Pope Francis: The Devil Hates Human Beings and Wants to Destroy Us

StMichael3.jpg

YouTube Preview Image

German Committee Says ‘Incest a Fundamental Right.’

Unknown

The German Ethics Committee, which is described as “a government committee” and which appears to have some sort of legitimacy, has labeled laws against incest “unacceptable” because they “don’t allow the right to sexual self-determination.

This is especially interesting since the European Court of Human Rights ruled in April in favor of the German law making incest illegal. The case was based on the conviction of a man who had an incestuous relationship with his sister that began when the girl was 16 and he was 23.

The committee uses the same old arguments we’ve heard in the gay marriage context.

In case you need a refresher, here are a few snapshots:

fundamental right to sexual self-determination

criminalizing private behavior

incestuous couples are forced to live in secret

individual rights outweigh abstractions such as “family”

2% to 4% of Germans do it.

fundamental freedoms have been violated

must deny their love

“we just want to lead a normal life”

We heard it over and over and over again. Gay marriage would not lead to polygamy. But before the gay marriage deal is fully set, the agitation for normalizing polygamy through the media and legalizing polygamy through the courts is going gangbusters. 

We heard it over and over and over again. Gay marriage would not bother anyone. “If you oppose gay marriage, don’t get gay married,” the slogan went. But small business people all over the country have been drug into court because they didn’t want to become unwilling participants in gay weddings in violation of their religious beliefs.

I don’t remember anyone even asking if gay marriage would lead to incest. That seemed too off the wall. But, sadly, the line of argument used to create a phony-baloney claim that two men or two women are the same as a man and a woman has no limit to the things it can justify.

The reason for this is simple: The claims about gay marriage have no basis in reality. I’m not talking about the legitimate claims of homosexual people that they are human beings and American citizens and that they should be treated fairly and without discrimination under the law.

I am talking about codifying a fantasy scenario in which homosexual couples are the same as a marriage between a man and woman. Twisting your mind around to force it to think that this lie is truth destroys rational thought. It requires saying that you see what you don’t see until you begin to actually see what is not there.

This kind of delusional thinking, and the arguments on which it is based, lead to a ever-broadening set of delusions. Human beings are categorizing, if-this-is-true/then-this-must-also-be-true kind of thinkers. When the basic if-this-is-true premises of our thinking become tainted with forced acceptance of delusional lies, the ability to respond rationally to anything and everything related to it slides off the table and smashes itself into pieces.

That appears to be what has happened with the German Ethics Committee. I don’t know anything about German governance, but it seems that this committee has some sort of law-making recommendation ability. I say that because German Chancellor Angela Merkel responded seriously to the committee’s recommendation that Germany legalize incest.

I’m guessing that this puts their recommendation somewhat ahead of a vote taken by the ladies neighborhood flower arranging society of Frankfurt.

Will Germany jump on this parade and legalize incest?

Based on Chancellor Merkel’s response, I don’t think that’s going to happen right away. But the arguments are in place and the persistent lobbying has begun.

Unless we shake off this mass delusion, it’s only a matter of time.

From The Independent:

 

Germany’s national ethics council has called for an end to the criminalisation of incest between siblings after examining the case of a man who had four children with his sister.

Patrick Stuebing, who was adopted as an infant and met his sister in his 20s, has launched several appeals since being imprisoned for incest in 2008 and his lengthy legal battle has prompted widespread public debate.

Sexual relations between siblings or between parents and their children are forbidden under section 173 of the German criminal code and offenders can face years in prison.

But on Wednesday, the German Ethics Council recommended the section be repealed, arguing that the risk of disability in children is not enough to warrant the law and de-criminalising incest would not remove the huge social taboo around it.

The chairman of the council, Christiane Woopen, was among the 14 members voting in favour of repealing section 173, while nine people voted for the ban to continue and two abstained.

A statement released on Wednesday said: “Incest between siblings appears to be very rare in Western societies according to the available data but those affected describe how difficult their situation is in light of the threat of punishment.

“They feel their fundamental freedoms have been violated and are forced into secrecy or to deny their love.

Send it Back: Surrogates and Killing Their Manufactured Babies

surrogates-for-hire-Google-Search.jpg
It’s the new hot trend. Go online and pick an egg donor from photos and order up a harvesting of her body in order to design a baby, made to your specifications. Then hire a “surrogate” (read that breeder) to carry the baby to term for you. And if the thing goes wrong, as biology is wont to do, why, then, order the surrogate to kill the baby for you. You know, like a Roman Pater discussing the upcoming birth of his child with the family Mater in this love letter from the front:

“Know that I am still in Alexandria…. I ask and beg you to take good care of our baby son, and as soon as I received payment I shall send it up to you. If you are delivered (before I come home), if it is a boy keep it, if a girl, discard it.”

This lovely practice of “discarding” baby girls — along with babies with birth defects — runs throughout recorded history. It is still practiced in parts of the world today. Babies abandoned 1 Early Christians labeled the practice infanticide. They went out into the streets, got these baby girls, brought them home and raised them. The idea that there is no Greek nor Jew, no male nor female but all are one in Christ Jesus was a startling Christian innovation. The teaching, which was formalized in writing as early as the Didache, that all human life, including unborn human life, is sacred, is another peculiar Christian innovation. Today’s version of “discard it,” at least in the “civilized” West, is abortion. The neat tidiness of legal killing in a clinical situation has it all over any other mass killing field in history. There are no furnaces belching out smoke to run day and night disposing the bodies. No one sees the carnage except the medical staff. Even the receptionist who sits out front is left innocent of what is really happening. Combine this take-a-number-and-wait killing field with the highly-lucrative business of harvesting and renting women’s bodies as if they were farm animals in order to manufacture made-to-order babies for sale, and you have the total commercialization of human life and human beings. Call it “creating families” or whatever pretty little phrase you want to paste over its ugliness. This is the practice of commercialized medicine for hire, put to the service of creating, buying and selling people. It has nothing to do with the healing arts or medicine practiced to save lives. It is the ultimate prostitution, and the “doctors” who do it are the ultimate pimps. It degrades women and babies to the level of chattel for the express and openly acknowledged business of buying and selling people. The tripping up part, of course, is what if the baby-buyers decide at the last minute that they don’t want their new human widget. What if, say, there’s a divorce? Or the manufacturing process goes awry and the baby has a cleft palate or down’s syndrome or spina bifida. What if those designer genes turn out to be somewhat idiosyncratic? Jh6 In that circumstance, our “modern” baby buyers do the modern thing. They order the baby killed. It is, after all, their possession that they bought in good faith that it would be delivered as ordered. Now, it’s defective. They’re behaving the way anyone would if the factory delivered the wrong purchase. They are sending it back. Consider these stories:

1. An Australian couple who was paying a woman from Thailand to carry their twin unborn babies as a surrogate asked the woman to abort one of the babies because testing had revealed one of the babies has Down Syndrome.The couple enlisted the woman, whose family was heavily in debt, to become their surrogate and to use IVF to become pregnant. She was subsequently found to be pregnant with twins but the initial joy turned to rejection when testing showed a boy nicknamed Gammy was diagnosed with Down Syndrome.The couple wanted the mother to have an abortion, but she refused and eventually gave birth to Gammy and his twin sister in Bangkok. The couple then refused to take Gammy back with them to Australia and left him in Thailand.

2. A British surrogate mother said yesterday that she is raising a disabled baby as her own after the child’s intended mother told her she did not want a ‘dribbling cabbage’ for a daughter.The healthy boy was taken home by the childless British couple whom the surrogate mother claims then rejected his unwell sister because of her disability.‘I remember her saying to me, “She’d be a ****ing dribbling cabbage! Who would want to adopt her? No one would want to adopt a disabled child”.’She is now raising the baby – identified only as Amy – with her partner and their other children.

3.  A British woman who agreed to become a surrogate mother for an American couple is suing them for allegedly backing out of the deal because she is carrying twins.Helen Beasley, 26, claims Californians Charles Wheeler and Martha Berman demanded she abort one of the foetuses because they only wanted one child.When she refused, they allegedly refused to have anything more to do with her.Miss Beasley, who is six months pregnant, wants to put the twins up for adoption. But under Californian law, parental rights in a surrogacy agreement go to the intended parents, not the surrogate mother.Miss Beasley, a single woman from the Midlands, already has a nine-year- old son. The two of them arrived in the U.S. a week ago.She said she could not afford to support the twins, so adopting them herself was not an option. But she claimed to feel very responsible for the babies.’You can’t help but get attached to them, and I just want the best for them,’ she said last night. ‘When they’re born, what happens to them? I can’t have them. I can’t do anything with them. They’re not mine.

4. “The View” host Sheri Shepherd reportedly wants “nothing to do” with her unborn childnow that her marriage has folded. Shepherd reportedly used IVF to conceive a child with her husband Lamar Sally but now is not interested in caring for the baby, who is being carried by a surrogate mother. 5. Doctors told surrogate mother Crystal Kelley, 29,five months into her pregnancy last year that the baby she was carrying had a series of disabilities. When the child’s parents told her they wanted to abort the foetus, she fled from Connecticut across the country to Michigan, where under state law she had legal rights as the child’s mother. … The baby was suspected to have a cleft palate, a brain cyst and serious heart defects. Doctors were unable to locate the child’s spleen or stomach, and gave the baby only a 25 percent chance of living a normal life They offered her $10,000 to have the procedure but Ms Kelley refused, demanding $15,000 instead in what she says was a “weak moment”. The parents refused, and reminded her of her contractual obligation to abort the foetus if it displayed signs of abnormality. If she refused, she would be sued for the fee she had already received, plus all the medical expenses and legal fees.

Rotherham and the Cowardly Act of Offering Up Young Girls to the Dragon of Misogyny

367274

It’s an old myth, the story of villagers who sacrifice a virgin to the neighboring dragon in order to keep the dragon from annihilating them. Unfortunately, like most myths, it has its base in terrible fact.

British police, due to what we are told was a kind of politically correct paralysis, essentially collaborated over a long period of time with local Pakistani gangs who repeatedly gang-raped British girls as young as 12 or 13 and then used them as forced prostitutes in their home-grown sex-trafficking rings.

In the clear hallmark of discriminatory police everywhere, these British cops blamed the victims and refused them the police protection that was their right as human beings. Here in America, we would say that the Rotherham police denied an entire class of their citizens — the young girls of their city — their civil rights. By any standard of human rights on this planet, they also denied these young girls their human rights.

What the report of this massive, on-going, police-enforced gang rape and selling of young girls by local Pakistani men amounts to is a violation of the civil and human rights of the girls of Rotherham by the officials of that city.

We are being told that the local police and the rest of the community were so fearful of being called out by the forces of political correctness that they offered up their city’s young girls to avoid it. This echoes tales of heretofore mythical villagers, offering up their daughters to appease the dragon. Only this is real life.

Is anyone believing this? Were these cops so afraid of being called Islamaphobes that they allowed young girls to be repeatedly gang raped and sold to avoid doing their jobs?

Is that what Britain has devolved down to?

Frankly, my first thought was that the Rotherham police were probably getting paid off. I can’t imagine that the police — the police — were so cowed by the politically correct whatevers that are evidently running Britain that they not only allowed, but enabled this to go on for decades. So, I thought of corruption and bribery, and to be honest, I thought it almost hopefully.

Because if the Rotherham police were not being bribed to look the other way and the story really truly is that they allowed these young girls to be raped because they were afraid of violating some sicko idea of political correctness, then our good friends the British have gone insane and suicidal.

 Evidently, a woman who tried to blow the whistle on the rapes was sentenced to “sensitivity training” for doing it. Maybe the cops really were afraid of being denounced and sentenced to re-programming if they did their jobs. Whatever the reason, they are filthy misogynist rapist enablers and claims of cowardice in the face of politically correct sensitivity training don’t excuse them. That much is sure.

We’ve gone a long way down the road of politically correct bullying here in America and it’s getting worse. But I don’t think our cops — at least not Okie cops — would be afraid to prosecute crimes of this nature just because the perpetrators were Muslims. In fact, I’m sure they wouldn’t be.

I don’t know British law, but my first — entirely American, totally Okie — take is that the police in Rotherham ought to go to prison along with the rapists. The rapists should spend the rest of their lives in jail. When they leave prison, it should be in a box. The police who allowed this to happen should take a perp walk in front of television cameras so the whole world can see what useless cowards and traitors to their duty and their community look like.

Koran Graffiti Indiana

Meanwhile, on this side of the pond, Kathy Schiffer wrote a post yesterday about three churches in Columbus, IN that had been graffiti’d with a verse from the Koran threatening physical violence. The word “infidels” was spray painted alongside it. And I watched a video last night of another helpless American being beheaded by ISIS. That, added to Rotherham, seems like a lot.

The Anchoress looked at the rapes in Rotherham and saw the actions of conquest. I look at it and see patterns.

Bring back our girls

I’ve been reading for months about ISIS in Iraq and Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, kidnapping Christian girls, and raping them and selling them into sex trafficking. Boko Haram kidnapped almost 300 school girls for the express purpose of selling them into sex slavery.

In other news, we have the Sidney gang rapes of Australian girls by Australian nationals of Lebanese Muslim descent, and the gang rapes in Holland by men of Turkish and Moroccan descent.

Does anybody see a pattern here?

The politically correct crowd can yak about “racism” and “Islamaphobia” all they want. What we are dealing with is violent and vile misogyny of almost mind-boggling proportions. And it’s not just the rapists who are misogynists. Whole countries — entire nations — are willing to sacrifice their girls to the dragon of politically-correct lies.

The Rotherham police can now join the cops of Juarez who allowed young women to be kidnapped, raped and tortured to death and would not lift a finger.

Their response was the same as the police in Rotherham. They made fun of the families who tried to get their help and said the girls were “prostitutes.”

Spineless and misogynist British cops who allow savage violence against young girls, and the gangs of Pakistani rapists/pimps in Rotherham who are supported and enabled by politically correct bullies, are certainly bad enough. But they’re just the little finger on the left hand of the whole truth.

We also have a pattern of one particular group of people — of whom the Rotherham rapists are a part — engaging in terror tactics against helpless civilians in a number of places around the world. Not only do they kidnap/rape/enslave and sell young girls, they burn, behead and annihilate whole populations.

