THE ETHICS OF KILLING BABIES by Jon Rappoport

THE ETHICS OF KILLING BABIES

THE ETHICS OF KILLING BABIES MARCH 6, 2012. Buckle up. A new article in the Journal of Medical Ethics proposes that newborn babies are not real persons, and therefore it is as ethical to kill them as it is to abort the unborn. Here is the abstract of the article. 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. (authors: Alberto Giubilini, Francesca Minerva; doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100411) The authors argue that both fetuses and newborn babies lack the "moral status" of "actual persons." By this logic, many disabled people of adult age could be killed as well. In fact, taking a person with a few problems and drugging him with antipsychotic medicines that routinely cause brain damage, you could create a human who no longer functions-and then you could kill him. Moving on: the authors make the point that being "a potential person" is irrelevant. As long as the human can't yet perceive goals and the notion of striving to achieve them, he is killable. Point three: since abortion can be chosen for any reason, why not kill babies for any reason? I'm trying to figure out why we should consider the authors of this paper fully formed human beings. Do you ever get the feeling that ANY proposal, these days, is accorded merit and serious conversation re the pros and cons? How about amputating the right arms of every person on Earth to bolster the obviously correct idea that we're all fundamentally disabled? Since pride goes before a fall, why not mutilate all persons and thereby eliminate the pride and the subsequent fall? Why not extend the already broad class of victims by asserting that every parent without the freedom to kill his newborn baby is suffering from restrictive laws? "This month in Cincinnati, 30 teen mothers killed their babies. The city's health department announced that figure is down 2% from last month..." Of course, the utterly insane proposal in this journal paper, if put into effect, would eventually cede to the State the absolute control of the process of infanticide. Because people at large are too crazy for that responsibility. Government, however, can make proper adjudications. For example, in order to ensure funding for national health insurance is sufficient, the large sums spent on health care for the elderly can be cut by killing them en masse in their nursing homes. They had no goals left. No ambitions. They weren't full persons. I'm not warning you that these nightmares are coming to pass soon. But seeds are being planted. And meanwhile, if you want to think about depopulation and radical disabling, you need look no further than mass vaccination of people with already-compromised immune systems, or immune systems not yet fully formed. Babies. But the government and their medical allies say it's okay. So it must be okay. Jon Rappoport www.nomorefakenews.com qjrconsulting@gmail.com By Jon Rappoport www.insolutions.info qjrconsulting@gmail.com www.nomorefakenews.com