G
godisgood77
Guest
For many people this is sadly the case. The most accurate way to describe the views of many people is anti-abortion, or pro-birth unfortunately
- Status
2
27lw
Guest
"So it’s worth debunking one of the most persistent (and lazy) myths about pro-lifers that impede an honest and open discussion: the notion that the pro-life community is not really pro-life.niceatheist:
For many people this is sadly the case. The most accurate way to describe the views of many people is anti-abortion, or pro-birth unfortunately
In the words of one reader, “If you have done nothing to make sure unwanted children lead happy productive lives then you are not pro-life, only pro-birth.”
The false claim continues that men and women who oppose abortion but do not favor large government programs that provide support for children and mothers after birth are hypocrites.
Read more here: https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/cynthia-m-allen/article128997024.html#storylink=cpy
Last edited:
H
Hume
Guest
Small issue - the WHO does not “aggressively promote abortion”.
They try to implement family planning principles in places where the human population has outstripped the capacity of the land to support it. They do this to reduce the number of children dying from hunger every generation. They do it to reduce human suffering.
“Yeah, but “family planning” equals abortion!”
Only if you don’t know anything about it…
N
niceatheist
Guest
Or, in other words, political and economic ideology trumps any notions of the sacredness of life. I think demands that vulnerable people be put at risk by the pandemic so other people can make money seems to make pro-life look rather shallow. It’s only as deep as ideology allows it to be. The unborn are indispensable, but once born it’s a different story.
S
StudentMI
Guest
That’s a very strong perversion of the prolife stance of many.
G
Genesis315
Guest
To be fair, there’s a difference between deliberate murder (abortion) and tolerating a particular risk-level of unintended death associated with human’s living in society (as is natural to them). Every society on earth from the beginning of time has had to do this. There is always some sort of risk-level to be tolerated. Balancing a certain level of risk with other elements of the common good is something all societies must do. In fact, the entire point of politics in a democratic society is debating and determining what that balance should be.
Last edited:
The WHO screwed up this whole thing from the start. Valuable information from countries like Hong Kong and Taiwan wasn’t heeded because the WHO favour China.
A number of countries in Eastern Europe have conducted studies into the effectiveness of mask wearing and early data suggests that it’s quite effective.
Eh…yes they do.
The people in those regions are often impoverished. The money being put into “family planning” could be put into education, health, and agricultural projects. Family planning is the least of their worries.
It’s nothing but modern-day colonialism (with a hint of racism) to declare that certain parts of the world are overpopulated, and that what those people need is for the West to come in and tell them how many kids to have.
Human suffering would be reduced more effectively by helping to bring people out of poverty, not convincing them that they need abortion and the pill.
By the way, the WHO was caught red-handed in a number of countries distributing vaccines that had been laced with a sterility-inducing agent. The Church in Kenya conducted a study into it and tried to publicise it but, of course, no major media outlet ran the story.
I guess that’s what these people need too.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Nope. That is a conspiracy theory that has been debunked.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The Bishops were misled. There is no evidence any vaccine ever distributed by the WHO has ever suppressed fertility. What the purpose-driven researchers reported on was the presence of some trace compounds that were similar to birth control compounds, but were not active, and again were only in trace amounts. Some people will go to very unscrupulous means to tarnish the WHO.
If there was evidence do you think the mainstream media in the West would care?
It’s easy to label something a conspiracy theory when in actual fact, if you think it through, it doesn’t take a huge amount of imagination to think that some ideological official somewhere thinking that this would be a great way to “empower” the women of Kenya.
I’m not really into conspiracy theories at all, but there’s a lot of vested interests out there, and I wouldn’t be surprised if at least a few are not far from the mark.
In any case, they screwed up the COVID crisis and China, it seems, covered up too. So I think at the very least, we should be asking questions about why we should continue to fund the WHO.
It’s easy to label something a conspiracy theory when in actual fact, if you think it through, it doesn’t take a huge amount of imagination to think that some ideological official somewhere thinking that this would be a great way to “empower” the women of Kenya.
I’m not really into conspiracy theories at all, but there’s a lot of vested interests out there, and I wouldn’t be surprised if at least a few are not far from the mark.
WHO is an ideology-driven organisation, just like the UN. The UN constantly criticised Ireland for not having legal abortion, then when it was legalised in 2018 we were suddenly the most progressive ever. Even though our maternal-health statistics have not changed hugely in two years.
In any case, they screwed up the COVID crisis and China, it seems, covered up too. So I think at the very least, we should be asking questions about why we should continue to fund the WHO.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Not the issue.
What you are describing is the textbook pattern for the formation of a conspiracy theory. It starts with recognizing that something is possible, and then promoting that possibility to a reality. Good job illustrating the process for me.
The rest of your sentence belies the first eight words.
If they have an ideology, it is the ideology of better health for all of mankind.
That question is easy to answer. We should continue to fund the WHO because they do good work. Remember, it was the WHO that eliminated small pox from the wild, and it is the WHO that are on the verge of eliminating polio.
Last edited:
The bishops had vaccine samples tested.
The WHO and Kenyan Govt. Denied
Bishops stuck to their guns
More Denial.
I’m not “promoting it as reality”. It is reality.
At best the WHO is an organisation that promotes abortion in a big way, as part of an ideological campaign to promote population reduction in poor countries. There is ample evidence to support that.
H
Hume
Guest
Eh… no they don’t.
I’ve never seen a shred of evidence for the WHO “aggressively promoting abortion”.
If I’m wrong, it shouldn’t be too hard to embarrass me, right?
No, it’s the source of their worries.
The vast majority of their problems in a local region would disappear if the human population wasn’t so great.
One of the absolute best ways to do that is to prevent having children you cannot afford.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
And what did those tests reveal? As I said, traces of portions of a compound related to birth control. It was not effective because it was just a portion of the compound and could not possibly have suppressed fertility.
Last edited:
H
Hume
Guest
It doesn’t disappear because some people need boogeymen to get their message across.
On it’s own, their message lacks sufficient reasoning.
On it’s own, their message lacks sufficient reasoning.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
But ordering premature ends to physical distancing, making the argument that more people must work closely together for the economy, when at least the economies of the developed world are more than capable than assuring that non-essential industries operate at a reduced level, looks like intentionally causing harm for short term game. In other words, the demands are deliberate, the distortions of what health officials recommend are a sign that those making this argument know full well that they are peddling in deceit. If there are major spikes in infection because some jurisdictions because those jurisdictions move too quickly, how is that not deliberately deciding who is to live and who is to die. To be sure, a pathogen is less certain a death sentence, but for many it will be, and avoidable deaths will happen because of money.niceatheist:
To be fair, there’s a difference between deliberate murder (abortion) and tolerating a particular risk-level of unintended death associated with human’s living in society (as is natural to them). Every society on earth from the beginning of time has had to do this. There is always some sort of risk-level to be tolerated. Balancing a certain level of risk with other elements of the common good is something all societies must do. In fact, the entire point of politics in a democratic society is debating and determining what that balance should be.
A woman in difficult circumstances could make the same kind of argument over abortion, and yet, that is apparently unthinkable. But it is not only thinkable, but eminently reasonable to put those that have already been born at great risk, to even fashion fallacious and dishonest arguments to whip up support for early openings. Heck, the so-called leader of the Free World wants to get things ticking along, largely because he doesn’t want to go into an election with a depressed economy.
Says you. That statement in itself is proof that you have fallen for the “overpopulation” myth. People in those countries consume far less than we do in the West. There is no good reason why their populations should be considered unsustainable.
We are not going to agree. In your view, children are the problem. In my view, children are the future and the problem is foreign agencies promoting their own ideology in Africa.
Development, education, and empowering these nations to produce enough for their populations is the key to reducing poverty.
I’m not trying to embarrass you. The UN and the WHO have consistently promoted abortion around the world. In some cases bullying smaller developing nations into changing abortion laws.
From the WHO’s own website:
So in the view of the WHO abortion is “essential” for a woman’s human rights to be realised.
- Status