Opposing Baby-Killing Is Now ‘Hate Speech’

I have just written about two academics who have offered a spirited defence of killing newborn babies. Now the editor of the journal they were published in comes to their defence, and the defence of infanticide. And worse yet, he says those who are opposed to this are guilty of “hate speech”. I kid you not.

But perhaps we should not be surprised about all this. The editor, Julian Savulescu, is in fact infamous for his rather perverted ethical stances. Indeed, I have written about him before: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2008/11/18/those-unethical-ethicists/

He now defends baby killing and denounces those who dare to express their concerns about this diabolical activity. And he is a leading, influential ethicist! Here is how one news outlet covered this development:

“The editor of an ethics journal that recently published an article advocating infanticide (what the authors call ‘post-birth abortion’), has responded to widespread criticism by pointing out that promoting the killing of newborns is nothing new: in fact, in the Netherlands infant euthanasia is already legal and practiced.

“Editor Julian Savulescu also criticizes what he calls the ‘hate speech’ directed at the authors of the article, arguing that the public’s response to the piece shows that ‘proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.’

“In the journal article Alberto Giubilin, a philosopher from the University of Milan, and Francesca Minerva, an ethicist from the University of Melbourne, made the case that ‘after-birth abortion’ should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is perfectly healthy. They base their argument on the premise that the unborn baby and the newborn do not have the moral status of actual persons and are consequently ‘morally irrelevant.’

“In response to the backlash, Savulescu wrote that the arguments in the article ‘are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris.’

“He also observes that the paper ‘draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands’.”

Wow – where does one begin here? We know that social engineering is always preceded by verbal engineering. Euphemisms are used to cover up grisly realities. So now the moral crime of infanticide is simply to be known as ‘post-birth abortion’. Incredible.

Big Brother, the dictator of totalitarian Oceania, in George Orwell’s novel 1984, would be proud as punch to have such a person working in his PR department. Savulescu and his ilk have perfected the art of doublethink and Newspeak.

Indeed, according to Savulescu, fanatics are those who think infanticide is morally wrong. Yet evidently those eggheads who justify killing already-born babies are somehow not fanatics! Talk about moral inversion and perversion. Two and a half millennia ago the prophet Isaiah said this: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”

He must have had in mind these so-called ethicists which we are plagued with today. And the good editor informs us that we are simply “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”. Oh, so a liberal society has as its highest values the killing of new born babies, even perfectly healthy ones? And to oppose that is “hate speech,” “fanaticism,” and a threat to “academic discussion and freedom”.

I cannot recall hearing such morally perverted “reasoning” for quite some time. And these guys are ethicists? They are teaching us what the good and moral life is meant to be? In their warped scheme of things, killing babies is very good, while opposing such atrocities is very bad.

I am really just flabbergasted – almost speechless. These are the cream of the crop of our ethicists, teaching others how to think ethically? These are the ones calling the shots about what is right and wrong in our universities, journals and public arenas?

No wonder we are in such dire straits. With experts like these allowed to get away with these abominations, we really do not stand a chance. Talk about Dr Evil and Dr Death. Talk about rogue ethicists who are polluting the very moral fibre of our society. Talk about dancing with the devil.

I can just imagine the Nazi eugenicists and mass murderers responding in the same way. As people discovered the gas chambers, death camps and other elements of the final solution, and raised their voice in protest, these guys would have chirped: “Hey you are fanatics – stop all the hate speech already.”

They would have loved the line by our editor: “proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics”. Why do I get the feeling that if Hitler and the Nazis were advertising for more academics, doctors and scientists to get on board with their program, ethicists like these would have perfectly fitted the bill?

We thought all these academic defenders of the Holocaust had died out with the Nuremberg trials. But they seem to be alive and well today, teaching in our universities, writing in our journals, and dominating our public discussions. The Final Solution did not end in 1945 obviously – it has just morphed into new forms.

And Western universities today seem filled with these folks. I for one will stand against this to my dying day. These baby killers can call this ‘hate speech’ all they like. Tough beans: they will be getting plenty more of it from me. Just as the normal, ethical human being was the one incensed and enraged by what the Nazis were doing, so too today.

The ethical person is one who would be utterly gobsmacked and outraged by what these ethicists are saying. Those who show no concern about all this, and offer no vocal opposition, are the ones, like these ethicists, who are the really morally deficient folks here.

Tragically there was mainly silence from the German citizens living during the Nazi reign. I sure hope there will not be this deadly silence again today, when similar pro-death ideologies are being allowed full sway in the public arena. Those who cannot or will not get incensed by this are moral zombies who have long ago lost both head and heart.

Someone who knew full well about all this, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, once put it this way: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

Or as we read in Dante’s Inferno: “The hottest level in hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in a moral crisis.”


[1120 words]

50 Replies to “Opposing Baby-Killing Is Now ‘Hate Speech’”

  1. What can I say ?

    God is LISTENING & watching and all of their talk & deeds are recorded!

    For truely, ALL shall be believers in the end of time!!!!

    So then after the Judgement, my question is – where shall you believe from?

    A. The streets of glory (heaven)
    B. The lake of fire.

    Jude 12-15 says it well: “clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars , to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever…And Enoch also the seventh from Adam , prophesied of these , saying, Behold , the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgement upon all, and to convience all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of …ALL THEIR HARD SPEECHES WHICH UNGODLY SINNERS HAVE SPOKEN AGAINST HIM….”

    Ian Brander

  2. Well written Bill. I am tired of lies being wrought from twisted and incomplete truths. The discussion on topics this profane, is evil in it’s own instance. Though, this is nothing new under the sun. History tells us that men have constantly fallen into depravity via the trapdoors of pride and perverse nature. And yet the hearty response to this article has given me a glimmer of hope that there is still a remnant, standing for the truth, shouting it for all to hear. May God be merciful on us all. If we do not speak now, we may be forever silent.
    Nicole Watson

  3. The whole concept of ‘hate speech’ needs to be jettisoned from all language. It is an assault on the basic freedom of being able to disagree. The easy test is to ask someone defending the concept if they would like it if you had the power to declare something they didn’t like ‘hate speech’ and punish them for it. (Even getting upset about the injustice of that would be punishable too.)

    But then to go the extra step and use it to try to defend baby slaughter – sometimes your mind boggles as you are confronted with the abyss and profoundness of some people’s darkness and blindness.

    Mark Rabich

  4. Thank you for letting us know about this outrage – I have not seen one word written about this in the South Australian Newspaper – perhaps the Editors don’t feel this is important enough to comment about!
    I remember the Nuremberg Trials – I was a child, and recall the chill I felt as I read about what had been done, and how so many of those on trial had protested that they were just “following orders”. Will those who kill babies (born or unborn) plead the same case on Judgement Day?
    If we as Christians, don’t fight this, then we will be judged accordingly, and I personally, would rather risk my life than face that sort of judgement.
    Recently at our Church, we have had a couple of excellent sermons on the Second Coming of Christ, and also The Tribulation. I believe that the Tribulation is beginning, and that we had better get our respective acts together before it is too late.
    Joan Davidson

  5. Thanks Bill,
    Just a plain example of the depravity of man. This again shows how much of a crunch point is abortion. You either support life or you don’t. Any attempts in between are just illogical madness as illustrated by the abhorrent arguments proposed by these devils.
    Hate speech? Yes! I truly hate the philosophies these folk are proposing!
    Jeremy Peet

  6. “The Final Solution did not end in 1945 obviously”
    No, they just got told to tone it down for a generation, they figure that society memory is short ie: 1 generation. You see, they figure most of the WW2 veterans are dieing off now, so they can just drag out the good ole programs again, cause no one will remember the gas chambers, plus they figure, who would expect that we would rehash the genocide, so they hope to sneak through by peoples disbeleif of “noone would actualy do that, not now”.

    Ok Bill, before it was a simple suggestion, now its an out and out call to arms, dissect the nazi and eugenics dogma, and get ready to take this lot to court for trying to reintroduce nazi genocide. Whats next, gassing for all those “evil fanatics who actually think life is important? We need a Churchill, to combat these Chamberlins.

    Is there a Christian law firm in Australia who would actualy take this kind of thing on? if so, would they do it pro bono?
    Not much use going to the unhuman rights council, they are in it up to their eyeballs (they support abortion and euthanasia rights after all). No use asking labor/greens/commie party to look into this, they are all for the distruction of our society and handing us all over to the un, for reducing the population to a more manageable size, especially those ugly white racist bigots.

