OK, I admit it doesn't seem logical to try to ban abortion. At least not yet. But to ban dialogue on abortion? This is what all of the 5 major political parties have done, including the conservatives now. (Green, Bloq, Liberal NDP and PC) They are all telling us how to think and giving us no other option. Who else are we to vote for? If the Christian Heritage Party had a candidate here, I'd be voting for them. But they don't.
All of Europe has laws on abortion. Specifically, a date limit. You can't abort after a certain number of weeks. This varies from country to country, but at least there is an age limit. That is a beginning. And I think that something like that is something that most of us in the general population can agree apon, simply because there is no logic in aborting a child that would be viable outside of the womb. Where is the logic in killing a child that, were he or she already born and in an incubator in intensive care, would have the right to live based on the sole fact that he/she is already born. Two children, the same age, one is born and if you kill it, you go to jail. The other is not, and if you kill it, you are rendering a service. They both have beating hearts, functioning nervous systems, and lungs able to breathe (albeit painfully). Where is the logic? There is no logic.
The very least our government and future candidates to the government could do is to at least be open to putting a limit on abortion. But no, they who treat pro-lifers with disdain, calling US stubborn, ignorant and set in our ways, they refuse to even consider the life of a VIABLE unborn child. They refuse even to consider protecting the life of a wanted unborn child as in the case of
Bill C-484, the bill for the unborn victims of crime act, that was shot down.
Shot down why? Because FEMINISTS (not real women) fear that people might come to believe that unborn children are actually people, (yeah, like we weren't already aware of this fact) and that by according them rights, this will infringe on their rights. Specifically, the right to choose to not have a child.
Umm, last I heard, (funny, people wonder if I know this myself since I had five children - do I know how to make it stop?), SEX is where babies come from folks. If you don't want kids, the only FOOLPROOF way to not have them (unless you are Mary and Gabriel comes to announce something to you), is by NOT having sex.
There exist any number of methods of contraception, none of which are foolproof, and none of which I will promote, because well, google Theology of the Body if you want to know, but they exist, and abortion should NOT be one of them. If a "mistake" is concieved (and I am of the belief that God makes no mistakes), adoption is so much more humane than abortion. Even when you've been raped, abortiondoesn't make the pain go away. Adoption is always the better road.
"Oh look at the poor unwanted child, forget adoption, let's kill him and put him out of his misery."
One could also say: "Oh look at the poor little slave, forget emancipation, let's kill him and put him out of his misery."
Or: "Look at all the poor suffering people in the world, forget love, compassion, charity, outreach, fighting for better infrastructure, workers rights, etc... let's just kill all the poor people and put them out of their misery. Oh heck, never mind that they are suffering, there is just too many of them... (see freaky store at bottom)
It's all the same.
Lets stop thinking "me, me, me" all the time. No one group of persons can have ALL the rights, not even feminists, although they are coming pretty close. Rights for feminists not only infringe on unborn babies rights, they also infringe on men's rights and stay-at-home mom's rights. Feminists hate stay-at-home moms. To them we are either totally ignorant or part of that right-wing, fanatic religious fringe. To think that any woman would put the well being of her children over her own, to think that caring for one's children could be more important than a career! To think these women could put themselves in a position where they are dependant on someone else, how degrading! How scandalous! No wonder things like income tax penalize stay at home mothers. How horrible to have to be dependant on men, of all creatures! Yes, feminists hate men too. Those macho freaks. If only they could do it all without men. Is any wonder that continually in courts, men's rights to their children are ignored in favour of women's rights?
Those of us who actually like our men, that actually trust them to care for our needs, who consider them to be our "heroes" in the ways that count, who believe we are in a partnership with them, not competing against them, we are freaks, or simply ignorant.
Wake up feminists, you can't have it all. My right to own a TV does not give me the right to steal someone else's TV if I don't have the money to buy it myself.
Your right to choose not to have a child does not give you the right to be irresponsible and then take the unborn child's life so you can be childless. The poor child doesn't have to be stuck with you for a mother either, he can be adopted by the hundreds of couples that want children and can't have any.
I have accidentally come across anti-children sites, where feminists take out their rage on having to be the ones with a uterus by calling children snotty brats and all sorts of things. And they call ME a freak?
Speaking of freaky... take a look at what some extreme green people think:
Recently citizen scientist Forrest Mims told me about a speech he heard at the Texas Academy of Science during which the speaker, a world-renowned ecologist, advocated for the extermination of 90 percent of the human species in a most horrible and painful manner. Apparently at the speaker's direction, the speech was not video taped by the Academy and so Forrest's may be the only record of what was said.
Saving the Earth with Ebola
Professor Pianka said the Earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures. Then, and without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number.
He then showed solutions for reducing the world's population in the form of a slide depicting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. War and famine would not do, he explained. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved.
Pianka then displayed a slide showing rows of human skulls, one of which had red lights flashing from its eye sockets.
AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world's population is airborne Ebola ( Ebola Reston ), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. However, Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs.
After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, “We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.”
With his slide of human skulls towering on the screen behind him, Professor Pianka was deadly serious. The audience that had been applauding some of his statements now sat silent.
After a dramatic pause, Pianka returned to politics and environmentalism. But he revisited his call for mass death when he reflected on the oil situation.
“And the fossil fuels are running out,” he said, “so I think we may have to cut back to two billion, which would be about one-third as many people.” So the oil crisis alone may require eliminating two-third's of the world's population.
How soon must the mass dying begin if Earth is to be saved? Apparently fairly soon, for Pianka suggested he might be around when the killer disease goes to work. He was born in 1939, and his lengthy obituary appears on his web site.
When Pianka finished his remarks, the audience applauded. It wasn't merely a smattering of polite clapping that audiences diplomatically reserve for poor or boring speakers. It was a loud, vigorous and enthusiastic applause.
Personally, I vote he rid us of himself first... If he is willing to die of ebola to save the world, maybe I will consider sacrificing myself as well.
Not.
Comments
Post a Comment