United Nations Environmental Program Embraces Calls for Eugenics


The Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro has begun. The global leviathan that is the United Nations bares its teeth. In the months preceeding the summit, a continuing stream of publications has poured down from every corner of the transnational community, in essence calling for global governance of the environment as well as a stark reduction in the global human population. These two items are very much intertwined, according to the growing pile of UN papers flying from the supranational tree, all basically stating that the first is necessary in order to facilitate the latter.

One of these leaves circles down to us from the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) displays a collection of “key messages” written by the usual suspects, such as dedicated man-hater Paul Ehrlich, eco-terrorist James Lovelock and NASA’s own mad-as-hell environmentalist James Hansen.  Their joint statement titled “Environment and Development Challenges: The Imperative to Act” was clearly designed to inspire the UN and its upcoming confab to make haste with global government. In their manifesto the impatient fiends call for a global implementation of population policies and rights being trampled upon in order to address what they call “the population issue”:

“The population issue should be urgently addressed by education and empowerment of women, including in the work-force and in rights, ownership and inheritance; health care of children and the elderly; and making modern contraception accessible to all.”, they write.

“Globally, we must find better means to agree and implement measures to achieve collective goals.”

The authors go on to assert that “in the face of an absolutely unprecedented emergency, society has no choice but to take dramatic action to avert a collapse of civilization. Either we will change our ways and build an entirely new kind of global society, or they will be changed for us.”

Decrying that “funding (for worldwide fertility control) decreased by 30% between 1995 and 2008, not least as a result of legislative pressure from the religious right in the USA and elsewhere”, the authors call for “education and planning needed to foster and achieve a sustainable human population and lifestyles.”

Now what do you think this means exactly, a sustainable human population? James Lovelock in 2009 gave us the answer, called for the culling of the population with a desired outcome of 1 billion people worldwide.

Lovelock also arrogantly stated in 2010 that humans are too stupid to prevent climate change- therefore governments worldwide, preferably a one world government, must prevent it for them.

Of all the eco-fascists penning down proposals, Paul Ehrlich may be considered the most bloodthirsty of the bunch- with his continuing insistence on massive population reduction. Few people need to be reminded of the words he wrote in Ecoscience which he co-authored with John P. Holdren, the current White House science czar. To highlight a few of these:

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

Read Full Article →

UN Rio+20 Summit Entertains Anti-Human Declaration


The UN’s Earth Summit on Sustainable Development in Rio+20 this month has attracted more than 100 science academies and leaders from all across the globe to discuss population control and human consumption, among other topics of global domination.

Humanity is a viable threat to the eco-system and future of planet Earth, say scientists from the UK’s Royal Society .

“The overall message is that we need a renewed focus on both population and consumption – it’s not enough to look at one or the other,” said Prof Charles Godray from the Martin School at the University of Oxford, who chaired the process of writing the declaration. “We need to look at both, because together they determine the footprint on the world.”

Globalist academics decry humanity’s footprint is getting “heavier and heavier”. They have released a public declaration to coerce developed and developing nations to join forces to combat humanity’s assault on our planet.

The declaration states: “The global population is currently around seven billion, and most projections suggest that it will probably lie between eight and 11 billion by 2050. Global consumption levels are at an all-time high, largely because of the high per-capita consumption of developed countries.”

The fear-mongers assert that if governments fail to enact these changes, “will put us on track to alternative futures with severe and potentially catastrophic implications for human well-being.”

Population control and severely limiting human consumption, being discussed at the UN Earth Summit, will admonish governments to agree to “commit to systematically consider population trends and projections in our national, rural and urban development strategies and policies.”

The drafted agreement claims all governments pledge to “change unsustainable consumption and production patterns” to reflect Agenda 21  Sustainable Development policies within sovereign nations so that the UN can usurp authority by ratification of international mandate within individual countries.

The report claims that over population in under-developed countries has resulted in unsustainable consumption worldwide.