In the West, they respond to criticism just as the rapists of Rotherham have responded; by running to their politically correct protectors and claiming that they are the victims. In the Middle East, they respond by making videos of themselves as they murder helpless people to use to recruit more murderers from places like Rotherham and, presumably, Columbus.

Truththenewhatespeechcorrectspellinig

If it raises your politically correct hackles for me to say that, I put before you the kidnapped, raped and sold girls in Nigeria; the kidnapped, raped and sold girls in Egypt, Iraq, Syria, et al; the raped and sold girls in Rotherham. Alongside the kidnappers/rapists/slavers, I put before you the police who colluded with the kidnappers and rapists. And alongside the police I put the political correctness enforcers who attack anyone who says the truth.

Then I turn your attention to the burned out churches and piles of beheaded bodies in the Middle East.

We have created a lethal brew of enforced helplessness and passivity in the face of violence and evil. We are binding this together with cords of misogyny that places the value of young girls at zero.

Political correctness voltaire

We justify it with self-righteous claims that anyone who speaks against it is a racist who hates Muslims. The obvious response to that is Who is the racist here? Who is raping whom?

I, for one, do not hate Muslims. I believe that there are a lot of Muslims who feel trapped between these rapists and the larger society. But we do those people no good by allowing the savages among them to run free and terrorize all of us, including them.

The perpetrators of these crimes — and I include the murderer of James Foley and Steven Sotloff — must be brought to justice. Their collaborators in government who deny citizens their human and civil rights by refusal to do their jobs need to be brought to justice alongside them. The purveyors of political correctness who enable rape/slavery/murder/genocide must — for our own survival, and common decency — be ignored and dismissed as the blithering fools they are.

Are we, on both sides of the Atlantic, going to stop being enthralled by lethal politically-correct lies and put down these atrocities and those who commit them in a way that stops them cold? Or, are we going to try to avoid a fight by giving our children to the dragon?

Richard Dawkins on Down’s Syndrome Babies: “It Would be Immoral not to Kill Such a Baby in an Abortion”

UnbornbutAlive

I’m not going to say too much about this. It speaks for itself.

Dr Richard Dawkins got into this Tweet exchange earlier this week:

<@InYourFaceNYer I honestly don’t know what I would do if I were pregnant with a kid with Down Syndrome. Real ethical dilemma.

>@RichardDawkins Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.

That caused a bit of an internet dustup. So, Dr Dawkins clarified things by switching from the impetuous medium of Twitter to a column where he supposedly had more time to think through what he was saying and get it out as he meant it.

Here’s his more introspective take on the question of aborting babies with down’s syndrome.

“For what it’s worth, my own choice would be to abort the Down fetus and, assuming you want a baby at all, try again. Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort,”

…“I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare,”

I only have two thoughts to add to this, and I’ll get through them as quickly as possible.

Thought one: Eugenics.

Thought two: This is where a “morality” based on “the desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering” leads to: Putting other people out of your misery by killing them.

That’s all folks.

Censoring the Truth about ISIS Dishonors James Foley’s Life and Death

Dt common streams StreamServer cls

We entered the age of run-away self-righteousness a long time ago.

No matter how dastardly a thing is, the perpetrator of that thing will justify it by claiming that they are not, as common sense would lead you to believe, the scum of the earth, but they are in fact noble actors on the great stage of life who are doing this dastardly thing for what they claim is a greater good.

Thus, in the James Foley video, we have the scum of the earth ISIS member giving out with all his justifications, including, odd as this sounds that President Obama is in fact doing the deed, before he beheads an unarmed, bound man who is his helpless prisoner.

No matter the ugliness of the deed, the deed doer will claim that they are the best of us all, that they are, if truth be told, acting heroically.

Silence is the best friend of scums of the earth. What they need most is darkness and deeper darkness in which to commit their crimes against humanity. Those who call for us to turn our heads and refuse to allow the bitter truths of their brutal behavior to be known are, whether they realize it or not, their collaborators and defenders.

I’ve come across a smattering of articles calling for self-censorship in the press concerning ISIS. These people, who I am going to assume are well-meaning rather than villainous, are calling for the world media to stop telling us about the crimes that ISIS is committing. They are doing this on the dubious grounds that publishing ISIS’ crimes is “what ISIS wants.”

My response to this is simple and direct: Get real.

I don’t care what ISIS wants. I do care that people know the truth, even if the truth reeks, as the truth about ISIS certainly does.

We need to know that these butchers are committing genocide, that they are committing crimes so horrible that we cannot fathom them. We need to know who is funding them and who is backing them. And if it is Americans, we need to lock these people up and keep them there. We need to know because evil in all its forms flourishes in darkness and hides behind lies.

A news blackout on ISIS would be an unintended collaboration with ISIS. It would allow them to continue with their bestial behavior uninterrupted. It would abandon their victims in the most profound way possible; by pretending that they don’t exist.

