When Abortion is not Enough: Women’s Rights Reaches New Low

after-birth-abortion, women's rights/feminism reaches new lowEditor: KILLING newborn babies should be allowed if the mother wishes, Australian philosophers have argued in a prestigious journal, however their whole argument is premised on the notion that mothers ‘own’ children, and this property is theirs solely to decide on matters as important as life or death.

The role, rights and responsibilities of the fathers and other family members is ignored, perhaps denoting that these supposed philosophers are engaging in something other than open-minded scientific debate. Perhaps this discussions has something to do with the growing number of women being persecuted for filicide, the murder of the children, especially at the point of birth. We in Australia are quite familiar we a particularly high profile case of a sports personality who killed her new born child because it was expected to interfere with her sports career.

Perhaps in the well tried fashion of the likes of Jen McIntosh, this publication’s true purpose is to provide legal leverage to such mothers, in order to avoid prison terms for killing new born babies.

Its quite interesting that such leniency does not seem to be extended to the father in this philosophical discussion.


Their argument, that it is morally the same as abortion, has forced the British Medical Journal to defend its publication of their views.

In an article that has sparked outrage around the world and elicited death threats, Monash University’s Alberto Giubilini and the University of Melbourne’s Francesca Minerva say that a foetus and a newborn both lack a sense of life and aspiration.

They argue this justifies “after-birth abortion” on the proviso it is painless as the baby is not missing out on a life it cannot contemplate.

The doctors of philosophy argue in the BMJ publication Journal of Medical Ethics that one-third of infants with Down syndrome are not diagnosed in the womb, which means mothers of children with severe disabilities should have the chance to end a child’s life after, as well as before, birth.

However, the pair also want the principle of killing newborns extended to healthy babies, because a mother who is unwilling to care for it outweighs an infant’s right to life.

In the article, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?, the authors argue: “A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, 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.”

They also write that the practice should be called “after-birth abortion” and not “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a foetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child”.

“We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.”

Although the authors claim that the “moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense”, they concede it is hard to exactly determine when a subject starts or ceases to be a “person”.

… but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands.”

The editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Julian Savulescu, said the article had “elicited personally abusive correspondence to the authors, threatening their lives and personal safety”. He said some of comments included:

“These people are evil. Pure evil. That they feel safe in putting their twisted thoughts into words reveals how far we have fallen as a society.”

“Right now I think these two devils in human skin need to be delivered for immediate execution under their code of ‘after birth abortions’ they want to commit murder – that is all it is! MURDER!!!”

“The fact that the Journal of Medical Ethics published this outrageous and immoral piece of work is even scarier”

“Alberto Giubilini looks like a muslim so I have to agree with him that all muslims should have been aborted. If abortion fails, no life at birth – just like he wants.”

He defended the article, saying the arguments in the paper were not new. “The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide … but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands.”

He said that “more than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.
Read more


If you enjoyed this article, Get email updates (It’s Free)

Other Related Articles:

If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.


  • https://sourced.ecdf.ed.ac.uk/projects/see/xfemm/ticket/27965 says:

    I do not even know how I stopped up right here, however I thought this
    publish was once great. I do not recognize who you’re however certainly you’re going to a well-known blogger in case you aren’t
    already. Cheers!


  • Anthony Priest says:

    Okay I’ve already made my views very clear on here regarding Peter Peterson’s revolting views of the world, so I’ll leave that alone for now.

    It seems this again is a media beat up and misrepresentation. The paper co-written by Dr. Minerva and Dr. Giubilini titled “”After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?”, was part of an debate between academics. One might ask why such a debate was taking place and to theorize that it may be even a suggestion for the future. However we will take it on face value and accept that this was purely an academic debate, albeit a waste of time and a abhorrent subject.

    Read the story at this link:


    It has accomplished a clear indication as to how the Australian public feels regarding this subject. Let’s hope that opinion hold for a long time to come. It has also revealed those who such plans under selective breeding and the eugenics banners, the same ideologies that have been the trade marks of Hitler and other totalitarian regimes.

    Finally could it be possible to have journalists and/or their editors responsible for grossly misleading the public (yes lying) sacked? We expect the same of our politicians.


    Peter Peterson Reply:

    The World runs on lies! Because fools swallow the sh_t that their feed! by the System! And it’s the Media’s job to make sh_t shine for the highest bidder!


    Anthony Priest Reply:

    Which side are you on? How are you now trying to take the moral high ground? You’re advocating murder and have stated you are a eugenicist.

    What point are you trying make now. Are you trying to say that the article wasn’t a purely academic debate or that the academics are lying about it and that they want to implement this? I have no idea of what you are now talking about, do you?


    Peter Peterson Reply:

    It’s not my fault you can’t digest the English language! And I’m not advocating murder! I’m advocating common sense! Fuck! There is a difference! And why do I have to be on any side at all? Anthony! This is a forum for discussion! Not a game to take sides! I think you are Michael Flood, infiltrating the sight again! Or one of his gay mates! lol! My opinion! is my opinion! Don’t like it! Go live on another planet!

  • Anthony Priest says:

    For some reason this thread seems to be not accepting replies properly. But this is directed to Mr Peter Peterson and it will be lengthy.

    Mr Peterson there is no conclusive way to determine whether a embryo or fetus is will run to term and no way of determining if it is genetically “abnormal”. There are only indicators to point to this. In many cases where the parents were advised to abort the baby and the parents refused the baby turns out perfectly normal and healthy.

    Do you think the medical fraternity and the rest of health care professionals have been sitting on their hands for the last hundred years? There are more than enough safe guards in place to help with these matter. If a child is born with problems to such and extent drugs to alleviate suffering are usually a cause of expediting death. There are safe guards to this also, so that no heath worker is able to use this as a loop hole to euthanize (murder) the patient.

    I don’t have to read into your posts much Mr Peterson, to realize they are the same regurgitated vile vomit from thousands of years ago. They are directly from the writings of Plato and Aristotle themselves. What a surprise “philosophers again”. Their overall ideas that man should be subject to a ruling elite (something repeated in the dark ages of feudalism, and seems to be trying to reestablish it’s ugly head in the world again of late). Who advocate the removal of those who can’t contribute enough to the community, of deemed as undesirable and should be therefore removed as to not burden it (murder/eugenics, endorsed by Starlin, Hitler and other aspiring totalitarian dictators).

    So Mr Peterson don’t come on here sprouting your “own opinion” when it clearly isn’t your ideas and star crediting the faulty doctrines of Plato and Aristotle. You claim to have written books (can you quote which one’s?), so you should already know this anyway, otherwise it’s plagiarism.

    My alternate to your vain, faulty and depraved dogma is do absolutely NOTHING! In this case there are more than enough safeguards in place and support for people to live a life that is rewarding and beneficial to themselves and the community that supports them. To have you adjudicate as to who should and who shouldn’t live or to who is deemed as unacceptable would be laughable if it wasn’t so frightening a prospect.

    Regarding licensing for those who may “breed”as you put it. How are you going to do that? If you screen the population based on genetics it is only guess work as to what their offspring will be like. You have absolutely no way of knowing because of the exchange of genetic code between the parents. Maybe socioeconomic criteria? Ban the poor from breeding is it Mr Peterson? How about Creed, Race or Ethnicity then?

    Now to the final point. Where is the babies choice? You don’t even allow for it. You trivialize and devalue human life. You clearly revealed yourself in your posts and the evil eugenic intent.

    Anyone caught sanctioning this should be incarcerated for murder.

    You Mr Peterson are a disgraceful human being.


    Peter Peterson Reply:

    Ha Ha Ha! Obviously you don’t have the mind set! To get your head around the concept of common sense! You should be writing fantasy comics! You would be good that! You could not offend me if your life depended on it! Sunshine!

    So you would do nothing! And keep faith in the system? I rest my case! Ha Ha Ha!!!


    Anthony Priest Reply:

    Mr Peterson, I make it a rule to be polite to people as much as possible even if they are impolite to me. There is a limit however, and you went passed that quite some time ago.

    Contrary to what you said, yes, I am sure I did get to you because it is a logical and totally viable argument something that must seem unfamiliar to you I’m sure. Your endearing “sunshine” reference is also a dead give away that, yes, I “got to you”. It is pleasing to know that something is actually managing to make an impression on you, that you may not be totally impervious to reason.

    You rest your case? You still haven’t responded to my questions or statements. Do just do the childish thing and say “your wrong” then take the topic off course? Is that the extent of your response?

    I repeat, Mr Peterson you are a disgraceful human being.


    Peter Peterson Reply:

    Do I sound like I give a rat’s ass? You know Anthony! Sh_t happens! Because good people do nothing! You have a good day how! Won’t You?

  • Champs says:

    EMILY”S LIST is the group responsable for pushing this in Australia . Check out on the web , if you like .
    These American Feminist fund ALL of the Labor’s Women Electrol
    campaign’s eg. Anna Bligh , Tania Plibisec .
    They are all EMILY’S LISTERS , every man in Aust. should understand that this is how Feminism is pushed in our country and WHY is does , its called “Empowerment to choose ” .
    All Men are becoming more educated in understanding of these group who invade society to undermine our values .


    Peter Peterson Reply:

    Feminism,! (lol) The old mad-cow! Would-be-men! That can’t-be-woman! (lol) Let’s not forget where they came from! America! Land of the never ending wank! I’d love to get my hands on the knob that opened the gate and let the “mad-cow” out of its paddock!
    To infest the World with moron icy. They really are, a sad bunch! Instead of blaming the inadequate gene pool their pathetic asses feel out of! They blame us men! Most of them, that I have dealt with have the personalities of an asshole! Full of you know what! Man haters! Waste of good space in my book! Strengthens my resolve for selective breeding. What say Yee?


    Peter Peterson Reply:

    EMILY” LIST! lol! Just as I expected! Bushpigs-ar-Us! Subconsciously these sad mad-cows, are just so pissed off that their not men. Must be so frustrating for them! So much so, they feel they have to push their frustration on to the rest of the world! I’d like to see them given strapadicktomy kits! So at least they could pretend their men! lol! Funny how a lot of women turn into man hating feminists when they get old and lose the power of the pussy! Instead of trying to develop a palatable personality!


  • john says:

    Why not kill babies, then we can kill old parent people, then we can kill the retarded, then we can kill the mentally ill,why stop there, then we can kill murderers and career criminals, then we can kill all the non Aryans,oops sorry somebody already thought of that, then we can kill rapists, then we etc etc.


    Peter Peterson Reply:

    So exstream there John! I think murderes should be put to death, where their is no dought of the crime! It costs the community $100,000,00 a year to keep one of these low lifes in jail! What a wast of money! Violent crimes should bare violent punishment as well! A tast of their own medicine! Too easy! The law is a joke! A revenue collecting social parisite actualy! Again! in my opinion! I’m not askin anyone to swallow it!


    john Reply:

    Yeah Peter if it wasn’t tongue in cheek you’d have me there buddy, but i reckon “if were killing babies”,and going on that, wed just about be killing anything that could be a burden, if the psychiatrists weren’t making so much $dollar, and pseudo prestige, that they think is real, on their victims, they’d be killing them,And even though they are killing the majority of them,it’s ever so slow. No $dollars in a quick kill there. I know Ive changed the subject matter there a bit, and a bit cheeky at that, but id be loving it if anyone could sign my petition in that regard, http://www.change.org/petitions/mental-health-to-stop-force-drugging?pe=d4e, hope no one minds my pitch in amongst this killing babies story. John


    Peter Peterson Reply:

    I share your frustration! The human race is full of moronic social parisites! and learned idiots that bleed off the system! only for their own benifits! Sad! Isn’t it?

  • Peter Peterson says:

    I personaly feel that only licenced,responsable, and I stress “healthy” hetrosexual couples should be aloud to bread! Put your hand up! If you think we don’t have enough losers in the community! And yes! Deformed and brain impaired babys should be put to sleep! In nature the weak perish, and the stronge servive to breed! IT’S THE LAW OF NATURE. Why breed weak,pathetic, sick human beings? To keep doctors happy! or so we can have a feel good wank-a-thon for the kids! How sad that commercial TV uses these unfortunate Kids to wash it’s dirty lawndry! Shame! So many people these days have dubble standards! Look at all the gross and fat unhealthy losers on welfair, Single mothers that can’t wipe their own asses and bludge of the community! Sad sorry people! Sick women! have sick kids! Time the Human Race had a good look at it’s self! Or don’t we have enough missory in the world?


    Frank Reply:

    Peter P,

    Mankind has never been subject to the laws of nature. Only a fool, a Greenie or a Feminist would believe such a thing.

    Mankind was creaed a much superior being subject only to our creator, with nature at our feet to be treated as we see fit, but to be respected and treated as God intended us to treat it.

    There is no such thing as the Girlie fancy of “Mother Nature”. Another silly kiddie name given to something created and controlled by God.

    Killing “ANY HUMAN BEING” is against the laws of God and therefore is MURDER!

    Killing babies from conception to birth is MURDER!
    Killing deformed babies is MURDER!
    Euthenasia is MURDER!

    It is ONLY the right of God, to decide who lives and who dies.
    We must use medical science to heal and to help, not to kill. If Our Lord decides it is time to call someone home, then that is when they leave us.

