Archive for the Infanticide Category

Unbelievable: pro-choice woman says it’s her choice to kill a baby at birth

Posted in Infanticide, NARAL, pro-choice, Pro-choice People, Pro-choice Spin with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on August 22, 2014 by saynsumthn

Created Equal has uploaded a video clip showing Director of Training Seth Drayer speaking to an abortion advocate at the NARAL Cincinnati Stand up for Abortion Access Rally.

The woman is using the “My body – my choice” argument,” so Seth points out that the baby is not part of the woman’s body.

The pro-choicer asks if the umbilical cord attached to the baby is part of her body- implying that the baby is not a separate person.

Seth points out that when his wife gave birth- their baby was still attached by the umbilical cord even though the baby was clearly outside the womb.

Her reply is stunning: watch:

Infanticide

She fails to recognize that Kermit Gosnell was actually sentenced to prison for after birth abortions.

Killing Newborns and born infants- not a new idea from the pro-abortion gangs see here.

Has this actually happened? Yes- see here.

Pro-life leader: Accused Pa. baby killer is pro-choice poster child

Posted in Infanticide, Mark Crutcher, pro-choice with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 12, 2013 by saynsumthn

“If the body of this little boy had been found in the bathroom of an abortion clinic instead of in the bathroom of a bar, the country would have never heard about it.” ~ Mark Crutcher, president of Life Dynamics, Inc.

amanda-c-hein-20130827

26-year old Allentown, Pennsylvania resident, Amanda Hein, was arrested on homicide charges after she delivered her newborn son in the bathroom of a pub and then, according to investigators, took that “alive and viable” boy of 33 to 36 weeks’ gestation and killed him, putting him in a plastic bag and leaving him in the tank of the toilet.

The child’s body was discovered on Aug. 19, by cleaners at Starters Pub after the toilet wouldn’t flush. Workers opened the tank of the toilet where they uncovered the boy wrapped in a plastic bag that had lined a small garbage can in the stall, Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli said.

FetusFoundToilet

Morganelli said he saw photos of the newborn and that he looked like a “full-term baby.”

“I’ve seen dead people, shot, strangled,” Morganelli said. “But when you’re dealing with a baby, it is very difficult.”
Hein could face the death penalty for allegedly suffocating the newborn.

Mark Crutcher2013

Mark Crutcher, president of Life Dynamics Inc. a national pro-life organization located in Denton, Texas, responded, “Why are the nation’s pro-choice organizations not rushing to the defense of this woman? Remember, two of their standard arguments in support of abortion is that (a) women are the ones who get to determine when life begins and (b) the government has no legal right to tell a woman she has to have a baby she doesn’t want.

Well, if those things are true, Ms. Hein fits the pro-choice model to a tee. After all, if she says that her baby’s life had not yet begun. What right does the State of Pennsylvania have to question that? And if she says that she has the legal right to decide for herself whether she wants to have a child or not, how is she different than any other woman sitting in the waiting room of any abortion clinic in the country?”

Crutcher continues, “The fact is, if the body of this little boy had been found in the bathroom of an abortion clinic instead of in the bathroom of a bar, the country would have never heard about it and Ms. Hein would just be another enlightened woman exercising her constitutional right to choose. But the abortion lobby recognizes that this story is radioactive and that appearing to justify what happened here would be a public relations nightmare. So they’ve dropped Ms. Hein in the grease. But make no mistake about it, whether the pro-choice community wants to claim her or not, she is their poster child.”

An American Abortion Clinic banner

This month, Life Dynamics, Inc, released a powerful DVD called An American Abortion Clinic where they interviewed former employees of a Houston abortion clinic which remains open this day.

In the DVD, you can hear workers admit that they also saw live babies delivered into toilets, We seen a lot of cases where women, they felt like they had to push and they had to run to the bathroom. On some occasions we had women that were the fetus were falling into the toilet.. We had one incident where it was big news, where the fetus was left in the toilet, I don’t know if you all heard about that one she was at McDonalds. They stopped there in the morning and the fetus was left in the toilet and nobody ever found out whose fetus it was, but it was one of his patients. We knew it because we were watching it on the news that day that she was supposed to be in the clinic.” (Listen to clip here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fhyJItGPko)

Crutcher called the DVD, “A glimpse into hell.”

