Dogs are people too

A strange claim keeps coming from anti-human life advocates. Many today promote a culture of death – sterility, abortion, euthanasia. It is simply baffling when it is these same people who clearly love wildlife, shrubs and cocker spaniels, more than human life. I’m not talking about your average “I enjoy greenery and animal planet” (such as myself). I am talking about those who have placed a radical perverted value in non-humans above that of humans. It is one thing if you want to hug a tree, as long as you hug a baby harder. But demanding human lives be ended (ie abortion) while simultaneously insisting that a dog’s right to life is being violated gives perversion a whole new level of idiocy.

Here is the view: Human life is not beautiful and intrinsically valuable. Humans are threats to the environment, not because if we destroy the environment, we will eventually destroy ourselves, but simply because the environment has more dignity than humans do. Why doesn’t Al Gore and his anti-human groupie just come out and say how they really feel? He has my permission to use this for his next movie,

“Folks, we need to end the human threat by ending human lives. Yes quite simply, we do not care for humanity. It no longer serves a purpose on our planet. How about we prevent life before it begins by preventing pregnancy – Oh we already have that? Contraception? Okay good. But we should also make people believe that pregnancy and fertility are diseases that need to be treated by some sort of pill – Oh we have done that? Great. And let’s have a back up plan in case some human life manages to squeeze through – We have that too? Plan B, a morning after pill? Brilliant. But we need to take some further measures in case the human parasite passes by these checkpoints and threatens all our rainforests – Abortion? Perfect. But if the human disease does persist through these, we will make sure to discourage any life that is not a perfect specimen: anyone who has any disfigurement, weakness, or lack of some capacity will be treated as less than human."

"Now to really get the point across, we should fine people for spreading humanity. Yes, if you have a baby, you should have to pay lots of money. And that money can go to…to ummm…well of course! All the harm your baby will be doing to our precious environment by existing. – What?? We have that too? Amazing! Thanks Australia for your bold distaste and hatred for humanity!”

Yes it is true. Thanks to a combination of abhorrence for humanity, infatuation for caribou and daffodils, and blind acceptance of Thomas Malthus’ theory of over population of 1798 (that has been disproved by some 3rd graders) we can now force married couples to pay taxes for having babies. Unbelievable.

Anyone who claims they are preserving the environment for the future generations of humans, while simultaneously destroying human lives is a liar, or at best a moron. Who exactly are these future generations and where are they coming from? The pro-lifers, they are the only ones who will have a future generation to speak of. Some people are “taking care” of their future generations by not having them –that’s some real preventive action there. Problem solved. But some of us need some more motivation, we need a good reason to convince us to keep the earth green. So perhaps the tagline should be rephrased, “Help us (liberals) preserve the environment for your (conservative) generations to come. Don’t worry about us, we won’t have any.”

Don’t believe me? http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22896334-2,00.html

The proposal is that if you have a baby – Boom! $5,000 and then pay another $800 annually, for get this, a “carbon tax.” Yes, that’s right. Come on, that baby is going to be leaving his nasty carbon foot print all over this planet that we worship. Least we can do is punish the parents who are responsible.

The greatest irony of all this is that while America and Europe are whipping their existence off the face of the earth via the culture of death, governments are also trying to come up with ways for people to have more babies to replace those dying, through stipends. Maybe the Australian baby tax could be sent to the U.S. and be given as a bonus to encourage couples to have babies here.

Graphic Images of Abortion

A graphic image of an aborted fetus, an unwanted child, a murdered baby. I look down to see something that disturbs me terribly, a horrible image: a baby killed before it got a chance to take his first breath. His head ripped off and black from saline burns. I wished I hadn’t seen this image. My first thought was that no one should have to see this. This picture shouldn’t exist. Who would want to see this? Is a vivid portrayal of the reality of abortion necessary? Are there other ways? As I thought about how I was disgusted by the picture, it occurred to me, it was not the image itself that bothered me so much. Rather, it was the reality of what happened that the image displayed that was so horrible. If a picture of murdered child bothers you, it’s only because the murder of the child bothers you. If its just a medical procedure, then what’s the big deal. Aren’t we just studying science? But it’s not. It’s not a patient. It’s not a specimen. It’s not research. It’s not a lump of tissue. It’s a human – or at least it was a human until the mother decided that this little tiny human was not worth the “inconvenience” of birth. She’d rather have him burnt by saline or have his brain sucked out with a tube – all pretty standard “medical procedures.” Abortion mills crank out murders and wear them like badges. The ending of the life of the unborn is celebrated like the removal of a tumor. It’s thought to be a clean, neat, medical procedure. This “neatness” comforts so many. Pro-abortion advocates will actually use this as a reason why child-killing should be allowed. “Hey, people would be doing these ‘procedures’ with a coat-hanger in the back ally. We’re just standardizing abortion with up-to-date medicine and technology to ensure a safe and unthreatening abortion.” Somehow that doesn’t put me at ease. The least it can do is distract the attention from what’s really happening by avoiding “procedure” itself. The core issue is not how it is done, but what is done. This logic is the same as saying, “People are going to use heroin any way, we just offer them clean needles,” or “People are going to commit suicide anyway, we just offer them the ability to do it in a clean and professional environment.” Is that the issue? Messiness? I’m concerned with the ending of a life. Is it somehow more humane to kill in this way rather than that way?
Period.

If a friend or family member was murdered and did not get justice and people thought it was no big deal, I would want images of their death portrayed to wake people up to the reality of the horrible thing that had happened, no matter how terrible the photos were. The purpose of showing the photos would be to make others realize the grave injustice that had take place.

I would especially challenge Christians who claim that Christ should not be displayed on the crucifix because it’s unnecessarily offensive. Is not a crucifix what actually happened?

After the holocaust, many critized those who wished to show images of the death camps. “These are too obscene and offensive,” many insisted. Even when the holocaust museum opened in DC, many sharply disagreed with the persistence of showing the horrible images. Why show them? We must show them because it is the only way to accurately convey the horridness of what happened in the Nazi death camps. For the sake of those who suffered and died and for the sake of preventing ignorance, these must be shown.

If you are for abortion, the only reason you can be upset about such images, is because you don’t want people to know the truth of what goes on inside abortion mills. If you are against abortion, the only reason these images make you upset is because it shows the naked reality of child killing.