It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Intel Hub
By Alexander Higgins
February 28, 2012
A paper recently published in the Journal of Medical Ethics says that parents should have the right to kill their newborn infants because infants are not people.
A paper in the The Journal of Medical Ethics, an international peer-reviewed journal for health professionals and researchers in medical ethics, argues that murdering newborn infants should be legalized.
The rational? “Infants are not people”.
...
In an interview with the New York Times, Ginsburg admitted that abortion is about getting rid of certain types of people that the elite do not want to have around:
"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we dont want to have too many of."
Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation
America's richest people meet to discuss ways of tackling a 'disastrous' environmental, social and industrial threat
John Harlow, Los Angeles
SOME of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.
The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.
Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of Americas wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.
The Intel Hub
By Alexander Higgins
February 28, 2012
A paper recently published in the Journal of Medical Ethics says that parents should have the right to kill their newborn infants because infants are not people.
In an interview with the New York Times, Ginsburg admitted that abortion is about getting rid of certain types of people that the elite do not want to have around:
"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we dont want to have too many of."
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.
Q: Does that mean getting rid of the test the court imposed, in which it allows states to impose restrictions on abortion — like a waiting period — that are not deemed an “undue burden” to a woman’s reproductive freedom?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: I’m not a big fan of these tests. I think the court uses them as a label that accommodates the result it wants to reach. It will be, it should be, that this is a woman’s decision. It’s entirely appropriate to say it has to be an informed decision, but that doesn’t mean you can keep a woman overnight who has traveled a great distance to get to the clinic, so that she has to go to some motel and think it over for 24 hours or 48 hours.
I still think, although I was much too optimistic in the early days, that the possibility of stopping a pregnancy very early is significant. The morning-after pill will become more accessible and easier to take. So I think the side that wants to take the choice away from women and give it to the state, they’re fighting a losing battle. Time is on the side of change.
SOME of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.
The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.
Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
What are stupid senstationalist heading and OP. The artcile exposes next to nothing, other than the fact the Gates foundation is sponsoring responsible family planning in developing countries with booming populations, STD epidemics and a lack of resources to provide for and protect their own populace.
It tries to make it seem as if the Gate foundation is preparing to murder the enitire developing world using condoms. What are they going to strangle everyone to death with Latex? What is the problem with educating people about safe sex, contracetption and responsible family planning? I could imagine the Vatican would be against it, but we already know religion defies any rationality and logic.
This OP = Stupid, sensationalist propaganda.
If Bill Gates really wanted the developing world to die a painful, misreable, death then the Gates foundation wouldn't fund humanitarian assistance, sanitation programs, food aid and medical care in Africa. Moreover if the UN is some elite Globalist venue hell bent on killing off the poor, explain why they fund humanitarian assistance, provide food aid, shelter refugees in camps and work with NGOs to try give these people a better life with what little resources are provided to them by rich developed states such as the US.
Use your brain instead of buying into any senstaionalist conspiracy theory you read on the internet. You are no better than the so called "sheeple".
Many members and myself have been trying to show these facts, and the more people are shown what this is really all about the better chances we will have to stop these goals the global elites want.
I don't know if you work for these people, just think there's the biggest conspiracy in the world.
Originally posted by FractalChaos13242017
Proof or it didn't happen... I tried finding said paper published in the Journal Of Medical Ethics, yet it could not be found, following your links.
J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100411
Law, ethics and medicine
Paper
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
Alberto Giubilini1,2,
Francesca Minerva3
+ Author Affiliations
1Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
2Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
3Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Correspondence to Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; [email protected]
Contributors AG and FM contributed equally to the manuscript.
Received 25 November 2011
Revised 26 January 2012
Accepted 27 January 2012
Published Online First 23 February 2012
Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
...
Originally posted by FractalChaos13242017
Again, the same story... something pulled out of context, as well as paraphrase fear mongering rhetoric. It sites an 'anonymous' party!!! I mean cmon!
Originally posted by FractalChaos13242017
She's talking about the importance of population growth, and interactions between individuals and medicaid. Being in support of it, and expressing concern about people appearing to not being concerned with population growth. Which, if you watched the video I presented, you would realize is very real.
...
Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. ...
Originally posted by FractalChaos13242017
Certain types, or access to abortion and concern for population growth. This doesn't claim that she wants certain types of people to die... being planned by the elite.
Originally posted by FractalChaos13242017
I can't believe this crap... I can find similar fear mongering rhetoric through out many of your posts that is taken completely out of context, using crap sources that pull things out of context... You're almost too much to keep up with, seriously. The consistency in your changing letter size, applying bold to 'out of context' quotes, and other techniques... coupled with your consistency in posting disinformation is becoming too much. Please, just stop...
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
These two, alongside the world elites, should be imprisoned for crimes against humanity, but of course as long s they hide behind "we are doing it for the good of all and mother Earth" they will be free to continue with their depopulation plans...
Depopulate
to reduce greatly the population of
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Not that long ago i also posted a video of Ted Turner calling for world depopulation by 95%
Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
What are stupid senstationalist heading and OP.
"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent!" (About 1 Billion People!)
...
Originally posted by unityemissions
...
Are you sure you want me to continue?
"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent!" (About 1 Billion People!)
...
Originally posted by unityemissions
You have yet to refute any of my claims.
I'm not going anywhere while you're mixing up a bunch of hooey.
Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
Apparently, you are too dumb to see that I've already done this.
"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent!" (About 1 Billion People!)
...
(NaturalNews) In a recent TED conference presentation, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to new vaccine efforts, speaks on the issue of CO2 emissions and its effects on climate change. He presents a formula for tracking CO2 emissions as follows: CO2 = P x S x E x C.
P = People
S = Services per person
E = Energy per service
C = CO2 per energy unit
Then he adds that in order to get CO2 to zero, "probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero."
Following that, Bill Gates begins to describe how the first number -- P (for People) -- might be reduced. He says:
"The world today has 6.8 billion people... that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."
You can watch this yourself at:
www.naturalnews.tv...
Reducing the world population through vaccines
This statement by Bill Gates was not made with any hesitation, stuttering or other indication that it might have been a mistake. It appears to have been a deliberate, calculated part of a well developed and coherent presentation.
So what does it mean when Bill Gates says "if we do a really great job on new vaccines... we could lower (world population) by 10 or 15 percent?"
Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...
...
Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
Okay, I see I'm dealing with someone who simply is incapable of understanding that the RATE OF GROWTH is what will change, and NEVER an actual decline in the total number in this scenario.
Originally posted by Annee
I think some people are more invested in the drama - - then any logical reality.
Kind of like those who protest abortion clinics - - - but do nothing to alleviate the growing problem of abandoned or unwanted children.