An American Abortion Clinic DVD http://tinyurl.com/lag2udc

Watch An American Abortion Clinic DVD trailer here http://tinyurl.com/kfl2sa8

####

For an interview call the office at (940) 380-8800

“Rational Design” code word for Genetically Modified Eugenics

Posted in After Birth Abortion, Eugenics, Genetically Modified Humans, Infanticide, Rational design with tags , , , , , , , , , on August 17, 2012 by saynsumthn

On August 16,2012, the UK Telegraph published this article: Genetically engineering ‘ethical’ babies is a moral obligation, says Oxford professor

The claim is simple: Genetically screening our offspring to make them better people is just ‘responsible parenting’, claims an eminent Oxford academic.

Professor Julian Savulescu said that creating so-called designer babies could be considered a “moral obligation” as it makes them grow up into “ethically better children”.

The expert in practical ethics said that we should actively give parents the choice to screen out personality flaws in their children as it meant they were then less likely to “harm themselves and others”.

Savulescu is also editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics, made his comments in an article in the latest edition of Reader’s Digest.

Interesting to note, the Journal of Medical Ethics received death threats after they published an article on AFTER BIRTH ABORTIONS. The authors, Alberto Guiblini and Francesca Minerva, of that horrific publication maintain that abnormalities cannot always be detected in a fetus and women cannot choose to abort or not. “A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, 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”.

Below is an audio interview of the author about the article on AFTER BIRTH ABORTIONS:

In justifying their publication of the article, the editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Julian Savulescu wrote “Many people will and have disagreed with these arguments. However, the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises. The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible. The authors proceed logically from premises which many people accept to a conclusion that many of those people would reject”.

Back to the RATIONAL DESIGN ARGUMENT:

Savulescu explained that we are now in the middle of a genetic revolution and that although screening, for all but a few conditions, remained illegal it should be welcomed.

He said that science is increasingly discovering that genes have a significant influence on personality – with certain genetic markers in embryo suggesting future characteristics.
By screening in and screening out certain genes in the embryos, it should be possible to influence how a child turns out.

In the end, he said that “rational design” would help lead to a better, more intelligent and less violent society in the future.

“Surely trying to ensure that your children have the best, or a good enough, opportunity for a great life is responsible parenting?” wrote Prof Savulescu, the Uehiro Professor in practical ethics.

“So where genetic selection aims to bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society, we should allow parents the choice.

“To do otherwise is to consign those who come after us to the ball and chain of our squeamishness and irrationality.

“Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children.

“They are, after all, less likely to harm themselves and others.”

“If we have the power to intervene in the nature of our offspring — rather than consigning them to the natural lottery — then we should.”

So much can be said about these comments, but calling them MORAL and CHOICES are despicable reasoning for simple EUGENICS !

So what is MORAL Behavior and what personality and character would this professor deem reasonable to breed?

In 1904, Frances Galton who coined the term EUGENICS and was a cousin to Charles Darwin, stated in his writings:
“Persistence in setting forth the national importance of eugenics.”

He said, “There are three stages to be passed through:
(I) It must be made familiar as an academic question, until its exact importance has been understood and accepted as a fact.
(2) It must be recognized as a subject whose practical development deserves serious consideration.
(3) It must be introduced into the national conscience, like a new religion. It has, indeed, strong claims to become an orthodox religious, tenet of the future, for eugenics co-operate with the workings of nature by securing that humanity shall be represented by the fittest races.

Galton then observed that “What nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly. As it lies within his power, so it becomes his duty to work in that direction.” AH…there is that so-called MORAL OBLIGATION AGAIN !

Galton continued,” The improvement of our stock seems to me one of the highest objects that we can reasonably attempt. We are ignorant of the ultimate destinies of humanity, but feel perfectly sure that it is as noble a work to raise its level, in the sense already explained, as it would be disgraceful to abase it.” THERE IS THAT SO-CALLED “rational design”, again !

In 1904, Eugenicist George Bernard Shaw said, “What we must fight for is freedom to breed the race without being hampered by the mass of irrelevant conditions implied in the institution of marriage.”

Theodore Roosevelt, wrote this in a letter to eugenicist Charles Davenport in 1913, hoping that “Someday we will realize that the prime duty, the inescapable duty, of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type.”

