Sacrificing children at the earth’s altar
So, with twists in language, “homosexual behavior” is called “gay lifestyle,” “sex outside marriage” is termed “freedom,” and “killing babies” is called “family planning.” Often, it seems, in an effort to add weight to the pro-abortion mantra, the left couples “family planning” with other leftist causes like “carbon footprint” or “saving the planet.”
A recent op-ed in the Denver Post informed readers that “population [is] one of the major contributors to climate change and other environmental crises.” And if population is the problem, what did the editorial writer think the solution is? You guessed it: kill more babies…I mean, do more “family planning.” Therefore, the title of the op-ed in the Post was “Family planning is a gift to planet.”
Written by Dottie Lamm, former first lady of Colorado and a member of the U.S. delegation to the U.N. Conference on Population and Development in Cairo in 1994, the op-ed sounds as though it was torn directly from eugenicist Margaret Sanger’s playbook, bemoaning the fact that some women continue to have more than two children apiece….
In all fairness to Lamm, she’s not alone in her views that all things — even the lives of children — should be sacrificed in homage to planet earth….
[T]he groups that are cajoling the Beckhams would be praising them if they’d only availed themselves of “family planning” and killed their child in the womb. That’s how twisted things get when people exchange worshiping the Creator with worshiping the creation instead.
~Michael J. Norton, American Thinker, August 4
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“Homosexual behavior” or “the gay lifestyle” or whatever you want to call it shouldn’t be listed with those other things. People are not “turning gay” in order to avoid having children.
This was written 2,000 years ago by the Holy Spirit through the aspostle Paul. It’s likw reading a headline in today’s newspaper:
Romans 1:18-32
New International Version (NIV)
God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
You need to fix this quote. I thought the first paragraph was the quote of Dottie Lamm, but it isn’t. It’s the post author Michael Norton. Until I clicked on the American Thinker link and read his post, I didn’t get it. They way you presented it is confusing.
Jen, I’m not sure why there was confusion, but I’ve added in more of the piece and I hope that helps.
“Homosexual behavior” or “the gay lifestyle” or whatever you want to call it shouldn’t be listed with those other things. People are not “turning gay” in order to avoid having children.
Uh… the post never said they did, and I’m also pretty sure that the point of the things listed in quotes are examples of different terminology and changing euphemisms. Did you read the rest of the post or just give a knee-jerk reaction when you saw the word “gay?”
I really wish the gays could be left out of the abortion debate altogether.
Jack,
It may seem like two separate issues, but homosexual sex and abortion are all manifestations of the larger, real problem: the profaning of the sacred gift of sex, which is meant to bring LIFE. We have so distorted and manipulated sex to our own selfish and perverted ends that now it seems unthinkable to so many people to even suggest that sex is meant for husband and wife only, with the blessing of new life as part of the package.
Our thinking is really screwed up by sin and our willingness to be deceived.
Kel,
It reads great now! Perhaps what I needed was another cup of coffee. :) Well, actually what I really need is some chocolate.
Jack, with all respect, do you tell leaders of the GLBT community that they should stop supporting PP and the prochoice movement?
As far as “overpopulation” goes, a good place to refer to others: overpopulationisamyth.com
@ Jen, I am not concerned with what consenting adults do, I am concerned with protecting human life. I especially don’t have a problem with gays, as they don’t make babies. Don’t remember my lesbian sister ever having an abortion.
@Praxedes, I argue with anyone who will listen about abortion, including my gay friends (don’t know any leaders). My sister is pro-life, as is a couple other gay people I know. Sadly, pretty much all of them vote Democrat because the Republican party doesn’t make them feel incredibly protected.
Jack, I too wish we could leave homosexuality out of the abortion debate (mostly in order to be more focused), but the truth of matter does not allow me to do so.
I do not accuse homosexuals of being consciously complicit in abortion or, more importantly, the mentality upon which it is founded, and I hope to never do so; indeed, as you yourself have attested and I have personally witnessed, there are many of their number in the pro-life movement.
However, neither will I deny that the societal acceptance of homosexuality is, like abortion, a symptom of the greater problem and has claimed many victims who I hope to see freed.
