Posts Tagged Fetus
by: Alicia Martin
July 28, 2012
About two-thirds of women in the United States take one or more prescription medications during pregnancy, many of which the potential effects on a fetus are unclear. In developed countries, birth defects are the leading cause of infant mortality. The complex melange of factors that contribute to a healthy pregnancy make it very difficult to specifically identify causal factors, but it is widely agreed upon that taking medication during pregnancy can result in fetal damage.
Use of Medication During Pregnancy a Dangerous Decision
In 1979, the United States Food and Drug Administration introduced a system to classify pharmaceuticals based on fetal risks. The two highest categories of risk in this system are ‘Category X,’ where fetal abnormalities could occur, and/or there is positive evidence of human fetal risk based on adverse reaction data, and the risks involved in the use of medication during pregnancy clearly outweigh potential benefits. Then there is ‘Category D,’ where it is claimed that the use of the drug will provide more benefits than risks, despite positive evidence of human fetal risk based on adverse reaction data from investigational or marketing experience or studies in humans. Needless to say, pharmaceutical drugs should be avoided, especially while pregnant.
An analysis of almost 13,000 doctor visits made by women of childbearing age between 1998-2000 showed that one out of every thirteen was on a class D or X medication, and given the steep and steady increase in prescriptions for psychotropic drugs in the past decades, it’s likely that this number is also increasing.
In addition to these medications which are known to pose a risk, the data on many other prescription drugs is limited at best. According to Dr. Cheryl Broussard, Epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, most medications have not been adequately evaluated for use during pregnancy, and one study showed that more than 90% of medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 1980 to 2000 had insufficient data to determine the risk in human pregnancy.
March 1, 2012
Stating that newborn babies ‘aren’t people’ and it is therefore acceptable to kill them, two ‘ethicists’ writing for the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics are now calling for after-birth abortions. The writers, who worked with Australian universities in the construction of their paper, say that newborn babies simply do not have a “moral right to life.”Furthermore, the paper goes on to state that the babies have no right to live as they do not offer “at least basic value” that would represent a loss.
Study authors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, both from the University of Melbourne, state in their paper that “after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.” They go on to say that while it is infanticide, they prefer not to call it that. Instead, they prefer the term ‘after-birth abortion’ — a term that avoids the true labeling of the proposed technique.
Authors of the paper write that simply being a human isn’t something that grants ‘a right to life’. It appears the paper authors believe that they are the ones who are to determine whether or not a human can live or die. Under this train of thought, then these ‘after-birth’ abortions are not limited to infants. In fact, if being a human does not grant a ‘right to life’, then so-called ‘ethicists’ could soon state that everyone with a disability no longer has the right to live. Does this sound familiar? From 1929 to 1974, the United States began forcibly sterilizing individuals they deemed to not be ‘fit to live’.
During this time period, around 60,000 people were forcibly sterilized nationwide under the admitted eugenics program. The authors of this paper are now recommending that certain human beings simply do not deserve to live, in the same manner of the U.S. government in 1929. The authors even take it a step further, going from sterilizations to full-blown murders — genocide on a larger scale.
The paper states:
“Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life…”
The news comes just after the ‘Euthanasia Coaster‘ hit the mainstream and alternative media, a proposed rollercoaster design that would ‘euthanize and execute’ its passengers. The creator of the coaster, Julijonas Urbonas, says the machine is engineered to take the life of a human being with “elegance and euphoria.” The coaster even met similar scientific reception as the concept of after-birth abortions, as the transhumanism science organization “HUMAN+” displayed the concept of the Euthanasia Coaster at the Science Gallery in Dublin from April through June 2011.