Dr. Mengele Can Empathize


“After birth abortion” sounds like a catchy substitute for words like “infanticide” and “murder” doesn’t it?

Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.

Astonishingly some people got upset at the online Journal For Medical Ethics for publishing this paean to offing kids, and the editor, Julian Savulescu, took umbrage:

This article has elicited personally abusive correspondence to the authors, threatening their lives and personal safety. The Journal has received a string abusive emails for its decision to publish this article. This abuse is typically anonymous.

I am not sure about the legality of publishing abusive threatening anonymous correspondence, so I won’t repeat it here. But fortunately there is plenty on the web to choose from. Here are some responses:

“These people are evil. Pure evil. That they feel safe in putting their twisted thoughts into words reveals how far we have fallen as a society.”

“Right now I think these two devils in human skin need to be delivered for immediate execution under their code of ‘after birth abortions’ they want to commit murder – that is all it is! MURDER!!!”

“I don‘t believe I’ve ever heard anything as vile as what these “people” are advocating. Truly, truly scary.”

“The fact that the Journal of Medical Ethics published this outrageous and immoral piece of work is even scarier”

(Comments from http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/#comments)

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.

Well that tears it doesn’t it?  People can’t even support killing infants without some “fanatics” getting upset.  What is this world coming to?


More to explorer


  1. These ethicists should be on Obama’s health care team. At least that’s what it will take to get (some) lib Catholics to finally oppose the oncoming evil.

  2. A humorous meme floating around the intrawebz these days is “Godwin’s Law,” wherein anybody comparing an opponent in a debate to Nazis, or invokes Hitler, automatically loses. It is applied in arguments where such comparisons are obviously extreme.

    I doubt Dr. Godwin himself would disapprove of the comparison here.

    I cite this: Aktion T4 as a reference. There is a poster on the page that states, roughly, “60,000 Reichsmarks is what this person suffering from a hereditary defect costs the People’s community during his lifetime. Fellow citizen, that is your money too.”

    What other evidence does one need to see the source of the unmitigated evil these “ethicists” put out? The publication is as culpable as the authors for even considering to publish such shit (pardon my French but that’s what it is.) This is Satanic, purley and simply. There could be no other source for the inhumanity there contained.

  3. It’s a well know fact that Mengele worked as an abortionist in Buenos Aries when he fled there after the war. A few years back, there was an article in the Washington Post magazine about a young female med student, very ‘pro-choice’ who thought about becoming an abortionist and did an internship at an abortion clinic. She didn’t become pro-life exactly afterwords, but did decide she didn’t want to be an abortionist. There must be something essential missing from ethicists, scientist, abortionist, etc who hold such views.

  4. Understand this: there is no scrap of Christian morality that these people are not determined to destroy. They believe they are doing the right thing by initiating such actions. In their world view – which can only be described as wholly alienated from God – it is a requirement that an intellectual elite control human life for what they view as the betterment of all. A “defective” child does, indeed, cost money and can be a burden – so, get rid of the child.

    A revolution is required – and it may have to come non-peaceful in the by and by.

  5. We are well down the slippery slope.

    It is terribly frightening and bewildering that very few know of this monstrous “logic” or see how insidiously this manner of thought is pervasively strangling our society and setting the stage for a truly horrific future. Large numbers of people are naive to what is really going on. The cleverness of those in league with such “intellectuals” at maintaining a facade of
    sincerity, while with complete foreknowledge, manipulating their “prey” so masterfully, is, to me, the imprimatur of the Evil One.

    I cannot believe THIS has occurred in my lifetime.

  6. Once again, children with Down syndrome are singled out as a ‘worst case scenario’. This is inexcusable, if the couple doesn’t want to raise a child with Trisomy 21, just sign him or her over, pack up and leave the hospital!
    Why must mothers who have carried the child, and given birth kill them?
    We are becoming monsters.

  7. How disgusting!!!!! How dare they presume to play God! I wonder if the mother’s of these two so called “intellectuals” would have chosen after birth abortion (ie murder) if they had known their offspring were going to end up being so evil? You don’t have to be a zealot to know this is soooooo wrong. Pray for them.

  8. They do have a point, so let’s start with Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, the first candidates for after birth abortions..

  9. This is the utterly logical progression of the contraceptive mindset: children are a disease, man is a disease and must be eliminated. It is Cain killing his brother and thereby himself.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: