Right to Life New Zealand » Infanticide

Infanticide on Demand?

Admin — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:01:01 +0000

The Following article is from the Population Research Institute website and is written by Steven W Mosher who will be visiting New Zealand in mid April and making a number of public addresses debunking the myth of world overpopulation and how abortion relates to this issue. The article below examines the attack on life which now appears to be pushing to end the lives of newborn babies. While the context relates to the US, the article is very relevant to all of us.

In Virginia, Gov. Bob McDonnell signs a bill requiring that abortion-minded women be given the opportunity to see an ultrasound of their unborn children — which causes many of them to change their mind. In Oklahoma, women considering abortion must now listen to the beating heart of their babies in utero — which likewise leads many to continue their pregnancies. In the U.S. Congress, a bill banning sex-selective abortions moves forward.

Despite these baby steps forward, abortion-on-demand remains the law of the land in the U.S. and other Western countries. And now comes an article, entitled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” which flatly argues in favor of infanticide.

Lest you doubt that anyone would openly espouse the killing of babies after birth, let me quote from the article itself. “Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life,” the authors assert. Killing a newborn “should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

How do they pretend to reason their way to such inhumanity?

“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. This means that many nonhuman animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons.”

Since newborns lack the “level of mental development” necessary to be considered a “person”, the authors assert, they are merely “potential people.” “The alleged right of individuals (such as fetuses and newborns) to develop their potentiality, which someone defends, is over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being … merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.”

In other words, say the authors, what a baby doesn’t know — its impending death, in this case — can’t hurt it. If an Indian couple decides that allowing a girl child to live will impede its well being, they have a perfect right to kill her. Likewise, if the Chinese government decides that too many babies will impede its well-being, well, it has the perfect right to slaughter the innocents, born as well as unborn, by the hundreds of millions.

Understand that this screed was not published on some obscure leftwing website, but in the February 2012 issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics. Neither are the authors wingnuts, at least in the eyes of the world. Both hold academic positions at major universities, and both consider themselves to be experts on bioethics, superbly qualified to lecture the rest of us on matters of life and death. In actuality, they are moral monsters, wandering about in some strange, surreal world that their own darkened reason has created. The culture of death has that effect on people. He whom the Devil would destroy, he first makes mad.

Congressman Christopher Smith is among those who have condemned their proposal: “This preposterous, arbitrary and evil prerequisite for the attainment of legal personhood is not only bizarre—it is inhumane in the extreme. Stripped of its pseudo-intellectual underpinnings, [the authors'] rationale for murdering newborns in the nursery is indistinguishable from any other child predator wielding a knife or gun.

“Children — born and unborn — are precious. Children — sick, disabled or healthy — possess fundamental human rights that no sane or compassionate society can abridge.”

Make no mistake: While we are working very hard to humanize the unborn, using ultrasounds, fetal monitors, and scientific information on fetal development to convince people that these tiny human beings are worth saving, there are those on the other side of this issue who are working just as hard to convince people of the opposite: That they can be killed with impunity and without remorse, before or after birth.

A few short years ago no medical journal would have accepted an article purporting to justify infanticide. Now, after human life has been devalued by 40 years of legalized abortion, such a proposition creates barely a stir, at least among the elites. Remember that no less a figure than President Obama, when he was an Illinois state senator, voted in favor of infanticide.

There is little doubt that without the pro-life movement not only would we have many more abortions in the U.S., we would also have infanticide and euthanasia on a massive scale. There would be no one to oppose the killing of innocents and the elderly.

We must bequeath to our children a culture that respects life, one in which no human being, however small, weak, or aged, will be sacrificed. The alternative is too chilling to contemplate.

Steven W. Mosher

Can’t make sense of the graphic at the head of this post? Click on the graphic.

Something Deadly This Way Comes — “After-Birth Abortion”

Admin — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 02:59:22 +0000

The debate over abortion comes down to one essential issue — the moral status of the unborn child. Those making the case for the legalization of abortion argue that the developing fetus lacks a moral status that would trump a woman’s desire to abort the child. Those arguing against abortion do so by making the opposite claim; that the unborn child, precisely because it is a developing human being, possesses a moral status by the very fact of its human existence that would clearly trump any rationale offered for its willful destruction.

