Monday, October 23, 2006
Population Control vs. the Culture of Life
Jonah Goldberg has a great summary of the history of the Eugenics/Depopulation aspect of the Culture of Death in this recent piece that he wrote for NRO that Steve Ertelt posted at LifeNews:
As I write this, America’s population reportedly has passed the 300 million mark. The most remarkable aspect of this landmark event is how unremarkable it really is.
“If I had my way, I would build a lethal chamber as big as the Crystal Palace, with a military band playing softly, and a Cinematograph working brightly, and then I’d go out in back streets and main streets and bring them all in, all the sick ... the maimed; I would lead them gently, and they would smile me a weary thanks ...”
That was D. H. Lawrence daydreaming about population control. He was hardly alone. During the so-called Progressive Era, “enlightened” social planners were convinced that overpopulation was the gravest problem facing Western society. That’s why Lawrence gave “three cheers for the inventors of poison gas.”
George Bernard Shaw, a thoroughgoing eugenicist, believed that the “the majority of men at present in Europe have no business to be alive.” H. G. Wells smiled at the prospect that the “swarms of black and brown and dirty-white and yellow people” will “have to go.” In America, Wells’s onetime girlfriend, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, argued that birth control was essential to stem the rising tide of the unfit. Leading feminists, Progressive economists and legal theorists shared a similar vision. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who concluded in the case of Buck v. Bell that the state had the power to forcibly sterilize “defectives,” believed that forced population control was at the very heart of Progressive reform.
The Holocaust diminished the popularity of eugenics, but the panic over overpopulation endured. Paul Ehrlich, author of the scaremongering “The Population Bomb,” predicted in 1970 that between 1980 and 1989, roughly 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would starve or otherwise meet their doom in the “Great Die-Off.” Inspired by such fears, Alan Guttmacher, the former president of Planned Parenthood, was a champion of coerced birth control — i.e. “compulsory sterilization and compulsory abortion” — throughout much of the world.
This is a very enlightening glimpse of how the Culture of Death metastasized in the post-Modern era. However I recently came across an online version of one of Margaret Sanger's books that made me realize that there is nothing at all modern about the Culture of Death.
In it she points out that nearly every other culture practiced infanticide as a form of population control and adds that that it was most prevalent in cultures where woman were more influential in society. From the Greeks and Romans to China and India, she claims the practice was widespread. She also alludes to the "wise woman" of Europe's antiquity who in addition to being midwives and herbalists also had knowledge of abortifacents.
The one culture that stood in opposition to this was of course a small tribe originally known as Habiru. While their neighbors sacrificed their children to furnaces wrought in the likeness of pagan gods, the Deity of the Habiru encouraged them to cherish life.
Today the same Judeo-Christian Culture of Life stands alone against an ancient evil posing as a Brave New World.
As I write this, America’s population reportedly has passed the 300 million mark. The most remarkable aspect of this landmark event is how unremarkable it really is.
“If I had my way, I would build a lethal chamber as big as the Crystal Palace, with a military band playing softly, and a Cinematograph working brightly, and then I’d go out in back streets and main streets and bring them all in, all the sick ... the maimed; I would lead them gently, and they would smile me a weary thanks ...”
That was D. H. Lawrence daydreaming about population control. He was hardly alone. During the so-called Progressive Era, “enlightened” social planners were convinced that overpopulation was the gravest problem facing Western society. That’s why Lawrence gave “three cheers for the inventors of poison gas.”
George Bernard Shaw, a thoroughgoing eugenicist, believed that the “the majority of men at present in Europe have no business to be alive.” H. G. Wells smiled at the prospect that the “swarms of black and brown and dirty-white and yellow people” will “have to go.” In America, Wells’s onetime girlfriend, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, argued that birth control was essential to stem the rising tide of the unfit. Leading feminists, Progressive economists and legal theorists shared a similar vision. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who concluded in the case of Buck v. Bell that the state had the power to forcibly sterilize “defectives,” believed that forced population control was at the very heart of Progressive reform.
The Holocaust diminished the popularity of eugenics, but the panic over overpopulation endured. Paul Ehrlich, author of the scaremongering “The Population Bomb,” predicted in 1970 that between 1980 and 1989, roughly 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would starve or otherwise meet their doom in the “Great Die-Off.” Inspired by such fears, Alan Guttmacher, the former president of Planned Parenthood, was a champion of coerced birth control — i.e. “compulsory sterilization and compulsory abortion” — throughout much of the world.
This is a very enlightening glimpse of how the Culture of Death metastasized in the post-Modern era. However I recently came across an online version of one of Margaret Sanger's books that made me realize that there is nothing at all modern about the Culture of Death.
In it she points out that nearly every other culture practiced infanticide as a form of population control and adds that that it was most prevalent in cultures where woman were more influential in society. From the Greeks and Romans to China and India, she claims the practice was widespread. She also alludes to the "wise woman" of Europe's antiquity who in addition to being midwives and herbalists also had knowledge of abortifacents.
The one culture that stood in opposition to this was of course a small tribe originally known as Habiru. While their neighbors sacrificed their children to furnaces wrought in the likeness of pagan gods, the Deity of the Habiru encouraged them to cherish life.
Today the same Judeo-Christian Culture of Life stands alone against an ancient evil posing as a Brave New World.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Baby Charlotte to be Put in Foster Care
From The Daily Mail:
A severely disabled child whose parents fought a long legal battle to ensure she was kept alive is to be placed in foster care because her parents have been judged unfit to look after her.
Brain-damaged Charlotte Wyatt has confounded the predictions of doctors who wanted permission to switch off her life support machine and will turn three on Saturday.
Her parents Darren, 34, and Debbie, 25, ran up a £500,000 legal bill for the taxpayer as they fought for two years in the courts to force the hospital looking after her to ensure she was resuscitated.
Eventually, the Wyatts argued, she could be looked after at home. Their successful legal battle was hailed as a moral triumph by those who believe cost should be no object in keeping a child alive even if they require a lifetime of intensive care.
But despite now being well enough to leave hospital, doctors say she cannot go home to her mother or father as there is no stable two-parent home for her to go to.
Doctors say that neither Mr nor Mrs Wyatt, who both survive on benefits, would on their own be able to provide their daughter with the 24-hour care she needs.
And since February it is understood that social workers have been seeking foster parents willing to take on the heavy responsibility of looking after little Charlotte, who has the mental ability of the average 12-week-old baby. So far no-one has been willing do so.
A severely disabled child whose parents fought a long legal battle to ensure she was kept alive is to be placed in foster care because her parents have been judged unfit to look after her.
Brain-damaged Charlotte Wyatt has confounded the predictions of doctors who wanted permission to switch off her life support machine and will turn three on Saturday.
Her parents Darren, 34, and Debbie, 25, ran up a £500,000 legal bill for the taxpayer as they fought for two years in the courts to force the hospital looking after her to ensure she was resuscitated.
Eventually, the Wyatts argued, she could be looked after at home. Their successful legal battle was hailed as a moral triumph by those who believe cost should be no object in keeping a child alive even if they require a lifetime of intensive care.
But despite now being well enough to leave hospital, doctors say she cannot go home to her mother or father as there is no stable two-parent home for her to go to.
Doctors say that neither Mr nor Mrs Wyatt, who both survive on benefits, would on their own be able to provide their daughter with the 24-hour care she needs.
And since February it is understood that social workers have been seeking foster parents willing to take on the heavy responsibility of looking after little Charlotte, who has the mental ability of the average 12-week-old baby. So far no-one has been willing do so.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
"Euthanasia Blues"
Canadian disability activist Norman Kunc has created this tour de force. It's a terrific blues number with a message that hits home. And check out his website.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
World Gone Mad
Two great guest posts at Steve Ertelt's LifeNews illustrate the schizophrenic thinking of our world system.