    I also passed this site to a blogger from Canada Bill, your articles are excellent so it helps to get the info as far and wide as possible. Hope you don’t mind.

    Neil Waldron

  7. So when, where, how and why does a–can’t call them human beings–earn or be given the right to be called, well…human? Presumably God has been informed, seeing as how, from Psalm 139, He at least knew one person before he was born.
    Steve Swartz

  8. I was quite shocked to read this sentence:

    “in fact, in the Netherlands infant euthanasia is already legal and practiced”

    since I have lived in Holland my entire life and have never heard of such a horrible thing. After googling a bit, I came across this site


    which made it perfectly clear to me that, in Holland, a terminally ill child is as morally valuable as a dog, and can be put to sleep without any ethical problems whatsoever. These cases don’t even need to be reported to the Justice Ministry!

    As a Christian, I often wondered where Christians could get the most out of their time; maybe in Korea? Or China, where Christians are still beïng suppressed? But the longer I live, the more I see that Holland is one of the darkest places on earth. As the article on the website I cited, concludes:

    Later this autumn the Belgian Senate will debate a bill to allow euthanasia of people who are incapable of requesting or giving permission to be killed. The Netherlands and Belgium are the two most ethically liberal countries in the Western world, with laws allowing abortion and euthanasia as well as gay marriage. Belgium also intends to introduce adoption rights for homosexual couples.

    Ruben Baan, Holland

  9. Remember Bill in their world it’s ‘okay to hate the haters’, these ‘enlightened ones’ wax eloquently that hate is toxic but wallow in hatred against their detractors never for a second seeing the problem in their antithesis to hate.

    As for killing the newborn it is puzzling that should an intruder approach the incubator and kill the newborn then they are charged with murder yet the mother requesting the killing of her newborn is ‘a woman’s right’. If the baby is a ‘non-entity’ with no rights, why is the first case murder? Is it just a matter of who ‘ticks the box’ of death?

    Save the World, Environment, Rainforest, Whale and Panda but don’t save the newborn.

    Doug Holland

  10. Cream of the crop? Cream rises till it sours.

    Hate speech? These ethicists can’t (or won’t) separate the person from the argument. If so, they will fall with the failure of their argument – but it will be their own choice to do so.

    John Angelico

  11. Hello Bill,
    If opposing the killing of babies is now considered “hate speech”, I suppose I will just have to continue the “hate speech” with my friends outside the abortion centre as are many other people during the 40 Days for Life. Children passing by are not stupid – they can see who is willing to proclaim the truth about the evil of abortion and they are not the ones expressing hate for their fellow human beings. The real “hate speech” comes from those who support this evil or profit very well from it but are too ashamed to let people know what really goes on in an abortion centre. Just witness the behaviour of the supporters of abortion on the steps of Parliament House trying to disrupt the “March for the Babies” last year.
    God have mercy on us all for our sloth in allowing these academics with such warped views on the sanctity of human life to gain such influence.
    Regards, Michael Palma

  12. See this interesting line from the article;

    “The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn,” he continues. “Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible. The authors proceed logically from premises which many people accept to a conclusion that many of those people would reject.”

    I suppose at least the authors and editor have the guts to recognise that abortion logically leads to the killing of babies (and perhaps eventually to all ages). The slippery slope wasn’t such an alarmist argument after all.

    Damien Spillane

  13. These two fine folks have made their “capacities” very clear. Quite obviously they are defective, incapable of clear reasoning and, therefore, “morally irrelevant”. Who says so? Why I do! and so, having made my decision as to their moral relevance, I am now free to determine whether they live or die.
    Anna Cook

  14. If abortion leads to infanticide then legalisation of infanticide leads to normalisation of full blown murder! Where would they like it to end? As for Intelligent discussion I really don’t think they have that ability. Besides it is a fools argument for it is solely a moral issue and if you can’t see that or even feel the evil within it then no amount of intelligence can resolve it. For it is already resolved they’re just not listening to God’s decision.
    Dennis Newland

  15. This is what bothers me about the “ethics” classes being run in NSW schools.

    What is to say that this is not the kind of ethical dilemmas that will end up in the classrooms for the kids to work through. Hey if an academic say its OK why should the kids then think any different.

    Paul Wakeford

  16. I fully understand your sentiments, Anna and I know it was said to emphasise the wicked logic of these people back firing on themselves. But seriously, I pray these people encounter the actual capacity of Christians to point out the truth and yet forgive in the face of such dangerous, I wish I could call it nonsense.
    I would like expand on a comment I made on your last post, Bill. It seems that not unlike the existence of light the human eye can not see and sounds the human ear can not hear, there are moral absolutes we have to accept by faith without waiting for the results of what ignoring and disobeying them would mean, for they are lethal. Bill, you were able to document the catastrophic realities of the practice of homosexuality, because we allowed the practice to become decriminalised and then legal and even protected. If we as a nation had listened to God 50 years ago, had trusted Him to know and stood our ground then, much suffering could have been avoided. I know this comes too late for our current situation, but maybe we need to remember it for future opportunities. The lesson of history was not learnt AGAIN this time, it is obvious in the results we have today. Chamberlain said “peace in our time” for the sake of self preservation. Is that what our leaders said in the 70’s when the abortion laws and the “no fault divorce” laws were introduced by people like Lionel Murphy? If that is to be found to be the truth, then that is the lesson we must learn. We can’t expect atheists to know these things, though I believe they know better than we do but without the capacity to make a universally “godly loving” response. We may not hold back the floodgates of evil altogether that were opened at that point in our history, but should we be given the chance to restructure society, as has been given many times in the past, then we must remember these things.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  17. This is a deeply disturbing and haunting story. It makes C.S. Lewis a prophet…

    “The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices.”

    Boyd Hawkins

  18. I agree with the many in the pro-life commentary that this could be the death knell of the pro-abort position and that its absurdity has finally been fully exposed. See Will Heaven’s

    “‘After-birth abortion’ is logically sound: that’s why it will boost the pro-life movement”

    “But what interests me is how this paper might lead to support for the pro-life movement. As Matthew Archbold points out on the National Catholic Register, the ethicists’ arguments are actually sound: if we accept their ideas on personhood, there is no ethical reason to stop carrying out abortions at the arbitrary point of birth.

    Archbold writes from a Catholic perspective:

    The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand. An ethicist’s job is like a magician’s. The main job of both is to distract you from the obvious. The magician uses sleight of hand to pretend to make people disappear. But when ethicists do it, people disappear for real. It’s almost a pro-life argument in that it highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument.

    Isn’t he right?

    In the UK, in most cases, it is only legal to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy (provided certain criteria are met). But that time limit is nothing more than a line drawn in the sand – a compromise between pro-lifers and their pro-choice opponents. It’s a moral fudge simply because we can’t agree on when a human being becomes a human being.

    That’s why these ethicists have successfully taken the pro-abortion argument to its logical extreme, by drawing their line in the sand after birth. The only totally logical response I can think of – and that can’t include the 24-week fudge – is to be altogether anti-abortion. To agree with Rick Santorum, in other words.”


    Damien Spillane

  19. Thanks Damien

    Yes you and I and others here know full well that the logic of abortion is the logic of infanticide. The case for abortion must always lead to the case for infanticide. Yet I am afraid your hopes that this will turn the tide may be premature. The truth is, the pro-death mob will be just as willing to endorse infanticide as they do abortion. Instead of being shocked by the logic of their own position, they will simply dig their heels in further.

    For proof of this, simply go to OLO where my infanticide article has been posted. Check out the comments underneath it! These guys are not mad at infanticide, they are mad at me for even daring to raise this issue! They are even saying I have no right to speak on these matters! (And unfortunately some of those coming to my aid are not quite doing a very good job of it. But I am grateful for them at least trying there!) Check it out: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13312

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  20. I have almost finished reading “The Road To Hell” by David Pawson. At the beginning of this bible study section he states that “the fear of hell is the antidote to cowardessness “. I have been praying for the answer to what it might be and God has lead me to it already. It is a great book, in spite of its title, very encouraging. Can only recommend it.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  21. Most of these academic ‘ethicists’ wouldn’t know genuine ethics if it hit them over the head with a cluebat.

