Pro-abortion politician called out for contradictory statements on value of life
Only two hours apart, last week, the minister of youth and culture contradicted herself and rendered her empathy empty, hollow and superficial.
She chastised the killing of the three teenage boys in Clarendon, stating the act shows that the perpetrators “[had] no feelings, compassion or love and do not value human life, especially that of our children”. Laws and regulations alone cannot help to address violence against children, she said.
Yet only two hours before… she vociferously called for the country to murder children by changing our anti-abortion laws. As if speaking from a feminist perspective, she stated that the anti-abortion laws perpetuate poverty among women and children.
~ Letter to the editor, The Gleaner, calling out Jamaica MP Lisa Hanna (pictured right), also that country’s Minister of Youth and Culture, for contradictory statements on the value of human life, April 25
Pretty face, pretty smile, seems like a nice person.
But her advocacy for the genocide of preborn children and her position of authority as a government official make her a monster, an evil bully.
She will have to answer to the Righteous Judge for the blood of innocent children that covers her hands.
8 likes
The writer of that letter, while pretty darn well-spoken and coherent, is nevertheless a kooky believer in Intelligent Design, and I say kooky because she gives evidence of her own blindness to the truth about biology and what we can logically draw from it.
As far as Jamaica goes – I have worked there, at various aluminum smelters, and there is much to see on the island – the overwhelming majority, in fact – that is much different from the tourist areas and from what most of the rest of the world sees.
Some years, Jamaica has the highest murder rate in the world, and it’s usually contending for the top spot. While there is not the overt presence of “guns in the streets” as in some other countries, there is still a much more pervasive danger than what most Americans feel. Outside of the walled-in and fenced compounds, one walks a knife-edge, to a substantial extent.
Ms. Hanna knows what is anything but a secret – that many women there are trapped in poverty by having so many kids.
13 likes
We have data from all over the world…. And no place as solved the problem of poverty by killing its children.
We know that abortion is another tool in the hand of those who enslave, abuse, and coerce women. Women deserve better opportunities than abortion.
But yes… the problems run deep. Government cannot restore a culture of life and respect for women. I suggest that a good start would be the partnering of government with local churches, charities, and missionary workers. Work with the people who want to restore the family culture.
7 likes
Doug–I’ve heard atheist scientists say that when studying science and especially the wonder of our bodies it is hard not to believe in Intelligent Design. So I guess not so kooky after all.
5 likes
Del: We have data from all over the world…. And no place as solved the problem of poverty by killing its children.
Del, it’s hardly up to the individual, poor, pregnant woman to solve the problem of poverty for her country. The fact remains that she is often condemned to remaining in poverty due to the kids she has. All the more so in a place like Jamaica. Ms. Hanna, there, is not just making this stuff up. What is the poor woman to do – wait until she has born children, and then abandon her kids?
And of course I know you don’t mean that, nor would you ever advise such a thing. However, no place has ever solved the problem of poverty by creating more people in poverty.
In the US, your definition of “children” is so broad as to include about 26 million deaths yearly that occur without conscious intent on the part of the mother. These are conceptuses with chromosomal abnormalities, to a large extent, with an additional large portion being more-or-less normal embryos that fail to implant. This number dwarfs even the number of live births we have, to say nothing of the number of abortions.
If there are roughly 1.2 million abortions per year, then that’s between 4% and 5% as many deaths as are due to things that are non-voluntary on the part of the woman. People get all upset and raise cain about abortions, while over 20 times as many deaths are occurring from failed implantation and genetic deficiencies. And you almost never hear about the much bigger number – people aren’t worried about it, people aren’t thinking about it.
The fact is that our country, the world, etc., run along just fine – more or less (granted that there are many problems) – with all those deaths that occur naturally. This is one big reason that I don’t see elective abortion as all that bad.
15 likes
Sydney: Doug–I’ve heard atheist scientists say that when studying science and especially the wonder of our bodies it is hard not to believe in Intelligent Design. So I guess not so kooky after all.
Sydney, the woman is kooky. The scientists you mention – perhaps not – would have to see what they say, specifically.
7 likes
You haven’t made any sort of point yet, Doug.
Children do not cause poverty. And killing children does not end poverty.
I get particularly upset at wealthy first-worlders who look at conditions in places like Africa and Jamaica, and make that eugenic pronouncement: “I can see your problem: There are entirely too many of you people. You need abortions and more birth control.”
Usually, they just need clean water, jobs, and a stable, just government. But we wouldn’t feel so superior then, now would we?
9 likes
Del, my point is easy to see.
You are denying a known thing, here.
Children do not cause poverty.
That is quite simply false, often. We define poverty as income size versus family size – I can certainly quote you exact figures and general considerations there, if you wish.
In the US, it costs $200,000 to $300,000 in most cases to raise a kid to age 18. Even for single parents with low incomes, it’s around $160,000 or more.
In Jamaica, some costs are lower, but incomes are correspondingly lower, or even lower than that. It ends up being very simple for many families – if they have kids, or a certain number of kids, then they will not have certain things considered essential, to say nothing of disposable income. They will be in poverty.
These costs of having kids are not imaginary. When a couple or single parent has a given amount of income, having kids or having above a certain number of kids means they are now in poverty. Especially with single-parents, there is also the factor of not being able to work as much due to having to take care of the kids, a double-whammy that affects many around the world.