It’s nothing personal, Jack, against you or anyone else, and I certainly wish no harm on anyone. While we may disagree completely on this issue, I hope you can believe that.
God bless.
A lot to digest here.
To start, I take some offence at saying this is a problem of worshipping the creation instead of the Creator. People have different religions and spiritual beliefs. Not everyone interprets Earth strictly as creation.
Anyway, there seems to be a radical, irrational branch to environmentalism. I read that ecoterrorism is one of the biggest domestic terrorism threats. As an environmentalist, this irrational connection between children and Earth’s well-being can be worrisome. Fortunately, the vast majority of environmentalists do not hold such beliefs- I think people just try and twist what we say to make it sound as though we support genocide or something.
When people say, “Let’s reduce the population,” they aren’t advocating burning villages. I think though, in my experience, a lot of people have no idea how to go about reducing the population. They say, “Let’s reduce the population!” but are not sure what works.
I read in an atlas once that this can be done through fighting poverty. And that’s an awesome solution to get behind. If we fight poverty, we also fight abortion, as fewer women, especially in developing nations, will feel the pressure to have an abortion. Furthermore, from all that I’ve read in books and articles and reviews, we fix the problem of extreme poverty by pushing women forward. If I had money, I would invest it in small businesses for women.
Tackling these issues is a pretty good win-win for me, as far as abortion and the environment are concerned.
Sigh.
But, you know…I guess the only thing more irrelevant to the topic at hand would be GLBAT rights…
The infinitesimal portion of the quote of the day has been overemphasized, not by pro-lifers who disagree with homosexuality on this thread, but by those who had a conniption just seeing the word “homosexual” in a post again.
The quote is really about the euphemisms people use to make various evils appear acceptable. The main emphasis is the euphemism of “family planning” when referring to abortion.
Let’s not miss the forest for the trees, shall we?
Sorry, Kel, it’s just frustrating.
You are welcome, derrr,
Many of us are just trying to convince the proaborts not to promote and celebrate the killing of innocent human beings in the womb.
What I still can’t figure out for the life of me is why in the world you would waste your time on judgmental, anti-science, religious zealots?? For crying outside…..why do you keep coming here?
Sheesh.
Thanks to your continual inflammatory anti-religious posts, baiting, goading, and trolling, Derrr, you have won yourself comment moderation.
Continue and you will be banned.
I would also like to thank pro-choice commenters such as Hal and Doug for their continued ability to debate without resorting to continual flaming and insults to the pro-lifers on this board. Take note, PCers. That’s how it’s done.
Ok I give up….what’s the “A” in GLBAT?
I think it’s androgynous. But I can’t remember for sure.
Thanks, Jack. It didn’t come up on the first page of my google search and I wasn’t willing to devote more time to it :-)
“People are not “turning gay” in order to avoid having children.”
[No sex tonite hubby, I may be ‘turning gay’.]
That’s a relief to know.
Whew!
[Are people ‘having children’ to avoid morphing into homosexuals?]
I have heard that insanity is inherited [you get it from your children], but it is a little unfair to blame the crumb crunchers for homosexuality.
I mean if that were true that children cause homosexuality then the Duggars would be charter members of ‘Stand Up’ and ‘Queer Nation’.
Should we be expecting an announcement that Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar are coming out of the closet.
Do homosexuals ‘turn straight’ in order to avoid ‘barreness’? [There could be some plausability there.]
Just how do homosexuals reproduce biologicially?
If ‘heterosexuals’ are ‘straight’, then does it not follow that ‘homosexuals’ are ‘bent, convoluted, crooked, distorted, twisted, etc.?
Or is it that ‘flamable/inflamable’ oxymoron thing at work in the English language?
A recent op-ed in the Denver Post informed readers that “population [is] one of the major contributors to climate change and other environmental crises.”
Certainly, lots of people still don’t believe this, but those numbers are declining all the time and in decades hence I bet the amount of dispute will pretty much die out.
Vannah says: August 4, 2011 at 2:38 pm
“When people say, “Let’s reduce the population,” they aren’t advocating burning villages. I think though, in my experience, a lot of people have no idea how to go about reducing the population. They say, “Let’s reduce the population!” but are not sure what works.”
==================================================================
Mao Tse Tung, Pappa Joe Stalin, Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler and even some of our american ancestors knew exactly what ‘de-population’ meant to them and it meant killing a helluva lot of undesirable people.
You know kind of like those folks to whom Supreme Court Justice Ruth ‘Buzzy’ Bader Ginsburng referred:
“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.”
Humanism depopulates because of a ‘finite world view’ and the FEAR of the end of time and space.
Humanism dispairs of hope.
In order to avoid death, humanists embrace abortion, gendercide, genecide, euthenasia, etc.
Just go to some of the main stream ‘zero population growth’ web sites and you will find plenty of leaders shouting the alarm that planet earth is overpopulated by BILLIONS of humans and unless something is done to REDUCE, not only population growth, but the actual population, then mother, who is able to regulate the populations of all the other species on the planet except the ‘human’ species, will entropy and die.
But if there is no Creator and only evolution, then ‘humans’ are an integral part of the ecosystem and they ought to be as free to reproduce any of the other species. Just let the goddess gaia sort it all out.
Doug,
I respect your intellect, but you give humans way too much credit.
Ken, Ginsberg was talking about her perception of other’s view of Roe, which later in that same interview she admitted was flawed.
Former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm [Dotties husband] said, according to the excerpts: “We’ve got a duty to die and get out of the way with all of our machines and artificial hearts and everything else like that and let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life.” In his letter last month, Mr. Lamm wrote that he never said “the elderly or the terminally ill have a duty to die,” and he added, “I was essentially raising a general statement about the human condition, not beating up on the elderly.”
Somehow that does not seem like an improvement to me.
It appears that mr. Lamm is still emitting green house gases and leaving his carbon footprint where ever he treads.
When Lamm has reached the end of his productive years will he wait for ‘end of life counseling’ from a board of obamascare bureaucrats or will he practice the gospel he preaches, fullfill his ‘duty to die’, dig a hole and jump in it and recycle himself.
Jack,
“I [Ruth Bader Ginsburg] had thought that at the time Roe was decided…
Ginsburg said what she meant and meant what she said and damage control after the fact does not change what she said and what she meant.
The woman may be a fool, but she is not stupid nor senile.
Hers and/or your attempting to attribute it to others is cowardly.
“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.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/184407/ruth-bader-ginsburg-sotomayor-and-abortion-undesired-populations/ed-whela
I know it’s a lot more fun to clip quotes and take them out of context, but that’t the full quote. Personally, I prefer to know the reality of what people have said and make judgments on that. And I am not a coward, thanks.
it’s wrong to equate *involuntary” pregnancy prevention, hostility to children, and abortion with environmentalism. From another perspective, environmentalism is the ultimate prolife cause, because ecological destruction is abortion of the Earth and all the lives she sustains. Tired of prolifers trying to scare people off valid environmental concerns with these false equations.
The A is asexual. :)
I partly agree, Marysia.
I think what’s called for in your first statement is more specific nomenclature.
General concern for the well-being of Earth’s various ecosystems, diligence in not being wasteful – basically, an overall moderated environmentalism does not necessarily equate to, as you said, “*involuntary” pregnancy prevention, hostility to children, and abortion”, and in that I agree with you.
Sadly, as with practically any group/movement, there are always the more extreme sides (in both directions), and from what I’ve read and seen, more extreme environmentalism does tend towards those very anti-human ways (like the Voluntary Extinction Project, for one).
Proper environmental stewardship is an important part of any responsible civilization. While I would argue that humanity is hardly to blame for everything that’s been happening (the Earth is by no means a static system), the fact is that until about sixty years ago (give or take), not one animal had been tangled and strangled by one of those plastic six-pack holders. We are obliged to be conscious of the impact we have and to actively limit it.
On the other hand, I would not portray this as the ultimate pro-life cause … at least, not at this time. Currently, I would contend that abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide (among others) are more pressing concerns, since while the life-threatening nature of large-scale ecological damage could become very pronounced in the near or distant future, those three issues I listed are killing people right now. It’s similar to the ABC’s of first-aid: the problems that must be addressed are airway, bleeding, and circulation, in that order.