Wesley Smith reports on how the bioethical ground is already being prepared for reproductive cloning, while on another front, despite evidence that birthrates are in free fall, our elected officials have insisted on spending more and more on international depopulation programs
So if we already have too many people, why do we need to clone more?
From Wesley's article, part of the answer seems to be the scientific community's mania for conducting research unfettered by any regulation or oversight:
We are always assured by "the scientists" that they don't support "reproductive cloning," but only want a license to clone so that the asexually created embryos (for now, leading to fetuses later) can be researched upon.
To some degree, that is true--but not because of any moral calculation. Reproductive cloning isn't "safe," meaning it would lead certainly to major birth defects, still births, and the deaths of birth mothers.
Yet, just beneath the radar, some already promote a right to reproductive cloning. As I detailed in Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World, many in bioethics believe that there is a fundamental right to procreate by any means desired, and hence, once it is "safe," they are all for reproductive cloning.
This overlooks, of course, the long process of human experimentation on fetuses as well as embryos making it "safe" would require, but never mind. These nascent humans wouldn't be "persons" anyway, so they would be ours to do with as we saw fit.
Some already go even farther. A professor (aren't they all) from the University of Melbourne, Australia, has published a piece in the current Journal of Medical Ethics (where other writers are pushing for permanently unconscious patients to be used in human-to-animal organ transplant experiments--more about which I plan to write in the near future), proposing a "negative right" to do reproductive cloning as soon as the technology can be applied.
He suggests at least two instances in which cloning through gestation to birth should be allowed now: 1) If it is the only way for a couple to generate genetically related offspring, 2) to create "savior" siblings. (Source: "Just another reproductive technology? The ethics of human reproductive cloning as an experimental medical procedure," D. Elsner, J Med Ethics 2006; 32:596-600) The apparent difference between a negative and a positive right? A positive rights requires public financing.
None of this surprises me.
After some five years of dealing with the cloning issue, this is what I believe: Beneath the hedging, weasel modifiers, and passive prose that are hallmarks of bioethical advocacy, the axis of bioethicists/biotechnologists have an anything goes mentality about these issues. Some are more candid than others about this. Some speak about setting "reasonable limits"--but somehow these suggested impediments seem to always be about what cannot yet be done, not what can be done now or in the near
It would seem that the resolution of this seeming contradiction is in the drive to "engineer" humanity. The depopulation programs of USAID seem to fit into this agenda on a global scale:
Official federal spending on overseas "population assistance," which means population control, has a slim chance of dropping significantly in fiscal year 2007. The Bush Administration proposed only $357 million for such family planning programs early this year, a significant reduction from the $425 million it typically proposed in previous years.
Of course, the usual suspects, unimpressed with the conclusive evidence from secular scientists that birthrates are in free fall in most of the world, immediately geared up to increase the amount in Congress.
Since Congress failed to finish work on spending bills before adjourning for the fall campaign season, the matter is still up in the air until a post-election November session. But it doesn't look good.
It is difficult to calculate how much of the federal budget goes to reduce the populations of Africans, Latinos, and Asians abroad.
Much of the money dedicated to HIV/AIDS prevention, maternal health, economic development, and other programs actually serves to promote population control. Billions of dollars every year from the United States alone gets spent on these goals, and billions more from the European Union.
I'm sure there is a story behind this increase. Someone is doing some powerful lobbying to get Congress to spend more than was actually budgeted. Hopefully I'll find enough for a follow-up post.
Wesley Smith reports on how the bioethical ground is already being prepared for reproductive cloning, while on another front, despite evidence that birthrates are in free fall, our elected officials have insisted on spending more and more on international depopulation programs
So if we already have too many people, why do we need to clone more?
From Wesley's article, part of the answer seems to be the scientific community's mania for conducting research unfettered by any regulation or oversight:
We are always assured by "the scientists" that they don't support "reproductive cloning," but only want a license to clone so that the asexually created embryos (for now, leading to fetuses later) can be researched upon.