It would also dishonor the memory of James Foley as nothing else could. James Foley gave his life in the telling of hard truths to a Western world that didn’t want to hear them. He, and his incredibly brave colleagues, are our eyes and ears in hell.

The idea of using his death as an opportunity to lobby for shutting down media coverage of the carnage ISIS is wreaking on innocent people profanes James Foley’s life, work and death.

James Foley is an American hero. He died for an American value, which is freedom of the press. He was a man of a faith, a practicing Catholic and, by the accounts of those who knew him, “a good, good person.”

His courage awes me.

If you get the chance to see the video of his ignoble execution, focus on that. Focus on the awesome courage of this American and contrast it with the cowardice of his braggart executioner. The man who killed James Foley did not have the courage to take him on man to man. He tied him hand and foot and put him on his knees. Then, the filthy ISIS coward had to hide himself behind a mask and clothes that would hide both his face and his physique.

I had trouble watching the video. But I have no problem whatsoever with saying that we the people need to know the truth of these things.

The truth is James Foley is an American hero; a man’s man in the best and most courageous sense of the word; someone who watched horrors with compassion and tried to give the rest of us the truth.

The sniveling little coward who killed him is the human scum of the earth.

That truth is plain to see in the video.

Another truth is that the American people deserve to know these things. The press has no business “self-censoring” the facts.

YouTube Preview Image

Planned Parenthood, Teaching Sexual Fetishism and Other Perversions to Kids

Live-Action-Logo1.jpg

Watch the videos below and consider this: Our government puts $542 million into Planned Parenthood each year. And that’s just federal dollars. Many states add their own $$$ to the pile.

Also the Affordable Health Care Act, better known as Obamacare, has large amounts of monies for block grants for education. Planned Parenthood will probably end up with a lot of this money, as well.

The ignominious HHS Mandate was written by a committee that was overloaded with representatives from Planned Parenthood and organizations that have interlocking boards with it.

How much damage are we going to all Planned Parenthood to do in the name of birth control? The services which Planned Parenthood provides that people want — pap smears, contraception — can be provided by other agencies. Remember: Planned Parenthood not only gets huge amounts of federal dollars to “provide” these services, it charges its clients for them, as well.

This government money could be better used to provide the services that people want. The savings by eliminating the rest of it — including the “counseling” in these videos — would be enormous. There are no reasons except political payback to give this funding to Planned Parenthood.

I also want to mention that while I linked to Fox News’ outrage-filled coverage of these videos, Fox is the network that gives us Family Guy and American Dad. I haven’t watched Family Guy, but when I was researching this article, I read comments directing people to view it in order to learn about some of the activities described in the videos below.

I did watch part of an American Dad episode. I quit watching because the episode had two fathers, joking about having sex with their daughters. I’m not entertained by that. Here in Oklahoma City, American Dad runs in the early afternoon — primetime cartoon-viewing hours for young children.

The government is not using our tax dollars to pay for teaching perversion to kids on the Fox network. However, when you consider the damage done, that difference becomes a bit academic.

Teaching it to kids is … well … I have no words.

YouTube Preview Image YouTube Preview Image YouTube Preview Image

 

The Parent Makers … Orrrrr … The Handmaid’s Tale Redux

Did I say that the media promotes the creation/selling/buying of babies?

Did I say that the media is misogynist and makes light of the exploitation and degradation of women committed by commercialized medicine?

I linked to a number of examples of media propaganda for this brutal, dehumanizing exploitation of women and girls; this barbaric practice of creating/selling/buying people. But, as so often happens, I was aiming a bit too high on the food chain. I didn’t know about The Parent Makers.

This show is about an American organization called the British Surrogacy Center. The British Surrogacy Center is in California. So don’t let the accent fool you, this is the good ole USA, the Wild West of reproductive technology.

We are the big dogs in the baby creating/selling/buying junkyard. No one can compete with us in terms of reducing women, babies and human beings to the level of objects. We’ve got the market cornered on medicine’s inhumanity to women and children.

The Parent Makers is trash.

It is, however, highly-publicized trash.

The Parent Makers gets lots of hits on Google:

And it has it’s own equally trashy Twitter account:

It even has promos on YouTube.

Watch the video below and then ask yourself one question: Do you want your daughter used as a breeder for these guys? Do you want your grandchildren or your children created like widgets in a factory and then sold to the highest bidder?

If you don’t, you’d better start speaking out.

This is the world of the for-real Handmaid’s Tale.

And it ain’t pretty.

YouTube Preview Image

Public Catholic reader Caroline Farrow brought this story to my attention. Thank you Caroline!

Evil Never Sleeps: The Killing Fields of Medical Murder

Francisco de goya2c saturno devorando a su hijo 281819 182329

Britain is debating legalizing medical murder.

Medical murder’s proponents spiff it up by calling it “death with dignity,” which is a change from their old name for it: “mercy killing.” Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu has decided to throw sewage on his own skirts by coming out in favor it, along with former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey. 

