- Can life be defined by an edict?
For VacTruth readers, who think what’s going on with vaccines is a travesty in medicine, wait ‘til you hear the latest from two medical ethicists. I must forewarn you that this may upset you in more ways than you think, so please be prepared for the utmost of shocking new medical ethics proposals. Are you ready? Please, this is no joke on my part; it’s for real and was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics[1] February 23, 2012.
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
My dear readers, I must confess that I had to stop and gather my wits after typing that paper title along with saying a prayer that humans may come to their senses about the atrocities that go on in the name of science, medical science and now, medical ethics.
The authors are Alberto Giubilini with the Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy, and the Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, and co-author Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia.
It seems that Giubilini and Minerva contend
“when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”
According to those two medical ethicists, such circumstances could include a disabled child; if a child proves to be an economic burden on the family; or if the child lacks intrinsic value, then that child cannot be considered a person, so it can be killed—infanticide. OMG!
Do you believe they had the chutzpah to write this in their paper,
“Actual people’s well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of.”
Note, they don’t recommend adoption as a remedy, but the outright killing of the baby which, to my way of thinking, coincides with the determination to reduce the human population to one half a billion people, as per the Georgia Guidestones [3] ‘new ten commandments’. If anything ever resonated with a eugenics agenda, this outrageous paper by supposedly intelligent writers does. Now is the time for those who think the conspiracy theorists had it all wrong, to think again. Look what’s going on and published in medical journals?
Oh by the way, the authors of the paper don’t like the word infanticide, and prefer to call the practice “after-birth abortion.”
It’s not bad enough that medical ethicists are proposing such a ludicrous idea, but none other than James Watson, who unraveled the mystery of DNA, had this to say:
“If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have.”
Let’s parse that unbelievable statement. In essence what Watson is saying is that a perfectly viable, living newborn infant is not declared alive until three days after its live birth! That means if the parent(s) so elect that she/they don’t want the child for whatever reason—how about red hair and they wanted a blonde haired child—they could tell the physician to allow the child to die. When does the doctor’s Hippocratic oath kick in? Oh, that’s been so diluted that some contend it to be a travesty that probably would allow such an event to occur without any sanctions against the medical doctor.
But the most egregious of all, in my opinion, is what Watson’s co-DNA-unraveler had to say,
“No newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests, it forfeits the right to live.”
Readers, I must confess that I had tears running down my face while writing this article. If this is what the human race has come to, we MUST stand up and declare righteousness and compassion for the gift of human life—and the future of the human race—and tell all who want to eliminate life that we will not tolerate their pseudo science—as in vaccines—and their outrageous interpretation of ethics any longer. Medicine in all its aspects just crossed the Rubicon, which metaphorically speaking means, hit the point of no return in its impudence.
Big Pharma, in my opinion, was permitted—if not encouraged—to ride high and mighty, especially by the U.S. Congress when Congress gave vaccine makers chart blanche with no legal, moral, or financial responsibilities for harming infants, children, and adults with vaccines. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa- 1 to 300aa-34) probably was a trial balloon that has risen above the horizon better than they thought it would, especially when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled early in 2011 in the Bruesewitz v. Wyeth case wherein by a majority decision, SCOTUS ruled:
We set forth again the statutory text at issue:
“No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.” [2]
Dear readers, the above statement by SCOTUS just may have been the crucible whose after effects will cascade into every aspect of life from here on out, as the medical ethicists apparently are trying to convince us. How do you feel about that?
References
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/12/premeditated-murder-of-newborns/
[1] http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411 [2] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf [3] http://www.crystalinks.com/gaguidestones.html
Photo Credit: Dionne Hartnett