    Without an absolute standard of good and genuine ethics (which the Bible is) these academics can make the word ethics mean whatever they want it to. All kinds of contortions of words and meanings can happen. The end of moral relativity is chaos.

    Morris Otte

  22. Yes quite right Doug

    As I stated in my article, no human being who still has a conscience – who is still morally alive – would not be utterly appalled by this, and speak out strongly about it, just as Germans 70 years ago should have been greatly disturbed about what was taking place – even enraged – and should have spoken up loud and clear.

    Of course no one here is condoning death threats if they in fact occurred. But if these guys can go on and on about how acceptable it is to kill babies, then they should not be surprised that not everyone takes too kindly to their poisonous morality – or rather immorality. Of course a backlash will occur, and rightly so. If it did not occur, then we are finished as a civilisation.

    Imagine if academics proposed and defended rape or whale killing. There would be a huge and frenzied reaction to this. But here for the most party there is mainly silence – at least in so much of the MSM and amongst our elites, intellectuals and rulers.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  23. Bill – are these writers and their ideas the offsprimg of Peter Singer’s ideas? Where was he a professor of Bioethics in Australia?
    Anne-Marie Modra

  24. Thanks Anne-Marie

    Yes they were either his students at one time, or were at least strongly influenced by him. Singer taught at Monash University in Melbourne for around two decades before shifting to Princeton in the US in 1999. So sadly his poisonous ethics and worldview have influenced tens of thousands, not just these three characters. Indeed, he even wrote the article on ‘Ethics’ for the Encyclopaedia Britannica if you can believe it! No wonder we are in such a mess, when such esteemed academics and intellectuals are allowed to get away with what the Nazis would have been so very proud of.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  25. There are days, Bill, when I become quite despondent. I waver and want to sit and say nothing. Give my keyboard and voice a rest. Catch my breath. Then you come along and fire me up again.
    Such intellectually dishonest and anti-life / anti-truth academics get the kudos and the taxpayers Grants, to destroy the language and where they hear proper meaning, forbid it. They follow a fine tradition set by the Feminist followers of the Princess of Lies who infect out polity now as well as our Universities.

    Words in Passing

    We were not ready.
    We were distracted.
    Battle had taken its toll
    But the Family survived.
    The children played.

    Malevolent Smile.
    She was Ready.
    Definite. Ordered.
    The Blue Pencil, poised.
    Flooding in, the swamp re-defined the land,
    The familiar, the family, the Form.

    The first was FAIR, our childhood’s most cherished friend:
    Resolver of squabbles, distributor, sharer,
    Fair cared for all:
    a string of rubies around her doomed, pale and lovely neck.
    It was so sad.
    They said it was consumption.
    All used up, in tatters, shrouded,
    she just faded away.

    Next to go was that sturdy, quarrelsome EQUALITY, which surprised us all
    as he was so in demand, they said,
    by all,
    especially some;
    aye, and relied upon.
    For so many years a staunch friend and fighter.

    His burial dressage, a white cheesecloth, yoked neck.
    Naked beneath,
    his scarred skin a testament.
    Burned Beyond Recognition.

    TRUTH tried hard.
    Was Tried. Hard.
    Derided, Derrida-ed,
    denied existence;
    Falsely accused,
    she struggled
    as she was garrotted.

    Died hard.

    Soon after that, JUSTICE
    suicided off a nearby cliff.
    Lover’s Leap, a place then
    from which many a couple had gazed out,
    seeking the broader vista.
    Now has Disabled Access.

    Was it in despair?
    Perhaps sympathy with the others.

    No-one saw her silent fall.
    Was she pushed?
    Who could gain?
    Her handmaids will argue for a time and time,
    billing INNOCENCE by the hour,
    Kept in chains, for gain.

    The old, wise man, HONOUR, lost his marbles, they said.
    He languished as the village idiot for a while,
    The butt of jokes and calumnies.

    His body was found in a ditch one day.
    They left it there.

    The loss of these good companions all
    has been followed now
    two noble and leathery old soldiers.

    They put on their dress uniforms, immaculate,
    faced each other squarely and
    blew each other’s brains out.
    Such fine shots, both.

    They left a note. Signed as written together.
    They could no longer support the malignancy of the vile regime,
    the note said.
    They felt duty-bound to remove themselves
    from further abuse,
    the note said.