Meanwhile, New Mexico kills their babies and little old ladiesQuebec has euthanasia on demand, France is taking another look at medical murder, and  India’s Supreme Court has opened the gates for legalizing euthanasia in the land of sex-selected abortion and baby-girl killing. Satan only knows what India will do with legal medical murder, but it doesn’t look good for little girls, worn-out sex slaves, surrogates and daughters-in-law without dowries.

Just think about it: All you have to do is get a doctor — the same doctors who obligingly use women for surrogacy, egg harvesting and do abortions on baby girls because they are baby girls — to agree that someone needs to die with dignity. It’s as easy as pushing in on the hypodermic syringe, as simple as pills in a paper cup. Euthanasia and India go together like misogyny and India. They’re a natural fit.

Of course, Britain is far more civilized than India (wink wink). They have been grappling with sex-selected abortion, and not too successfully. It seems that they can’t write a law that will allow people to kill their children at will before birth … except when their intention is to kill their child before birth because she is a baby girl.

That kind of fine-line fence-straddling in the killing fields is tough to codify and downright impossible to enforce. You give people the legal right to kill, they’re going to kill for whatever reason they want.

You can’t control murder.

Once you start feeding your children to the Baals, the right to life of every human being becomes conditional. The new advance to the dark past of human history is multi-pronged. The Baals are ravenous and we’ve got to find more and more people to feed them.

We’ve pretty much destroyed any sanctity attached to human life before birth. People are created and sold like merchandise. Women are reduced to body parts to be used in the manufacturing process. If we don’t like what we get, we discard the widget we’ve made and make another. The fact that this widget is a human being is something we ignore and simply deny.

Inherent in abortion is the lie that some people’s lives are not worthy of life unless other people want them. “Death with dignity” is no different. There is no doubt that, as the Hoy Father warns us, “the right to die will become the duty to die.” That idea has already been bandied about by prominent politicians here in America.

Euthanasia is just a fancy word for murder, and murder, if it is not stopped and punished, leads to more murder.

Abortion leads to designer babies leads to egg harvesting leads to surrogacy leads to the rock-hard cultural belief that some people are not as human and do not deserve the same basic rights as other people. Exploitation/murder/buying and selling people: It all fits together like two sides of a zipper.

Euthanasia is the next new thing in our retreat to the pre-Christian world.

We feed our young into the maw of the Baals every single day. We toss in women and girls — the life bearers — alongside them. Now, we’re putting more and more of our elderly, disabled and depressed through the fires. How long will it be before we start euthanizing the homeless, the jobless and the ugly?

Not long. It won’t be long at all before the push is on to broaden the killing fields to people we would never consider murdering today.

Too many of our people have become slaves to the next new thing. Too many people are incapable of resisting propaganda. Too many people are intelligent but profoundly stupid. They are blind followers of the pied piper of what’s happenin’ now.

It won’t be long. The reason? Too many of our people have been made profoundly stupid; easy marks for whatever propaganda comes along. Without the anchor of Christianity, they roll like marbles from one thing to the next.

They are low-hanging fruit for the evil that never sleeps.

“An Unrelated Gestational Carrier.” The Real Handmaid’s Tale

 

Tumblr lyepnvIOYN1r3sdx5o1 400 1241

Margaret Atwood wrote a gripping novel back in 1985 called The Handmaid’s Tale.

The main character, Offred, is a Handmaid in the Republic of Gilead, a totalitarian and theocratic state that has replaced the United States of America.

Handmaids are walking wombs, child bearers for elite couples. Offred services the Commander and his wife Serena Joy, who is a former gospel singer and advocate for “traditional values.”

Every month in her fertile period, Offred is required to have impersonal, wordless sex with the Commander while Serena sits by, holding her hands. The Republic of Gilead is what America has become after the takeover of our nation by the theocrats. Offred, as a former adulteress and the daughter of a feminist, is consigned to the role of Handmaid in this ugly new world.

The Handmaid’s tale was an obvious allegorical critique of the rising influence of the newly-politicized Christian conservatives of that era. It was aimed, in particular, at the pro life/pro family movement. It was also a powerful work of fiction by a talented writer.

Flash forward 30 years, and it appears that the Handmaid’s tale was not so much allegory as it was prophecy, once removed. Women today are being reduced to their bodily functions and used as breeders and most of our society seems to be in support of it. Babies are created to be sold and then they actually are marketed and sold, on-line and through international outlets.

America, which has been termed the “Wild West” of commercialized reproduction, has become a magnet for baby-buyers the world over.

In addition, women are kept in what amounts to baby farms in certain third world countries and used for breeders. The babies are then sold overseas in what, in India alone, is a $2.3 billion dollar industry.

That’s the prophecy part of The Handmaid’s Tale. Women have indeed been reduced to breeders, their human rights held forfeit to rapacious industrialized medicine that operates without conscience. In addition, babies, as well as women, are reduced to chattel in this market as they are created and then sold and bought like any other manufactured product.