13 likes
Doug sez: “Children do not cause poverty.
That is quite simply false, often.”
Doug: you need to take a step back and think about what you are saying. You seem like a reasonable person. Take a step back.
If the average wealth per capita on the planet has risen as the planetary population has risen, then it is far from logical that more children-per-family leads to a lower average wealth per capita.
Doug: in the US, the average gross-domestic-product per person continues to rise CLEARLY in our era of good data – since WWII.
If EACH person is producing more wealth, across decades, HOW can a bigger family size lead to POVERTY?
It simply does not add up.
Go look up the data points: productivity per capita, population, and whatever other statistic might be needed.
Please explain to me, and other readers, how poverty is PROMOTED by more people, versus less.
AND
If more people damns the economy, then let me know:
WHO SHOULD WE KILL FIRST IN ORDER TO ENSURE ECONOMIC PROSPERITY?
Blacks? Immigrants? The Poor?
Or is government-mandated sterilization the happy-face way of carrying out these Intellectual-Elitist fantasies?
6 likes
The abortion industry is very keen about telling frightened young women how much it will cost them to keep that child. They are profoundly silent about how much help is available.
Simple fact remains: No society ever reduced its poverty by killing its children.
In real human economics, when a society is poor then children are accepted as assets of great value into a family. It is only after a society becomes very wealthy that they begin to kill healthy children to avoid the added expense.
4 likes
I think Doug’s problem, along with so many of the alarmists, is that they look at the cost of raising a child and they imagine that the money is wasted. So they imagine that children are a luxury, which should only be purchased when one can afford it.
This worldview typically accepts that humans are animals. Sex is a biological imperative, and something that women can trade for value.
As a result of this thinking, women and children are turned into economic objects. Commodities to be bought and sold, and discarded, as desired.
This is a despairing view of human nature, and it will destroy us all if we do not change.
We need to respect women and value children, like our ancestors did. That is the culture that got us this far. We know that we can build on it.
5 likes
…here it comes…
the elitist totalitarians have a one-two punch.
as soon as you point out how sick and wrong it is to try to endorse abortion as a path to prosperity for individuals,
the elitist totalitarians are trained to jump to the discredited “over-population” claim – the environment is about to crash, just like the old pinball tables would “TILT,” if there are too many of us.
2 likes
But her advocacy for the genocide of preborn children and her position of authority as a government official make her a monster, an evil bully. – well now, that is quite obviously a load of emotive nonsense. She is not advocating for any sort of genocide and she isn’t a monster, isn’t ‘evil’ and hasn’t bullied anyone.
I’ve heard atheist scientists say that when studying science and especially the wonder of our bodies it is hard not to believe in Intelligent Design. So I guess not so kooky after all. – any who aren’t creationists? Yes, creationism/ID is scientifically kooky.
9 likes
TLD: If the average wealth per capita on the planet has risen as the planetary population has risen, then it is far from logical that more children-per-family leads to a lower average wealth per capita.
TLD, there is no necessary relation between the two. Moreover, looking at average per capita wealth is meaningless, i.e. it has nothing to do with vast numbers of individuals and individual families. The fact remains that for certain income levels, having a certain number of kids or more means the family is in poverty.
It is not “more people on earth” that necessarily increases wealth, it’s technology. Heck, kill half the people, now, and that average per capita wealth would go way up.
Doesn’t all “real wealth” come from the ground or what we grow/harvest from on top of it? Wealth creation is rearranging and organizing our surroundings to suit us – digging up stuff for use, growing sheep and pomegranates for food, making trees into houses, etc. Long before we get to concepts like “intellectual property,” the more basic food-clothing-shelter deal is present, and it never goes away, i.e. if you’re really, really hungry, all the movies you have the rights to aren’t gonna help you one bit.
That’s a bit of a digression, but the operative thing about how we’ve gotten “wealthier” as people on earth is our technology – how efficiently we can work on the ground and below it. Without improving technology, then increasing population would eventually mean vast declines in per capita wealth (and it may lead to that, anyway, our advancing technology or not).
7 likes
TLD: If EACH person is producing more wealth, across decades, HOW can a bigger family size lead to POVERTY?
It can lead to poverty because not every person in the family is producing wealth, especially on a net basis. Your premise of “each person producing more wealth” is also not true – not all people do that, even including the supposed supporters/breadwinners of the family. Some produce less, or none at all.
The poverty threshold for most of the US is $32,570 for a family of six. I know quite a few people, some single, some married, who make around that. Of the two person households, some have one person working, some two. Most are getting by all right, not great but “making it.” Now, if you plunk down 4 hungry chirrens in there, it’s a different deal.
10 likes
Del: I think Doug’s problem, along with so many of the alarmists, is that they look at the cost of raising a child and they imagine that the money is wasted. So they imagine that children are a luxury, which should only be purchased when one can afford it.
Del, with all due respect, that is silly. Nobody is saying that money is “wasted.” The fact remains that for certain income levels, having kids or not will often be the difference between being in poverty or not being in poverty.
Looking at Jamaica, the per-capita GDP is right about 1/10 of ours here in the US. There are enormous numbers of families where a single woman is the breadwinner, very low-paid, to begin with. If she has kids, poverty is pretty much guaranteed.
11 likes