Tag Archives: new born

The NZ Deerstalkers Assn is demanding answers over scheduling of 1080 poisoning operations during current breeding season, saying new born fawns will starve if poison drops go ahead

Animals poisoned with 1080 die a days long agonizing death because DoC are exempted from the Animal Welfare Act with respect to 1080 use. In this case, when the mothers are poisoned their fawns die of starvation. EWR

“We hoped these organisations had learned their lesson from the public backlash over the 2017 mass poisoning of deer in Molesworth but it appears that despite their promises to prevent such indiscriminate killing happening again, they are continuing their unacceptable policies.” NZDA

“AN ANIMAL WELFARE DISASTER” DEERSTALKERS DEMAND ANSWERS OVER 1080 DROPS DURING FAWN SEASON
20 NOVEMBER 2019
From the NZ Deer Stalkers Assn

The New Zealand Deerstalkers Association is demanding answers over the scheduling of 1080 poisoning operations during the current breeding season, saying new born fawns are threatened with starvation if the poison drops go ahead.
The NZDA, which is the country’s leading hunting organisation, says it has become aware of a number of applications from both OSPRI and the Department of Conservation to start poisoning large areas during the run-up to Christmas.
A 1080 drop is scheduled to begin tomorrow in the Kahurangi area in the north west South Island, while it is understood another operation is due to begin soon in the Landsborough area on the West Coast.
The NZDA is condemning the planned poisoning.
The NZDA’s national president Trevor Chappell says the timing is unacceptable.
“These drops coincide with late spring when deer are giving birth to their fawns and that means not only are the mothers at risk of dying a painful death if they eat the 1080, the orphaned fawns will be left to starve to death,” says Mr Chappell.
“This is just not on. This is a major animal welfare issue for deer and if these government organisations want to be seen as humane, they should not be conducting mass poisoning campaigns at this time of year.”
The Deerstalkers Association is asking DoC and OSPRI to explain their thinking.
“In previous years, mass poisoning operations have finished by this time. Even the tahr cull was halted from November to prevent orphaned kids starving to death in the mountains,” Trevor Chappell says.
“We hoped these organisations had learned their lesson from the public backlash over the 2017 mass poisoning of deer in Molesworth but it appears that despite their promises to prevent such indiscriminate killing happening again, they are continuing their unacceptable policies.”

Photo Credit: Clyde Graf

Abortion outrage: Mums should be allowed to terminate newborns, say Australian academics

Continuing on with the extermination theme.  It just gets sicker. So… their argument in a nutshell:

“…a mother who is unwilling to care for her child outweighs an infant’s right to life…”

From thedailytelegraph.com.au

KILLING newborn babies should be allowed if the mother wishes, Australian philosophers have argued in a prestigious journal.

Their argument, that it is morally the same as abortion, has forced theBritish Medical Journal to defend its publication of their views.

In an article that has sparked outrage around the world and elicited death threats, Monash and Melbourne University academics argue that a foetus and a newborn both lack a sense of life and aspiration.

They argue this justifies “after-birth abortion” on the proviso it is painless as the baby is not missing out on a life it cannot contemplate.

The doctors of philosophy argue in the BMJ publication Journal of Medical Ethics that one-third of infants with Down syndrome are not diagnosed in the womb, which means mothers of children with severe disabilities should have the chance to end a child’s life after, as well as before, birth.

However, the pair also want the principle of killing newborns extended to healthy babies, because a mother who is unwilling to care for it outweighs an infant’s right to life.

In the article, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?, the authors argue: “A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human.”

They also write that the practice should be called “after-birth abortion” and not “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a foetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child”.

“We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.”

Although the authors claim that the “moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense”, they concede it is hard to exactly determine when a subject starts or ceases to be a “person”.

The editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Julian Savulescu, said the articlehad “elicited personally abusive correspondence to the authors, threatening their lives and personal safety”. He said some of comments included:

“These people are evil. Pure evil. That they feel safe in putting their twisted thoughts into words reveals how far we have fallen as a society.”

“Right now I think these two devils in human skin need to be delivered for immediate execution under their code of ‘after birth abortions’ they want to commit murder – that is all it is! MURDER!!!”

“The fact that the Journal of Medical Ethics published this outrageous and immoral piece of work is even scarier”

“Alberto Giubilini looks like a muslim so I have to agree with him that all muslims should have been aborted. If abortion fails, no life at birth – just like he wants.”

He defended the article, saying the arguments in the paper were not new. “The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide … but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands.”

He said that “more than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

Originally published as Killing newborns ‘should be allowed’

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/abortion-outrage-mums-should-be-allowed-to-terminate-newborns-say-australian-academics/news-story/05da73dcef423139d0b5003ca8d05346