The once-removed part of The Handmaid Tale’s prophetic prescience lies in who is committing and promoting this crime against humanity. It is not, as Margaret Atwood wrote, the evil “traditional values” people and Gospel singers who are designing babies for sale by harvesting women’s ovaries, and then using women as wombs to carry these babies which are then sold for astronomical amounts on the open market.

The culprits here are corporatist medicine, wealthy elites and homosexuals who are willing to destroy the basic human rights of women and children to feed the fantasy that they are not what they happen, in fact, to be. Homosexual couples are two men or two women, or for that matter, several men or several women, whose sexual activity takes place between other people of their own sex. Their sexual activity can not create life.

Anyone who condemns this wholesale degradation of half the human race alongside the bartering and selling of human beings, is immediately labeled a religious fanatic, a homophobe, uncaring, cruel and indifferent to the longing for a family that same sex couples experience. There is a phrase to describe this intellectually dishonest bullying: The phrase is emotional blackmail.

Let’s take the debate about those accusations — at least as far as I’m concerned — off the table right now.

If standing for the human rights of women and children,

if opposing the buying and selling of people,

if the speaking against the creation of human beings for commerce,

if opposing the crass reduction of half the human race to their body parts in a manner that not only degrades them as human beings but endangers their health and lives,

means that I’m a homophobe or a religious fanatic, then so be it. If that’s what religious fanaticism and homophobia stands for, every person with a conscience should be a homophobe and a religious fanatic.

Surrogate mothers alternatives  Google Search

Misogyny is so rife in our society that people who dare to speak out against this violation of the human rights of women and children are subjected to death threats, as well as labeled bigots.

Meanwhile, the media churns out puffy little pieces extolling the virtues of buying and selling women and babies. Consider, as a for-instance, a recent article from The Daily Mail. This article informs us that “For two first-time fathers, the fact that their son, Milo, was born during World Pride was just the icing on the cake.”

The article goes on to tell us that the woman who birthed this baby is “an unnamed gestational carrier.” It concludes with the soppy statement that “love has no color nor gender nor sexual preference. Love is unconditional.”

Uh-huh. According to one article I read, it costs around $160,000 to purchase a baby created by using women as breeders. The article is a couple of years old, so it’s probably higher now. I don’t want to rain on anybody’s parade, but that is soooo conditional. It also has nothing to do with love. It is about exploitation and reducing human beings to chattel. It is The Handmaid’s Tale, come to life.

Images

The Handmaid’s Tale as allegory. 


2Fertility Bridges egg donor database

The Handmaid’s Tale in real life.

 

America has become the go-to place for people wanting to buy designer babies. As a recent New York Times article put it, “the market for children crosses national borders.”

In the Wild West of using reproductive technologies to create, sell and buy people, it appears that the market is totally laissez faire. In this case, it’s the seller who should beware.

Consider, for instance, the case of The View co-host Sheri Shepherd. According to a recent LifeNews article, Ms Shepherd and her soon-to-be-former husband joined the growing group of high-profile celebrities who have purchased their babies rather than give birth to them themselves. Now that her marriage is on the fritz, Ms Shepherd has decided that she wants nothing to do with the baby whose creation she purchased.

I would assume that Ms Shepherd and her husband paid in advance, so the important considerations are covered.

Right?

I mean, it’s not like we’re creating, selling and buying people. 

FRC Action and Oklahoma Family Policy Council Launches Radio Ad Campaign Urging Support for Legislation Stopping Payments for Human Egg Harvesting

I can attest from personal experience as a legislator that the practice of commercialized harvesting of young women’s bodies for eggs is protected with the full force of the Oklahoma State Medical Association, as well as the Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce. I can also attest that some pro life groups avoid the issue for fear of putting Republican legislators on the hot seat by forcing them to chose between their pro life commitments and these special interest groups.

The American Civil Liberties Union has also come out in support of commercial egg harvesting, on the laughable grounds that laws that forbid doctors to use large payments as inducements to young girls to undergo egg harvesting are somehow a violation of “women’s rights.” I imagine the ACLU would carry a lot of clout in some states, but in Oklahoma, their opposition was of no importance to the outcome of the legislation.

The practice of paying young women large sums of money to have their ovaries harvested,

the practice of paying women large sums of money to carry babies and then forfeit them,

the practice of creating designer babies for the purpose of selling them

should be illegal.

Any doctor who does this should lose their license to practice medicine and be subject to civil lawsuits without limit. Any medical facility that allows this on its premises should lose its license to continue as a licensed medical facility and also be subject to lawsuits without limit.

If people want to do this without pay, that should be treated differently. I do not approve of it, but it is not the obvious and egregious violation of the human rights of women and children that commercialized, industrialized egg harvesting and surrogacy are. It should be heavily regulated with stiff safeguards for the rights of women and the babies.