This central issue is often obscured in both public argument and private conversations about abortion, but it remains the essential question. We have laws against homicide, and if the unborn child is recognized legally and morally as a human being, abortion would be rightly seen as murder. To read the whole of this article which is from the Albert Mohler.com website click here.

Why are we allowing these people to hold positions of authority in our universities?

Admin — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 06:30:58 +0000

Right to Life is opposed to the killing of newborn infants. Their killing is proposed by Dr Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne and Dr Alberto Giubilini of the University of Milan in their paper After- birth abortion: why should the baby live? The doctors argue that babies that are only several hours old don’t have the “ moral status as actual persons” The Paper was published in the prestigious Journal of Medical Ethics.

Dr Minerva claims that newborn babies don’t have the characteristics that define a person: The ability to attribute a certain value to their own life, the ability to make plans for the future, the ability to appreciate and value that they are actually alive.”

Dr Minerva claims that newly born babies are not persons and are the property of the family and may be killed at the request of the babies’ family for any reason that is permitted for abortion.

Why did a renowned journal of medical ethics publish a dangerous anti-life philosophy that is a serious threat to society?

The philosophy propounded by Dr Minerva is a secular, quality of life ethic that is false and attacks on the sanctity of life ethic. When we lose respect for the right to life and personhood of unborn children we lose respect for the right to life of every person. If the conditions for personhood proposed by Dr Minerva were accepted it would ultimately result in the denial of the personhood and the right to life of those with dementia and Alzheimers disease.

Human life commences at conception and at that moment the new human being is endowed by its Creator with human rights, the foundation right being an inalienable right to life. If society is repelled by the proposal to kill new born – babies why then is it not equally repelled by the killing of children in the womb?

The dignity of the unborn child is neither conferred nor taken away by any man or woman or by any government or society. That dignity is rooted in an objective individuality that inherently tends toward the openness and transcendence which we call personhood.

The proposed killing of born children is a logical progression as society has accepted the wholesale killing of unborn children. It was the Court of Appeal in New Zealand which in 2011 declared that unborn children did not have a right to life and that unborn children did not become human beings until they were born. This is a violation of the human rights of unborn children. If we can accept that the unborn are not human beings and persons endowed with human rights, it is inevitable that we will challenge the human rights of born children.

The Paper of Dr Minerva and Dr Giubilini published by the prestigious Journal of Medical Ethics raises other serious issues. Why did a renowned journal of medical ethics publish a dangerous anti-life philosophy that is a serious threat to society? How did Dr Minerva merit a PhD in medical ethics when she holds to a philosophy that is anti –life and which is totally opposed to an accepted sanctity of life medical ethics? Why does the University of Melbourne employ Dr Minerva as a Post Doctorate Fellow at the Centre of Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics? Why are university students who are the future leaders in society been made subject to teaching that is anti-life and which attacks the human rights of the weakest and most defenceless members of the human family? Are students at Universities in New Zealand being subject to this dangerous anti-life philosophy?

We are threatened with an increasing culture of death. Right to Life calls upon the community to draw back from the abyss which threatens society and encourages our Parliament to halt the killing of our unborn and legislate for the legal recognition of the unborn child as a human being endowed with a right to life.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life

Dr. Mengele Would Have Been Proud

Admin — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 01:08:21 +0000

This article is from the Algemeiner Journal Website.

Evil comes in a variety of shapes, sizes, sounds, and smells. Many people (particularly liberals, progressives, and non-believers) are uncomfortable with the idea that monstrously evil individuals can also have the capacity to laugh, love their dogs, love their children and parents, be part of a community, and have a pleasant appearance. These people would prefer to see evil as a function of some psychological/physiological abnormality rather than attribute it to a “choice” for which the individual is fully responsible. In this view, evil people should have nothing in common with us; they are some bizarre, diseased branch of humanity.

The reason for this delusionary view of reality is simple. It is rather frightening to confront the notion that if evil is a “choice” open to all human beings, then “I” am also capable of choosing evil. It gets worse. Just as most evil people seem absolutely convinced that they are right and are oblivious to the evil that they perpetrate, or seem totally unaware that their ideas are perverse and corrupt, then how do I really know that I am different? Maybe my ideas are perverse and corrupt, maybe my actions are reprehensible and I am oblivious and unaware of their true nature. Let’s face it, just about everybody thinks they are right. “All of a man’s ways are proper in his own eyes…” (Proverbs) No, anyone is capable of choosing evil, even those who seem to be perfectly normal and just like us.

Let us then confront evil in the form of two young smiling faces; one a handsome young man, Dr. Alberto Giubilini; the other a rather pretty young woman, Dr. Francesca Minerva. Both hold PhD’s in philosophy from prestigious universities. At some unknown twist or turn along their path to academic “enlightenment” Dr.’s Giubilini and Minerva traded in their souls and humanity for some perverse and profoundly evil ideology they call “ethics.”

Dr. Alberto Giubilini loves kangaroos; newborn babies, though, are another story

They are co-authors of an article in The Journal of Medical Ethics (2/23/12), entitled, “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” They argue – quite logically and coherently – that if it is justifiable to “kill a human fetus” then it is also justifiable to “kill a newborn human” because “merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.” Infants are not “persons” in the sense that they have a “moral right to life…in these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions.” (For those who are unfamiliar with the term “after-birth abortion,” it used to be called “infanticide” or “first-degree murder.”)

Please note that Minerva and Guibilini apply this principle to fully healthy babies who are simply unwanted by their parents. However, they do raise the question of putting the baby up for adoption: “Why should we kill a healthy newborn when giving it up for adoption would not breach anyone’s rights but possibly increase the happiness of people involved (adopters and adoptee)?”

Dr. Francesca Minverva, this deceptively beautiful smile may be the last thing a newborn baby ever sees.

Dr. Peter Singer, "bioethicist" at Princeton University is the intellectual father of the animal rights movement. He has stated that "nothing is intrinsically wrong." Sometimes Satan comes as a man who loves animals.

They provide us with an interesting answer to this question: “On this perspective, the interests of the actual people involved matter, and among these interests, we also need to consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption…we are suggesting that, if interests of actual people should prevail, then after-birth abortion should be considered a permissible option.” (Makes perfect sense to me.)

As could be expected, the suggestion that it is perfectly all right to kill a healthy newborn baby because putting it up for adoption would cause the mother “stress” has raised a storm of controversy. The editor of The Journal of Medical Ethics, Julian Savulescu, decried what he called the “hate speech” directed at the authors of the article. He also added that the pushback against the article shows that “proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.” (If the values of a “liberal society” include murdering newborn babies then count me as a member of the fanatical opposition.)

One of the earliest recorded cases of a late term "after-birth abortion." In this case the white parents suffered tremendous "psychological stress" when they discovered, much to their chagrin, that their twin sons were "colored." Although there were offers of adoption, they decided that a life where the boys would have to use separate toilets and drinking fountains was not a life worth living. Note the primitive, but effective, "rope and tree" technique used to perform the abortion. Modern sophisticated techniques include "starvation," "death by poisoning" (politely called "lethal injection" in the Netherlands), and "drop the brat in a dumpster."

Savulescu also defended the article by pointing out that “infanticide is practiced in the Netherlands” and that these arguments have already been advanced by well known “bioethicists” such as Peter Singer and Michael Tooley. “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics …is to present well reasoned arguments based on widely accepted premises…the authors proceed logicallyfrom arguments which many people accept.” Of course, in Nazi Germany the premise that Jews were a mortal threat to the Aryan people was also a “widely accepted” premise and genocide was practiced in Nazi Occupied Europe and Russia.

