’Have you ever known someone that loves
death? When someone truly is in love with death, it can take that person
to a very dark place. Unfortunately, there are a growing number of
scientists, politicians and global opinion makers that believe that we must
reduce the size of the human population for the good of the planet. They
are convinced that humanity is causing global warming, killing off other
species and making this planet unlivable. In their quest to save the
future of the planet, they are becoming bolder and bolder with their calls for
population control. They love death because they believe that it will help
save the earth. They figure that with less
humans around, there will be less carbon emissions, less pollution and more
room for other species. So how will this be achieved? Well, as you
will read about in the rest of this article, "after-birth abortions",
"mobile euthanasia teams", "sperm-destroying ultrasound
technology" and putting contraceptives in the tap water are just some of
the ways that are being proposed to reduce current human numbers. This
hatred of life and love of death is being taught in colleges and universities
all over the western world, and this population control philosophy is becoming
increasingly dominant with each passing year.
I realize that the idea of
"mobile euthanasia teams" may sound like something out of a science
fiction movie, but the truth is that this is not just a "pie in the
sky" concept.
In fact, in the Netherlands six mobile euthanasia teams
are now going door-to-door to help elderly patients end their lives in the
comfort of their own homes.
The following description of this
program comes from a recent article in The Independent....
The
project, which has provoked sharp criticism from doctors, is the brainchild of
the Dutch largely donor-funded Right to Die NL. It follows the government's
2002 decision to legalise euthanasia, making the Netherlands the
first country in the world to do so. Walburg de Jong, a spokeswoman for the organisation
said that since the ruling some 3,100 assisted suicides had been carried out
annually. The mobile euthanasia teams, she said, operated free of charge and
were designed to make it easier for patients enduring interminable suffering to
end their lives.
Can you imagine your grandparents
getting a visit someday from a mobile euthanasia team?
But it is not just the elderly that
are being targeted for death.
Two scientists recently made
headlines all over the world when they released a paper calling for the
legalization of ''after-birth abortion''.
Alberto Giubilini
of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia and
Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne co-authored an article in the
Journal of Medical Ethics entitled "After-birth
abortion: why should the baby live?"
In their paper, they argue that a
baby is just a "potential person" and that "killing a newborn
should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where
the newborn is not disabled."
Giubilini and Minerva argue that just because a baby
is human does not mean that it has any rights. The follow quote is from their paper....
"Merely
being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.
Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare
embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where
abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal"
Giubilini and Minerva also believe that the
"burden" placed on the family and on society by a new baby must be
given precedence when it comes to matters of live and death. The
following is another quote from their paper....
"To
bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on
society as a whole…On these grounds, the fact that a foetus has the potential to become a person who will have
an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion."
Giubilini and Minerva insist that "after-birth
abortions" would have a lot of advantages.
For example, approximately a third of
all babies with Down syndrome are not diagnosed in the womb. After-birth
abortions would take care of that "problem" by allowing mothers to
"terminate" those children after they have been born.
Other scientists aren't just
concerned about giving the elderly and new mothers more
"choices". Many are now advocating the implementation of strict
global measures to reduce the human population for the sake of the environment.
For example, Colorado State
University Professor
Philip Cafaro recently released a paper entitled "Climate Ethics
and Population Policy". In that paper, Cafaro
declared that humans are committing "interspecies genocide" and that
therefore it is imperative to reduce our numbers....
"Scientists
now speak of humanity’s increased demands and impacts on the globe as ushering
in a new geological epoch: the Anthropocene. Such
selfish and destructive appropriation of the resources of the Earth can only be
described as interspecies genocide."
For Cafaro,
simply stopping the growth of the human population on earth is not
enough. He says that in order to prevent "catastrophic global
climate change" we are going to have to "significantly" reduce
the size of the global population....
"Ending
human population growth is almost certainly a necessary (but not sufficient)
condition for preventing catastrophic global climate change. Indeed,
significantly reducing current human numbers may be necessary in order to do
so."
Unfortunately, a love of death is now
widespread at U.S.
colleges and universities. For example, Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka once wrote the following....
I
do not bear any ill will toward people. However, I am convinced that the world,
including all humanity, WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.
Population control is something that
Bill Gates has been putting a lot of funding into as well. The following
example comes from a recent Natural News article
....
Mass vaccination is apparently not
the only depopulation strategy being employed by the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation, as new research funded by the organization has developed a way to
deliberately destroy sperm using ultrasound technology. BBC News reports that
the Gates Foundation awarded a grant to researchers from the University of North
Carolina (UNC) to develop this new method of
contraception.
For their study, the UNC team tested
ultrasound on lab rats and found that two 15-minute doses "significantly
reduced" both sperm counts and sperm integrity. When administered two days
apart through warm salt water, ultrasound caused the rats' sperm counts to drop
below ten million sperm per milliliter, which is five million less than the
"sub-fertile" range, and stay that way for up to six months.