Eliya Zulu, executive director of the African Institute for Development Policy  in Nairobi, co-author of the report from the Royal Society, says: “Many African countries are feeling the effects of population growth, and are finding they’ll need to deal with it in order to continue developing as well as to address their environmental issues. If you look at a country like Rwanda, it’s one of the most densely populated in Africa and the government believes one of the reasons behind the genocide was high population density and competition for resources. And the economic downturn that started in the late 1980s made people realize that in order to reach the Millennium Development Goals [MDGs], you can’t do it if your population is growing rapidly.”

Zulu points out that women in Africa are contributing to the over-population problems, which is causing the need to increase family planning provisions in Africa.

“This is an absolutely critical period for people and the planet, with profound changes for human health and wellbeing and the natural environment,” said Sir John Sulston, the report’s chairman, who headed the Human Genome Project , and currently chairs the Institute for Science Ethics and Innovation . “Where we go is down to human volition – it’s not pre-ordained, it’s not the act of anything outside humanity, it’s in our hands.”

These globalists believe that while more people are born, over-consumption becomes an issue of over-population. Under-developed countries are being blamed for ushering our planet toward destruction because of lack of access to family planning services.

By controlling fertility rates, as well as consumption of food, water and other resources, these experts assert that the environment, CO2 emissions and the status of the planet will be saved.

The Royal Society has used gross national product (GDP) to define how a nation’s economy can sustain its population. Their focus is to protect the environment over the rights of humanity as a whole.

While the UN discusses how to deal with the rising human population, radical environmentalists are speaking at the UN Earth Summit, urging that biodiversity be protected from the effects of humanity.

The World Wildlife Federation (WWF) has also released a report called the Living Planet Report that condemns the ecological disaster our planet is becoming from the direct influence of man.

It was the WWF who published a false report  on the polar bear population last year. By purveying the myth that the polar bears are drowning due to ice sheets melting because of global warming, the WWF participated in the alarmism of climate change.

Real world observations from researchers found that polar bear populations are estimated at 66% higher than climate change alarmists predicted.

David Nussbaum, CEO of the WWF in the UK, says: “The Rio+20 conferences are an opportunity for the world to get serious about the need for development to be made sustainable. We need to elevate the sense of urgency, and I think this is ultimately not only about our lives but the legacy we leave for future generations.”

The report from the WWF is compiled from data obtained from the Zoological Society of London  (ZSL), as well as analysis from the Global Footprint Network  (GFN) to further globalist agendas for global sustainability and encompassing the world’s ecological footprint. They assert issues surrounding the use of fossil fuels, deforestation for agricultural use, logging wood, and depleting fish populations as a food source.

The ZSL claims 30% of the species of the world have been in a steady decline since 1970, while tropical species have been waning at a rate of more than 60% because of the destruction to tropical lakes and rivers.

Tim Blackburn, director of the Institute of Zoology at the ZSL, maintains: “Nature is more important than money. Humanity can live without money, but we can’t live without nature and the essential services it provides.”

Nations under pressure by the UN and defined as completely unsustainable are: Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates countries, Denmark, Belgium, Australia, Ireland, United Kingdom.

The WWF report points out that 405 river systems are under attack worldwide, as well as the 30% food wastage caused by countries in the West contribute to the global food shortages and infrastructure in under-developed countries.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, has launched a “ global conversation ” to keep the appearance that the UN is interested in creating the “future we want”.

Through Facebook , Twitter or simply mailing in concerns, the panelists and event participants will answer “questions, expectations, or comments . . . at the event on November 22, 2012 at 10am EST.”

The UN hope to continue to purvey the ruse that they are an international community dedicated to making our world a better place. In the shadows, the globalist Elite lurks and patiently wait while the very right to human existence is stripped from sovereign nations through international directives.

This vision of the future is not what we want.

Scientific American Advocates Government Violence to Finance Planned Parenthood


One of the most effective forms of violence is that which isn’t noticed or felt, and in that regard, government has all the accolades. Often, the existence of big government is justified by its supporters based on the idea that it is a government’s duty to take care of the needy, or to provide services to people who cannot pay for those services themselves. The problem arises when the government, or anyone else for that matter, initiates violence against citizens and coercively forces them to do what they would not do if left to decide: Fund and support a large, out of control government bureaucracy. One of the services government is strongly involved in today is sexual education and contraception methods, which in the United States are largely provided by Planned Parenthood.

The organization was founded by known eugenicist Margaret Sanger, who a century ago began — well intentionally perhaps — to offer birth control services to women who she believed might not have had access to them. But Sanger’s supposed well-intentioned initiative changed for the worst, as she later became a confessed anti-humanist. Her thoughts about the need to reduce world population and to do it by stealth through government-sponsored healthcare programs is documented through her books and speeches.

At the start of her adventure as a defender of women’s health, Sanger rationalized the need to provide contraception on the idea that if it wasn’t for those services, women would have to go through painful dark ally abortions which in many cases they would have to execute themselves. She also thought that the education she provided to women would help them deal with reproduction and unwanted pregnancies. But Sanger’s idea of safer pregnancies and abortions changed radically as she became influenced by colleagues and mentors.

Her little clinic grew exponentially until it became what we know today as Planned Parenthood, an institution well connected with known eugenicists like Bill Gates’ father, William Henry Gates, Sr. Gates Sr. was a lawyer and a philanthropist who admittedly founded and later funded Planned Parenthood. Gates Sr. shared Sanger’s desire to reduce the world’s population, first in the US and then the rest of the world. Today, just as Gates Sr. did in the past, Bill Gates Jr. channels money to Planned Parenthood and other eugenics projects through his foundation, the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation, which just as many other philanthropic organizations is tax excepted. Planned parenthood itself was born out of the American Eugenics Society.

Back in 2003, Bill Gates Jr. admitted that his father was the founder of Planned Parenthood, which had been founded on the concept that human were “reckless breeders” and “human weeds”. In later interviews, such as TED conferences, Bill Gates openly spoke about reducing the world’s population in order to curb what he said was planetary collapse. In later events, Gates told a group of teachers and workers that denying healthcare to the elderly could translate into hiring more teachers, to which the audience applauded and cheered. Bill Gates & the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are now heavily invested in other eugenics operations such as genetically engineered food. The total amount of their investment reached $23.1 million in Monsanto stock. In a previous purchase, Gates bought Monsanto stock for another $360,000.

Bill Gates is also invested on another giant of the biotechnology industry known as Cargill. South Africa-based watchdog the African Centre for Biosafety reported about Gates’ investment with Cargill to develop a project to “implement the soy value chain” in the country of Mozambique. Gates is well-known for funding aid programs in Africa, where most of his projects involve sterilizing women and conducting vaccination campaigns. Given the harm that genetically engineered crops causes on people and animals, it is more than suspicious that Gates invests so heavily in two GMO companies.

Where does Scientific American fit in all this you may be asking? Apparently, the editorial board at the magazine is one of Planned Parenthood’s strongest supporters, and they’ve made it clear on an opinion piece published on June 1, 2012. According to the editorial, Planned Parenthood is under attack by conservatives and Republicans in Congress, who, they say, threaten women’s lives because of their intention to defund the eugenicist organization. But Scientific American did not stop at pointing out the supposed attack on women’s health, the article actually called for the enforcement of taxpayer funding to maintain Planned Parenthood open and providing abortions and other services to women who in their opinion cannot have access to a doctor. After quickly mentioning the so-called political attacks on Planned Parenthood, Scientific American goes on to say that most of the negative ideas about the organization are wrongly founded of its image as an abortion provider. This misconception, it says, is wrong because Planned Parenthood’s abortion only account for 3 percent of its services. That is a lie which will be explained later.

