Tag Archives: Journal of Medical Ethics
290312baby

The Shocking Face Of China’s Brutal One Child Policy

March 30, 2012 by WRC559 3 Comments

Can’t happen here? Top academics and eugenicists are calling for what Obama’s science czar once advocated

Paul Joseph Watson
Pressforactivism.com
Thursday, March 29, 2012

This is the shocking face of China’s brutal one child policy which many academics and pressure groups are now calling to be imposed in the west – the image shows a 9 month old baby lying dead in a bucket, forcibly aborted by Chinese family planning authorities in the town of Moshan, Shandong province.


Because the parents of the baby already had a child, they were hunted down and forced to comply with China’s draconian one child policy. The mother was injected with a poison that induced an abortion, but after the baby was “pulled out inhumanly like a piece of meat,” it was still alive and began to cry before doctors slung the defenseless child into a bucket and left it to die.

The time stamp on the image tells us the baby was killed on Monday. The image began circulating today on Weibo, China’s version of Twitter, which has around 260 million members. The story has attracted widespread revulsion directed against the family planning authorities responsible for the murder of the baby.

China’s one child policy is enforced by way of forced abortions, infanticide and compulsory sterilization. In many cases, women are literally kidnapped off the street by state goons from the “Birth Control Office,” driven to government hospitals, drugged, and their child is forcibly aborted.

In one case in 2009, both a young woman and her baby were killed after such an abduction in Liaocheng City.

“According to a Doctor at the hospital where the two died, the young woman was kidnapped by the “Birth Control Office” and taken to the hospital where she was forced to undergo an abortion procedure,” reported the Epoch Times.

“The young woman fought with staff to protect her unborn child however a half a dozen men, pushed her down on a bed and injected her with a drug to induce labor. After the young woman had a still birth, she developed a massive hemorrhage and soon thereafter died.”

The practice of infanticide has its origins in barbaric eras of ancient history, but it is still common is many areas of the world today, including China where the one child policy allied with the social pressure to have boys has resulted in a massive imbalance in the population. Studies have found that 40 million girls are ‘missing’ in China as a result of gender-selective abortion and infanticide. In India, there are 50 million less females for the same reasons.

Advocates of population control, which is nothing more than a disguise for modern day eugenics, have long pressured for the one child policy to be enforced in the west. In 2009, an article written in Canada’s National Post argued for “A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate.”

In his 1977 book Ecoscience, current White House science czar John P. Holdren floated the idea of forced abortions and compulsory sterilization, amongst a raft of other draconian population control measures, all of which would be carried out by a “Planetary Regime”.

During a speech at Sichuan University last year, Vice President Joe Biden told an audience that he “fully understands” China’s one child policy.

News network CNN, in addition to billionaire Ted Turner and other elitists, along with a whole host of pressure groups committed to pushing for population control, have all advocated the one child policy.

As we reported last month, a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics authored by top academics at the University of Melbourne argued that abortion should be extended to make the killing of newborn babies permissible, even if the baby is perfectly healthy.

The authors argued that “both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons,” and that because abortion is allowed even when there is no problem with the fetus’ health, “killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

The scintilla of hope that we can take from this distressing story is the fact that this baby’s precious few minutes of life before it was murdered were not in vain and in fact could end up meaning more than most people who live to old age. Why? Because as a result of seeing this one image, scores of couples around the world could decide against having an abortion, saving many more babies’ lives in the long run.

The image also serves as a damning condemnation of China’s arcane one child policy, as well as a warning that calls to impose similar population control measures in the west should be forcefully discredited, resisted and rejected at every turn.

English-language exclusive. Translate The Page Click Here

Related articles
About these ads
NEWS
, , , , , , ,
meds-small-for-web

Bioethics Professor: Drug The Population Into Accepting ‘Green World Order’

March 14, 2012 by WRC559 2 Comments

“Pharmacological enhancement of empathy and altruism” needed to address climate change

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Tuesday, March 13, 2012

A new paper to be published in Ethics, Policy & Environment argues that serious consideration should be given to mass drugging the population to make them more environmentally conscious while also proposing that babies should be genetically engineered to be smaller in order to reduce their carbon footprints.

In an interview with The Atlantic the lead author of the paper, New York University bioethics professor S. Matthew Liao, argues that humans need to be be subjected to “biomedical modifications” in order to help combat climate change.

Followed to their logical conclusion, Liao’s proposals outstrip anything Aldous Huxley wrote about in Brave New World, a 1932 dystopian novel about a future scientific dictatorship that seeks to drug, genetically manipulate, and medically induce humanity into complete slavish subservience.

Expressing regret that carbon taxes will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions, Liao suggests other methods, including “pharmacologically induced meat intolerance” where people would take drugs which would trigger extreme nausea or wear patches that would “stimulate the immune system to reject common bovine proteins.”

In order to reduce an individual’s “carbon footprint” and make sure they consume less, Liao suggests that a policy similar but more flexible to China’s one child policy be introduced, where parents can choose between having one large child, two medium sized children or three small children.

This would be accomplished by “preimplantation genetic diagnosis,” where embryos would be implanted based on height, or by using “drugs that reduce or increase the expression of paternal or maternal genes in order to affect birth height.”

Asked if genetic manipulation of babies is ethical or fair, Liao responds by citing the need to address “climate change” as the more pressing moral concern.

Liao subsequently suggests that drugging the public could positively influence their “will” to donate money to charities like Oxfam, which support the global warming agenda, by means of “pharmacological enhancement of empathy and altruism”.

“For example, I might know that I ought to send a check to Oxfam, but because of a weakness of will I might never write that check. But if we increase my empathetic capacities with drugs, then maybe I might overcome my weakness of will and write that check,” says Liao.

Of course, by the same token drugs could be used to make someone more inclined to do anything. Depending on what authority is in control, this basically represents an opportunity to chemically castrate free will.

Liao makes it clear at the end of the interview that the pharmaceutical industry is enthusiastic about the potential financial windfall from “biomedical modifications”.

“I recently gave a talk about this paper at Yale and there was a man in the audience who worked for a pharmaceuticals company; he seemed to think there might be a huge market for modifications like this,” he states.

The Atlantic’s Ross Andersen fails to denounce Liao’s ideas for precisely what they represent – the tools of a hardcore scientific dictatorship wrapped in a trendy, liberal, touchy-feely package.

The authors of the paper emphasize that all of this would be “voluntary” and not coercive. However, as we have seen with the vaccine agenda, parents who try to protect their children from dangerous inoculations, or whatever particular medical trend is in vogue, face consequences almost equivalent to if vaccinations were compulsory, since the state and the medical establishment engages in harassment and hands out punishments to the same degree.

Liao’s advocacy for pharmacological “enhancement” of the population is by no means the first time it has been mooted. As far back as 1977, current White House science czar John P. Holdren wrote in his book Ecoscience that the population should be sterilized with infertility drugs to help save the planet.

The usefulness of mass drugging as a means of creating a docile population has also been promulgated through the media, where the idea of putting lithium in the water supply as a “mood stabilizer” has been afforded serious credence. Other prominent professors and psychiatrists have also called for psychotropic drugs to be added to drinking water.

This marks the second time in a matter of weeks that the shockingly non-ethical recommendations of bio-ethicists have made the headlines. The previous controversy centered around a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics which argued that abortion should be extended to make the killing of newborn babies permissible.

HEALTH
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 249 other followers

%d bloggers like this: