have been sucked. Personal choice has eclipsed the sacredness, or otherness, of life itself. It is profoundly disturbing, indeed shocking, to see the way in which opinion-formers within the medical profession have ditched the traditional belief of the healer to uphold the sanctity of human life for this impoverished and inhumane defence of child destruction.”

But Julian Savulescu, the editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, has defended the publication of the paper on the British Medical Journal website. He said: “What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”

He continued:

“As Editor of the Journal, I would like to defend its publication. The arguments presented, in fact, are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris in defence of infanticide, which the authors call after-birth abortion. The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide – the paper repeats the arguments made famous by Tooley and Singer – but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands. 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, when discussing children with Down’s Syndrome, state: “To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds the fact that a foetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore… when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissable.”

The authors also support infanticide for non-medical reasons but do not state at which point in a baby’s development infanticide would no longer be permissable because “it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess”.

The essence of the argument in the study is the claim that newborn babies–just like children in the womb–are not yet persons and therefore lack both rights and interests. They assert that “after-birth abortion” should be permissible if the parents believe it is in their best interest.

The abstract makes the following claims:

  1. fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons
  2. the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant
  3. adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people

Thus infanticide be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled. Essentially the study uses pro-abortion arguments to support infanticide. This disturbing concept asserts that babies in the womb and newborn babies are only “potential persons” and that their lives both can be terminated for the same reasons.

The chilling reasoning used in the study includes the following extracts:

  • “We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. [including healthy babies where] the well-being of the family is at risk.”
  • “People’s well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might [not have]….Since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions.”

Scientific American: Kill More Babies To Save Earth

Eugenicists push discredited overpopulation myth.

Paul Joseph Watson Prison
Monday, October 18, 2010

Following the leak of a United Nations blueprint which outlined the plan to replace fearmongering about global warming with the contrived threat of overpopulation, a Scientific American report mimics precisely that talking point, pushing the notion that programs of mass abortion and birth control need to be encouraged in order to reduce the amount of humans on the planet exhaling carbon dioxide.

To back up his argument, the author David Biello links to an article by the completely discredited eugenicist Paul Ehrlich, who once stated that “everyone will disappear in a cloud of blue steam.”

Ehrlich, who co-authored Ecoscience with White House Science Czar John P. Holdren, the textbook that advocates putting drugs in the water supply to sterilize people, mandatory forced abortions, and a tyrannical eco-fascist dictatorship run by a “planetary regime,” is infamous for his spectacularly inaccurate predictions about how overpopulation would destroy the environment.

The article cited by Biello advocates a mass public relations campaign targeted at women to encourage them to have abortions in order to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In other words, more babies need to be killed to prevent them from exhaling CO2. Coincidentally, the cover of the Scientific American issue in which the article appears features a set of human skulls.

Warnings about the threat posed by overpopulation are fundamentally flawed. In reality, underpopulation will be seen as the biggest danger to human prosperity in the latter half of the 21st century.

World Population Trend

The UN’s own figures clearly indicate that population is set to stabilize in 2020 and then drop dramatically after 2050. As the Economist reported, “Fertility is falling and families are shrinking in places — such as Brazil, Indonesia, and even parts of India—that people think of as teeming with children. As our briefing shows, the fertility rate of half the world is now 2.1 or less—the magic number that is consistent with a stable population and is usually called “the replacement rate of fertility”. Sometime between 2020 and 2050 the world’s fertility rate will fall below the global replacement rate.”

Of course, the globalist agenda to reduce world population by as much as 80% in the name of saving the environment, a figure achievable only via draconian and genocidal measures, has nothing to do with the environment.

The discussion on post-birth abortion (killing newborn babies) article follows alleged instances of sex-selective abortions throughout Britain.

Doctors at British clinics have been secretly filmed agreeing to terminate foetuses purely because they are either male or female. Clinicians admitted they were prepared to falsify paperwork to arrange the abortions even though it is illegal to conduct such “sex-selection” procedures.

2 thoughts on “Kill Healthy Newborns argues Medical Ethics Journal

  1. From the Giubilini article:

    “foetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons”

    One could argue that, given Giubilin’s view, he himself does not possess the same morals of an ‘actual person’ but rather that of an amoral being or, better, beast. I’m sure if he thought about it he’s glad his mum didn’t share his own view.


  2. Although it is important to point out that these views are wrong we need to strengthen our case by offering alternatives. There are enough resources to care for every conceived child. The problem is that there is not the moral strength to ensure a proper allocation of these resources to support compassion beyond mere words.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s