Translate

Showing posts with label infanticide. Show all posts
Showing posts with label infanticide. Show all posts

Sunday, 5 February 2017

What I propose is already being done

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics launched an enquiry in 2006 into critical care in fetal and neonatal medicine, looking at the ethical, social and legal issues which may arise when making decisions surrounding treating extremely premature babies.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, in its submission, recommended that a public debate be started around the options of "non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best interests test and active euthanasia" for "the sickest of newborns". The College stated that there should be discussion over whether "deliberate intervention" to cause death in severely disabled newborn babies should be legalised; it stated that while it was not necessarily in favour of the move, it felt the issues should be debated. The College stated in this submission that having these options would save some families from years of emotional and financial suffering; it might also reduce the number of late abortions, "as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome". In response to this proposal, Pieter Sauer, a senior paediatrician in the Netherlands, argued that British neonatologists already perform "mercy killings" and should be allowed to do so openly.

The Church of England submission to the enquiry supported the view that doctors should be given the right to withhold treatment from seriously disabled newborn babies in exceptional circumstances, and the Christian Medical Fellowship stated that when treatment would be "a burden" this was not euthanasia.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability_in_ancient_Rome#Roman_laws_on_disability

The Twelve Tables included a law that said disabled or deformed children should be put to death, usually by stoning.

In addition, Dionysius of Halicarnassus wrote that the city's founder Romulus required children who were born disabled to be exposed on a hillside. Historians think that this was a fairly common practice due to a believed high number of congenital defects, which are sourced due to poor nutrition, incest, and disease.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pater_familias#Children

The laws of the Twelve Tables required the pater familias to ensure that "obviously deformed" infants were put to death. The survival of congenitally disabled adults, conspicuously evidenced among the elite by the partially-lame Emperor Claudius, demonstrates that personal choice was exercised in the matter. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Ironside

Ironside received attention after her appearance on BBC One's religious discussion programme, Sunday Morning Live, in 2010. She stated "If a baby's going to be born severely disabled or totally unwanted, surely an abortion is the act of a loving mother." and added "If I were the mother of a suffering child - I mean a deeply suffering child - I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face... If it was a child I really loved, who was in agony, I think any good mother would."

http://www.freethesaurus.com/terefah


The questionable viability of newly born infants, due, at least in part, to doubts as to whether they were premature or full-term, led Jewish law to exempt one who kills a child less than thirty days old from human prosecution, just as it treats the person who kills the terefah.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9710426/Children-placed-on-controversial-death-pathway.html

at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, 24 February 2014

The libertarian purpose behind legalising infanticide if ever implemented would be to shame sluts

It is more despicable to commit infanticide because you are a fornicatress who didn't want your baby than it is to be a fornicatress who had an abortion because she was suffering from unwanted pregnancy.  

We know how prostitutes in ancient times practised their trade before the invention of modern contraception. They would sell their body to paying men till they became too pregnant to to ply their trade, have the baby, kill it, rest for a bit, and then carry on working after a brief convalescence, and the cycle would begin again.  

Disgusting, isn't it?

This perfectly demonstrates the link between casual copulation and casual killing.  Any society that would countenance most of its women regularly killing their unwanted illegitimate babies conceived as a result of casual copulation really would deserve to become extinct, would it not? Or at the very least invaded, exploited, abused and enslaved.  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2031727/Roman-prostitutes-forced-kill-children-bury-mass-graves-English-brothel.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14513517

http://www.rightwingnews.com/uncategorized/ann-coulter-on-single-mothers-the-statistics-from-guilty/

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20110410/news/news5.html

A libertarian state should give sluts the rope to hang themselves.

A libertarian state would not presume to stop sluts from disposing of their unwanted babies either before or after birth.

Sluts are the agents of illegitimacy and therefore the agents of degeneracy and corruption.

If promiscuous women are seen to be ones frequently killing their babies because they are too stupid, careless and lazy to practise effective contraception, then in time they will come to be ostracised by society.