While it may seem to be a strange thing to say, I truly look forward to the day when environmental responsibility becomes the primary – and possibly the only remaining – focus of the pro-life movement.
God bless.
Dear Proabort Environmental Extremists,
Would it be too indelicate to invite all of those who would have babies aborted for the sake of their potential “Carbon Footprints” to please end it all by committing mass suicide? Don’t be duplicitous cowards. Instead, please take your own lives if carbon footprinting is such a pivotal issue. If the adherents to your philosophy are as many as you claim, that will reduce the stress on poor mother earth immediately and substantially. If not, then at the least we will have reduced some of the proabort noise pollution.
Sound insane? Sound barbaric?
It’s you.
Homosexuals are a big part of many pro-abortion groups. Irresponsible, perverted sex is the name of the game.
The homosexuals have done great damage to our Catholic church with their sexual abuse of adolecents. Read ‘Good by good men’ or ‘The Rite of Sodomy’, .. they tell the whole story. They are attempting and succeeding to destroy the institution of marriage (which is meant for creating a stable heathy environment for children), again, this is all about them wanting society to accept perverted sex and sodomy as a normal and a ‘right’. Now that queer marriage is legal, schools have to teach children that boys can marry boys, etc.
Hisman is right.
There is a huge difference between sexual abuse of kids and adolescents and consenting adults being sexually involved. That comparison doesn’t hold up, unless you want to argue that straight men are all potential rapists because so many girls and women are abused.
Phil is back!! Jasper’s here. The old gang together, just like old times. Too bad I don’t have my former energy for some eye pokes. As we ramp up for 2012, maybe hisman will finally find that video that will doom Obama’s chances once and for all.
“There is a huge difference between sexual abuse of kids and adolescents and consenting adults being sexually involved.”
Yes, abuse of kids is worse but sodomy between adults is also immoral and unnatural and causes sickness and disease. I’m just explaining the damage done to the church by effeminate, homosexual men.
The military is the current target of the homosexual, now straight men have to shower and sleep next to homoexuals who have an attraction toward them.. a very uncomfortable situation.
Jasper, have masculine homosexual men caused any trouble, or just the effeminate onces?
And, FYI, straight men in the military have had to shower and sleep next to homosexuals all along. Under the new rules, they’ll be okay, I’m sure.
Churches should have the right to keep those they want out, sure. Establishment clause and all that. Gays aren’t in the same categories as predators, btw.
I think that if men are secure with their sexuality, they shouldn’t be bothered by gays in the military not being closeted anymore. Wouldn’t bother me one bit.
“Jasper, have masculine homosexual men caused any trouble, or just the effeminate onces?”
Yes, they have as well. But in the church it was mostly homosexuals.
I don’t mean to be harsh, one of my best friends is bi-sexual and I have a cousin who is a lesbian. I love them, they are good people, but the lifestyle is just not right..
“And, FYI, straight men in the military have had to shower and sleep next to homosexuals all along. Under the new rules, they’ll be okay, I’m sure.”
Thats a good point Hal, but before we didn’t know before with DADT, now the gays can come out and identify their sexuality,,, this makes a difference.
“Churches should have the right to keep those they want out, sure.”
The Catholic church doesn’t reject anybody, every sinner is welcome.
Then how are gays damaging the church? The sex abuse scandals involved predators, not gays.
Back to the main point:
It is a very sick thing to hate your own species. There is a deep sickness infecting our planet and it’s not global climate change, it’s self-loathing.
“The sex abuse scandals involved predators, not gays.”
ok, fair enough…
“The sex abuse scandals involved predators, not gays.”
ok, fair enough…
Not quite fair… the vast majority of minors abused were boys, and most of them were past puberty. That’s not pedophilia, as the media would like to have us believe. That’s homosexuality. That’s grown men acting out sexually with young males. (Not justifying or excusing it — just clarifying.) That makes them predators and homosexuals. You simply cannot ignore or deny the homosexual component.