The 1917 California amendment, the third sterilization bill in the nation, worded the description of a diagnosis warranting sterilizations from “hereditary insanity or incurable chronic mania or dementia” to a “mental disease which may have been inherited and is likely to be transmitted to descendants.”

At state and local fairs during the 1920s and 1930s, the American Eugenics Society sponsored lectures and exhibits intended to demonstrate principles of heredity and the menace of unchecked breeding among the unfit. “Some people are born to be a burden to the rest” read the signs above their booths. In 1936 the Eugenics Institute listed its activities for the previous year: “the training of SS doctors; racial hygiene training; expert testimony for the Reich Ministry of the Interior on cases of dubious heritage; collecting and classifying skulls from Africa; studies in race crossing; and experimental genetic pathology.” In 1937 Frederick Osborn a founder of the Eugenics Society in America , himself “praised the Nazi eugenic program as the ‘most important experiment which has ever been tried.’”

That was the year after Julian S. Huxley coined this staggering term: Selection through Favourable Variations, when he said, “But in civilized human communities of our present type, the elimination of defect by natural selection is largely (though of course by no means wholly) rendered inoperative by medicine, charity, and the social services; while, as we have seen, there is no selection encouraging favourable variations. The net result is that many deleterious mutations can and do survive, and the tendency to degradation of the germ-plasm can manifest itself.”

So as you can see this professors “ideas” are not new in any way- they are regurgitated evil eugenics at its worst, plain and simple !

Killing Newborns and born infants- not a new idea from the pro-abortion gangs

Posted in After Birth Abortion, Infanticide, Kermit Gosnell with tags , , , , , , , , , , on March 2, 2012 by saynsumthn

Virginia Ironside the columnist and celebrated agony aunt of The Independent newspaper has caused outrage this morning by saying that she, like all “good mothers”, would put a pillow over the head of her baby if it was suffering from a disability and would have a poor quality of life.

Shocked BBC viewers complained after the agony aunt said she would hold a pillow over the face of a child in pain.

Minutes earlier the controversial writer said ‘a loving mother’ would abort an unwanted or disabled baby, and praised abortion as ‘a moral and unselfish act’.

Miss Ironside said: ‘If a baby’s going to be born severely disabled or totally unwanted, surely an abortion is the act of a loving mother.’
She added: ‘If I were the mother of a suffering child – I mean a deeply suffering child – I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face… If it was a child I really loved, who was in agony, I think any good mother would.’

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Virgina Ironside.. would put pillow over baby’s…, posted with vodpod

Thursday 1 March,2012 interview on Radio Rhema’s Pat Brittenden Mornings.
Francesca Minerva, from Melbourne University, talks about the controversy surrounding the said, ‘after-birth abortions’. She elaborates on the logic behind the theories existing that argue ‘how old is too old’ for an abortion, and the reasons why an after-birth abortion would be logical, or even worth arguing, in her view.

Her report entitled After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
Alberto Giubilini1 and Francesca Minerva( FULL TEXT here)

INTRODUCTION: Severe abnormalities of the fetus and risks for the physical and/or psychological health of the woman are often cited as valid reasons for abortion. Sometimes the two reasons are connected, such as when a woman claims that a disabled child would represent a risk to her mental health. However, having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children,1 regardless of the condition of the fetus. This could happen in the case of a woman who loses her partner after she finds out that she is pregnant and therefore feels she will not be able to take care of the possible child by herself. A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, 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.

In Fact- An Abortionist has done just that – In Pennsylvania- Abortionist Kermit Gosnell was arrested for doing After Birth Abortions- delivering the babies and SNIPPING their Spinal Cords to cause their deaths !!!
Read the full GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION REPORT here

Eugenics Professor Peter Singer : Allow Infant Euthanasia ? Just kill them humanely

Taking Life: Humans
BY: Peter Singer
Excerpted from Practical Ethics, 2nd edition, Cambridge, 1993, pp. 175-217

