Posts Tagged ‘Organizations’

“Reproductive rights” — Orwellian Newspeak — because it’s about the BABY

October 26, 2013

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, known as a "King o...

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, known as a “King of abortion”, would later be an active member of a pro-life organization. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This goes out in reaction to Tibor Machan‘s opinions as expressed in the following link:

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/34690/Tibor-Machan-Communitarianism-and-Reproductive-Rights/

I think humans should respect the rights of girls inside the womb, not just the one with the body outside the womb.

How many more women to die? Never mind that Bernard Nathanson (“The Silent Scream“) video, who testified in Roe v Wade, has repented after watching ultrasound later on, and in answer to a question about the 10,000 women who died in “back-alley” abortions, he said they just “made it up” (his words) because it sounded like a really big number.

So who knows, really. But meantime there is a killing field of little girls (let’s remember the boys, too okay?)

CIA World Fact Book says China has a population from 0 to 14 years old of 124,773,577 male and 107,286,198 female. This means a ratio of 1.163:1 of boys to girls. The natural ratio is something like 1.05 to 1.00. God arranged it that way because males die at a higher rate of death during the earliest years, and normally it balances out. This pattern is seen in statistics I’ve looked at for the U.S.A., too…

That means for a population of that many young males, calculating from the ratio, a “normal” number of females would be 124,773,577. Subtracting the number of girls in their actual census, that means that 11,545,780 girls are missing. They are victims of abortion, a side effect of the one-child policy. And that’s not even counting the number you get if you calculate out the number corresponding to the boys that are also killed in the womb.

Those are real girls who are killed then too, in scalding, burning salt solutions, or their little limbs torn apart inside, or in partial-birth abortion their brains are sucked out from their head through a tube after the rest of the body is kicking outside the womb already.

The militant anti-Christian opinion-setters and propagandists want you to think this is just a Christian cause. Do a Web search on the words “pro life atheists” and there are a bunch of links to “godless prolifers” (as in www.godlessprolifers.com). The fact is, it is a human life.

An important libertarian principle is that individuals are morally and objectively responsible for the consequences of their own actions. Once you have been confronted with the obvious fact that the baby inside the womb is a human being, you have a responsibility to avoid murdering it. This is a fact of innate knowledge in “expectant” mothers, in fact, as so many women in the Silent No More movement have said. They are only “expectant” in the sense they are “expecting” the birth of the baby, in which the baby emerges from inside.

The BIG LIE is to try to talk about abortion (ending the life of the baby inside) as “reproductive rights”. This is Orwellian newspeak, and it is amazing to watch minds adapt this terminology –like Tibor Machan– who in other contexts see through them. After all, he is more intellectually honest than most libertarians in some of his writings that make clear that the fall of socialists –sometimes “with a vengeance”– is all the fault of the CIA.

We all know now that when you have sex, often a conception occurs of a new human being. We all know as well that there is no 100% sure contraception. Babies often happen in spite of these measures. If you engage in the sex, and a baby grows within, then the obligation to respect the non-aggression principle applies. This is not just a “duty” to save a life, something Walter Block has argued against quite effectively.

In fact, due to the dependency that a baby has, I’ve read libertarians argue that the woman has a duty to find an adoptive couple (or even person) if at all possible before killing it. I argue from the principle of consquences that becoming a parent involves positive duty.

This might be seen as requiring a positive right of the baby as individual. That may be, but this is one area were the individual responsibility for the consequences is a special case, since the parent bore that new life and that new human life requires some amount of care in order to merely survive to an age where he can make decisions for himself. The parent is responsible for the baby’s existence, the parent made it happen.

You broke it you bought it, says a sign in big letters easily visible as you enter the china shop. You’re on the shop owner’s property, you follow the rules. It’s a comparable idea. You conceived it (talking about the father too) you “own” it but anything you do that purposefully endangers that baby’s life is an aggression, and therefore is not acceptable.

So now let’s address the REAL issue in these discussions about abortion.

Abortion apologists all KNOW that the debate from the pro-life side is about the BABY. That’s why it’s always “reproductive rights”, as if killing the baby had anything to do with reproduction anyway. The Germans had no “reproductive right” to kill even one Jew for being a Jew, or a Gypsy, or the millions of Christians he did in.

But to women who have done this, there are lots of women who have found their way back to peace and now warn other women, younger women (This is relevant to the debate because women have a natural compulsion within themselves to protect their babies, and it is indoctrinated out of them by depopulation engineers. Or sometimes other factors drive them.)

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

www.silentnomoreawareness.org/‎

Problem with government intervention in anything

March 15, 2012

This fake issue invented by a ludicrous government mandate created a religious squabble
highlights once again the problem when you get government involved in the middle of anything where people differ, because (1) central planning historically never worked and backfired anyway, on micro- and macro- scales both, and (2) 10 people will always have about 15 different opinions on how to do anything, and (3) while some things are predictable (the sun will come up in the morning) nobody can predict the sum of all human behaviors with precision to be able to plan for them.

So somebody has to give in to the planners, whoever they are. Unless you just plan to let the people decide, not by a tyranny of the majority, or a tyranny of the purported majority. /

When does a human life begin?

March 13, 2012
Six day old human embryo implanting

Six day old human embryo implanting (Photo credit: Rebecca-Lee)

The only independent and scientific way to define the beginning of the life of a human being is at conception, because that’s when the construction starts. There is no other natural cut-off point. Try as they will, breathing oxygen atmosphere directly instead of absorbing it through the placenta does not work in any way that is intrinsic to the “human organism” itself: Defining it as beginning at birth is a function of the external environment.

The heart beats at 4 weeks of conception. It grows rapidly in there.

To say it’s not “life” is ludicrous, because (1) the one cell has all the design necessary for the human adult including puberty, adolescence, and reproductions.

To say it’s not “human life” is ludicrous because it has 23 pairs of chromosomes, 50,000 from each parent, but in a unique new combination.

To say it’s not a “person” is to redefine “person”. To deny “personhood” to the baby, or to take brain waves, or breathing air, or location with respect to the womb, linguistic sophistication, all these are arbitrary, subjective judgments, and that includes this new outrage from . The courts can no more make a robot, or a chimp, or a corporation, into a real person any more than they can make a Jew or Gypsy into a non-person. Whether they abuse nature by treating them as such or not.

The Seven-Lesson Schoolteacher – By John Taylor Gatto, New York State Teacher of the Year, 1991 – informationliberation

November 10, 2011

Wow, this from the multi-year “schoolteacher of the year” of New York State? http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=29738

Are they going to act on this? I doubt it. The old Prussian model conformity indoctrination centers have worked well for their intended purpose.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 147 other followers