Yeah… predators who messed with teenagers. Not adults engaging in consensual behavior. Assuming they represent gay people doesn’t make any sense. I don’t understand where this insistence on defining them as gay is coming from, or what it’s purpose is. Most abusers in general hurt women and girls, and I don’t hear anyone but really ardent feminists claiming they represent most straight men. It doesn’t make any sense to me.
Jack, it’s homosexual because it’s male/male. Isn’t that the definition of homosexuality? Sexual attraction/acts with the same gender?
And Planned Parenthood (and other abortionists) continue to coverup for heterosexual predators of young teen girls. Court Cases: The People v Cross 134 Cal App 4th 500; Doe v Planned Parenthood of Southwestern Ohio Court of Appeals – 1st Appellate District of Ohio (Hamilton County). Pending Court Case: Kansas is prosecuting PP for not reporting 162 cases of underage girls (14 years old or less) receiving abortions. This case has dragged on since 2006 as PP attorneys have artfully thrown up technical hurdles. Alabama and Indiana administrative bodies have found evidence of PP failure to report statutory rape. PP executive in New England admitted that PP does not report sex abuse of minors to authorities (2001-2002 Legis. Session).
Abortion advocates are blind to the plight of young girls.
Same gender, yeah, consent no. I don’t think it makes sense to label them as anything other than predators. Most adult gay men won’t go after 13 year old boys anymore than most straight men will go after 13 year old girls.
It’s really hurtful to us who were abused as kids and teens to conflate homosexuality with predatory behavior.
Jack, Look, this is really simple. If the sex is under age 17/18 depending on the state, then the sex is considered rape, hence the predator component.
Now, if the sex is heterosexual, then it’s heterosexual predation.
If the sex is homosexual, then it’s homosexual predation.
81% of the victims were male. Thus 81% of the predation was performed by homosexuals. That’s a problem that the homosexual community would dearly love to ignore, or have an army of Jack’s define away.
So, what exactly is the point of focusing on the homosexual rather than the predatory nature? Tends to make male victims feel awful, I can tell you, and vilify gay men that would never dream of abusing a teenager.
No need to be rude, I’m genuinely wondering.
Jack,
Homosexual males have promiscuity rates that outpace the rest of the population by a mile. Their rates of STD’s are several times those of their heterosexual counterparts. Visit CDC, it’s all there.
Then we come to 81% of the children victimized having been victimized by homosexual men. You need to understand that people look at all of these pieces of data and begin to wonder if homosexual priests possess the same internal locus of control as heterosexual priests, and view this level of abuse with an eye toward the CDC data which suggests a poor internal locus of control in sexual behavior.
Given the amount of objective data, the questions are fair. The only responses in general are PC apologias, that do not address the CDC data, or the 81% of male victims.
Jack, I posted this on another thread, but here is an article with good references from a variety of sources.
Thank you, Gerard. I wasn’t trying to be rude, I just didn’t understand why people focused so much on the genders of the victims and perps with the abuses instead of the victimization. It makes more sense like that. I do get offended when people start down that road, I have heard plenty of people accuse the VICTIMS of being gay, which I find incredibly hurtful.
Your link didn’t show up, I would be interested in looking at it.
I recently saw an interview with Bindi Irwin, daughter of the late “Crocodile Hunter”. She was asked what she wanted to do when she grew up. Besides the animal conservation her family is known for, she said she wanted to speak out about the major issue of the day: overpopulation!
Her native Australia is practically as empty as Antarctica! Do you think she’ll agree with “thinning the herd” of deer – which are dangerously overpopulated in the eastern U.S.?
Sorry, Jack. It’s late. Here’s the link:
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/promiscuity/
The author lumps family planning in with abortion, in a way that is both annoying and inaccurate.
I guess, abortion could fall under family planning but real family planning, the thing that 95% of people refer to when they say it refers to not conceiving babies you aren’t ready for not aborting them, something that can be done through abstinence, contraception and NFP.
Also I really wish “saving the planet” and “carbon footprint weren’t in quote marks. I understand your stance on the other things, but ‘saving the planet’ isn’t really a pro-choice scandal wasn’t made up by liberals. We live on this planet so wanting to make sure the water is clean to drink and the air clean to breathe isn’t radical and is indeed prolife.
Yea I just went to on to read the Denver post article which can be found here.
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_18436014
Michael J. Norton has really distorted the author’s original point. No where in here article did she mention abortion. Like I said before family planning typically means access to contraception services, she specifically addressed that Republicans were waging a war on contraceptives. It is a HUGE ( dishonest) reach to say she is advocating abortion in any way
BS. Abortion advocates have been telling us for years that to be truly pro-life you have to keep killing babies.
We have the brain power to use our resources more efficiently. Starvation and famine are often the result of corruption, not the inability to produce food on this planet. We don’t need to kill ourselves to save the planet.
Shannon,
In your zeal to demonstrate that the author does not mention abortion explicitly, you conveniently gloss over some very ugly implicit reality. China’s abortion rates were mentioned with no mention of the fact that their comprehensive program includes 35,000 abortions PER DAY!!!
China’s comprehensive program also includes the government requiring couples to obtain a license to have a baby. Their comprehensive program also includes forced contraception. You also neglect to address the issue of China’s economy beginning to collapse under it’s own weight, how the countryside has been raided for all young people to work the coastal factories, and how China has a dearth of workers to maintain steady economic growth and GDP.
You also conveniently gloss over the reality that Democrat and U.N. “comprehensive” birth control includes abortion as a foundational component, without which, the U.S. and U.N. Will not give foreign aid.
Let’s be honest in our debate, Shannon. When lefties talk global birth control, abortion is part of the package deal, and in terrorist states such as China and Iran, so is state-sponsored terror, using women’s bodies and sexual/reproductive autonomy in order to leverage control. Where are our American feminists who promote abortion under the banner of “Reproductive Freedom” in this country, while their sisters abroad have their uteruses held hostage by their governments?
Please tell me that you didn’t know all of this when you wrote, and that you’re not here shilling for China and Iran.
Vannah, have you heard about Kiva? http://www.kiva.org
You can lend $25 to a businessperson in the developing world. You can chose which person you want to lend to, so it’s easy to pick a woman if you want to. I’ve done it several times and I’ve almost always got the money back. :-)
Vannah: “The A is asexual.”
When you sign up for Google Plus, it gives you three gender options: Male, Female, Other. :-/
JackBorsch says: August 4, 2011 at 6:46 pm
“I know it’s a lot more fun to clip quotes and take them out of context, but that’t the full quote. Personally, I prefer to know the reality of what people have said and make judgments on that. And I am not a coward, thanks.”
PP locates their ‘whore houses’ in ethnic minority communities. Americans of African descent abort at rates much higher than caucasians and other ethnicities. You can pretend that this all just the result of random happenstance [kind of like evolution] or you can engage your intellect and connect the dots.
Liberals/progressives/humanists target non-whites for elimination because “there was [is] concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Ruth Bader Ginsbugr’s ‘perception’ was not incorrect. It was spot on. She nailed it.
PP qualifies these ethnicities whom ‘we’ [as in people who think like Bader Ginsbur] don’t want to have too many of.” for federal funding. Some this money comes from Medicaid/Medicare. They don’t want to eliminate all them. They need to keep some around to continue to use to milk money from the nanny state teat.
pp has received hundreds of millions[probably billions] of federal tax dollars thru the Public Health Service Act which also includes Title XIX Medicaid. PP is money laundering cash cow for all things liberal and humanist.
You just keep on apologizing and equivocating and excusing. You do such a good job you should be on someones payroll.
The quote was not taken out of context. The ‘context’ which you provided does not change in any way the accuracy of her perception. She and you may not like being included in her description, but you have made your pact with the devil. Don’t start complaining about your bedfellows who are exposed when the sheets are pulled back.
A) I want PP shut down, and I want abortion eradicated. To imply otherwise is dumb. Just because I disagree with your interpretation of half a quote from one interview from a Justice who wasn’t even in office when Roe was passed doesn’t mean I’m conspiring with Planned Parenthood. My “bedfellows” would more accurately be described as the growing liberal and pro-life group.