I do not deny that if one accepts abortion on the grounds provided in Chapter 6, the case for killing other human beings, in certain circumstances, is strong. As I shall try to show in this chapter, however, this is not something to be regarded with horror, and the use of the Nazi analogy is utterly misleading. On the contrary, once we abandon those doctrines about the sanctity of human life that – as we saw in Chapter 4 – collapse as soon as they are questioned, it is the refusal to accept killing that, in some cases, is horrific.
‘Euthanasia’ means, according to the dictionary, ‘a gentle and easy death’, but it is now used to refer to the killing of those who are incurably ill and in great pain or distress, for the sake of those killed, and in order to spare them further suffering or distress. This is the main topic of this chapter. I shall also consider, however, some cases in which, though killing is not contrary to the wishes of the human who is killed, it is also not carried out specifically for the sake of that being. As we shall see, some cases involving newborn infants fall into this category. Such cases may not be ‘euthanasia’ within the strict meaning of the term, but they can usefully be included within the same general discussion, as long as we are clear about the relevant differences.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Eugenics Professor Peter Singer : Allow Infant …, posted with vodpod

In the 1970s, as the leading theoretician of animal rights, Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Philosophy coined the term “speciesism” for anyone so narrow-minded as to, “allow the interest of his species to override the greater interest of members of other species“. Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being’s ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in the ability to plan and anticipate one’s future. Since the unborn, infants, and severely disabled people lack the ability to plan and anticipate their future, he states that abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia can be justified in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents.

In a question posed to Singer, it was asked:
If you had to save either a human being or a mouse from a fire, with no time to save them both, wouldn’t you save the human being?”

Singer’s answer, ” Yes, in almost all cases I would save the human being. But not because the human being is human, that is, a member of the species Homo sapiens. Species membership alone isn’t morally significant, but equal consideration for similar interests allows different consideration for different interests. The qualities that are ethically significant are, firstly, a capacity to experience something — that is, a capacity to feel pain, or to have any kind of feelings. That’s really basic, and it’s something that a mouse shares with us. But when it comes to a question of taking life, or allowing life to end, it matters whether a being is the kind of being who can see that he or she actually has a life — that is, can see that he or she is the same being who exists now, who existed in the past, and who will exist in the future. Such a being has more to lose than a being incapable of understand this. Any normal human being past infancy will have such a sense of existing over time. I’m not sure that mice do, and if they do, their time frame is probably much more limited. So normally, the death of a human being is a greater loss to the human than the death of a mouse is to the mouse – for the human, it cuts off plans for the distant future, for example, but not in the case of the mouse. And we can add to that the greater extent of grief and distress that, in most cases, the family of the human being will experience, as compared with the family of the mouse (although we should not forget that animals, especially mammals and birds, can have close ties to their offspring and mates). That’s why, in general, it would be right to save the human, and not the mouse, from the burning building, if one could not save both. But this depends on the qualities and characteristics that the human being has. If, for example, the human being had suffered brain damage so severe as to be in an irreversible state of unconsciousness, then it might not be better to save the human

Singer states here that, ” The difference between killing disabled and normal infants lies not in any supposed right to life that the latter has and the former lacks, but in other considerations about killing. Most obviously there is the difference that often exists in the attitudes of the parents. The birth of a child is usually a happy event for the parents. They have, nowadays, often planned for the child. The mother has carried it for nine months. From birth, a natural affection begins to bind the parents to it. So one important reason why it is normally a terrible thing to kill an infant is the effect the killing will have on its parents.

It is different when the infant is born with a serious disability. Birth abnormalities vary, of course. Some are trivial and have little effect on the child or its parents; but others turn the normally joyful event of birth into a threat to the happiness of the parents, and any other children they may have.

Parents may, with good reason, regret that a disabled child was ever born. In that event the effect that the death of the child will have on its parents can be a reason for, rather than against killing it.

When asked the question: Would you kill a disabled baby?

Singer Replied, “Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion. One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that, from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the fetus and the newborn baby.

EUGENICS IN THE USA?

In the 1970’s President Obama’s Science Czar, Paul Holdren, published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich. Holdren stated officially that one of his mentors was a Professor he had by the name of Paul Harrison.

Paul Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar praised his mentor, Harrison Brown, who wrote the book: The Challenge of Man’s Future.

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

In a speech he delivered as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Holdren admitted that he admired Brown and read his book in high school. Holdren also admitted in his speech that he later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech.

Holdren quoted Brown as saying this during that same speech, “It is clear that the future course of history will be determined by the rates at which people breed and die, by the rapidity with which nonrenewable resources are consumed, by the extent and speed with which agricultural production can be improved, by the rate at which the under-developed areas can industrialize, by the rapidity with which we are able to develop new resources, as well as by the extent to which we succeed in avoiding future wars. All of these factors are interlocked.