To some degree, that is true--but not because of any moral calculation. Reproductive cloning isn't "safe," meaning it would lead certainly to major birth defects, still births, and the deaths of birth mothers.
Yet, just beneath the radar, some already promote a right to reproductive cloning. As I detailed in Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World, many in bioethics believe that there is a fundamental right to procreate by any means desired, and hence, once it is "safe," they are all for reproductive cloning.
This overlooks, of course, the long process of human experimentation on fetuses as well as embryos making it "safe" would require, but never mind. These nascent humans wouldn't be "persons" anyway, so they would be ours to do with as we saw fit.
Some already go even farther. A professor (aren't they all) from the University of Melbourne, Australia, has published a piece in the current Journal of Medical Ethics (where other writers are pushing for permanently unconscious patients to be used in human-to-animal organ transplant experiments--more about which I plan to write in the near future), proposing a "negative right" to do reproductive cloning as soon as the technology can be applied.
He suggests at least two instances in which cloning through gestation to birth should be allowed now: 1) If it is the only way for a couple to generate genetically related offspring, 2) to create "savior" siblings. (Source: "Just another reproductive technology? The ethics of human reproductive cloning as an experimental medical procedure," D. Elsner, J Med Ethics 2006; 32:596-600) The apparent difference between a negative and a positive right? A positive rights requires public financing.
None of this surprises me.
After some five years of dealing with the cloning issue, this is what I believe: Beneath the hedging, weasel modifiers, and passive prose that are hallmarks of bioethical advocacy, the axis of bioethicists/biotechnologists have an anything goes mentality about these issues. Some are more candid than others about this. Some speak about setting "reasonable limits"--but somehow these suggested impediments seem to always be about what cannot yet be done, not what can be done now or in the near
It would seem that the resolution of this seeming contradiction is in the drive to "engineer" humanity. The depopulation programs of USAID seem to fit into this agenda on a global scale:
Official federal spending on overseas "population assistance," which means population control, has a slim chance of dropping significantly in fiscal year 2007. The Bush Administration proposed only $357 million for such family planning programs early this year, a significant reduction from the $425 million it typically proposed in previous years.
Of course, the usual suspects, unimpressed with the conclusive evidence from secular scientists that birthrates are in free fall in most of the world, immediately geared up to increase the amount in Congress.
Since Congress failed to finish work on spending bills before adjourning for the fall campaign season, the matter is still up in the air until a post-election November session. But it doesn't look good.
It is difficult to calculate how much of the federal budget goes to reduce the populations of Africans, Latinos, and Asians abroad.
Much of the money dedicated to HIV/AIDS prevention, maternal health, economic development, and other programs actually serves to promote population control. Billions of dollars every year from the United States alone gets spent on these goals, and billions more from the European Union.
I'm sure there is a story behind this increase. Someone is doing some powerful lobbying to get Congress to spend more than was actually budgeted. Hopefully I'll find enough for a follow-up post.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Suit Against BRA Suggests Conflict of Interest in ISB Land Deal
In this press release the David Project announces it's lawsuit against the Boston Redevelopment Authority:
The David Project, a non-profit educational organization, filed a lawsuit against the Boston Redevelopment Authority ("BRA") today, asking a Superior Court Judge to order the BRA to produce public records relating to the BRA-Islamic Society of Boston land deal. These are documents that the BRA has refused to produce. The lawsuit, entitled The David Project v. Boston Redevelopment Authority, was filed earlier today in the Suffolk Superior Court.
Since 2004, the David Project and other citizens have called for governmental review of the land deal whereby the BRA transferred land which its own documents showed was valued at over $2,000,000 to the Islamic Society, in return for only $175,000 in funds.