B) Liberal doesn’t equal racist or pro-choice necessarily. Sweeping generalizations are getting no one anywhere. I’m not getting into the genocide argument. I think that PP targets poor and desperate people, and that needs to end no matter what the race of the people.
Hal:
Obama IS the video!
and a reeeeaaaalllllllly BAD video at that ! Another hooray for hollywood.
Kel: “Did you read the rest of the post or just give a knee-jerk reaction when you saw the word ‘gay?’…The quote is really about the euphemisms people use to make various evils appear acceptable.”
Well, look what you just did, yourself, Kel. You defended the inclusion of homosexuality in a list of things you describe as “various evils.” I don’t consider homosexuality an evil. It certainly doesn’t rank with killing a child, and if we don’t want to go on a tangent about gays and lesbians then the author shouldn’t have included them in a list about euphemisms. If only he’d left them out, we’d now be discussing the topic at hand.
Vannah: “The A is asexual. ”
Thanks, Vannah. And “A” is the new “Gay,” Holmes!
Rasqual: “When you sign up for Google Plus, it gives you three gender options: Male, Female, Other. :-/ ”
You might be thinking of the wrong definition of “asexual.”
Ken: I respect your intellect, but you give humans way too much credit.
Ha! Ken, thank you. I think we humans have to learn the hard way, over and over, as a race, and sometimes as individuals. With the environment, population, etc. – I don’t know what’s going to happen. I suspect that things will have to get *very* bad before much is done, but then again in the end we always seem to muddle though somehow.
Here in the US, with our economy – I’m very pessimistic, and don’t see any “good” way out of the fix we’re in after so many decades of debt-building.
Jasper: “Homosexuals are a big part of many pro-abortion groups.”
As are heterosexuals. Now I’ll patiently wait while you tear into heterosexuals with the same zeal with which you just tore into homosexuals.
Vannah: When people say, “Let’s reduce the population,” they aren’t advocating burning villages. I think though, in my experience, a lot of people have no idea how to go about reducing the population. They say, “Let’s reduce the population!” but are not sure what works.
Very good post by you, Vannah. Really, around the world, I haven’t seen many cries for “reducing the population.” China was one, and their recognizing a very real and demonstrable problem hasn’t yet led to a good solution.
I think most of the time it’s more a feeling that we need to slow the growth of population, there being no realistic scenario where in the next few decades the world’s population not only doesn’t decline, but also does grow somewhat, if not a lot. Anything that actually resulted in a net population loss around the world would have to be fairly catastrophic, IMO.
You are so right about fighting poverty. I think you’re correct that women would often feel less need to have abortions. Also, in many areas of the world, having a lot of kids is the one real shot that many people have for security in their older age, the hope being that some of the kids will support them.
Would the environment ever get so bad that there was a meaningful amount of “we have to reduce the population?” sentiment, then I think things would be pretty tough for all of us.
Bmmg, it’s obvious that the author of the article believes homosexuality to be among various evils, which is why I stated it the way I did. I’m not getting into a debate on homosexuality on this thread because the quote isn’t focused on that whatsoever.
Bmmg, its not the author’s fault you got your panties in a wad about the author’s opinion on homosexuality, despite the fact that it wasn’t even the topic of his article. Children are being killed in the name of saving the planet, but I guess you’d rather be hypersensitive and miss the importance of the actual topic at hand. That’s fine, but you really did hijack this entire thread. Congratulations.
How did I “hijack” the thread? By commenting first, for a change?
Yes, the “overpopulation” crowd has a sickening attitude towards children and procreation. And the author does a poor job of getting us to focusing on that, as he analogizes with a completely unrelated, hot-button issue.
Kel, if we can republish the thread, omitting the part about gays, then maybe we’ll make progress. Don’t blame me for addressing something the original author wrote. Had he written something disparaging about Jews or Mormons instead of gays, I’d point it out just the same. To be frank, I’m tired of certain parties “hijacking” (to use your term) the pro-life cause to go after gays or to duct-tape on causes completely unrelated to abortion.