Currently, Western men are terrified of offending sluts.

Remember, sluts are fornicatresses who are the agents of illegitimacy and therefore the agents of degeneracy and corruption, who will destroy your civilisation with their promiscuity and inability to practise effective contraception. Sluts are stupid too.  If you are a bastard, then half your genes are full of stupid slut genes, and the other half full of the genes of an MCSF (Morally-Compromised Slut-Fucker). What would happen to your country if most of your countrymen and countrywomen are like that?

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/why-white-race-is-declining-in-numbers.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10486887/UK-pupils-languish-in-international-league-tables.html

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/may/31/care-failing-those-with-learning-disability
"people with a learning disability, whose numbers are growing by up to 5% a year and who can require care and support costing a typical £1,500 a week"  Most of the mothers of the learning disabled will be SSMs.

And still no British male politician will criticise the irrational and irresponsible reproductive choices of stupid sluts.
"Out of the corruption of women proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil."  

Bhagavad Gita
at 4 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, 9 July 2013

What Claire Khaw said and didn't say

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/27/hugh-muir-diary-edward-snowden

We recounted in January how Claire Khaw, the deliberately offensive activist cum "British nationalist philosopher", managed to achieve membership of the Tory party. This was despite her eye-popping views on the need to get tough on those with children with disabilities and advocacy of slavery for people found in Britain without the right immigration papers. Unsurprisingly, the Tories, realising the anomaly, withdrew her membership. But the former BNP agent won't be told, so here it is, Khaw v Central Office. She's gone off to the high court, seeking judicial review. May the least objectionable party win, we say.

It is tedious to have point out again that I have never said anything about children with disabilities. What I in fact advocate is to give parents of unwanted unviable and disabled babies the option of committing infanticide.  If they want to keep their unwanted unviable and disabled babies they can. At no time did I propose a programme of systematically exterminating the disabled, as was so sensationally claimed by so many of my detractors.

As for enslaving illegal immigrants, I put my hands up to that one and stand by what I said at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/29/stephen-bates-diary

Here's one Claire Khaw – whose background, interestingly, is Malaysian Chinese, and who is acting as cheerleader for Jeffrey Marshall, the party's candidate in London's Bethnal Green and Bow – engaging in some recent banter on Facebook: "I see no harm in introducing a form of slavery with those who don't have the right papers and aren't British citizens. After five years they are free to go. They can re-enslave themselves for a further five years and thereafter become British citizens. It would solve the Labour shortage ... Then everyone would be happy."
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, 14 July 2012

What is necessary is therefore moral

The defence to murder is self defence and necessity, in case you didn't know. It is necessary that a society should protect itself from degeneracy or it will be invaded, conquered, exploited and abused. Child euthanasia or legalised infanticide for parents with severely deformed, disabled and unviable babies is moral and should be legal. Do you agree?

Is feminism necessary?

Is feminism anti-eugenic?

Is feminism moral?

Why is it necessary to defend the privileges of women who are evil and immoral?

They won't die if they are forced to make rational reproductive choices, will they?
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, 21 June 2012

Why nationalists should discuss eugenics


It is disgusting how doctors spoil the pregnancies of women by mistakenly telling them that their foetus might have something wrong with it, or even causing a perfectly healthy baby to be aborted because it was wrongly identified as Down's Syndrome or having some foetal abnormality.

If the law allowed infanticide by the parents of an unwanted and disabled baby then this disgusting practice of spoiling the pregnancies of women would end.

My cousin, an older mother, was offered an amniocentesis. She declined and was given a terrible time. In the end she had a healthy child, but her pregnancy was ruined by anxiety and fear.

While people condemn me for proposing this, they display no compassion and respect at all for the mother whose pregnancy is ruined by negligent medical personnel who are gagging to perform intrusive and unnecessary medical tests on mothers at the expense of the taxpayer.


My proposal would be cheaper and better for all concerned, but the benighted and hypocritical British are too irrational to even accept my reasoning.

