Australian Bill Allows for Sterilizations Without Parental Consent

by Anthony Gucciardi
Natural Society
March 6, 2012

Following the call by ethicists for after-birth abortions and the press explosion surrounding the ‘Euthanasia Coaster‘, new legislation from Australia is now paving the way for children of any age to consent to sterilization — without parental consent. That’s right, if a psychiatrist determines that a child under the age of 18 years is ‘sufficiently mature’, they will be sterilized without any say from the parents. Again, there is no age minimum, as long as they are ‘mature‘ enough.

The legislation, known as the ‘Draft Mental Health Bill 2011′, also allows for 12-year-olds to consent to psychosurgery and electroshock. You can view the bill for yourself on the Australian Mental Health government website. Written by the Western Australia Mental Health Commission (MHC) and overseen by Mental Health Commissioner and clinical psychologist Mr Eddie Bartnik, objections can still be submitted to Australian parliamentary members in each state until March 9th.

Some main points of the bill read:

Action will need to be taken to make sure the bill does not pass. Objections can be sent to the Mental Health Commission and to Australian state legislators. Feedback options come to a close on the 9th of March at 5pm, so it is important to voice your opposition today. Here are a few ways to contact the Mental Health Commission and state your objection to the bill:
  • Mail: GPO Box X2299 Perth Business Centre, W.A. 6847

Why should new-born babies live? They shouldn’t, Ethicists say

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
February 29, 2012

“An ethicist is one whose judgment on ethics and ethical codes has come to be trusted by a specific community, and (importantly) is expressed in some way that makes it possible for others to mimic or approximate that judgement. Following the advice of ethicists is one means of acquiring knowledge.”

The impossibility to save all babies that are born into this world is not an uncommon situation. The decision to save a mother and not the baby during a birth or vice-versa isn’t new either. What is new is questioning if it is OK to kill a baby even though it was born perfectly healthy. Some ethicists today are even omitting the question itself and advancing the idea that after-birth abortion should be seriously considered. But for what purposes? In a recent paper published in the Journal for Medical Ethics, ethicists explain that ‘after-birth abortion’ or killing a newborn should be allowed under all circumstances where abortion is, and those situations include the ones where a baby IS NOT disabled. In other words, the authors of this paper are openly advocating eugenics under the premise that neither a fetus not a new-born have the moral status of an actual person.

The paper, written by Dr. Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; had the support of Alberto Giubilini. Mr. Giubilini is affiliated to the Department of Philosophy and the University of Milan, Milan, Italy, the Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, while Ms. Minerva is affiliated to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia and the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.

In what kind of drugs does anyone have to be to advocate for the murder of unborn or born children. Only an arrogant, disarranged and ethically compromised group of people who follow a eugenics way of thinking could push for such a policy. The authors claim that even when a fetus or a baby is healthy, becoming a mother can be a psychological burden for a woman and therefore murdering babies should be considered as an option to alleviate that burden. THey also argue that if it’s not the mother who is mentally out of balance, perhaps it is her existing children the ones who will be mentally affected by the arrival of the new-born. “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,” say the authors.

Amazingly, the paper makes a case that it should be an even more common practice to abort fetuses just because there is a suspicion of a genetic defect, which according to them can be detected through medical tests. However, since some tests are not good enough to detect certain complications originated from inherited genes or genetic mutations, fetus abortion or new-born abortions should also be considered as a preventive step to avoid the arrival of unwanted human beings. “…genetic prenatal tests for TCS are usually taken only if there is a family history of the disease. Sometimes, though, the disease is caused by a gene
mutation that intervenes in the gametes of a healthy member of the couple. Moreover, tests for TCS are quite expensive and it takes several weeks to get the result. However, such rare and severe pathologies are not the only ones that are likely to remain undetected until delivery; even more common congenital diseases that women are usually tested for could fail to be detected,” reads the paper.

These two people seem to believe that a philosopher or a group of them has the moral, medical or academic authority to determine what the future of a baby should look like, as they cite that “philosophers” have proposed euthanasia as an alternative in the past, and therefore it is nothing new to kill a baby, even if it is perfectly healthy. “It might be maintained that ‘even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of Down’s syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child,” they assert. This kind of thinking was typical during the Nazi holocaust where in addition to Jews, Armenians and other ethnic groups, the sick, the old and the handicapped were murdered for the sake of purifying the race. Their eugenicist assessment continues: “…to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

Minerva and Giubilini summarize their mindset by stating that the unconfirmed potential of any fetus to become a person who has less that a perfect life, is an opportunity to justify abortion, or after-birth abortion in the case of babies who were permitted to live. “the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible,” they say. Then they propose that instead of calling a child’s murder by its name — infanticide –, it should be toned down by calling it after-birth abortion, a term that can be easily related to since large portions of the society are accustomed to hearing about abortion as a consideration when there are medical emergencies or when a mother or a doctor decide it is the best option. For the authors, infanticide or euthanasia are not such when the interests of the unborn baby or those of the family call for the murder of that same human being.