Your comment regarding the condition of my undergarment is an attempt to discredit me by suggesting that I’m being hyperemotional, but my “panties” are not in a “wad.” Are yours?
Kel, if we can republish the thread, omitting the part about gays, then maybe we’ll make progress.
So, you’d like us to censor the author? The author made his point in the first paragraph regarding euphemisms:
So, with twists in language, “homosexual behavior” is called “gay lifestyle,” “sex outside marriage” is termed “freedom,” and “killing babies” is called “family planning.” Often, it seems, in an effort to add weight to the pro-abortion mantra, the left couples “family planning” with other leftist causes like “carbon footprint” or “saving the planet.”
This is the author’s opinion. One mention – ONE – about gays and the rest of the quote was basically ignored. The author analogized on sex outside of marriage, too. Would you care to comment on that as well?
I understand that there are many pro-lifers who are pro-gay as well, but it gets incredibly tiresome to see entire threads devoted to pro-gay/anti-gay arguments. Especially when the quote isn’t even ABOUT homosexuality. That, to me, speaks of hyperemotionalism and hypersensitivity, yes.
I find your equating of homosexuality to Judaism and Mormonism to be interesting, to say the least.
Kel, you need not censor the author, but you also need not accuse me of hijacking the thread after I merely commented on what the author wrote. An author cannot get in a jab and then insist that that issue not be discussed, for that would speak of cowardice. It’s as if someone started a Casey Anthony thread by bringing up O.J. Simpson, and then demanding that no one thereafter discuss the Simpson case. Or those who send an unsolicited e-mail to all their friends about some issue, and then say, “If you agree, pass it on. If you disagree, just delete it,” as if those with a differing view are not allowed to comment, whereas those with the same view can.
“I find your equating of homosexuality to Judaism and Mormonism to be interesting, to say the least.”
…Jews or Mormons or Catholics or women or Christians or atheists or men or Muslims or people with short hair. Same thing. If I were in a group being compared to aborting babies in order to “reduce the carbon footprint,” I’d be angry, and I wouldn’t care if it were just one sentence or not.
…Jews or Mormons or Catholics or women or Christians or atheists or men or Muslims or people with short hair. Same thing. If I were in a group being compared to aborting babies in order to “reduce the carbon footprint,” I’d be angry, and I wouldn’t care if it were just one sentence or not.
The author didn’t compare homosexuality to aborting babies. He was using the statement as an analogy for the euphemisms used by society to, in his estimation, make evil actions more palatable to society. You could have made a comment on the actual topic of the quote, like doing what Vannah did – commenting on the population issue and then tagging a minor point of disagreement at the end. Instead, the entire thread was derailed with more of what pro-gay pro-lifers say they DON’T want to talk about. It makes no sense to me.
” pro-gay pro-lifers” are people who don’t realize that they are promoting a community that at its core is antithetical to the pro-life movement, beginning with their support for the same radical lefties who promote abortion.
Generalize away, Gerard.
Upon quick reading it does sound like unwarranted generalization, but when parsed carefully it turns out not to be. There’s some wiggle room in the penultimate pronoun, but the grammar suggests that the antecedent of “their” is “community” — not “pro-gay pro-lifers.”
Somehow, Gerard has done the grammatical equivalent of Neo in The Matrix, in the bullet-dodging scene. ;-)
But what “community” does he mean?
The gay community, I’m quite sure. So he is generalizing — but as a generalization he succeeds — not withstanding the significant proportion of gays who are conservative.
Personally, I’m not a big fan of applying the commutative principle like this, though — guilt by leap-frog association. There’s a slew of logical fallacies one can run afoul of that way.
If a person is gay and pro-life, I’m glad they’re pro-life and I’m sad they’re gay. Given my temperament, I could shake their hand cordially while conversing honestly about either topic.
If a pro-life gay supports a pro-gay, pro-choice candidate, it is because of the candidate’s stance on gay rights, not her/his stance on abortion. Were there more “Patricia Heaton” Republicans, supporting both gay rights and unborn children, pro-life gays would have more options. Of course, if we keep lumping homosexuality in with abortion, that’s less likely to occur.