Translate

Wednesday, March 07, 2012

Some call it Genocide!

Australian academics advocate killing unwanted babies

Lets see, its all well and good to silence free speech if you are white and have an opinion. No matter if its scientific or not, anything concerning truth in history, Israel, White Genocide or the color of crime is defined as hate speech and strictly VERBOTEN!

But freedom of speech will protect State owned intellectuals and be used as an excuse to protect "a well reasoned article". Especially if the article is advocating the killing of new born babies or has a Zionist agenda.

Philosophers' claim over moral right to kill newborns sparks outrage

Source.

"KILLING newborns is morally the same as abortion and should be permissible if the mother wishes it, Australian philosophers have argued in an article that has unleashed a firestorm of criticism and forced the British Medical Journal to defend its publication.

Alberto Giubilini, from Monash University, and Francesca Minerva, from the University of Melbourne, say a foetus and a newborn are equivalent in their lack of a sense of their own life and aspiration. They contend this justifies what they call ''after-birth abortion'' as long as it is painless, because the baby is not harmed by missing out on a life it cannot conceptualise."

What did we expect. Its rather funny, sorry disgusting that the same people who invented the Nazi death camps, homicidal gas chambers and the scientific experimentation on living Jews, just so happen to support these so called intellectuals. In fact they all hang together in some unrealistic world that finds them debating about who should be culled from the flock first. Most probably discussing such vexing issues over a glass of Vintage wine.

Source

"the publication of an article in the the prestigious British Medial Journal which seeks to legitimise the killing of "unwanted" newborn babies.

The BMJ has published an article written by two Australian academics titled "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?". The substance of this article found its way to the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald, one of the top news publishers in the country.

The intellectual underpinning of the article appears to be along the lines of the bio-ethics of Princeton University professor Peter Singer. We can illustrate this by comparing quotes from Singer and the authors of the article noted above."

Singer (Biomedical Ethics for Engineers):

"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 that the life of a fetus"

Giubilini et al:

"The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual."

"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’."

In Singer's utilitarian philosophy "person-hood" is only granted via a complex equation that includes vaguely defined notions of "social utility" and the "greater good". For Singer, a disabled child is not necessarily a "person", and should be killed "if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole". How exactly killing a baby could be in the best interests of the baby is a mystery for us all to consider!"

Now I read this article and after shaking my head thinking hell they call me a "Nazi" I thought if I scratch the surface I will find a you know what. Sure as hell didn't take long.

Interesting discussion on Truth News Radio concerning this story. Please listen. Be sure to skip to 30.50 on part two to hear all about Professor Peter Singer. People like Singer in my mind are more dangerous than a loan sniper perched up in a tower, picking his victims off one by one. Looking through his scope deciding on who lives and who dies. These Jews for the greater good like Singer do the exact same thing from their Ivory towers. The only difference being its not individuals they target but societies, anyone group they deem to be inferior to the chosen people.

"Peter Albert David Singer (born 6 July 1946) is an Australian philosopher who is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. He specialises in applied ethics and approaches ethical issues from a secular, preference utilitarian perspective.

Singer's parents were Viennese Jews who emigrated to Australia in 1938 from Vienna after its annexation by Nazi Germany.[2] They settled in Melbourne, where Singer was born. His grandparents were less fortunate: his paternal grandparents were taken by the Nazis to Łódź, and were never heard from again; his maternal grandfather died in the Theresienstadt concentration camp.[3] He has a sister, Joan (now Joan Dwyer). Singer's father imported tea and coffee, while his mother practiced medicine. He attended Preshil[4] and later Scotch College. After leaving school, Singer studied law, history and philosophy at the University of Melbourne, gaining his BA degree (hons) in 1967.[5] He received an MA for a thesis entitled Why should I be moral? in 1969. He was awarded a scholarship to study at the University of Oxford, obtaining a B.Phil in 1971 with a thesis on civil disobedience, supervised by R. M. Hare, and subsequently published as a book in 1973.[6] Singer names Hare and Australian philosopher H. D. McCloskey as his two most important mentors.[7]"

For gods sake don't question this man who just so happens to be "DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University" he lost family in the war and they were JEWS.

He has served, on two occasions, as chair of philosophy at Monash University, where he founded its Centre for Human Bioethics. In 1996, he unsuccessfully stood as a Greens candidate for the Australian Senate. In 2004, he was recognised as the Australian Humanist of the Year by the Council of Australian Humanist Societies. He has been voted one of Australia's ten most influential public intellectuals.[1] Singer serves on the Advisory Board of Incentives for Global Health, the NGO formed to develop the Health Impact Fund proposal.

Outside academic circles, Singer is best known for his book
Animal Liberation, widely regarded as the touchstone of the animal liberation movement. Not all members of the animal liberation movement share this view, and Singer himself has said the media overstates his status. His views on that and other issues in bioethics have attracted attention and a degree of controversy.

After reading the above bio I think we just found out who anarchist @ndy truly is :).

So its protect the animals and kill only the Goy babies? Ethics they say?


No comments: