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 Ceauşescu. 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 Orewellian-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.

Read Full Article

Follow us: