Posted on 05/08/2003 7:07:51 PM PDT by nickcarraway
BRUSSELS, May 8, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) in the UK has added its support to opposition to a European Commission initiative establishing a unit to monitor pro-life organisations. A SPUC release issued late yesterday noted that Mrs Dana Rosemary Scallon, the Irish pro-life member of the European parliament, is leading opposition to the unit. She is questioning whether the commission can legally use EU taxpayers' money to fund such a unit and says it compromises the commission's impartiality. She has asked for details of the unit's scope, budget and staffing, and suggests that its funding would be better spent on more deserving causes.
Peter Smith, SPUC's representative at the European Parliament, said: "I am a British taxpayer working for a voluntary organisation. It is galling in the extreme to know that my taxes, some of which are used to fund the commission, will go to employing people whose job could be to refute the good-quality material which I give to MEPs on matters such as abortion. Not only do pro-abortion non-governmental organisations get EU funding, but EU money is now also going to this attempt to thwart our good work in defence of mothers and their unborn children. However, in the end, the truth will out."
Mr Paul Nielson, the EU's aid commissioner, has referred to well-funded American groups which he says have extreme views on religion and sexuality.
Mrs Scallon was a signatory to a letter to Mr Nielson which sought clarification of his allocation of 32 million euros to organisations which promote abortion in developing countries. 56 other MEPs signed the letter, including Dr Ingo Friedrich, vice-president of the parliament, Mr José Maria Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, former president of the parliament, Mr Francesco Fiori, vice-chairman of the European People's Party, and Messrs Brian Crowley, Liam Hyland and Sean O'Neachtain of Ireland's Fianna Fáil party. The letter pointed out that support for the promotion of abortion in the EU and outside it conflicted with EU treaties.
In a recent discussion with a 'stock wizard', the issue of corporations that are actively seeking to exploit embryonic stem cells and cloning came up. When I had finished explaining the truth regarding the individual human life being cannibalized, the 'wizard' promptly exclaimed, "That's not the issue. The issue is whether people's illnesses can be cured and the profits to be made from these procedures."
I protested that perhaps Americans had not yet reached the stage of degeneracy where cannibalism will be ignored for profit and cures, but the 'wizard' exclaimed, "The American people don't care about that. They want the cure for dad's Parkinsons, they want Christopher Reeves to walk again, they want--"
I interrupted with "Would you eat fetuses if doctors told you it would cure YOUR disease?"
The response, as you could guess, was, "That's ridiculous. Nobody's eating babies, nobody's treating diseases with stolen parts of other humans. Embryos and fetuses are--" The 'wizard' interrupted his own irrational syllogism, then ended the discussion with, " Well, even if embryos are the earliest form of an individual life, they're not a full human yet, so it's like using spare parts to fix an engine."
As he walked away I tossed after him, "Does detroit manufacture whole cars and trucks and send them out to be cannibalized for parts, or does detroit make parts to be sotred for repair and replacement?" I thought I noticed a slight hesitation in his stride, but it didn't make any discernable change in his direction as he marched off into irrationality, his eyes firmly fixed on profit and earthly vainglory.
Typical bait-and-switch
I was horrified at the thought. Then I remembered that I had actually seen pictures of this very thing coming out of Japan. I honestly don't remember for sure why they were doing this, but I think it WAS for perceived health reasons. I tried to find the site, but all I came up with was a Dartmouth College site which apparently has been debating just this subject. Just one sample of the dialogue:
"Jon says he answered the question about babies below, but is our revulsion at baby flesh eating really dependent on brain diseases and Garg's running speed? Jon's account is utilitarian and a case could be made that no one is hurt by eating dead babies. How does allowing the eating of stillborn babies lead to the downfall of the social order in which people actively kill each other? Continuing the ridiculousness, what if we only allow the eating of people who weren't killed? If we're only utilitarian, wouldn't regulation of baby flesh eating help eliminate baby meat tainted with brain diseases?"
A relative of mine went to Dartmouth a few years ago, until he decided the education there wasn't worth the money ($25,000 at the time). If they even need to debate this there, then it's a place I wouldn't send my child if they PAID me to send him there.
This debate probably started with Peter Singer, who said parents should be able to decide whether to 'abort' unwanted children even after they were born.
"The issue really isn’t abortion and it never was," Irving added. "It’s the definition of personhood. Once the new definition of personhood has been concretized in the areas of abortion and embryonic research, it can be used in other areas such as infanticide and euthanasia." Peter Singer and Eugenics http://deborahdanielski.faithweb.com/eugenics.htm
The whole article:
One small step at a time
By Deborah Danielski
The word "eugenics" comes from a Greek root meaning "well-born" and was coined in 1883 by Charles Galton. Enthralled with his cousin Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, Galton sought to improve on "natural selection" by encouraging people to breed selectively in order to increase the proportion of "healthy, smart, capable and sane" members of the human race.
The most notable historic promoter of this ideology, of course, was Adolph Hitler, who began his "ethnic cleansing" by outlawing marriages between the "superior" Aryan and the non-Aryan races. When those methods seemed inadequate to accomplish the task in a timely manner, and he had gained sufficient support for his ideology, Hitler proceeded to exterminate the "undesirables."
"Whatever proportions [Nazi] crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they started from small beginnings," observed American psychiatrist Leo Alexander during the Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial in 1947. "The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived."
"In a dictatorship such as the Nazi regime, you can have a moral shift in a matter of a few years," said Kent Peters, STL, chair of the National Catholic Office for Persons with Disabilities. "In a democracy it takes 50 to 100 years to make such a shift. What we’ve seen in America since the 1960s is a slow march toward using death to rid ourselves of difficulties and imperfections." Noting that Singer has been characterized by Melbourne Archbishop George Pell as Australia’s "most notorious messenger of death," Peters said his appointment to Princeton will help build the foundation for a "moral shift" in America that would accept death as the solution to more and more of life’s "problems."
Singer, who lost three of his four grandparents to the Nazi Holocaust, adamantly denies any correlation between his ideologies and Hitler’s, insisting that he does not advocate imposing death upon anyone against their will. He readily admits, however, that if the individual, parents or guardians of the individual and their doctors are unable to decide whether death would be the best solution to their "problem," the decision should be made by an "ethics committee."
Michael Burleigh, British author of "Death and Deliverance: Euthanasia in Germany 1900-1945," however, also sees Nazi ideology in Singer’s work . In an article titled "Planet of the Apes" (History Today, Oct. 1994) Burleigh wrote:
"What Singer fails to engage with is the fact that the Nazis and their Weimar intellectual progenitors were equally aggressively bent upon a secular, post-Christian alternative to the doctrine of the sanctity of human life … When he writes, ‘A self-conscious being is aware of itself as a distinct entity, with a past and a future … Killing a snail or a day-old infant does not thwart any desires of this kind, because snails and newborn infants are incapable of having such desires’ … Singer is, no doubt unwittingly, for history is not his strong suit, using arguments and analogies employed again and again by the Nazis."
Professor Diane Irving, of the DeSales School of Theology believes that eugenics -- under the guise of other labels such as "bioethics" – is not only being accepted in America, but has been the motivating force behind the entire 30-year secular bioethics movement. Princeton University and its strongest financial supporter, the Rockefeller Foundation, have long been linked to the promotion of eugenics in America, she said, adding that the National Bioethics Advisory Committee is chaired by Princeton University President Harold Shapiro.
In an article entitled "The War Against the Poor," (Our Sunday Visitor, Jan. 21, 1996), Mary Meehan documented the historic Rockefeller/Princeton/eugenics connection. She wrote:
"Frederick Osborn (1889-1981), an officer of the American Eugenics Society [which changed its name to the Society for the Study of Social Biology in 1972] for more than 30 years, promoted eugenics through his many connections in the great private foundations and the megawealthy Rockefeller family. He helped John D. Rockefeller III establish the Population Council in 1952, served as the council’s first administrator and was on the board of trustees for many years.
"Convinced that reducing the birthrate of the poor and uneducated would help improve the human race, Osborn used the Population Council to spread birth control to such people. The council supported abortifacient research as early as 1954, when abortion was still illegal."
Osborn was succeeded as President of the Population Council by his good friend and eugenics colleague, Frank Notestein of Princeton University. In 1971, Notestein wrote that social change does not come about through "an explicit and overt attack on the central value structure." Instead, he suggested, it happens through "an initial and progressively effective subversion obtained by the expansion of an existing minority tendency until it comes to be the central core position."
Less than two years later, the United States Supreme court issued the Roe vs. Wade decision which gave legitimacy to the "delayed personhood" arguments advanced by the majority of secular bioethicists today, said Irving, a professor at the DeSales School of Theology.
"The issue really isn’t abortion and it never was," Irving added. "It’s the definition of personhood. Once the new definition of personhood has been concretized in the areas of abortion and embryonic research, it can be used in other areas such as infanticide and euthanasia."
By introducing "animal rights" into the equation, Singer "puts a cuddly face" on eugenics, said Dr. Brian Scharnecchia. He "uses the wonder of nature and animals as a Trojan horse to introduce ‘confusion between good and evil.’ (Gospel of Life #24) The culture of death may be defined as applying the principles of animal husbandry to human beings. Each of its major tenants – sexual indulgence, contraception, abortion, sterilization, euthanasia, in vitro fertilization, fetal research – may morally be done to animals but is morally reprehensible when practiced or inflicted upon human beings. We can breed a better pig through artificial insemination. But we cannot in any way breed a better person. The soul of each child conceived beneath her mother’s heart is a divine miracle before which we must stand in awe regardless of whether or not her tiny body is wounded in some fashion."
In questioning Professor Peter Singer about "where to draw the line" on infanticide, Our Sunday Visitor posed the following scenario. "Suppose a woman has a baby she believes she wants. After the baby is born, however, he cries incessantly, night and day. Doctors can find nothing physically wrong with the baby, but the woman just can’t take it any more. She can’t work because she can’t sleep and she can’t find anyone willing to baby-sit for a baby who cries all the time. Besides her own suffering, she concludes that the baby must also be suffering or he wouldn’t be crying. Should she just kill him? If not, why not?"
"Your example isn't really clear to me," Singer responded. " Suppose the woman is right: the baby is suffering, and will continue to suffer for another year, and then die (perhaps it has a mysterious disease that has this effect). Then I think it would be justifiable to kill the baby.
"But suppose the woman has no basis for believing this, and it is quite likely that, if not killed, next week the baby will start smiling and behaving like any other normal baby. Then, obviously, it would have been a terrible mistake for the woman to kill her baby."
Princeton officials defended Singer’s appointment by insisting that he is not an "activist, just a scholar dedicated to discussing theoretical solutions." When asked by Our Sunday Visitor if he considers himself an "activist," however, Singer said, "I am active in the causes that I think are right." His goal, he said, is "to encourage a more open and rigorous debate on ethical issues in America."
Singer’s lectures on eugenics, euthanasia and his denial of the inherent dignity or value of babies, children, the elderly and the disabled have led to protests against and cancellations of Singer’s lectures in Europe, where people experienced the horrors of WWII, Peters said. But Americans "have been slow in recognizing the danger being imported from ‘down under’ by the deans of Princeton," he added.
The Europeans recognize Singer’s rhetoric for what it is, said Irving, "but his appointment to Princeton didn’t surprise anyone. It’s the natural consequence of what’s been going on in America for the past 30 years. Americans remain oblivious to what is going on. When they wake up, they will be shell-shocked."
A few quotes from the POPULATION CONTROL AGENDA http://afgen.com/populat29.html
Stanley K. Monteith, M.D.