Shockingly, both Minerva and Giubilini take the moral ground when advocating for infanticide. They consider that since neither a fetus not a new-born have the MORAL standing of a PERSON, it is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing his or her birth or from preventing the development or the potential of this being to become a fully developed PERSON in the moral sense. According to their analysis, neither a fetus nor a new-born have the right to live because they lack the properties that allow for that right to exist. “… neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.” They go on to echo a talking point that well-known eugenicists as well as modern philanthropists and members of the medical establishment commonly use to impose environmental policies — that humans are animals — and that just as animals, mentally retarded humans, for example, do not have the capacity to value their existence and therefore are not persons. The premise that humans are animals — an ill conceived one since humans are not animals, but mammals; the trait that we share with other animals, is often paraded as a justification to murder the sick, the elderly, the poor and now the babies.

Even the liberal mainstream media have unveiled the agenda behind a not so secret aspect of modern eugenics campaign. Click the image to read the article.

“Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.” Then they try to swindle the reader by asserting that the previous description is true for fetuses where abortion is considered or criminals who are punished with death. One question that immediately comes to mind is, What crimes has a fetus or a new-born committed in order for Minerva and Giubilini to compare it to a convicted criminal? The second question is, Aren’t innocent people often convicted of crimes they did not commit and sentenced to death anyway? A third questions is, do abortion practices as they are today in any way moral, just because they are permitted or widely accepted? Reading further into their paper makes me think that these two medical academics are not completely sane by pushing the ideas they a support in their published paper. Perhaps another incredible fact is that the Journal for Medical Ethics gives legitimacy to claims like ones in the paper that seek to appease the people regarding the murder of other human beings. It is like when the United States government decided to baptize the murder of Libyans by calling its attack on that country as Kinetic Action, instead of plain out mass murder through military action.

The authors completely omit the fact that although they are unable to express it verbally, fetuses and new-borns do feel pain and that the current practices used to perform infanticide do inflict pain on those living beings. Instead, they claim that pain can only be measured by the limitation that a PERSON is submitted to, which prevents him or her to accomplish his or her aims, and that since fetuses and new-borns are not  PERSONS, there is no pain inflicted when they are murdered. “hardly can a newborn be said to have aims, as the future we imagine for it is merely a projection of our minds on its potential lives,” the authors say. Here again, Minerva and Giubilini agree that the plans and lives of those who are already alive, such as siblings and parents of the new-born are more important than letting a perfectly healthy new-born live. They stress that given the potential for their lives — that of the parents and siblings — to be negatively or even positively affected by the birth of a child, those parents and siblings should resource to infanticide to end with the inexistant potential consequences that only their minds — Minerva’s and Giubilini’s — are capable of guessing ahead of time.

While reading their paper, I realize that Minerva’s and Giubilini’s train of thought is ill conceived for at least three reasons. First, they believe, although it is not properly supported in the paper, that there are moral or other justifications to kill a fetus or a new-born. Second, they equal a fetus to a new-born. Third, they believe that neither a fetus nor a new-born are PERSONS because of commonly accepted conventions that say so, instead of writing their analysis based on comparisons on the presence of biological functions, for example, which all fetuses, new-borns and PERSONS share. This is a typical case of nitpicking whatever works out to get a point across and to publish a paper that advocates for the murder of innocent beings that in their view are not human or PERSONS.

What good could it come from a medical establishment that believes that humans can be equaled to animals, or that a new-born is not a PERSON and that therefore it should be permissible to murder it? How can we trust our lives into the hands of human haters who advocate infanticide, and in other situations euthanasia or even mass murder just because their conventions dictate that handicapped or mentally retarded people do not have a life worth living? Who are they to determine what a life is worth and whose life should be preserved and who are candidates for murder?


Will you continue to trust ethicists blindly?

Ted Turner’s Call for a One Child Policy

Techniques to achieve population reduction include massive sterilization through vaccines, infanticide, and mandatory brutal pre-natal controls in exchange for government aid.

Paul Joseph Watson

CNN founder and population reduction advocate, Ted Turner

Just months after a leaked UN blueprint that revealed climate change alarmists would start pushing “overpopulation” fears in favor of the discredited mantra of global warming as a means of dismantling the middle class, billionaire globalist Ted Turner followed suit during a Cancun luncheon yesterday when he urged the world to adopt China’s brutal one-child policy, and even suggested poor people should be sterilized in return for government handouts.

