Critics of ‘post-birth abortion’ guilty of ‘hate speech’

OPINION
BY BILL MUEHLENBERG
Opposing Baby-Killing Is Now ‘Hate Speech’

I have just written about two academics who have offered a spirited defence of killing newborn babies. Now the editor of the journal they were published in comes to their defence, and the defence of infanticide. And worse yet, he says those who are opposed to this are guilty of “hate speech”. I kid you not.

But perhaps we should not be surprised about all this. The editor, Julian Savulescu, is in fact infamous for his rather perverted ethical stances. Indeed, I have written about him before: www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/11/18/those-unethical-ethicists/

He now defends baby killing and denounces those who dare to express their concerns about this diabolical activity. And he is a leading, influential ethicist! Here is how one news outlet covered this development:

“The editor of an ethics journal that recently published an article advocating infanticide (what the authors call ‘post-birth abortion’), has responded to widespread criticism by pointing out that promoting the killing of newborns is nothing new: in fact, in the Netherlands infant euthanasia is already legal and practiced.

“Editor Julian Savulescu also criticizes what he calls the ‘hate speech’ directed at the authors of the article, arguing that the public’s response to the piece shows that ‘proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.’

“In the journal article Alberto Giubilin, a philosopher from the University of Milan, and Francesca Minerva, an ethicist from the University of Melbourne, made the case that ‘after-birth abortion’ should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is perfectly healthy. They base their argument on the premise that the unborn baby and the newborn do not have the moral status of actual persons and are consequently ‘morally irrelevant.’

“In response to the backlash, Savulescu wrote that the arguments in the article ‘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.’

“He also observes that the paper ‘draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands’.”

Wow – where does one begin here? We know that social engineering is always preceded by verbal engineering. Euphemisms are used to cover up grizzly realities. So now the moral crime of infanticide is simply to be known as ‘post-birth abortion’. Incredible.

Big Brother, the dictator of totalitarian Oceania, in George Orwell’s novel 1984, would be proud as punch to have such a person working in his PR department. Savulescu and his ilk have perfected the art of doublethink and Newspeak.

Indeed, according to Savulescu, fanatics are those who think infanticide is morally wrong. Yet evidently those eggheads who justify killing already-born babies are somehow not fanatics! Talk about moral inversion and perversion. Two and a half millennia ago the prophet Isaiah said this: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”

He must have had in mind these so-called ethicists which we are plagued with today. And the good editor informs us that we are simply “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”. Oh, so a liberal society has as its highest values the killing of new born babies, even perfectly healthy ones? And to oppose that is “hate speech,” “fanaticism,” and a threat to “academic discussion and freedom”.

I cannot recall hearing such morally perverted “reasoning” for quite some time. And these guys are ethicists? They are teaching us what the good and moral life is meant to be? In their warped scheme of things, killing babies is very good, while opposing such atrocities is very bad.

I am really just flabbergasted – almost speechless. These are the cream of the crop of our ethicists, teaching others how to think ethically? These are the ones calling the shots about what is right and wrong in our universities, journals and public arenas?

No wonder we are in such dire straits. With experts like these allowed to get away with these abominations, we really do not stand a chance. Talk about Dr Evil and Dr Death. Talk about rogue ethicists who are polluting the very moral fibre of our society. Talk about dancing with the devil.

I can just imagine the Nazi eugenicists and mass murderers responding in the same way. As people discovered the gas chambers, death camps and other elements of the final solution, and raised their voice in protest, these guys would have chirped: “Hey you are fanatics – stop all the hate speech already.”

They would have loved the line by our editor: “proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics”. Why do I get the feeling that if Hitler and the Nazis were advertising for more academics, doctors and scientists to get on board with their program, ethicists like these would have perfectly fitted the bill? READ MORE HERE

5 Comments

  1. This is the inevitable result of the ivory tower effect on “academia” who deal with problems which have no facts. There is no measurement that can be made in ethics, it is a worthless field filled with bloviating windbags

    I hope that these unproductive “academics” aren’t tax payer funded. They should be having this conversation at a coffee shop so that people don’t confuse them with actual scientists or researchers.

  2. The latest medical ‘ethics’ paper promoting post-birth ‘abortion’ prompted me to write the following poem….

    “Dr. Mengele’s Still Drumming”

    See that baby in the corner?
    Her life might not be so good!
    I can tell she’ll be a problem…
    That much, ma’am, is understood!

    She’s not really quite a “person”;
    Yes, we’re sure she’s unaware.
    Her life may not be worth living…
    Let’s “abort” and show we care.

    She’s just not what we’d call “human”…
    She’s not really at that stage.
    “Cute” enough, but just not “with it”…
    Unaware and disengaged.

    She has no real moral standing…
    Not just yet, and that’s the glitch!
    She’s no diff’rent from a tomcat,
    Or some tiny mongrel bitch.

    We’ll decide for you what’s “human”…
    When a “what” becomes a “who”!
    On these shifting sands of reason,
    Moral Law we may undo.

    These things change, ma’am. Please don’t worry!
    We know best about these things;
    We’ve been schooled in Bio-Ethics,
    Singing songs that Singer sings!

    That’s the song of Peter Singer…
    (Margaret Sanger sang it, too).
    If that melody’s familiar,
    Maybe you should ask the Jew.

    That’s the downbeat of Eugenics,
    Euthanasia’s Rhythm Band.
    Dr. Mengele’s still drumming
    Out there on that shifting sand.

    “The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teaching comes through hypocritical liars whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.” -The Apostle Paul (1Timothy 4: 1-2)
    * * * * * * *
    “[N]ew-born humans are neither persons nor quasi-persons, and their destruction is in no way intrinsically wrong.” – Dr. Michael Tooley, Professor of Ethics , University of Colorado, President of the American Philosophical Society (2011-2012)

    “Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection than the life of a fetus. “ -Dr. Peter Singer PhD, Professor of Bioethics, Princeton University

    “After ruling our thoughts and our decisions about life and death for nearly two thousand years, the traditional Western ethic has collapsed.” -Dr. Peter Singer, PhD., Professor of Bioethics, Princeton University

    God bless,
    Tom Graffagnino
    Canton, GA
    http://www.tomgraffagnino.com/

  3. The flipside of this is of course that the ethicists see no distinction between those who have been born and those who have not been born, leading to the conclusion that if a moral argument can be advanced for the protection of the life of a post-natal person that the same argument can be used for the protection of the life of a pre-natal person.

  4. this is outrageous i have never even consider that history is going to repeat itself did no one read roman history at the time of Rome was falling during Nero age they did the same thing killed newborns if not wanted and then fed them to the lions how sick and wrong are human beings to keep coming up with horrific ways to care for our children soon when you have enough with your teenager you will be able kill them next how ridiculous is the validation of killing any child healthy or not i have backed down on abortion thinking maybe we will graduated from stupidity to responsible humans what kind of country would even allow this and if does then they deserve to all be abolish by the hand of God our world is getting closer and closer to what the story from the bible about sod-dam and Gomorrah

Comments are closed.