De-Humanization Normalized by Medical Community
By: Nick Russo TheAnimatingContest.com February 28, 2017
I do not care what your view is on Abortion. I do not care whether you think it is totally acceptable or if you think it is morally reprehensible. I do not care!
I do care about us as a society honestly discussing the topic of Industrialized Abortion and the sub-industries which it supports to determine IF it is really in the best interest of OUR Nation for OUR government to use OUR tax dollars to financially subsidize this medical procedure. We should also have a honest discussion as to whether the mass industry of abortion has contributed to a Profit Motive which has led to the Promotion of the procedure (especially in certain populations). Where there is a motive for profit there is typically mechanization, industrialization, and the possibility of abuse.
The purpose of this article is to shine a light on a medical procedure which currently:
- Is funded by the government of the United States all over the world (see here): “The 2016 U.S. budget included $607.5 million in funding for reproductive health internationally.”
- Disproportionately is performed on minority populations (see here): “Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions.”
- Contributes to demographic catastrophes or not enough population growth to sustain economic growth (see here): “Russia’s population will most likely decline in the coming decades, perhaps reaching an eventual size in 2100 that’s similar to its 1950 level of around 100 million” “Russia’s abortion rate, estimated at two abortions for every birth, has traditionally been the highest in the world.”
- Supports spin-off industries which encourages baby-organ trading and the industrial use of baby-body parts in all sorts of consumer goods and/or procedures (see here): Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, describing how her organization sells the body parts of aborted unborn children”.. “she huddles with her staff in the morning to go over which body parts are requested by buyers and then comes up with a game plan to harvest those organs from the unborn babies that will be aborted that day”.
Below is an actual video of a negotiation of the sale of baby-body parts. In it prices are discussed and the Planned Parenthood executive states that “she wants a Lamborghini”:
As a society, we have to objectively look at Where our policies, laws, and acceptable norms take us. What are the final outcomes or the end of the road effects of how we govern ourselves.
Now, I believe in a Free Market of Ideas. That means Anything should be allowed to be spoken of and considered. I am not attacking these doctors right to discuss anything they choose in the Journal of Medical Ethics. That is what Freedom looks like.
The purpose here is to examine these ideas, understanding that this prestigious journal is very influential in developing policies on a national and global level, and to bring some common-people sense to the discussion.
Oftentimes, Tyranny begins in the medical arena (see practices used by the Nazi’s and Joseph Mengele ) and uses a medical justification for its abuses. Therefore, proposed medical-ethical guidelines should be examined closely so as to not lead to Tyrannical Abuses such as mass death.
We have reported here extensively on the De-Humanization of Life in general. The process of dehumanization of people continues to persist. Dehumanization leads directly to abuses against humans. After the dehumanization process proceeds for a long enough time, people forget the Value of Life and of Humanity.
Therefore, once dehumanization has been achieved, many previously despised practices are allowed to become Normal due to a lack of recognition of Human Value. Think about the procedure of putting thousands of Jews into a gas chamber and flipping the switch as was done to millions of humans during WWII. These People were not thought of as Human. You must first dehumanize people before you can do them intentional harm.
On this site, we have demonstrated that the main philosophical tenet of the Global Elite whose goal is to construct a global governing system is: There are too many human beings. The Globalist’s believe this human mass is actually harming the Earth and all its systems. The Globalist’s believe Human beings are The Problem. The stated globalist goal is to have less human beings on the planet and to manage this extremely lowered population of human beings inside a Global System of Management (Control).
Please see these previously featured articles regarding the Dehumanization of Life and the Intentional effort to lower global population:
Dehumanization exists in our modern society and is therefore a societal problem. However, when you start to see the government and/or the medical community talking out loud about Killing Human Beings- RED ALERT!
We are entering dangerous territory when legitimate doctors in prestigious journals start seriously considering Killing Human Beings.
Now, let us use excerpts from the article in question to demonstrate that medical doctors associated with the Journal of Medical Ethics are making an argument in favor of Killing Human Beings:
From the Journal of Medical Ethics article titled: After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise 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. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be.
a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.
If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet.–There are two reasons which, taken together, justify this claim:
The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.
It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense.
Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.
Notice the logical rationality and the scientific terminology used in the argument for Killing Human Beings. It is all logically presented and efficient.
Can you imagine the logical laws which can follow such logical reasoning? If the government and/or medical professions can tell us that a new born baby-the universal symbol for Life itself-does not qualify as a Life; then, these institutions can surely dictate which Life is worthy of being Allowed and which is Not.
We have got to start examining the size of our government, what it is actually funding, and what its policies actually Lead to.
We are being taken down a path which leads to less individual freedom, more bureaucratic control over our lives, less prosperity, and less Humanity.
Let’s quit being led down paths. We control our collective Destiny. Let’s start building a new world based on Human Value and Human Systems.