I would expect a man to see my reasoning, but these days most of them have turned to women with their knee-jerk responses to the liberal imperative to be compassionate at all costs.

It is worse when they are supposed to be NATIONALISTS, and a nationalist is supposed to care about the long-term national interest.

Actually, these days a nationalist is someone who is just wants the other races to leave their country, even if it is AGAINST the national interest to do so.

The long-term national interest is not served by making parents bring up unviable babies at the taxpayers' expense when most of the British are now DEGENERATE, ie they are stupider, weaker, illegitimate, have mental health issues, suffer from obesity and are pretty much educationally subnormal when compared to other countries whose people are mostly NOT singly-parented, who are always being invited by the UK government to come here and do the jobs the white working classes cannot do because they are too busy claiming welfare and knocking up the next generation of illegitimate and unemployable NEETs.


If I had a severely disabled baby I would not demand that my husband pay to bring it up out of his taxed income.

If I had a severely disabled baby I would want a husband capable of telling me he doesn't want it, if I am too maternal and irrational to say so myself.

Perhaps that is why so many of the British are now disabled, mentally unstable, obese, welfare-dependent and unemployable.

British employers will understandably not want to hire disabled workers, but the British Nationalist does not care, as long as they can demand that I be expelled from the party just for saying I do not want to bring up severely disabled offspring who will NEVER AMOUNT TO ANYTHING OR MAKE ANYTHING OF THEMSELVES.


I would say that the white working classes are even less able to bring up their disabled children than the middle classes.

I think most British nationalists expect the taxpayer to pay for the disabled children of the working classes.

But how can you be working class if you are disabled?

Why should ANYONE else pay for the disabled children of the working classes who will never be able to work if their parents cannot do so themselves?

It is completely INSANE.

The British nationalist probably thinks nationalism is about giving the white working classes who don't like immigration exactly what they want, whether it is good for the long-term national interest or not.

I beg to disagree.

Too bad Nick Griffin is too scared to tell them any differently. Otherwise, he will be completely on his own after having been abandoned by the BNP core supporters whom he will have fatally offended.

Most people who think of themselves as working class no longer work because no sane British employer would want to hire them. Why don't we just be honest and call them the LOWER CLASSES?

Why is British nationalism about representing these people? What hope can there be for nationalism if it only identifies itself with angry losers who cannot compete with foreign labour even in the field of unskilled manual labour??

The problem about British nationalism is therefore the problem of CLASS.  If UKIP were all racist they would probably get away with it because of their class.

What the voting public cannot stand is the idea of voting for a party that is both lower class and racist even if they agree with most of their policies.

It is therefore interesting to know that anyone genuinely patriotic who joins the BNP will find UKIP membership forever closed to him, leaving him with no other option but the useless and anodyne English Democrats and the even more untouchable and socially retarded NF who still insist on repatriating non-white British citizens.

For this reason the BNP should go civic nationalist, but Nick Griffin will do no such thing because he knows that this restriction from joining UKIP will make anyone of any talent still in the BNP less likely to challenge him on anything.


After all, anyone who crosses him will be finished in nationalism, and they will be expelled from their social club which they mistakenly think is fit for the purpose of being a political party.

The problem of British nationalism is therefore easily solved.

Go civic, discuss eugenics (ie reconsecrate the institution of Marriage by denouncing the evil and irrational  destructiveness of anti-eugenic feminism) and have me as your leader.  This would attract the educated, firm of mind and well-healed who do not flee and cower, like UKIP, the moment the R word is used against them.

I will transform the image of British nationalism and turn the British into a people who are rational, robust and resourceful, as their ancestors were, rather than the race of obese, sexually-diseased, fertility-impaired, mentally ill, learning and physically disabled illegitimate sex-addicted PC homosexuals they have now become.  All these problems can be laid at the disgraced and degenerate door of FEMINISM.