David Graber, a research biologist with the National Park Service, was quoted in the Los Angeles Times Book Review Section, October 22, 1989, as saying: "Human happiness and certainly human fecundity are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn't true ... We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth ...Until such time as homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." 14
Michael Fox, when he was the vice-president of The Humane Society of the United States wrote, "Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth." 15
In "The First Global Revolution," published by The Council of the Club of Rome, an international elitist organization, the authors note that: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention ...The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." 16
The Los Angeles Times of April 5, 1994 quoted Cornell University Professor David Pimentel, speaking before the American Association for the Advancement of Science, as saying that, "The total world population should be no more than 2 billion rather than the current 5.6 billion."
In the UNESCO Courier of November 1991, Jacques Cousteau wrote: "The damage people cause to the planet is a function of demographics - it is equal to the degree of development. One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes ... This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it."17
Bertrand Russell, in his book, "The Impact of Science on Society," wrote, "At present the population of the world is increasing ... War so far has had no great effect on this increase ... I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others ...
If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full ... the state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to suffering, especially that of others." 18
Negative Population Growth Inc. of Teaneck, New Jersey recently circulated a letter stating their long-range goal. "We believe that our goal for the United States should be no more than 150 million, our size in 1950. For the world, we believe our goal should be a population of not more than two billion, its size shortly after the turn of the century." 19
In the Global Assessment Report of UNEP (a United Nations sponsored study group), Phase One Draft, Section 9, the authors quoted an expert who suggested that: "A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible." 20
Population control/reduction is all part of the plan to turn the world back to the grizzlies and chimpanzees, and the global elite. We've funded their rise to power, and the infrastructure theyll need. Anything they don't need, they can bulldoze. We're expendable now, and all our 'benefits' are just not cost-effective to the corporate pocket. Seeing how the God of the Old and New Testament is a myth, no species has more worth than the ones in control are willing to give it. Pro-life Christians are way down on the list of things to value, I suppose, because they get in the way of the agenda. I see what's going on, but the wickedness of it all still floors me. With Social Security one big I.O.U., the economy about to tank, and the national debt coming due, and peaceful pro-lifers being treated as criminals, I guess we should expect to start seeing this hit the fan shortly. There was a discussion on whether SARS was man-made, and I was amazed at the people who didn't have a clue as to why it very well may be. Seeing how Bush has called for the US to rejoin the land-grabbing, genocidal UNESCO, and I'm 'against it', I suppose that makes me a terrorist, and one to be watched, as well. I know I'm supposed to pray for my enemies, but in the Old Testament, there came a time when God said, "Do not pray for these people, because in the day they cry out I will not hear them". Lately I find myself praying prayers of deliverance instead. Like this: http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Psa/Psa083.html#top
Presently, we are being told that the embryo is not a human being. We are told that the early fetus is not a human being. NOW is asserting that eight month Connor Peterson was not a human being equal with you or me. Sadly, the original lie goes unaddressed: the first cell formed at fecundation is in fact a new, individual human being. As the first cell divides and the new cells each divide, the 'division of labor' for body parts is differentiated. But at each age of the individual human being's unique life, there is no moment when the embryo or zygote or fetus or newborn or toddler or prepubescent or ... there is no point following conception that the individual lifetime begun at conception becomes more human than the previous moment along its individual human lifetime continuum.
Embryologists may test the early perhaps no more than one-hundred cell mass of the individual to determine if diseases are a part of that individual's life (such as Downs Syndrome). The fact that the tests may be performed at all is proof that an individual human being is already in existence and that the tests are valid for that individual human being, else the tests would have no value as mediacal predictors. The blood type of the individual is testable very early, proving that an individual does already exist rather than will exist at some later moment or time segment. Exploitation of nascent individual human life is cannibalism, whether the body parts (stem cells are the body parts of embryos) are implanted in an older individual or eaten by the older individual. Is America really so degenerated that we are now to embrace cannibalism?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.