After attacking people who oppose Planned Parenthood’s funding with taxpayer money, the article praises the organization for its hard work saying:

“Stripping Planned Parenthood of federal funding would also sacrifice the 97 percent of its public health work that has nothing to do with abortion, from which many people benefit directly. One in five American women have used the group’s services, and three out of four of its patients are considered to have low incomes. In 2011 it carried out tests and treatment for more than four million individuals with sexually transmitted diseases. It supplied 750,000 exams to prevent breast cancer, the most common cancer among U.S. women. And it performed 770,000 Pap tests to prevent cervical cancer, which was a leading cause of death among women before this screen became widely available. Planned Parenthood is one of the most important public health care institutions in the country, even aside from its work in rational family planning.”

They conveniently leave out important information which again, will be explained in detail in the following paragraphs.

The most important fact is that Scientific American advocates for the government to tax citizens in order to fund an institution that not only does not need the money, but also wastes public funds that could be used to actually improve women’s lives. Planned Parenthood does not need public funds because as we mentioned before it is heavily subsidized by tax exempted foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Susan G. Komen Foundation, the Bank One Corporation, The Boston Globe Foundation II Inc, the Buffett Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Freddie Mac Foundation, the William H. Gates Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and dozens of other ones. See the complete list here. Groups like the Buffett Foundation donated almost $5 million during 5 fiscal years in a row. Most of those monies allocated to finance Planned Parenthood are sent to it through legalized tax evasion schemes which are maintained because of the Foundations’ supposed philanthropic work.

Many of the services pointed out by the magazine and its editorial board are often fake. For example, according to an article on the Weekly Standard, Planned Parenthood lied about providing mammogram services. The article tells how activist Lila Rose’s from Live Action confirmed in a video, that Planned Parenthood actually didn’t provide mammograms. However, the president of Planned Parenthood, Cecille Richards insisted on CNN that if Congress defunded the organization, they wouldn’t be able to provide such services. So not only does Scientific American supports a eugenicist organization, but also helps cover the lies spoken by Planned Parenthood’s representatives, because the article published on June 1, does not mention anything regarding the fraud, eugenics or lies coming out of the institution.

In a separate case which was also ignored by Scientific Magazine, the organization “Students for Life of America” released an undercover video of a nurse at a New Jersey Planned Parenthood facility admitting that some babies survive abortions even in advanced stages (22 weeks into the pregnancy).  “It does happen,” the nurse said. Another common occurrence is the cover ups of sexual encounters between under age girls and adult men when these girls go to a Planned Parenthood office to get an abortion. In a video obtained by Eyeblast.tv, the lack of care or complicity of Planned Parenthood is put out in the open. In the same video, the nurse admits that cases of infanticide take place at the clinic. She explains that although it is not a common thing, “Usually, for the most part no, but it does happen.  It’s an actual delivery,” she says, “but it wouldn’t be able to survive on its own, so eventually the baby does die.”

For parents who are worried about their children’s well-being there are more bad news when it comes to Planned Parenthood’s actions. In an article published two days ago by CBS Los Angeles, the writer reveals that the eugenics supporting organization just opened a clinic at Roosevelt High School, in the Unified High School District, where it intends to offer its services to teenage girls. This would be just a bit less concerning if California had not approved a mandate that allows schools to vaccinate children without their parents’ consent. Girls will not be able to accept vaccines such as HPV and others that Planned Parenthood offers to women in its clinics.

The move by this organization to set up a clinic in this school, will likely be repeated in other areas of the state as well as other states, where parenting rights are quickly eroding in the hands of bureaucrats that allow organizations like Planned Parenthood to indoctrinate young women and men. “Students can visit the on-campus health clinic to get free birth control, pregnancy tests, counseling and screening for sexually transmitted diseases – the first program of its kind in the country, according to the Los Angeles Times,” says the article. Groups like Planned Parenthood are doing such a great job at brainwashing youngsters into trusting them and not their parents that many teens now don’t believe it is a good idea to tell talk to them about sex, pregnancy, abortion or similar matters. Here is a typical example: I don’t think I would tell my parents, because I feel like they would look at me as someone who’s already messed up – like early in my life, and I’d feel like I was a disappointment.”

Despite these and other examples of what Planned Parenthood actually does, Scientific American strongly supports its work saying that the organization’s family planning programs has benefited society in numerous ways. “It has saved lives, opened new horizons for women and kept populations from soaring. As a major provider of contraceptives—it furnished birth control to two million Americans last year—Planned Parenthood serves as “America’s largest abortion preventer,” says the article, citing the Chicago Tribune. The magazine the says that “access to birth control in the U.S. has helped narrow the income inequality gap between men and women by as much as 30 percent during the 1990s alone. The pill has given women greater choice about when to have children, freeing them up to acquire career skills.”

For the sake of argument let’s assume all this is true. It seems Scientific American condones the ‘great work’ conducted by Planned Parenthood which has undoubtedly contributed with the death of over 55 million unborn children in the United States. The argument that the world would be overpopulated if Planned Parenthood didn’t exist is weak and just pure speculation. So is the idea that women could not have turned successful had they not been helped by the foundation ran and funded organization. But the lies don’t end there. Let’s see what else Scientific American doesn’t say or covers up in order to make Planned Parenthood look good.

The claim that Planned Parenthood’s abortion accounts for only 3 percent of its activities is deceiving. How do they make it so? For example, back in 2006, Planned Parenthood completed 289,750 abortions, which added up to  approximately 23% of  all abortions in the country. That made the organization the largest of such procedures  in the United States.  More surprisingly, although abortion in the US continue to drop, Planned Parenthood’s sponsored abortions keep on increasing every year. This information comes from a report issued by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

While Scientific American, the Washington Post and Planned Parenthood officials say that abortion account for only 3 percent of the procedures, therefore trying to imply that such a service  is not the main reason for its existence, reality says otherwise. The deceit comes from the fact that every time that a woman visits Planned Parenthood to receive counseling, pregnancy advice, contraception guidelines or help with an abortion, each visit is counted separately, instead as a group of visits from the same patient which in many cases end up in an abortion. Since the abortion procedure is only done once, the numbers on abortion services are compared with a stack of other visits which make it seem as only a small part of Planned Parenthood’s work.

However, it is just a matter of looking a little closer to see the trees for the forest. In 2006, for example, Planned Parenthood’s services were provided to 3.1 million clients, which added up to 9 percent of the total. In this case the figures are three times what they claim. Another misleading statement often told about the greatness of Planned Parenthood is that it provides a safe way for women to have abortions, which in itself is a risky procedure. Since 1973, when abortion was made legal, thousands of women have died during and after being submitted to an abortion procedure. Many of these women died at Planned Parenthood clinics. As reported by the Los Angeles Times, a Planned Parenthood facility personnel failed to realize that one of their patients who came in for help had a vaginal infection. The clinic did not offer any treatment and the patient died a few days later. Her name was Edrica Goode a 21-year-old woman from Riverside California. Planned Parenthood was accused by Edrica’s parents for malpractice.

Another fact left out by Scientific American is that although publicly Planned Parenthood says it rejects racism, the organization was founded by a eugenicist that believed that certain people and ethnicities of people were undesirable. In fact, Planned Parenthood affiliates often set up shop in or near poor neighborhoods, where most of the people are black, hispanic of belong to other minority groups. Even though blacks only account for about 13 percent of the american population, 37 percent of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood are done on black women. Author Robert L. Zangrando explains in his book The Reader’s Companion to American History, that more unborn blacks are killed at Planned Parenthood clinics than those who were murdered by the Ku Klux  Klan in their entire history.

Planned Parenthood is not the clean dedicated organization that the Scientific American article intends to paint. In fact, it is controlled by the Planned  Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), which extends its tentacles through the work of 97 affiliates all over the United  States. Those affiliates are in charge of opening clinics in communities around the country; many of them as we said, in poor neighborhoods or schools. Its affiliates operate some 880 facilities. Besides the United States, Planned Parenthood also operates in 17 countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, three of the poorest regions of the world. In many cases, Planned Parenthood creates partnerships with governments of local medical organizations to provide abortions, contraception methods and supposed medical advice to patients.