Satirical references have been made about my resemblance to Davros by my political ally David Jones, but I regard that as a compliment.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davros

If we form a party we will call it the Herbert Spencer Party of British Nationalism, so people will know exactly what we stand for.


Do not believe any stories about me being racist.   I do not have a single racist bone in my body.  If you are a voting citizen of this country and think that the lunatics are already in charge, I urge you to get in touch if you want to be involved in the establishment of a rationally small government, with lower taxes and fewer laws, which will herald the return of male and parental authority and end the rule of insane anti-eugenic feminist harridans.   

If you have children - whether legitimate or illegitimate - you would want a better future for them with a better quality of partner than you yourself have managed to find, would you not?

How can you have a better future when no political party dares to discuss the abysmal quality of the British gene pool?

Even the Muslims have become degenerate because they are so disgusted with the depravity of the locals that they refuse to breed with them and feel forced to marry and breed with their first cousins, which leads to birth defects that the NHS has to deal with.

This is a message to all the British citizens of all races who want the country turn over a new leaf from their slut and bastard ways and want to have in charge politicians to be capable of discussing difficult moral issues publicly, who know the meaning of free speech (which will be protected under the new constitution I have in mind) and are prepared to stand up for it.

Get your country back from the lunatics, SMASH FEMINISM.  

Go and discuss feminism with someone.  That is all you need to do.  Get this shit ideology exposed for the shit ideology that it is.   
at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, 1 March 2012

Doctors 'should have the right to kill unwanted or disabled babies at birth' claims Oxford academic

Francesca Minerva, says doctors should have the right to kill newborn babies because they are disabled, too expensive or simply unwanted by their mothers

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2108433/Doctors-right-kill-unwanted-disabled-babies-birth-real-person-claims-Oxford-academic.html#ixzz1nqiM2QWU


Francesca Minerva is a young and pretty philosopher with the courage of her convictions.

I am quite happy to announce that I would abolish infanticide as a crime.  This means I would make it legal for parents to dispose of their own babies up to the age of 12 months.

The Ancient Greeks practised it and so did the Ancient Romans.  Their civilisation did not die out as a result of this practice.  Ancient Athens declined because the Athenians fought too many wars (NeoCons please note), and Rome declined because they caught the ancient form of feminism.

This would be part of my programme of Moral Libertarian Eugenics.

Please note that all my proposals are libertarian in the sense that they repeal a law rather than pass yet another law.

Agricola:  "The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government."
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, 31 May 2011

Gang of Disabled people victimise potential BNP mayoral candidate for saying she does not wish to bring up a severely disabled child

You would have thought that no parent would wish to bring up a severely disabled child.

You would have thought that you would be allowed to express this view in a country known for its liberties.

But apparently not.

There is a Disabled People Against Claire Khaw Facebook group which repeatedly claims I wish to exterminate the disabled even after I have repeatedly denied this.

What I said (or was trying to say) on the Victoria Derbyshire Show on 2 March 2011 was that I would smother my own severely disabled baby if the midwife would not do it for me, and this was what midwives would do for you if you have a home birth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwifery

"After the delivery, the midwife made the initial call on whether or not an infant was healthy and fit to rear. She inspected the newborn for congenital deformities and testing its cry to hear whether or not it was robust and hearty. Ultimately, midwives made a determination about the chances for an infant’s survival and likely recommended that a newborn with any severe deformities be exposed."

But apparently even citing this piece of social history is no longer allowed because it is offensive to the disabled, who demand that I be forced to bring up a severely disabled baby, destroy my marriage and give up the opportunity of having healthy babies because I would be too busy looking after my severely disabled one.
That is what the disabled demand and expect me to do while demanding that I be punished for saying what any honest parent to-be would feel.

Is this quite right, I wonder?

Is this Political Correctness gone mad? 
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Responding to Claire Khaw With Facts & Logic

23:00  Just ban sorcery and witchcraft.  28:00  We obey God if He exists to avoid being sent to worse place in the afterlife.  32:00  The Ko...