Among other things, women should have the right to change their minds about giving the baby away. Also, anyone who contracts for a baby — and remember, I am talking about private, unpaid arrangements, not wholesale industrialized baby manufacturing and selling — should be subject to the same requirements as adoption, including home inspections, parental fitness and a waiting period with site visits before the adoption is finalized. The process should be an adoption. Not buying a child.

Children should have the right to know who their biological parents are and a cause of action against the doctors, medical facilities and others involved in their creation.

The health and welfare of women who are involved in being surrogates or donating eggs, and also the health and welfare of the babies, should be the first consideration under the law. The law should require under severe penalty that the doctor consider the woman’s health first and not just use them to make as many eggs as possible.

I want to emphasize again that I am only talking about entirely voluntary, non-paid situations in which women are not compensated for undergoing egg harvesting and or surrogacy and the babies are not sold.

Commercial selling and buying of women’s bodies to harvest for eggs or for use as surrogates should be illegal. Creating babies to sell or buy should also be illegal. 

Soppy claims about how happy it makes people to be able to buy and sell other human beings and violate their inherent human rights have no place in this discussion.

The Egg Donor Center

The doctors and medical facilities should receive no monies except for customary and normal remuneration for these activities as a medical procedure. There should never be advertising for the creation, buying and selling of human beings, or the exploitation of a whole class of human beings.

People who contract for the creation of a child should be obligated to provide life-long care for that child and for any injury resulting to the woman or women who provide eggs or wombs as a result of their donor or surrogacy status. By life long, I mean if the woman is infertile (a common complication of egg harvesting) or gets cancer as a result of the massive doses of hormones, even if it’s 20 years later, they have to pay.

The obligation to provide for the care of the child should be life-long, regardless of the any birth defects or other problems. It should include an irrevocable share in the contractee’s estate.

I want to emphasize that these ideas for regulation only apply to voluntary, non-paid situations. The buying and selling of human beings, as well as the use of women as farm animals and breeders for money should be absolutely and completely illegal. It is anathema that our society has fallen so low that we have to debate this. 

We need to shut down the commercial baby creating/selling/buying industry that exploits and dehumanizes women and reduces babies to chattel. 

The reason this has not happened is due to the political clout of organizations, such as various Chambers of Commerce who see this “industry” as a money maker and to the machinations of the Medical Associations who are entrusted with the power to “regulate” the members of their profession. The social bullying by gay rights organizations and faux feminists who work against women also helps to keep this practice going.

I believe that Medical Associations’ support of what is a massive human rights violation of half the human race, as well as the reduction of human beings to the level of chattel, makes a joke of the claim that they “regulate” the medical profession. If the medical associations will not regulate their own, and if they continue to use their political clout to support this practice, I, for one, think we should take a long hard look at eliminating their power to regulate the medical profession.

I would encourage business owners and physicians who are members of these organizations to get involved. Are your dues being used to support the Wild West of industrial reproductive technology? Are you writing checks that hire lobbyists who work in your name to continue this attack on the human rights of women and babies?

Demand that your professional organizations follow legislative goals that support human dignity, rather than exploit and degrade whole classes of people.

Margaret Atwood wrote a gripping allegorical novel describing the use of women as breeders in a world that was controlled by what she evidently saw as the great satan of her time: Supporters of “traditional values.”

In our time the real Handmaid’s Tale is being promoted by the media and lived out by elites who don’t want to go through having children the old way and homosexuals who want to pretend that their unions are not sterile. The promotion of this clear-cut violation of the human rights of women and babies by commercialized medicine on a mass and international scale is being carried out by a media that focuses on insipid nonsense about “love” and “the right to a child” when, in fact, neither of these things exist in this situation.

It is not love to exploit other human beings for your own selfish ends. A more accurate word for that might be narcissism, with perhaps a dose of sociopathy dropped on top of it. And, just for the record, children are people. No one has a “right” to a child.

I read articles talking about the “ethical questions” raised by the commercial exploitation of women’s bodies and the commercial creation of human beings to sell over the internet, and I wonder seriously if the people writing this have any brains at all.

“Ethical questions?”

Medical tourism corporation surrogate  Google Search

Then I remember. These discussions are not about “ethical questions.” These articles are on the same level as people in the 1930s, debating Hitler’s treatment of the Jews. They are a parsing and an obfuscation designed to confuse and lead people to accept the unacceptable.

Margaret Atwood was a prophet and didn’t know it with her allegory of the reduction of women to breeders and children to chattel. She only got it wrong in her idea as to who would be doing it. People with traditional values are the only ones willing to suffer the abuse necessary to take a stand against this exploitation of women and babies.

The baby creating/selling international market of commercialized, bastardized medicine is a horror show of human rights violations. The irony (but not the surprise) is that the people who like to talk about “rights” the most are the ones who are committing this evil.

 


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X