Additionally, the Planned Parenthood Federation uses its Action Fund Political Action Committee (PPFAPAC), to lobby the US Congress on keeping abortion unrestricted by law, and well funded with taxpayer money. That may be part of the reason why Congress refuses to defund this organization despite the fact it is supported by private initiatives such as money streams from philanthropic foundations, which are already tax exempted. Annually, Planned Parenthood’s budget amounts to over $1 billion. At least a third of that budget is provided by US taxpayers. Planned  Parenthood reported an income of $100 million for surgical abortions in  2006. If that is not a sign that abortions are a business in the United States, I don’t know what it is.

All this information proved meaningless to Scientific American, so they still decided to publicly endorse the work performed by Planned Parenthood. With all this information, it is not hard to see where the future of humanity would walk towards if it was in the hands of Planned Parenthood and its eugenicist financiers. In fact, this organization may just have gotten a new tool in its battle to kill more unborn children. In an article published by the London Telegraph, writer Stephen Adams reveals how scientists will soon be able to supposedly test children for some 3,500 ‘genetic defects’. This new technology, according to Adams, may spur a new era of murder through abortions under the excuse of preventing ‘genetic disorders’. The idea that humans are defective from birth is one of the most popular sickening premises to carry out eugenics programs all around the world.

Before concluding, let’s be clear that it is absolutely unjustified to call for government-sponsored violence against its citizens in any way, shape or form for the sake of supporting any initiative created by government or any other group. Taxation is one of the clearest forms of violence conducted by government throughout the history of humanity, and it is even worse when the money stolen from the labor of citizens is used to finance well-known eugenics programs and institutions like Planned Parenthood. As for the decision of a woman to have an abortion, she is free to do it or not as this decision will directly impact her health – for the worst in most cases. It would be hypocritical to propose the use of force against women to prevent them from having an abortion or any other procedure if that is what they desire. The problem arises, as emphasized before, when governments force citizens to provide funding for abortions, which is proven to be biological murder, if the citizens do not willingly support such initiatives.

If private organizations want to endorse and provide financing to organizations like Planned Parenthood, it is their right to do so, but don’t ask to be exempted from paying taxes while everyone else is forced to pay them in order to finance the murder of unborn children. If private citizens are interested in financing abortions, they can donate their money to Planned Parenthood directly, or give it to the globalist foundations who will gladly accepted. Forcing the whole population to finance a eugenics is like asking citizens to shoot themselves twice on the head.

Why should new-born babies live? They shouldn’t, Ethicists say

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
February 29, 2012

“An ethicist is one whose judgment on ethics and ethical codes has come to be trusted by a specific community, and (importantly) is expressed in some way that makes it possible for others to mimic or approximate that judgement. Following the advice of ethicists is one means of acquiring knowledge.”

The impossibility to save all babies that are born into this world is not an uncommon situation. The decision to save a mother and not the baby during a birth or vice-versa isn’t new either. What is new is questioning if it is OK to kill a baby even though it was born perfectly healthy. Some ethicists today are even omitting the question itself and advancing the idea that after-birth abortion should be seriously considered. But for what purposes? In a recent paper published in the Journal for Medical Ethics, ethicists explain that ‘after-birth abortion’ or killing a newborn should be allowed under all circumstances where abortion is, and those situations include the ones where a baby IS NOT disabled. In other words, the authors of this paper are openly advocating eugenics under the premise that neither a fetus not a new-born have the moral status of an actual person.

The paper, written by Dr. Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; had the support of Alberto Giubilini. Mr. Giubilini is affiliated to the Department of Philosophy and the University of Milan, Milan, Italy, the Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, while Ms. Minerva is affiliated to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia and the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.

In what kind of drugs does anyone have to be to advocate for the murder of unborn or born children. Only an arrogant, disarranged and ethically compromised group of people who follow a eugenics way of thinking could push for such a policy. The authors claim that even when a fetus or a baby is healthy, becoming a mother can be a psychological burden for a woman and therefore murdering babies should be considered as an option to alleviate that burden. THey also argue that if it’s not the mother who is mentally out of balance, perhaps it is her existing children the ones who will be mentally affected by the arrival of the new-born. “We need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human,” say the authors.

Amazingly, the paper makes a case that it should be an even more common practice to abort fetuses just because there is a suspicion of a genetic defect, which according to them can be detected through medical tests. However, since some tests are not good enough to detect certain complications originated from inherited genes or genetic mutations, fetus abortion or new-born abortions should also be considered as a preventive step to avoid the arrival of unwanted human beings. “…genetic prenatal tests for TCS are usually taken only if there is a family history of the disease. Sometimes, though, the disease is caused by a gene
mutation that intervenes in the gametes of a healthy member of the couple. Moreover, tests for TCS are quite expensive and it takes several weeks to get the result. However, such rare and severe pathologies are not the only ones that are likely to remain undetected until delivery; even more common congenital diseases that women are usually tested for could fail to be detected,” reads the paper.

These two people seem to believe that a philosopher or a group of them has the moral, medical or academic authority to determine what the future of a baby should look like, as they cite that “philosophers” have proposed euthanasia as an alternative in the past, and therefore it is nothing new to kill a baby, even if it is perfectly healthy. “It might be maintained that ‘even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of Down’s syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child,” they assert. This kind of thinking was typical during the Nazi holocaust where in addition to Jews, Armenians and other ethnic groups, the sick, the old and the handicapped were murdered for the sake of purifying the race. Their eugenicist assessment continues: “…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.”

Minerva and Giubilini summarize their mindset by stating that the unconfirmed potential of any fetus to become a person who has less that a perfect life, is an opportunity to justify abortion, or after-birth abortion in the case of babies who were permitted to live. “the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible,” they say. Then they propose that instead of calling a child’s murder by its name — infanticide –, it should be toned down by calling it after-birth abortion, a term that can be easily related to since large portions of the society are accustomed to hearing about abortion as a consideration when there are medical emergencies or when a mother or a doctor decide it is the best option. For the authors, infanticide or euthanasia are not such when the interests of the unborn baby or those of the family call for the murder of that same human being.

Shockingly, both Minerva and Giubilini take the moral ground when advocating for infanticide. They consider that since neither a fetus not a new-born have the MORAL standing of a PERSON, it is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing his or her birth or from preventing the development or the potential of this being to become a fully developed PERSON in the moral sense. According to their analysis, neither a fetus nor a new-born have the right to live because they lack the properties that allow for that right to exist. “… neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. 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.” They go on to echo a talking point that well-known eugenicists as well as modern philanthropists and members of the medical establishment commonly use to impose environmental policies — that humans are animals — and that just as animals, mentally retarded humans, for example, do not have the capacity to value their existence and therefore are not persons. The premise that humans are animals — an ill conceived one since humans are not animals, but mammals; the trait that we share with other animals, is often paraded as a justification to murder the sick, the elderly, the poor and now the babies.

Even the liberal mainstream media have unveiled the agenda behind a not so secret aspect of modern eugenics campaign. Click the image to read the article.

“Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.” Then they try to swindle the reader by asserting that the previous description is true for fetuses where abortion is considered or criminals who are punished with death. One question that immediately comes to mind is, What crimes has a fetus or a new-born committed in order for Minerva and Giubilini to compare it to a convicted criminal? The second question is, Aren’t innocent people often convicted of crimes they did not commit and sentenced to death anyway? A third questions is, do abortion practices as they are today in any way moral, just because they are permitted or widely accepted? Reading further into their paper makes me think that these two medical academics are not completely sane by pushing the ideas they a support in their published paper. Perhaps another incredible fact is that the Journal for Medical Ethics gives legitimacy to claims like ones in the paper that seek to appease the people regarding the murder of other human beings. It is like when the United States government decided to baptize the murder of Libyans by calling its attack on that country as Kinetic Action, instead of plain out mass murder through military action.

The authors completely omit the fact that although they are unable to express it verbally, fetuses and new-borns do feel pain and that the current practices used to perform infanticide do inflict pain on those living beings. Instead, they claim that pain can only be measured by the limitation that a PERSON is submitted to, which prevents him or her to accomplish his or her aims, and that since fetuses and new-borns are not  PERSONS, there is no pain inflicted when they are murdered. “hardly can a newborn be said to have aims, as the future we imagine for it is merely a projection of our minds on its potential lives,” the authors say. Here again, Minerva and Giubilini agree that the plans and lives of those who are already alive, such as siblings and parents of the new-born are more important than letting a perfectly healthy new-born live. They stress that given the potential for their lives — that of the parents and siblings — to be negatively or even positively affected by the birth of a child, those parents and siblings should resource to infanticide to end with the inexistant potential consequences that only their minds — Minerva’s and Giubilini’s — are capable of guessing ahead of time.

While reading their paper, I realize that Minerva’s and Giubilini’s train of thought is ill conceived for at least three reasons. First, they believe, although it is not properly supported in the paper, that there are moral or other justifications to kill a fetus or a new-born. Second, they equal a fetus to a new-born. Third, they believe that neither a fetus nor a new-born are PERSONS because of commonly accepted conventions that say so, instead of writing their analysis based on comparisons on the presence of biological functions, for example, which all fetuses, new-borns and PERSONS share. This is a typical case of nitpicking whatever works out to get a point across and to publish a paper that advocates for the murder of innocent beings that in their view are not human or PERSONS.

What good could it come from a medical establishment that believes that humans can be equaled to animals, or that a new-born is not a PERSON and that therefore it should be permissible to murder it? How can we trust our lives into the hands of human haters who advocate infanticide, and in other situations euthanasia or even mass murder just because their conventions dictate that handicapped or mentally retarded people do not have a life worth living? Who are they to determine what a life is worth and whose life should be preserved and who are candidates for murder?

“An ethicist is one whose judgment on ethics and ethical codes has come to be trusted by a specific community, and (importantly) is expressed in some way that makes it possible for others to mimic or approximate that judgement. Following the advice of ethicists is one means of acquiring knowledge.”

Will you continue to trust ethicists blindly?

Catholic Bishops Reject Obama’s Eugenics Program

A rule is not a law, and the catholic bishops have learned to differentiate between the two. Government cannot impose its beliefs on free people.

by Louise Radnofsky
February 11, 2012

Catholic bishops said Friday night that they would not support the Obama administration’s proposed compromise on a controversial rule that requires most employers to fully cover contraception in their workers’ health plans.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which had led opposition to the regulation, issued a statement saying that they didn’t believe their concerns were addressed by a new policy offered by President Barack Obama on Friday morning to allow religious employers who object to the use of birth control to turn over responsibility for covering it to insurance companies.

Under the new policy, religious employers that don’t want to offer contraception could exclude it from their policies. Insurance companies instead would be required to provide access to contraception for plan participants who wanted it, without explicitly charging either the religious employer or worker.

The shift is intended to ensure that women working at religious hospitals, schools and charities who want to use contraception can obtain it in the same way as women who work for secular employers. It also means the cost of providing the coverage for those women is likely to be spread across all policyholders by insurers.

The bishops had earlier expressed cautious optimism about the announcement, saying that it was “a first step in the right direction” but that they would have to study it.

In their later statement, they said they still had “serious moral concerns,” noting that the proposal didn’t contain provisions for religious employers who self-insure, meaning the employer takes on the underlying risk of covering employees’ health care.

The bishops also said that the current structure of the proposal meant that if an employee and insurer agreed to add contraception coverage to a health plan, it would still be financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the employer.

“These changes require careful moral analysis, and moreover, appear subject to some measure of change. But we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection… is unacceptable and must be corrected,” the statement said.

The White House declined to comment.

Read Full Article…

Related Links:









Partner Links