    They took DUTY with them.

    An Altar was discovered in the woods
    On which the charred bones of hermaphrodite TRUST
    Were found,
    Sacrificed to Narcissus, elevated to the Pantheon.
    Tears flowed down Olympus’ stony sides.

    Even God cries.

    After, there was Laughter, Music, Whine.
    High pitched.
    So much fun.
    The departed were only words
    After all.

    Oppressive words.
    Now dead.
    Like Fathers.
    Dead, white males.

    What, three were maids?
    So? Whatever, said the wenches.

    No one noticed LOVE fall to her knees.
    Her calls for help were drowned by song.
    Trampled to death under dancing feet.
    The last to succumb.


    The surging mob, with popular will,
    Tied DEMOCRACY’s hands, and,
    fattened and degraded on suet foie gras
    trotted it to the abattoir.

    The Impostor was on the scene quickly.
    Ready, Definite.
    By Order. She said.

    The PRINCESS of LIES rides
    over barren lands.
    Long hair her spider-silk, chain-mail
    down her back.
    Across her breast,
    Over her steed’s flank.
    Hooves on skulls.

    The children gabble and cry.
    No words
    their pain.

    They were

    (A poem developed and extended from a far better poet that I read some years ago, in the Quadrant, I think, whose name I disremember)

    A.M. Fortas

  26. Thanks A.M.

    If I can fire up you and many others then I will certainly feel that I have achieved something worthwhile here. Thanks for letting me know that this site is doing a bit of good.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  27. I don’t believe you can argue a person into submission. In my experience, time and money and a will to do it, is the answer. A group of people large enough and committed enough, a pro life institute? I once heard of a ship that travels around the world mainly to 3rd world countries that sets up a medical care station in that area for a period of time. Apparently it’s a Christian venture, anyway… who’s it gonna be?
    Daniel Kempton

  28. Thanks Daniel

    Of course we need both: we need well-reasoned arguments for those who are open to such things, and we also need practical action, lobbying, and other types of work for the pro-life cause.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  29. Thank you Bill
    I know you’re right and I agree with you %100. I guess I’m more than frustrated. I’m truly thankful for the education I’ve received from here Bill. I’m a pragmatist and I dream big for a guy who doesn’t have much.
    Anyway praise God; he will sort my mess out.
    Daniel Kempton

  30. Thanks for getting this out there, Bill. Perhaps as little as 15 years ago, we could not have contemplated that in our society it would have become permissible to slaughter an innocent baby lying in its cot and then to persecute anybody who dared speak against that crime. At what lightning speed we slide down that slippery slope. And sorry, not too surprised that the Netherlands is at the cutting edge of all this. Seen that before. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out where we may be within the decade at this rate.
    Dee Graf

  31. Have you seen this:

    I think your attack on the journal and the editor may be a bit premature. Although I clearly disagree with the position of the paper, I think there is every right for the paper to be published. In fact, I think the paper actually shows the challenge for the pro-abortion position in that once you justify abortion, where do you draw the line.

    The journal has also said that it would publish a paper arguing for the recriminalisation of abortion. This is what journals do, they publish academic debate. Maybe you could consider writing an academic paper on recriminalisation of abortion and see what they do with it?

    Would be interested in your thoughts.

    Brad Cork

  32. Thanks Brad

    No there was nothing premature whatsoever in what I and others have said. Because there has been such a large public outcry on this – and rightly so – these editors are simply feeling the heat and are therefore trying to cover their tracks and justify what they have done. The truth remains – the academics in question fully support abortion on demand and they fully support infanticide on demand. There are true disciples of Peter Singer who has been promoting infanticide for decades now.

    The very fact that we have now come to the place where we must “debate” whether or not it is a good thing to kill newborn babies demonstrates how morally numb we have become as a culture. Indeed, how much lower will we sink into the abyss? This is coming straight out of the pit of hell – forget this nonsense about ‘academic freedom’.