Following a speech by economist Brian O’Neill from the U.S.’s National Center for Atmospheric Research which “concluded that a rapidly rising global population is contributing to an acceleration of emission growth,” Uncle Ted stepped in to remind us that mere slaves should not aspire to follow his example of having five children, restricting themselves to one or being made to face the wrath of a Chinese-style one child policy, which sends women who defy its edicts to “re-education camps,” once they have been beaten, forcibly injected and had their baby boiled alive inside their womb of course.

“Mr. Turner – a long-time advocate of population control – said the environmental stress on the Earth requires radical solutions, suggesting countries should follow China’s lead in instituting a one-child policy to reduce global population over time. He added that fertility rights could be sold so that poor people could profit from their decision not to reproduce,” reports the Globe and Mail.

The secret behind Turner’s call for western nations to enforce a tyrannical policy that in China is administered by undercover police and “family planning” authorities who kidnap, force drug and then forcibly abort babies of pregnant women, has nothing whatsoever to do with his concern for the environment.

Turner himself has five children and owns no less than 2 million acres of land. He is the largest private landowner on the planet, falling short of only the royal families of Europe. Turner has publicly advocated shocking population reduction programs that would cull the human population by a staggering 95%, a figure only achievable by outright genocide, mass abortion and infanticide.

In the third world, Turner has contributed literally billions to population reduction, namely through United Nations programs, leading the way for the likes of Bill & Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet (Gates’ father has long been a leading board member of Planned Parenthood and a top eugenicist). Gates himself has given speeches in which he promotes the use of vaccines and abortion as a means of reducing global population and lowering CO2 emissions.

Quite how an improvement in health care through vaccines that supposedly save lives would lead to a lowering in global population is an oxymoron, unless Gates was referring to vaccines that sterilize people, which is precisely the same method advocated in White House science advisor John P. Holdren’s 1977 textbook Ecoscience, which calls for a dictatorial “planetary regime” to enforce draconian measures of population reduction via all manner of oppressive techniques, including sterilization.

This is what Gates and Turner discussed when they met in secret with the likes of George Soros and David Rockefeller at a private gathering of billionaires in Manhattan last year, a confab focused around how these globalists could use their wealth to “slow the growth of the world’s population.”

As is manifestly probable, the true agenda behind fanning the flames of fears about overpopulation is to reduce living standards globally, by preventing the third world from ever becoming economically prosperous, while also eviscerating the middle classes of western nations. It has nothing whatsoever to do with saving the earth and is merely another convenient trojan horse that globalists invoke to advance their tyranny.

This fact was admitted in a leaked UN blueprint which emerged in September. The document called for alarmists to push “overpopulation” as a replacement for “climate change,” while conceding that the ultimate goal was to “limit and redirect the aspirations for a better life of rising middle classes around the world,” in other words, to convince the masses that they will have to be content with a state of near poverty in order to save the planet from Armageddon. Although Uncle Ted will get to keep his 2 million acres and his five kids will go on to procreate ad infinitum, naturally.


To emphasize, not only do the numbers clearly indicate that overpopulation is a contrived scare, but the scaremongers themselves have been caught admitting that they are fanning the fears in order to reduce living standards in the west and consequently set in motion a “global redistribution of wealth.”

And don’t for a second be fooled into thinking that this so-called “global redistribution of wealth” will manifest some kind of socialist utopia. As was uncovered during the Copenhagen summit, the program of “global redistribution of wealth” largely centers around looting the wealth of the middle classes in richer countries through carbon taxes and then using that money to bankroll the construction of world government. As the leaked “Danish text” revealed, the money generated from consumption taxes will go directly to the World Bank, not to developing countries.

Let me emphasize again, even if you believe the claptrap circulated about overpopulation, the men being empowered to “solve the problem” have stated that their primary goal is to kill 95 per cent of humanity while destroying prosperity and economic freedom in the west, as well as ensuring that the third world remains in mountains of debt to the World Bank and IMF.

This is akin to hiring Ted Bundy to spearhead a program aimed at alleviating an epidemic of physical abuse towards women. It would be like appointing Charlie Manson the leader of a teen summer camp.

Ted Turner is a billionaire industrialist with five kids, 2 million acres of land and a network of business interests that combined must spew more carbon dioxide in a year than all the people reading this article put together in a lifetime could manage. And he is telling you to make sacrifices, to not have children, to sell your reproductive rights and be sterilized, to reduce your living standards, just like Al Gores flaps his gums about rising sea levels caused by global warming while purchasing oceanside property worth millions of dollars.

How much more evidence will it take for people to accept the fact that overpopulation is a myth and that it has been hijacked by global warming alarmists who are now using it as a replacement for the discredited science of man-made climate change in order to build their new world order, which is based entirely around squeezing the middle class and making people more dependent on big government, thereby becoming the architects of their own enslavement and being forced to crawl cap-in-hand to the likes of Uncle Ted and beg for a dime.