: 3) Notice that a child in the womb no longer exists. The dehumanising term “fetus” is applied to the child instead, because this term connotes no form of life. The ultimate Orwellian contradiction is hence able to be realised here: LIFE IS DEATH. Death is then fully accomplished under the mask of “reproductive services”.The "fetus" is the scientifically accepted term for a child in the womb. To call the child in the womb during the first few days of conception "human life" is to stretch the truth mercilessly. "Human life" as we use the term has connotations of mental, spiritual and emotional capability- at least the POTENTIAL to feel joy or sorrow (or pain), to make decisions and choices, to ahve a religious experience. Prior to the second trimester, when the baby deve;lops a cerebral cortex, it has none of these capabilities. I don't think you can call a baby without any semblance of a brain quite "human life", and as such, abortion in the first trimester is not murder.
Ironical how some people abandon all compassion for the children of teh poor once they're born.
: 4) International organisations, universities, and other well-to-do institutions refer to those less-to-do as the “Third World” (as if the people who inhabit these lands are aliens from a different planet or something). When asked to define who these “third worlders” are, the pattern of people of colour quickly emerges. Germany in the 1920s and 30s set a precedence for this and even had a word for it, untermenschen (sub-humans).
The "Third World", as far as I can tell, is a label accepted by most nations in the Third World. The label stemmed from teh fact that there was no term to describe the grouping of nations that was neitehr industrial-capitalist nor industrial-communist, and that these nations did tenmd to ahve some common interests. What term would you prefer?
: Of course, once these dehumanisng forms of DOUBLETHINK are achieved in the recipients’ mind, it is almost impossible for them to think on their own anymore. They must then necessarily rely on their controlled sources for dogmatic programming in order to propel their myths forward.
: Think of how the “overpopulation” myth is propelled in this fashion. Hold a prestigious conference of well-to-do-ers (normally a litany of professors giving “factual” reports), conduct it under the guise of “humanity”, dehumanise the very people ostensibly to be helped (ie. the “third worlders”), and suggest that their offspring are merely worthless blobs of matter (ie. fetuses) just waiting to be poisoned or chopped into bits inside an abortuary “clinic”. In their cynical view of “humanity”, the well-to-do-ers even graciously propose schemes whereby these unfortunates are to be given financial “aid” in order to help them along with their depopulation process. Can this really be happening?
I can't believe I'm reading this. There are millions ofd women throughout the Third World who knwo that they don't want the pain of bearing eight children, only to see several of tehm starve tp death; tehy don't want to get into perpetual debt caring for their eight kids; they crave control over their own childbearing more than anything else. To limit their family size is necessary for their happiness, for teh kids' happiness, for the global environment, and for their nations' economic health. RThe technology exoists, but the US Congress wants to deny to teh women of teh Third World what we in thsi country enjoy- the ability and the freedpom to control and limit teh size of one's family. Nobodyu loses frpom using birth control- absolutely nobody. Can you really wish to deny birth control to the women of Africa, India or Latin America?
: Children are an inheritance of the Lord and Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. God help us.
We've all got to pull together, sublimate our selfish desires, and agree to limit family size. Otherwise, God help our planet.
