Aug 24, 2012

New Medical Ethics: Designer Genes For Your Baby, and ‘after-birth’ Abortions

Nicholas West
Activist Post
I can’t escape the incredible irony that humanity is descending into a new Dark Age even as we technologically advance at the most rapid rate in the history of our species.

However, we have apparently permitted a technocratic elite without a shred of morality and a warped sense of ethics to dictate our evolution … once again.

A Telegraph article entitled, “Genetically engineering ‘ethical’ babies is a moral obligation, says Oxford professor” cites the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Julian Savulescu, as advocating the arrival of genetic cleansing for those who might have a propensity toward “personality flaws.” And, furthermore, that this cleansing is a sign of good parenting and a strong concern for society.

Now, I’m sorry to issue an ad hominem attack right out of the gate, but since Savulescu introduces the subject of genetic evaluation, this guy’s family tree goes back to Romania (perhaps central – think Transylvania) – home to such distinguished rulers as Vlad the Impaler, Vlad’s descendant Prince Charles, and power-mad collectivist, Nicolae Ceau?escu. I’m not saying there is a direct genetic connection between this esteemed academic and brutal psychopaths, but perhaps we should encourage Savulescu to study himself first and foremost … just to be sure.

Anyway, we often like to say in the alternative media, “You can’t make this stuff up.” Well, someone has, and they are intruding upon our otherwise potentially sane reality.

The Journal of Medical Ethics has now set itself head and shoulders above the rest as the most Orwellian-named collective of openly bragging social engineers to which the medical profession has thusly given voice.

The first outlandish story that emerged was immediately lambasted even by some readers of alternative media for being a hoax, until it was fully documented to have come from the Journal’s own website: “after-birth abortions” up until the age of three. Because, after all, infants aren’t people, so experts must be right to pose the question, ‘Why should the baby live?’
Study authors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, both from the University of Melbourne, state in their paper that ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.’ They go on to say that while it is infanticide, they prefer not to call it that. Instead, they prefer the term ‘after-birth abortion’ — a term that avoids the true labeling of the proposed technique.
Authors of the paper write that simply being a human isn’t something that grants ‘a right to life’. It appears the paper authors believe that they are the ones who are to determine whether or not a human can live or die. Under this train of thought, then these ‘after-birth’ abortions are not limited to infants. (Source)
This line of thinking is echoed by Savulescu, who uses the inherent concern of parents to offer their children the best of what life has to offer as a reason for them to pre-determine what type of life has value, and which does not.
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. (Reader’s Digest)
Notice that the persuasive argument of parental choice quickly morphs into the “what is good for you is good for society” argument. By conflating the two, it conveniently opens up the door for collectivized state control of life itself.
It is also concerning that these comments were made to Reader’s Digest, which seems like a clear propaganda campaign to popularize the concept of “rational design,” as opposed to presenting it for peer-review in less widely read scholarly medical journals – even his own.

If the black-and-white deterministic view that a rational need to eradicate the potential to harm oneself or others based on countless variables sounds logical to you, then please consider where this type of thinking has invariably led: extermination by dictators. In other words, the ones doing the rationalizing are also very important in this equation.
So, just a quick quote from another self-proclaimed ethicist only concerned with the well being of society and for doing a service to those who might have a difficult life ahead of them:
He who is bodily and mentally not sound and deserving may not perpetuate this misfortune in the bodies of his children. The people’s state has to perform the most gigantic rearing-task here. One day, however, it will appear as a deed greater than the most victorious wars of our present bourgeois era. – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1924)
This philosophy which led to the estimated deaths of 350,000 Germans (including a few doctors/executioners hanged later at Nuremberg) is now believed to have been a precursor to the even more indiscriminate killing to follow, as indicated by this brief summary of the “T4 program” signed by Hitler in October of 1939 as a “mercy killing” of the sick and disabled.
Code named Aktion T 4, the Nazi euthanasia program to eliminate ‘life unworthy of life’ at first focused on newborns and very young children. Midwives and doctors were required to register children up to age three who showed symptoms of mental retardation, physical deformity, or other symptoms included on a questionnaire from the Reich Health Ministry. (emphasis added)
A decision on whether to allow the child to live was then made by three medical experts solely on the basis of the questionnaire, without any examination and without reading any medical records.
Each expert placed a + mark in red pencil or – mark in blue pencil under the term ‘treatment’ on a special form. A red plus mark meant a decision to kill the child. A blue minus sign meant a decision against killing. Three plus symbols resulted in a euthanasia warrant being issued and the transfer of the child to a ‘Children’s Specialty Department’ for death by injection or gradual starvation….
The Nazi euthanasia program quickly expanded to include older disabled children and adults. Hitler’s decree of October, 1939, typed on his personal stationary, enlarged ‘the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death.’ (Source)
Of course, any involuntary form of euthanasia should more properly be called eugenics, which is invariably where this mental disorder of reasoning leads — that reasoning being that in order to value some humans, you must extinguish others.

The above historical example is not to highlight one single worst villain, but to demonstrate a worldview which keeps cropping up again and again within the halls of government-endorsed medicine and science.

In fact, eugenics has a long history established in America well before Hitler’s arrival … and apparently continues long after his death.
As noted in a piece of criticism linking some of the current euthanasia policies of the Netherlands with those that began in Nazi Germany and later morphed into open eugenics, Wesley J. Smith highlights:
It is important to note that throughout the years in which euthanasia was performed in Germany, whether as part of the officially sanctioned government program or otherwise, the government did not force doctors to kill. Participating doctors had become true believers, convinced they were performing a valuable medical service for their ‘patients’ and their country. (Source)
It is for this reason alone that if we must have such genetic testing done for the sake of saving humanity, or ensuring the greatest safety and happiness for all, then only with proper logic can it be argued that we have a “moral obligation” to start with the leaders of governments worldwide, and their minions in academia and science who through their justifications make democide that much more efficient for singular psychopathic leaders to carry out.
However, I’d much rather embrace technological advancement in a way that increases the options for self-determination, rather than breed a perpetual zombie race with happy smiles on their genetically designed faces and not a critical thought within their sterilized minds. Even if occasionally a Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot shows up, along with their enablers. Because with that same dangerous natural freedom, so too can minds of great wonder and peaceful intentions develop and hopefully offer an opportunity for sustained enlightenment of the human race.

Perhaps we should then focus more on revisiting history, where such heavenly ideas as designing the perfect human have only led us to hell; and seeing current parallels, learn to throw these ideas in the trash upon first sight.

Based on the poll numbers within the Telegraph report about Savulescu’s statements, wherein 80% of readers disagree with his argument, humanity shows at least some indication of learning from its past blind faith, and perhaps still has enough time to further increase its resistance against the virus of social engineers and their designer babies.