That's been the unanswered question throughout this case. I think the next few paragraphs of the press release give us a strong hint to the answer:
Among the documents that have emerged are documents which show that shortly before the BRA and the Islamic Society reached this agreement, BRA Deputy Director Mohammad Ali-Salaam, the key BRA official who oversaw, coordinated and managed the deal on behalf of the BRA, was flown to the United Arab Emirates for a 10-day fundraising trip on behalf of the Islamic Society, paid for by the Islamic Society. Indeed, the Islamic Society has publicly identified Mr. Ali-Salaam as one of its principal fundraisers in the Middle East.
Other documents disclose that Mr. Ali-Salaam played what the evidence suggests was a dual role on behalf of the BRA and the Islamic Society for many years on this project. For instance, documents disclose that he used BRA stationery to convey $10,000 in Islamic Society funds to the President of the Roxbury Community College, asking the President to keep the donation "anonymous." Not only did Mr. Ali-Salaam sign the letter written on BRA stationery, but he had two officials of the Islamic Society, who did not work for the BRA, sign the BRA letter as well.
Still other documents disclose that at the same time that he was representing the BRA on the project, he was writing "confidential" memoranda to the Board of Directors of the Islamic Society, counseling them on how "we" can obtain favorable treatment from the BRA and the City of Boston, and using BRA stationery to negotiate favorable contractual arrangements on behalf of the Islamic Society.
In late 2004, the Boston City Council sought to hold hearings about this transaction, the circumstances in which it occurred, and the reasons it occurred as it did. The BRA and the Islamic Society were both asked to attend and provide answers to questions. Both the BRA and the Islamic Society refused to do so.
Earlier this year, the Boston City Council again sought to hold hearings about the transaction. Again the BRA and the Islamic Society were invited to attend and provide answers to questions. Once again the BRA and the Islamic Society refused to do so.
As far back as November, 2005, the David Project filed public records requests with the BRA under the Massachusetts Public Records statute, requesting all BRA documents relating to the valuation of the property, the arrangements leading to the special transaction and the BRA's oversight of it, including the due diligence performed by the BRA into the Islamic Society at the time that it conveyed public land to it at significantly below fair market value. However, the BRA has withheld numerous large categories of such documents. These include all of Mr. Ali-Salaam's e-mails to and from his BRA e-mail account. The BRA has declined to provide any explanation for withholding these or other documents.
Imaging the howls of protest from the ACLU if the beneficiary of the BRA's largesse had been a Christian Church or Jewish Temple.
The David Project, a non-profit educational organization, filed a lawsuit against the Boston Redevelopment Authority ("BRA") today, asking a Superior Court Judge to order the BRA to produce public records relating to the BRA-Islamic Society of Boston land deal. These are documents that the BRA has refused to produce. The lawsuit, entitled The David Project v. Boston Redevelopment Authority, was filed earlier today in the Suffolk Superior Court.
Since 2004, the David Project and other citizens have called for governmental review of the land deal whereby the BRA transferred land which its own documents showed was valued at over $2,000,000 to the Islamic Society, in return for only $175,000 in funds.
That's been the unanswered question throughout this case. I think the next few paragraphs of the press release give us a strong hint to the answer:
Among the documents that have emerged are documents which show that shortly before the BRA and the Islamic Society reached this agreement, BRA Deputy Director Mohammad Ali-Salaam, the key BRA official who oversaw, coordinated and managed the deal on behalf of the BRA, was flown to the United Arab Emirates for a 10-day fundraising trip on behalf of the Islamic Society, paid for by the Islamic Society. Indeed, the Islamic Society has publicly identified Mr. Ali-Salaam as one of its principal fundraisers in the Middle East.
Other documents disclose that Mr. Ali-Salaam played what the evidence suggests was a dual role on behalf of the BRA and the Islamic Society for many years on this project. For instance, documents disclose that he used BRA stationery to convey $10,000 in Islamic Society funds to the President of the Roxbury Community College, asking the President to keep the donation "anonymous." Not only did Mr. Ali-Salaam sign the letter written on BRA stationery, but he had two officials of the Islamic Society, who did not work for the BRA, sign the BRA letter as well.