    Don’t fall victim to the lies that are peddled by the agents of the culture of death. Abortion, Euthenasia and Homsexuality are all part of the culture of death, and all 3 are peddled by feminists.


    Peter Peterson Reply:

    Like I said! My opnion! You may be able to read! But can you digest what you read? Your right off track here Frank! Are you on druggs? And be carfull who you call a fool! We are all bouned to the laws of nature that God has set in place! Wake up to yourself, God also gave us commonsence to make reasonable decisions in our lives and community we live in. Amen!


    zac Reply:

    You can still legally kill your child in Australia by buying them Macca’s and Coke (already in partnership along with Hungry J’s and Coke, Krud Fried Chicken and Coke) Just make them Coke adicts from the age of three, if you’re a moron.

    Watch ‘Sunday’ on Ch7 tonight to see how the big corporations are assisting DICKHEAD parents to make their children sick and severely shorten their lives.

    Yes… let’s licence people before they’re allowed to procreate.



    zac Reply:

    This show has been postponed to next Sunday Ch7 6-30pm…the fatties have got one more week before the guilt trip.

    Bravo Peter Fitzsimonds…what a great man.. Did you know that Coca Cola is cheaper today, per can (60c bulk buy) than in 1978. Talk about dumping poison!!

    Great for cleaning your teeth ( and engine parts) too..

  • Anthony Priest says:

    Forget about the village this is what got us into this mess in the first place. Parents may not own their children but they should be the first and last place of care and responsibility. So therefore yes parents in a certain respect do own their children. However, this only places more stringent moral and ethical guilds on the parents to protect and nurture their children.

    If this isn’t a fabricated or built up publicity stunt, start naming those who advocate this garbage. They are already accused of condoning murder, simple as that. Philosophy my A*&^. This sounds very much like the inspection of the infant males of Spartans to me, and a good analogy of the mind set of the so called philosophers referred to here.


    Peter Peterson Reply:

    Only if their loving and responsible perants! There’s a lots of idiot perants out there! Makes me wonder if the human race will ever mature up! Put yourself in a twisted, sick, f_cked up body! And see how happy you are! We might have a feel-good-wank-a-thone for you! So we can all feel good about ourselves! as well ! Amen!


    Anthony Priest Reply:

    Have these poor kids know anything else. What they think and feel is only really know to themselves. Who’s going to draw the lines here? Sorry I have no faith in the authorities legislating for me in this respect. They are the same one’s that draw on the “expertise” of the same sociologists and philosophers that suggested this in the first place.

    And how do you legislate for the idiot parents? I see too much of these kinds of justifications now a days. Just go and check out what certain high ranking UN officials are suggesting now. If you reach a certain age you should opt out (die) for the well-being of the planet. Well if that’s what they personally want I can’t stop them, as for myself and family no thanks.

    A continued devaluation of human kind. What a disgrace!

    Murder is murder. No dressing it up any other way to make the guilty feel better for their crime.


    Peter Peterson Reply:

    Sorry Anthony! But in my book! Your reply is hypothetical Brain dead! is brain dead! And that is not quality of life. And I don’t see you putting up an alternative?

    And how do you legislate for the idiot parents? We Anthony! We all have to aply for a licence to keep certain animals! How much more inportant is a human being? I rest my case! Idiot perants make us all look bad!

    Anthony Priest Reply:

    Don’t be sorry peter, but explain as to how my statement (no hypothetical) is brain dead? An while on the subject use some common courtesy when talking to me thank you very much.

    My argument was that who draws the line? At what point are people going to say you live or you die? Please clarify at what point are you going to decide. If the child is brain dead the child is dead and will die if unsupported. So please enlighten me as to the point you are trying to make here.

    A license to have children, what a joke. More government intervention to a basic human right. It’s government interference that is causing so much alienation between children and their parents today. We easily see the proof of how bias and uneducated (deliberately so in my opinion) the judiciary is regarding family law and child custody issues. Now you wish to place this in the hands of a select few Eugenicists?

    Peter Peterson Reply:

    At the “point” where their live is torturess! cruel! extreme suffering!

    And if we could educate people to make the right chioses in their lives! There would be no need to licence them! But what is the likelihood of that ever happening? How would you stop morons from breeding? Anthony.

    And I’m not sorry! I was being polite!

    Family law is not designed to keep familys together! It’s to brake down the family unit, and alianate people with in their own community! Thus making them more reliable on a full of shit system of government. Run by social parisites for thier own benifits, ruther then the community of people it should be! Wake up!