What is most frightening of all is the banal, matter-of-fact manner in which these highly educated academics build a case for the murder of babies. In fact it is the deadly logical consequence of an atheistic worldview in which human life has no inherent value but only as much value or non-value as is assigned to it by those in power. It is the deadly logical consequence of a worldview that values self-indulgence and self-gratification above any other consideration. The “sexual revolution” of the 60’s led to the acceptance of the notion that unlimited sexual freedom is a basic human right; sexual freedom must include unlimited access to contraception and abortion because pregnancy and babies bring with them a powerful dose of reality and responsibility (what a way to ruin the fun!); once these premises become “widely accepted” the next perfectly logical step, as Mr. Savulesco points out, is that newborn babies can also be put to death. Opposition to these ideas then becomes a fanatical attack on the “values of a liberal society.” It is obvious to any thinking person that there is no end to the horrible evil that can result once we have started down this path. If we do not turn things around soon there will be hell to pay. There is one consolation though…Dr. Mengele would have been awfully proud.

To read the article on the Algemeiner website click here

Bio-Unethicists give thumbs-up to infanticide

Admin — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 02:51:10 +0000

The following article is from Bioedge.

If abortion, why not infanticide? This leading question is often treated as a canard by supporters of abortion. However, it is seriously argued by two Italian utilitarians and published online in the prestigious Journal of Medical Ethics this week.

Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are associated respectively with Monash University, in Melbourne, Australia, and with the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, at the University of Melbourne.

They argue that both the fetus and the new-born infant are only potential persons without any interests. Therefore the interests of the persons involved with them are paramount until some indefinite time after birth. To emphasise the continuity between the two acts, they term it “after-birth abortion” rather than infanticide.

Their conclusions may shock but Guibilini and Minerva assert them very confidently. “We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be.

click here to read further on the Bioedge website and here for another commentary

Shock: No jail time for woman who strangled newborn because Canada accepts abortion, says judge

Admin — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 08:08:36 +0000

If we need any confirmation that the virtual abortion on demand available in most western nations is jeopardising the life of all, look no further than this shocking article taken from the LifeSiteNews website

EDMONTON, Alberta, September 12, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An Alberta judge has let a woman who strangled her newborn son walk free by arguing that Canada’s absence of a law on abortion signals that Canadians “sympathize” with the mother.

“We live in a country where there is no protection for children in the womb right up until birth and now this judge has extended the protection for the perpetrator rather than the victim, even though the child is born and as such should be protected by the court,” said Jim Hughes, national president of Campaign Life Coalition.

Click here to read the article on the LifeSiteNew Website.

It Takes a Long Time to Starve a Severely Disabled Infant to Death by Withdrawing Medically-Supplied Nutrition

Admin — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 06:42:45 +0000

Wesley J Smith, lawyer and an award winning author, a Senior Fellow in Human Rights and Bioethics at the Discovery Institute writes below about Infantacide, a growingly common practice in the Western world.

A tube supplied hydration and nutrition is deemed a medical treatment, like aspirin, surgery, or chemotherapy, and hence, can be denied or withdrawn under the law. Normal receipt of food and water, is not allowed to be withheld when it can be taken, since that isn’t medical treatment. Still, take away either form of sustenance from infants (or adults) and they will die.

A disturbing study has come out about how long it takes to starve an infant to death, I assume by withdrawing tube-supplied sustenance. (I hope so!) From the study (may need to register, my links to the conditions mentioned):

Neonatal survival after withdrawal of artificial hydration and nutrition can last up to 26 days, according to a case series presented here at the 18th International Congress on Palliative Care. Although physical distress is not apparent in the infants, the psychological distress of parents and clinicians builds with the length of survival, said Hal Siden, MD, from Canuck Place Children’s Hospice in Vancouver, British Columbia.

“These babies live much, much longer than anybody expects… read on here for the full article

Peter Singer: Infanticide, Yes; Kangaroo Cull, No

admin — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:28:31 +0000

Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer is famous for two primary reasons: First, he jump started the animal rights/liberation movement with his 1975 book Animal Liberation. Second, he is the world’s foremost proponent of the legitimacy of infanticide. Thus, writing on page 186 in Practical Ethics, he supported the right of parents to kill a newborn with hemophilia in order to make life easier for a hypothetical, yet-to-be-born sibling:

When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be higher if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.It should be noted that the disability of the infant isn’t why he can be killed, but rather, his view that infants are not persons.

http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/labels/Peter%20Singer.%20%20Utilitarianism..html