Still other documents disclose that at the same time that he was representing the BRA on the project, he was writing "confidential" memoranda to the Board of Directors of the Islamic Society, counseling them on how "we" can obtain favorable treatment from the BRA and the City of Boston, and using BRA stationery to negotiate favorable contractual arrangements on behalf of the Islamic Society.
In late 2004, the Boston City Council sought to hold hearings about this transaction, the circumstances in which it occurred, and the reasons it occurred as it did. The BRA and the Islamic Society were both asked to attend and provide answers to questions. Both the BRA and the Islamic Society refused to do so.
Earlier this year, the Boston City Council again sought to hold hearings about the transaction. Again the BRA and the Islamic Society were invited to attend and provide answers to questions. Once again the BRA and the Islamic Society refused to do so.
As far back as November, 2005, the David Project filed public records requests with the BRA under the Massachusetts Public Records statute, requesting all BRA documents relating to the valuation of the property, the arrangements leading to the special transaction and the BRA's oversight of it, including the due diligence performed by the BRA into the Islamic Society at the time that it conveyed public land to it at significantly below fair market value. However, the BRA has withheld numerous large categories of such documents. These include all of Mr. Ali-Salaam's e-mails to and from his BRA e-mail account. The BRA has declined to provide any explanation for withholding these or other documents.
Imaging the howls of protest from the ACLU if the beneficiary of the BRA's largesse had been a Christian Church or Jewish Temple.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
What Does the NEA Have Against My Kid's Virginity?
From LifeNews:
The nation's largest teacher's group is attacking abstinence education programs in a new report it co-sponsored. The attack is designed to persuade Congressional lawmakers to cut funding for abstinence education, which studies have shown is achieving its intended results in reducing sex and teen pregnancies.
The National Education Association (NEA) and the anti-abstinence group SIECUS co-sponsored the new report, its fourth annual one attacking abstinence programs.
The report reviews abstinence education curriculum and claims it is "riddled with messages of fear and shame, gender stereotypes, and medical misinformation that put young people at risk."
We've examined the NEA in these pages before, but I was curious about SEICUS. The description of their origins on their site is intentionally vague:
In 1964, a physician, a lawyer, a sociologist, a family life educator, a clergyman, and a public health educator came together to form a new organization dedicated to assuring that all people had access to information about sexuality.
It turns out that it's roots are in the work of Alfred Kinsey and his Institute. If like me you are wondering why the NEA and SEICUS are so motivated to sexualize our kids and rob them of the innocent idyll of childhood, here is a good place to start. Once you better understand Kinsey, his "inner life" and the agenda he created that has now permeated our schools and criminal justice system, you'll start to get an inkling of what a threat successful abstinence programs are to these shock troops of the Sexual Revolution.
The nation's largest teacher's group is attacking abstinence education programs in a new report it co-sponsored. The attack is designed to persuade Congressional lawmakers to cut funding for abstinence education, which studies have shown is achieving its intended results in reducing sex and teen pregnancies.
The National Education Association (NEA) and the anti-abstinence group SIECUS co-sponsored the new report, its fourth annual one attacking abstinence programs.
The report reviews abstinence education curriculum and claims it is "riddled with messages of fear and shame, gender stereotypes, and medical misinformation that put young people at risk."
We've examined the NEA in these pages before, but I was curious about SEICUS. The description of their origins on their site is intentionally vague:
In 1964, a physician, a lawyer, a sociologist, a family life educator, a clergyman, and a public health educator came together to form a new organization dedicated to assuring that all people had access to information about sexuality.
It turns out that it's roots are in the work of Alfred Kinsey and his Institute. If like me you are wondering why the NEA and SEICUS are so motivated to sexualize our kids and rob them of the innocent idyll of childhood, here is a good place to start. Once you better understand Kinsey, his "inner life" and the agenda he created that has now permeated our schools and criminal justice system, you'll start to get an inkling of what a threat successful abstinence programs are to these shock troops of the Sexual Revolution.