Holdren asked this question in an article authored by him, which was published in a book entitled, No Growth Society,

Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue?” He stated clearly that in the 1970’s the US had already exceeded its “optimum population size of 210 million” (pg. 41) and concluded that , ” it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative…“

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

What is also interesting is that I obtained a copy of Harrison Brown’s book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, the one our Science Czar holds up as so important, and discovered this Nazi style statement by Brown on page 87 . ” In the absence of restraint abortion, sterilization, coitus interruptus, or artificial fertility control, the resultant high birth rate would have to be matched at equilibrium by an equally high death rate. A major contribution to the high death rate could be infanticide, as has been the situation in cultures of the past. ”

With Professors like Singer, Harrison and others teaching our kids at major Universities – do you really believe that National Health Care will not go down the slippery slope to Death Panels and Euthanasia? Just Sayn !

Former Labor Secretary and Obama adviser Robert Reich speaking at UC Berkeley on Sept. 26, 2007

“Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I’m so glad to see you, and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health-care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. [laughter] That’s true, and what I’m going to do is I am going to try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people. But that means you–particularly you young people, particularly you young, healthy people–you’re going to have to pay more. [applause] Thank you.

And by the way, we are going to have to–if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive, so we’re going to let you die. [applause]

“Also, I’m going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid–we already have a lot of bargaining leverage–to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. But that means less innovation, and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market, which means you are probably not going to live that much longer than your parents. [applause] Thank you.”

Are these the people we want in charge of our health care?

For more on Eugenics and how it is used to exterminate entire people groups today go here: http://www.maafa21.com

Note the documentation to “Sterilants in the Water Supply”

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Also Read: Death Panels? Is it possible?

READ MORE HERE: Death Panels, Eugenics, Rationing, Quality adjusted life ? what does Uncle Sam think your Life Value is?

Aborting newborns? Pro-abortion ethicist Francesca Minerva defends her position on Infanticide

Posted in Infanticide with tags , , , , , , on March 2, 2012 by saynsumthn

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Aborting newborns? Pro-abortion ethicist France…, posted with vodpod

ALSO READ: Peter Singer decade of controversy: Infanticide and Death Panels?

‘Baby Joseph’ to Undergo Surgery for Portable Breathing Tube at U.S. Hospital – FoxNews.com

Posted in Death Panels, Infanticide with tags , , , , , , , on March 16, 2011 by saynsumthn

Vodpod videos no longer available.

‘Baby Joseph’ to Undergo Surgery for Portable B…, posted with vodpod

More on Story here

Woman kills several newborns , hides them in her home

Posted in child abuse, Infanticide, Outrage with tags , , , , , , , on October 27, 2010 by saynsumthn

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Woman kills several newborns , hides them in he…, posted with vodpod

A married woman who conceived several children with a lover killed at least four of her babies and hid them in cool boxes or buried in concrete in her home, it is claimed.

10/26/2010 SKY NEWS

Michele Kalina, 44, from Pennsylvania, hid at least six pregnancies from her husband and her boyfriend, according to officials who have charged her with murder.
DNA tests show bones found in a locked cupboard came from five babies – at least four of them were born alive.

The boyfriend fathered three and possibly four of them. Tests on a fifth baby were inconclusive, a US court heard.

Kalina also bore a daughter from the same affair in 2003 but gave the baby up for adoption.

She and her husband Jeffrey have a 19-year-old daughter and had a 13-year-old son with cerebral palsy, who died in 2003.

The husband and daughter found the remains this summer in several cool boxes, one of which was filled with cement.

Kalina is said to have hid her pregnancies

Police said at least four of the babies were probably killed by asphyxia, poisoning or neglect.

“I’m very confident we have all the babies,” District Attorney John T Adams told a news conference.

She is said to have told authorities she had been pregnant only twice, with her son and daughter, and had never had a stillbirth.

Jeffrey Kalina had suspected at least once that his wife was pregnant, police said.

The boyfriend, who has not been identified, said he did not know either.

But he said he noticed her abdomen growing after they began dating in 1996.

Kalina apparently told him she had cysts on her fallopian tubes that she had drained at a hospital.

The “cysts” returned several times over the years, according to the boyfriend.

Kalina is in custody, charged with criminal homicide, aggravated assault and related charges.

A preliminary hearing is scheduled for this week.