Study: 89% of Respondent Medical Professionals in Belgium Would Kill a Baby Born with Disabilities

Combined Shape

The year is 2020, and the scientific community is in the process of normalizing the extermination of disabled and “unfit” newborns.

No, this is not the opening line in a dystopian fiction novel. Nor is it the premise for a 20th-century Nazi scientist’s daydream.

In fact, quite the opposite. This is a dystopian reality the progressive young adult fiction authors behind “The Hunger Games” and “The Handmaid’s Tale” likely could not care less about — and not even the Nazis could have foretold.

According to a gynecological research study published this month out of Flanders, Belgium, roughly 89 percent of medical experts polled have no reservations when it comes to ending the life of a baby born with serious disabilities or birth defects.

“Almost nine out of ten respondents (89.1%) agreed that in the event of a serious (non‐lethal) neonatal condition, administering drugs with the explicit intention to end neonatal life was acceptable,” a publicly available abstract for the paper reads.

US Chamber of Commerce Defies Biden, Calls for Termination of Weekly Unemployment Perk

The survey sample was 117 hands-on medical experts, with a nearly even distribution of physicians and paramedical professionals.

It remains unclear what exactly constitutes a “serious (non‐lethal) neonatal condition,” but Disrn reports that European medical standards drawn from the U.K. Abortion Act of 1967 uphold Down syndrome, cleft lip and club foot as serious, non-lethal conditions for which an abortion can be approved and administered.

The outlet went on to suggest that such standards already were on the road to normalization in the developed world, with Australian medical ethicists writing in 2012 that, while newborns were technically “human beings and potential persons,” they were not persons “in the sense of subject of a moral right to life.”

As a result, the doctors wrote, “What we call ‘after-birth abortion’ should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

Is abortion a modern form of eugenics?

None of this should come as a surprise, however — at least, not considering the reckless abandon with which the modern Western culture normalizes and defends international abortion giant Planned Parenthood.

By any honest account, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood precursor the American Birth Control League, was a hatemonger and eugenicist.

Sanger’s tireless work toward developing a cheap, accessible method of contraception for American women, though shrouded in a cloak of philanthropy and feminist sexual liberation, was carried out almost entirely in the pursuit of societal and ethnic cleansing.

In Sanger’s words, the ABCL was created, in part, to quell “the rising stream of the unfit.”

And who were “the unfit?”

Abortion Lobby Is Back on Trial, as Legislators Once Again Hear the Case Against Fetal Tissue Trafficking and Experimentation

One need to look only to the countless eugenicist works in Sanger’s periodical, The Birth Control Review, to find the answer: anyone with a deformity, mental illness or special need. The “feeble-minded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic” and the “criminal,” as Sanger referred to them.

In works such as “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda,” “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics” and “My Way to Peace,” Sanger and her colleagues shamelessly advocated “a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”

Not to mention the “Negro Project” — Sanger’s attempt to minimize minority population growth by making contraceptives as “accessible” as possible in the black inner-city.

So concerned, in fact, was Sanger with quieting the efforts to sterilize the racially “unfit” that she penned her infamous letter to Clarence Gamble in 1939, expressing her intention to partner with and use church leaders to keep black individuals ignorant and calm with regard to ABCL operation in their communities.

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members,” she wrote.

Bogged down in the abortion movement’s degenerate founding, however, history should not forget the evils of abortion in the modern day.

Across the Western world, the birth rate for babies with disabilities such as Down syndrome has fallen dramatically in recent years, though no actual cure for such disabilities exists.

According to a 2017 report from CBS News, only one or two Down syndrome children are born annually to nations such as Iceland as a result of widespread prenatal disability testing.

And the United States can’t claim innocence on the issue either, with Massachusetts General Hospital data analyses conducted in the same year revealing that the Down syndrome population size in nine American states had fallen by an average of 22 percent in recent years. The cause, Massachusetts General said, was elective abortion.

So, after all these years, I guess the American left was correct. The modern West has more in common with Nazi Germany than most of us might think.

It has a major eugenics problem.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

, , , , , , ,
Andrew J. Sciascia is the supervising editor of features at The Western Journal. Having joined up as a regular contributor of opinion in 2018, he went on to cover the Barrett confirmation and 2020 presidential election for the outlet, regularly co-hosting its video podcast, "WJ Live," as well.
Andrew J. Sciascia is the supervising editor of features at The Western Journal and regularly co-hosts the outlet's video podcast, "WJ Live."

Sciascia first joined up with The Western Journal as a regular contributor of opinion in 2018, before graduating with a degree in criminal justice and political science from the University of Massachusetts Lowell, where he served as editor-in-chief of the student newspaper and worked briefly as a political operative with the Massachusetts Republican Party.

He has since covered the Barrett confirmation and 2020 presidential election for The Western Journal, and now focuses his reporting on Congress and the national campaign trail. His work has also appeared in The Daily Caller.