    Anthony Priest Reply:

    Well Peter you seem to have no understanding of how things work in the health system at all. If a baby is in so much pain it is medicated to relieve the pain. In many cases this medication leads to or expedites the death of the infant, how is this allowing suffering? If the child survives there is numerous services to support the family. The parents are made well aware of all the options for their child now and in the future. Health carers are well trained so don’t come pedaling your lies about torture that’s simply not true.

    You complain about government interference and then advocate this sought of crap, who do you think is going to be in control your eugenic master plan then?

    Who the hell do you think you are deciding who lives and dies and what that child thinks and experiences and his or hers perceptions of life?

    You mentioned God’s plan before Peter, which God are you talking about? My God clearly says you are committing murder, or maybe you are selectively reading this like far too many people already do.

    I’m still awaiting the information regarding your book, I’ll happily go and purchase a copy and review it for you. Let’s hope it’s not the same as the dribble you have been writing otherwise it’s going to be a very arduous exercise.

    Peter Peterson Reply:

    Yes I do! The health system is a “White elephant” The people that need it can’t aford it! Because of the idiot money these greedy so called health profetionals want for their sevices! Carring people my ass! You realy do have your head up your ass! So sad

  • yanta says:

    Where is this argument going to end. First it was abortion, now new borns. Are we going to argue next that children with disabilities should be put down because they can’t offer society a productive life? That adhd, etc are death sentences, because they cause too much stress on women? Are they eventually going to argue that there should only be one punishment for crimes, and that they should be immune for prosecution of that “crime”, the penalty being death?


    Peter Peterson Reply:

    It’s not an argument! It’s the law of nature! end of story! the stronge servive! The piss poor don’t! And I add! If only health people had children, there would be no freeks ! Quality! not Quantity! Sad that the human race is it’s own worst enamy and so full of sh_t!


    Anthony Priest Reply:

    So why have a society at all Peter, isn’t it to protect and help and nurture as well as strengthen and encourage those capable of reaching higher.

    This sought of view is straight from the “Eugenics” handbook. What happened to the “do no harm” pledge? I’m sure that there are no health care workers I know that would be advocates for this.


    Peter Peterson Reply:

    So why have a society at all Peter? Why have commonsence at all? if we arn’t going to use it! Anthoney? God help Us! You watch too much TV! Or you are on druggs! People that are capable of reaching higher all ready have that capability! It’s the ones that don’t have the capability! That need help. If you need a hand to pull your head out of your ass! Let me know! lol! I can help you!

    Anthony Priest Reply:

    You don’t learn do you? I see you have no manners or care for anyone at all through your attitude and how you speak here. If you think I’m annoyed your damned right. Your opinion isn’t the only one, and let me be perfectly clear, even if the rest of the world agreed with you, I wouldn’t. And moreover that still wouldn’t make you right.

    So what you are saying is that intelligence and success are born to the wealthy? What about the poor who need educating? Don’t help them? Anyone with a degenerative disease or disability isn’t worth it?

    If you want to live in a dog eat dog world of the holy dollar and Hitler mentality go right ahead, but don’t include me or those who don’t agree with your murderous ideology!

    Peter Peterson Reply:

    I’m an advicate for selective breeding! and commonsence! People that have genetic defects, should not breed! Nore people that can’t support themselves (losers) Why force a life of missory on an offspring your supposed to love? That is strait out selfishness!

    And I’m not advacating murder! I’m advocating selective breeding using commonsence! Licence people to have children! Too easy! Stop the missory befor it starts! Stop the cut, so there is no need for a bandaid mentality! How hard can that be, to get your head around?

    You can read into my posts, anything you like Anthony! I don’t see you putting up anything better! Or, at all! And if you can’t get your head arround common cense, that’s not my folt! You come across like a person that gose from one exsteam to another Anthony?

    If your annoyed! That’s your problem! I’m annoyed at all the morrons in the human race! And that’s my problem! Sad, but true!

  • zac says:

    If it takes a village to raise a child then the village (society) must continue to have this debate and somewhat take the power away from the pregnant woman and health professionals.

    I am reminded of the case in Melbourne several years ago where, after a mother discovered that her 38 week old foetus had dwarfism, she went into a psychotic rage and protest until the hospital approved and conducted a late term abortion. Their reasoning was that the mother would be suicidal if the baby went to full term.

    Who made hospital ethicists judges and executioners ?


Leave Comment


Subscribe to Fathers4Equality Email for Updates