Archive for Virginia Ironside

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?

Eugenics promoter Virginia Ironside besides suffocating a suffering child “Abortion is an act of a loving mother”

Posted in Abortion, Children, Eugenics, Infanticide with tags , , , , , , , , , on October 7, 2010 by saynsumthn

Outrage as agony aunt tells TV audience ‘I would suffocate a child to end its suffering’
By Vanessa Allen 4th October 2010

Television pundit Virginia Ironside prompted outrage yesterday after saying she would suffocate a child to end its suffering.

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.’

Commentators accused the controversial writer of advocating eugenics, and disability rights campaigners branded her views ‘despicable’.

The mother-of-one and grandmother said it was better to terminate a pregnancy than to condemn a disabled or unwanted child to a lifetime of emotional or physical suffering.
She told BBC1’s religious discussion programme, Sunday Morning Live, that abortion could be an act of kindness in those circumstances.

She said: ‘Abortion can often be seen as something wicked and irresponsible, but in fact it can be a moral and unselfish act… Sometimes the decision of a good mother is not to have the child.’

Programme host Susanna Reid appeared visibly shocked by her comments during the live debate, gasping: ‘That’s a pretty horrifying thing to say, that you would put a pillow over a suffering child.’

The writer said she recognised that disabled people could lead active and fulfilling lives.

But she said there were millions of disabled and unwanted children around the world who were left suffering in institutions.

‘To go ahead and have a baby, knowing that you can’t give it some kind of stable upbringing, seems to me to be cruel,’ she said.

The controversial author and journalist has previously argued that doctors should not fight to save very premature babies.

Her latest comments were made as doctors prepared to lobby for a change in the law to allow people to help the terminally ill to die.
Disability campaigner Clair Lewis accused Miss Ironside of using physical suffering as an excuse for advocating eugenics, through the abortion of disabled children.
She said: ‘The problems that disabled people face will not be fixed by killing off unborn children.’

GP Peter Evans, of the Christian Medical Fellowship, said: ‘For us to make judgments that people are not worth life, not worth the opportunity to live, is a very dangerous thing.’
Viewers left a series of complaints on the programme’s website message board, although some praised the writer’s outspoken comments.

One wrote: ‘How on earth has this woman been able to put such views, care of the BBC, it is despicable? [sic] To put a view of murder on a TV program she should be arrested and charged with encouraging the act of murder on babies.’

Another branded her views ‘disgusting’, adding: ‘How can she suggest that a child’s quality of life can be so bad that they would be better off dead?’

Aborted babies ‘being left to die’ another form of Eugenics

Posted in Abortion, Eugenics, Infanticide, Late term abortion with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on October 7, 2010 by saynsumthn

(AUSTRALIA) The Age , Barney Zwartz
October 7, 2010

BABIES that are surviving late-term abortions at Melbourne’s Royal Women’s Hospital might be being left on shelves to die, according to an Anglican minister
.
Dr Mark Durie, minister of St Mary’s Caulfield, said staff were finding it hard to cope with a reported six-fold increase in late-term abortions at the Women’s since abortion was decriminalised in Victoria two years ago. He said because conscientious objection by medical staff was now illegal, the hospital could employ only people who endorsed late-term abortions.

Dr Durie is bringing a motion about late-term abortion to the annual Anglican synod, which opened in Melbourne last night.

He calls on the state government to answer five questions about late-term abortions:
■ How many are happening, and how late?
■ What are the reasons for the abortions?
■ Are those born alive receiving medical care, or what is their cause of death?
■ What has been the effect on staff morale at the Royal Women’s Hospital?
■ What has been the effect on staff recruitment?

He said in one case – not at the Women’s – a trainee was deeply traumatised when she was told to drop a living foetus in a bucket of formaldehyde.

Dr Durie said even in 2007, 52 babies survived late-term abortions, according to government figures. In some clinics they had simply been put on a shelf and left to die, and the public deserved to know what was happening now.

He said no figures had been officially released since abortion was decriminalised.

”Because of the deep ethical conflict involved, there will be pressure to suppress the reality of what is going on,” he said.

”I’m deeply concerned for the traumatising effect it has on doctors and nurses.”

rest here

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Outrage as agony aunt tells TV audience ‘I would suffocate a child to end its suffering’
By Vanessa Allen 4th October 2010

Television pundit Virginia Ironside prompted outrage yesterday after saying she would suffocate a child to end its suffering.

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.’

Commentators accused the controversial writer of advocating eugenics, and disability rights campaigners branded her views ‘despicable’.

The mother-of-one and grandmother said it was better to terminate a pregnancy than to condemn a disabled or unwanted child to a lifetime of emotional or physical suffering.
She told BBC1’s religious discussion programme, Sunday Morning Live, that abortion could be an act of kindness in those circumstances.

She said: ‘Abortion can often be seen as something wicked and irresponsible, but in fact it can be a moral and unselfish act… Sometimes the decision of a good mother is not to have the child.’

Programme host Susanna Reid appeared visibly shocked by her comments during the live debate, gasping: ‘That’s a pretty horrifying thing to say, that you would put a pillow over a suffering child.’

The writer said she recognised that disabled people could lead active and fulfilling lives.

But she said there were millions of disabled and unwanted children around the world who were left suffering in institutions.

‘To go ahead and have a baby, knowing that you can’t give it some kind of stable upbringing, seems to me to be cruel,’ she said.

The controversial author and journalist has previously argued that doctors should not fight to save very premature babies.

Her latest comments were made as doctors prepared to lobby for a change in the law to allow people to help the terminally ill to die.
Disability campaigner Clair Lewis accused Miss Ironside of using physical suffering as an excuse for advocating eugenics, through the abortion of disabled children.
She said: ‘The problems that disabled people face will not be fixed by killing off unborn children.’

GP Peter Evans, of the Christian Medical Fellowship, said: ‘For us to make judgments that people are not worth life, not worth the opportunity to live, is a very dangerous thing.’
Viewers left a series of complaints on the programme’s website message board, although some praised the writer’s outspoken comments.

One wrote: ‘How on earth has this woman been able to put such views, care of the BBC, it is despicable? [sic] To put a view of murder on a TV program she should be arrested and charged with encouraging the act of murder on babies.’

Another branded her views ‘disgusting’, adding: ‘How can she suggest that a child’s quality of life can be so bad that they would be better off dead?’

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Here is the powerful story of a woman who was “Left to die” after her mother aborted her in the United States:

Author advocates Eugenics on BBC “any good mother would put a pillow over a suffering child”

Posted in Abortion, Eugenics, Infanticide with tags , , , , , , , on October 4, 2010 by saynsumthn

Outrage as agony aunt tells TV audience ‘I would suffocate a child to end its suffering’
By Vanessa Allen 4th October 2010

Television pundit Virginia Ironside prompted outrage yesterday after saying she would suffocate a child to end its suffering.

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.’

Commentators accused the controversial writer of advocating eugenics, and disability rights campaigners branded her views ‘despicable’.

The mother-of-one and grandmother said it was better to terminate a pregnancy than to condemn a disabled or unwanted child to a lifetime of emotional or physical suffering.
She told BBC1’s religious discussion programme, Sunday Morning Live, that abortion could be an act of kindness in those circumstances.

She said: ‘Abortion can often be seen as something wicked and irresponsible, but in fact it can be a moral and unselfish act… Sometimes the decision of a good mother is not to have the child.’

Programme host Susanna Reid appeared visibly shocked by her comments during the live debate, gasping: ‘That’s a pretty horrifying thing to say, that you would put a pillow over a suffering child.’

The writer said she recognised that disabled people could lead active and fulfilling lives.

But she said there were millions of disabled and unwanted children around the world who were left suffering in institutions.

‘To go ahead and have a baby, knowing that you can’t give it some kind of stable upbringing, seems to me to be cruel,’ she said.

The controversial author and journalist has previously argued that doctors should not fight to save very premature babies.

Her latest comments were made as doctors prepared to lobby for a change in the law to allow people to help the terminally ill to die.
Disability campaigner Clair Lewis accused Miss Ironside of using physical suffering as an excuse for advocating eugenics, through the abortion of disabled children.
She said: ‘The problems that disabled people face will not be fixed by killing off unborn children.’

GP Peter Evans, of the Christian Medical Fellowship, said: ‘For us to make judgments that people are not worth life, not worth the opportunity to live, is a very dangerous thing.’
Viewers left a series of complaints on the programme’s website message board, although some praised the writer’s outspoken comments.

One wrote: ‘How on earth has this woman been able to put such views, care of the BBC, it is despicable? [sic] To put a view of murder on a TV program she should be arrested and charged with encouraging the act of murder on babies.’

Another branded her views ‘disgusting’, adding: ‘How can she suggest that a child’s quality of life can be so bad that they would be better off dead?’