Very Late Term Abortions Have Been Suggested for Bioethicists Minerva and Giubilini

A bit of a media uproar was generated by Alberto Giubilini Francesca Minerva who were published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. These two were former associates of the Journal’s Editor, Julian Savulescu, who seems a bit disturbed by the backlash. It seems that some people have written to these two large masses of unproductive tissue that they might be eligible for very late term abortions.

While your friendly  Pharmer  desires to avoid killing any humans, she is not surprised that the same slippery slope of habitual and gratuitous killing that is now justifying infanticide, would be extended a little further to include bioethicists. After all, that group certainly has less  claim than infants do in the area of productivity and value to society.  While newborns don’t do too much, they  seem to bring a sense of hope and joy  to many casual observers.  The same is not true for these bioethicists.

Journal editor defends pro-infanticide piece: Killing newborns is already legal in Holland |

Learn about the Groningen Protocol, a standard which determines which newborn babies may be killed in the Netherlands.

Pro-life people have known about the infanticide occurring in America and throughout the world for many years, but it seems that the rest of people are still in shock from the pronouncements by two Australian “bioethicists” that this is OK, based on considering it as an extension of abortion.
The authors after getting so many “love letters” about their publication, have explained that they “join disability activists who condemn the routine recommendation of abortion for no other reason than to prevent the death of an affected baby.”
They see waiting until birth as a better alternative, because there is less chance of a false diagnosis of anomalies and a better assessment can be made of a newborn.
Journal of Medical Ethics editor, Julian Savulescu, who has also argued against waiting until patients are dead before organ harvesting, has taken time out to defend the pro-infanticide article, saying essentially that it is nothing new.
What’s new is that the general public is uncomfortable with killing a baby who is visible.