Marti Oakley                                                  copyright 2012


Every society has at one time or another practiced eugenics to some degree, if not openly advocating the eradication of those less perfect or ethnically undesirable. Perfection of course, determined by those making the decision to end or prevent life for others. This has now culminated in the growing movement around the globe to rationalize the culling of populations via after-birth abortions, voluntary sterilization, and psycho-surgeries intended to murder, prevent reproduction, or reduce to a blithering but docile idiot anyone who does not meet the standards of perfection.

The recent Journal of Medical Ethics article promoting the concept that a newborn should be allowed to die if :

  • a)The family can’t afford the child
  • b)The family just does not want the child
  • c)There is a genetic problem indicating possible disease or
  • d)The child is impaired or disabled in some way

I have to wonder here how long it would be until one of these medical ethicists decided that if a toddler reacted adversely to a vaccine for instance and became autistic or neurologically or physically impaired from the vaccine, would these ethical medical professors believe it would be alright to allow that child to die too?

The authors are Alberto Giubilini and co-author Francesca Minerva with the Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy, and the Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, , CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia.

It seems that Minerva and Giubilini believe it is ethical, moral and quite alright to murder a newborn that does not meet their high ethical standards.

when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

Minerva and Giubilini also believe that three days should lapse before a birth certificate is issued. During those three days those critical decisions could be made. Is the child perfect? Can we afford it? And most importantly….Do we even want it?

In 2008, I had written an article on the collection and cataloguing of newborn DNA, especially here in Minnesota, even though I knew that newborn DNA had been collected in all fifty states since 1992. In that article I stated:

This issue is not one of party affiliation or a right vs. left drama being played out. This is the groundwork for future discrimination that will most likely surpass employment and insurance targeting but eventually could be used to decide who lives or dies, or who can reproduce.”

The purpose of gathering genetic material that might identify any defects of the child was to establish databases from which could be extrapolated, costs of defects, cause of defects, and the affects of defects on the child and its family. Apparently, the costs far exceed the value of life. Equally as obvious is that the tools have been developed to ferret out those less than perfect and for those who escape early detection there is always the newly forming after-birth abortion.

When the human genome project was launched in tandem with the collection of newborn DNA after every birth, and with the project openly announcing its intention to collect and database the DNA of every person born on this earth, no one really questioned why such a thing should be done. What would be the purpose(s)? aside from those stated. Experience has taught us that regardless of what the stated intentions are regarding any program, there is always a hidden agenda that is less than moral, less than lawful, less than ethical and most likely is going to be used to harm us in one way or another.

The Human Genome Project

Project goals were to address the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) that may arise from the project among other things.

The genome project was also providing enabling technologies essential to the emergence of the biotechnology industry, which spurred the massive growth of invasive and aggressively mutated plants that are now devastating the natural environment world-wide. Having reached such levels of success in the eradication of natural biodiversity, the genome database is now being used aggressively to identify genetic defects, not only after birth, but also in the womb. While this technology can be used to identify and in some cases correct defective genes, its most valuable component is the ability to now, even before birth (if not after), determine defects that might not be readily apparent in the first few days after birth. The extra blood and tissue now taken in the DNA collection taking place with each newborn, will facilitate the selection process and the premise presented by Minerva and Guilbini of after birth abortions now becomes a real possibility.

Voluntary sterilization: Are we there yet?

On march 16, 2012 the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that all student health plans covering female students in the United States must provide coverage for voluntary sterilization.

I think it strange that no one under the age of 18, can lawfully enter into a contract, cannot lawfully consume alcohol, cannot even vote! But for some reason they can now obtain an abortion, elect to be vaccinated against parental wishes in some states, and can elect to have them selves sterilized! And I could not help but notice all of this targets girls, specifically. Obviously omitted from this new set of underage freedoms, is the targeting of young boys and men.

Women, and girls as young as 15 can obtain free sterilization whether they are covered by a private insurance plan or a government-subsidized program and without parental consent! Of course elected sterilization is based on psychiatric counseling and review; the psychiatrist to determine if the minor child is capable of making such a decision. I cannot help but wonder if these decisions will also be based on psychiatric coercion. Maybe they can use the new  vaginal ultra sound on these young women prior to sterilization, just as a last insult.

Australia goes off the deep end

In what might at first glance seem an unrelated event, Australia’s Mental Health Commission is positioning itself to begin aggressively sterilizing both male and female children who are underage.

The Government of Western Australia’s Mental Health Commission (WAMHC) has drafted a proposal for new mental health legislation that bypasses parental involvement in the mental health treatment process. It will allow children under age 18, and of any age, with making the decision about whether or not to be sterilized, or whether or not to have their brain tissue destroyed with psychosurgery procedures. If a “mental health professional” can convince children that they need such treatments for their own good, in other words, then Australia’s youngest members of society will be open game for the eugenicist agenda.

And precisely what would a mental health professional have to say to a young child to convince them that either sterilization or psycho-surgery is necessary for their own good? Would a young child even understand what they were agreeing to? And, who determines what is good for them? What standards would be used? And who among us is so perfect that we could determine that another’s life is either not worth living as is, or that we have the right to prevent them a normal future that might include children?

Is anyone going to examine the examiners to determine if they are mentally stable enough to conduct such a conversation? And why, if these consultations are on the up & up, are parents left out of the decision making process? Under what authority are parents excluded?

We are reaching the point of no return. We have a system developing globally that not only practices exclusion and which exhibits openly its malice based on sex, but one which is quickly evolving into one based on artificial selection. So-called [science] has gone too far and is too well funded by behind the scenes eugenics promoters and governments alike. While many of us cringed at China’s one child policy, I wonder what our reaction will be when policies far worse than this begin being practiced right here at home?

Before we offer free sterilization and psycho-surgery primarily to young girls and women, maybe we ought to insist that the people in science and government go first. I believe we should sterilize every one of them and then fry their brains with electroshock. At the very least, we might get a few moments peace in all this madness.

WAMHC Mental Health Bill 2011, which you can access here:

Journal of Medical Ethics[1] February 23, 2012