Skip to comments.Dr. Mengele Would Have Been Proud
Posted on 03/05/2012 5:41:06 AM PST by SJackson
Dr. Josef Mengele held a doctorate in anthropology from Munich University and a medical degree from Frankfurt University. He was an early medical pioneer in "after-birth abortions." His groundbreaking research was conducted at his world renowned clinic in Auschwitz, Poland.
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. Lets face it, just about everybody thinks they are right. All of a mans 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 PhDs 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 anyones 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 60s 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.
These three should be in jail for life.
Thank you, Rabbi Averick.
And so, the Coalition of Believers begins...
Obama agrees with these evil people.
I was astounded to discover a wonderful pro-life woman (a member of my local Right to Life group) had voted for Obama...and I asked her if she knew that Obama was in favor of infanticide. She had NO idea.
Suffice to say that she will NOT be voting for him in November.
You have to ask: by whom are these premises “widely accepted”?
I have often penned the expression “Josef Goebbels School of Journalism” regarding the US Media, in appropriate discussions.
I now add, “The Joseph Mengele School of Medicine.” Those advanced degrees from top notch “medical schools” really made the world a better place, didn’t they! (EXTREME sarcasm to the max)
I read today utterance from many varied graduates of the Mengele School of Medicine. Seemingly the procedure called “After Birth Abortion” is allowed up to age 75.
When I brought up the fact that 0bama was opposed to the born alive infant protection act with someone who considers herself “a good person” for being “liberal”,
she flat out denied it and would not listen to any evidence proving it.
Meant to ping you to this thread
“I was astounded to discover a wonderful pro-life woman (a member of my local Right to Life group) had voted for Obama...and I asked her if she knew that Obama was in favor of infanticide. She had NO idea.”
Amazing! Glad you’ve helped her wake up to reality. Here’s more information to share with her and others who have been bamboozled by the mass media:
Obama has surrounded himself with people who support his nihilist worldview.
John Holdren, his “science advisor” supports forced abortion and mass sterilization to “save the planet”.
He believes kids from “big families” have lower IQ’s (a false notion that was debunked years ago)
Obama’s push for tax-payer funded mass birth control and his attack on the Catholic Church are part of a larger plan. Voluntary use of government-provided birth control will become involuntary down the road (like in China). People need to wake up!
I sent the woman I mentioned several documents, including official records.
“After-birth abortion” is an absurd phrase. The process of gestation has reached its conclusion when the baby is born. What these Death Eaters advocate is “infanticide,” and what we’ve been taught to call “abortion” is “pre-natal infanticide.”
It’s diabolically clever, literally. First, they habituated people to prenatal infanticide by linking it to that well-known human right, sterile sex. Now, with “abortion” established as a neutral term, they can calmly promote infanticide. We’re comfortable with killing those who are “vegetables,” not real humans like us, and there’s a strong sentiment for bumping off anyone whose “quality of life” is not considered adequate by the person who wants to kill him.
We’re only steps away from an open war of all against all ... but we can, in the dark part of our hearts, give a small chortle because unskilled intellectuals like these won’t last long when it really goes bad. Ask the great minds of the Soviet Union ... oh, sorry, Stalin murdered them ...
These FACTS need to be highlighted intelligently and often by the Republicans. I keep saying that this election is NOT just about economics!!!!!!!!!!
Personally I see no difference to murdering a child 5 minutes after it is born or sucking out it’s brain 5 miinutes before.
Both are Murder. Do we today give physicians the permission to decide that God was wrong and kill his work?
Evidently we do. The only difference I see in this newest development is one of when the murder is committed.If one can suck the brains out of a child with it’s head out of the womb, why not just make it easy for them, let the child come all the way out and wring it’s neck.
Abortionists are not Doctors, they are executioners.
I’ve always thought it unusual that Jewish people felt abortion was acceptable as part of their knee jerk love of Democrats. Yes I am aware that orthodox Jews do not support abortion, but the mainstream Jewish population looks the other way. Isn’t that how the Nazis gained a foothold, when others looked the other way?
It isn’t hatred that drives the liberals....it’s fear. Fear is a tremendous motivator and the liberals/socialists know that and use it to their advantage. They are afraid that there are/will-be too many people for this planet to support. They are afraid that they, and their children, may suffer because there are too many people.....especially those people that don’t look like them. They are killing people because they are afraid of something that might happen. It is the same as killing someone you meet on the street because of an irrational fear that they might hurt you. It is cowardly and irrational. It is the basis of the Democrat party.
Re: Abortionists are not Doctors, they are executioners.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
The wise rabbi summed up the problem perfectly in his conclusion:
The sexual revolution of the 60s 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.
The same thing happened in China.