Sadly, it is not just a few
scientists and opinion makers that are obsessed with death and population
control.
As I have written about previously,
the United Nations continues to push Agenda 21 on the entire globe.
The following is how the United Nations defines Agenda 21....
Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken
globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System,
Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the
environment.
The United Nations publishes report after report calling
for more "global governance" over the environment. The
following comes from a recent Fox News article....
The report, “21 Issues for the 21st Century,” from
the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Foresight Process, is the
culmination of a two-year deliberative process involving 22 core scientists. It
is expected to receive considerable attention in the run-up to the Rio+20
United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, which will be held in Rio, Brazil,
in June.
The scientists who wrote the report say it focuses on
identifying emerging issues in the global environment, and that it is not about
mandating solutions.
But its critics see an agenda lurking in its 60
pages, which call for a complete overhaul of how the world's food and water are
created and distributed -- something the report says is “urgently needed” for
the human race to keep feeding and hydrating itself safely.
But it isn't just food and water that the United Nations wants control over.
The truth is that the United Nations
is absolutely obsessed with the number of people living on the planet.
In a recent report entitled, "Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth
Choosing" the UN warned about our "unsustainable
lifestyles" and of the disastrous impact of population growth....
But what, then,
is to be done if we are to make a real difference for the world’s people and
the planet? We must grasp the dimensions of the challenge. We must recognize
that the drivers of that challenge include unsustainable lifestyles, production
and consumption patterns and the impact of population growth. As the global
population grows from 7 billion to almost 9 billion by 2040, and the number of
middle-class consumers increases by 3 billion over the
next 20 years, the demand for resources will rise exponentially. By 2030, the
world will need at least 50 percent more food, 45 percent more energy and 30
percent more water — all at a time when environmental boundaries are throwing
up new limits to supply. This is true not least for climate change, which
affects all aspects of human and planetary health.
We are
constantly being told these days that the problem is that there are "too
many people" and that if there are less people things will be better.
Members of the U.S. government
are even preaching this philosophy.
Just the other
day, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
was publicly proclaiming that the new requirement that all health insurance
plans cover sterilizations and contraceptives will be good for employers and
health insurance companies because it will mean less births. She argued
that the savings from less people being born will more than make up for the
expense of the sterilizations and the contraceptives.
Sebelius told Congress the following on Thursday....
"The reduction in the number of pregnancies
compensates for the cost of contraception"
Other members of the Obama administration are
preaching the population control gospel as well. U.S. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton has even stated that population control will be a "centerpiece" of U.S. foreign
policy from now on.
We even find a love of death in the White
House. Barack Obama's top science advisor, John P. Holdren,
once wrote the following....
"A program of sterilizing women after their second or
third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than
vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that
could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens
additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be
implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a
limited number of births."
That quote should send a chill up your bones.
In America
today, life is considered to be cheap, and that is especially true if you are
"disabled" or "defective" in any way.
At one U.S.
hospital, a 3-year-old girl named Amelia was recently denied a kidney transplant because she
is considered to be "mentally retarded".
How would you feel if that was your child?
Unfortunately, society continues to move away from
the idea that life is inherently valuable and deserves to be preserved.
In fact, many top global opinion makers are openly
calling for a dramatic reduction in human numbers.
CNN Founder Ted Turner once said the following....
"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95%
decline from present levels, would be ideal."
For many more shocking quotes about population control
from scientists, politicians and top global opinion makers, just check out this article which I published
previously.
The world is becoming a very heartless place.
Those at the top look down on the rest of us as if we were
vermin that need to be exterminated.
Increasingly, this sick population control agenda is being
preached at us in the mainstream media. For example, just check out what
the editorial page editor of The Detroit News says should be done
in Michigan....
Since the national attention is on
birth control, here's my idea: If we want to fight poverty, reduce violent
crime and bring down our embarrassing drop-out rate, we should swap
contraceptives for fluoride in Michigan's
drinking water.
We've got a baby problem in Michigan. Too many
babies are born to immature parents who don't have the skills to raise them,
too many are delivered by poor women who can't afford them, and too many are
fathered by sorry layabouts who spread their seed
like dandelions and then wander away from the consequences.
Michigan's social
problems and the huge costs attached to them won't recede until we embrace
reproductive responsibility.
He is seriously proposing to put
contraceptives into our drinking water?
How can people be so twisted?
Sadly, as I mentioned earlier, this
philosophy is being endlessly preached at thousands of colleges and
universities all over the world.
The sick adherents of this philosophy
love death and are obsessed with controlling the population of the earth.
They are just going to keep pushing
their agenda further and further and further.
They truly believe that they must
reduce our numbers in order to save the planet.
But in their zeal to "save the
earth" they may take all of us to a very, very dark place.
So what is your opinion about all of
this? Please feel free to post a comment below....