    And please do not forget that exactly the same nice civilised academic debates about the value of human life preceded and became the basis for Hitler, the Nazis and the Final Solution. We should have learned the lessons of history. Now we are once again having nice civilised debates about the value of human life. There is never a need to seek to defend baby killers and those who support such baby killing.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  33. First Thoughts blog writes;

    “But it’s also not a good sign. I doubt the journal would have published a moral case for slavery, or one for race-based hierarchies, no matter how well-argued. I doubt they would publish an article arguing the homosexual acts are immoral. However, when it comes to killing newborns, our academic culture thinks it a topic worthy of discussion and debate.”

    What moral phonies are the many ethicists and intellectoids around today!


    Damien Spillane

  34. I was reading Andrew Bolt’s page today and it had this article on it – I immediately rang Fred Nile’s office and emailed the link to them. After reading this, you can most certainly see where these so called “ethics” classes are heading, one would only hope that there are enough parents out there with their brains between their ears to see this and get off their bums and speak out, the Church cannot do it all alone!
    Steve Davis

  35. So much comes to mind over this issue that it would take a week of Sundays just to get my anger under control and organise my thoughts, let alone write about it.

    One good thing that I see is the overwhelming condemnation in certain blogs. More comments posted than most other issues it seems to me.

    I for one would gladly commission some academic research into why so-called ethicists like those named in your article are themselves completely and uterly “morally irrelevant” and should be killed for the benifit of all society.

    David Williams

  36. To state that the unborn and new born do not have the moral status of an actual person and are consequently morally irrelevant and therefore, if expedient, they can be legitimately killed is surely an indicator of a psychopath. Far from being “morally irrelevant” a new born baby is totally dependent on and urgently in need of its mother to survive. It’s mother in turn is naturally equipped to nurture the baby. The birth of a baby normally elicits deep, overwhelming emotion and profound sense of wonder and fulfilment and joy at being part of the creation process on the part of both parents.

    I wonder at the female “ethicist”, Francesca, hatching and propagating this callous theory which is divorced from humanity and worthy of a Nazi extermination camp operative. I hear they got death threats – so what if they get killed? It’s only what they are advocating for new born babies, people like you and me who were all once new born. And what would anyone who advocates the cold-blooded murder of a new born baby know about morality?

    There is an intricate, finely tuned order going on in the natural world and we muck it up at our peril.

    Rachel Smith

  37. Thanks Rachel

    Yes it is all just hypocrisy and double standards from these so-called ethicists. They are quite happy to issue death threats to the unborn and the newborn. But for some reason they think it is unethical and not very nice when they get the same. They are a disgusting bunch of frauds indeed.

    And of course we are not advocating death threats here – simply pointing out their gross hypocrisy.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  38. My thoughts immediately went to the powers that be who want “ethics” taught in our schools in place of religious studies!!
    Janet Broadstock

  39. Editor Julian Savulescu denies the right of expression of those with views opposite to his own.
    THAT is ‘hate speech’.
    Michael D Thorpe

  40. LMAO Oh my god, I read that article Dr “julian” wrote in the BMJ ethics blog, whining about the horrible commentary against his proteges. I left a fairly long comment too; asking, and I mean seriously, what did he expect? He went public and advocated killing not only disabled babies, but, completely healthy babies if the parents felt the new baby would be a burden to them…of course we see that already in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, China – with girl babies. And the cultures that advocate or create that environment are about as pleasant as a nest of rats.
    As a matter of fact, some other ethics guy just went online to say he doesn’t advocate infanticide and then still weakly defended that article about the part, you know, just if the baby was going to add to the misery or burden of society (some bullcrap bull)…the full article even advocated euthanasia on totally healthy babies just because they parents couldn’t afford it, or just felt like they didn’t want it – and when asked about adoption, oh well you have to take the mothers feelings into account, it might be ‘too difficult’ for her to give her baby up and not know where the baby was living, etc., all those years (yeah better if it’s just dead? outrageous).

    All that crap he said about ‘attacks on liberal values’ is insane. There’s people out there with death threats over cartoons, and real death threats – like people crawling in their windows with machetes – he advocates “after-birth abortion” and excepted what kind of reception?

    The politically correct terminology is also ridiculous, kind of like the ‘psychological ethicists’ who label pedophiles as “minor attracted” people & said we should try to understand them and feel sorry for them, not put them in jail – who ARE all these gross people??

    THANKS for the article, never been to your blog before.

    Rebecca Smith

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: