Category Archives: abortion

Bill Gates’ foundation funds permanent contraception for Third World

Bill Gates is the multi-billionaire founder of Microsoft, whose net worth is estimated to be a mind-boggling $79.1 billion.

Via his eponymous foundation, Gates is also famous for his philanthropy, a word that the dictionary defines as “the desire to promote the welfare of others, expressed especially by the generous donation of money to good causes.” Gates’ idea of “good causes” is the reduction of the population of the world, in particular of the Third World, by hook or by crook.

In 2014, news came that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is funding the development of a contraceptive microchip that can be remotely controlled to release hormones that can act as abortifacients — drugs that induce abortion — into a woman’s body for up to 16 years.

Not content with that, the Gates Foundation is now funding the development of a permanent contraception.

Bill Gates (l) and Jens "666"Stoltenberg (r)

Bill Gates (l) and Jens “666”Stoltenberg (r)

Note: Jens Stoltenberg is secretary general of NATO. For the “666” allusion, see “Another Candidate for the Beast.”

Lisa Bourne reports for LifeSiteNews, May 15, 2015, that a new sterilization drug for women will likely be developed and promoted worldwide thanks to a large donation from Bill and Melinda Gates.

Last October, the Gates Foundation gave Oregon gynecologist Jeffrey Jensen $5 million in grant money to develop nonsurgical “permanent contraception.”

Jeffrey Jensen

Jeffrey Jensen

Jensen, a gynecologist who’s also a professor at Oregon Health & Science University, said it’s all about putting a stop to unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. “My goal is very simple: to make every pregnancy planned and highly desired,” Jensen said in a report from the Portland Business Journal. He cited a study that he said showed 50 percent of Ugandan women no longer wish to become pregnant, but only two percent have access to “permanent contraception.”

Jensen and his associates have been researching an approach on rhesus monkeys and baboons which uses polidocanol foam, an FDA-approved treatment for varicose veins, which bypasses the cumbersome and lengthy regulatory process. If they are successful the next step will be human trials.

Jensen is working in partnership with Dr. Ov Slayden and Slayden’s team at the Oregon National Primate Research Center (ONPRC), and they have established the Oregon Permanent Contraception Research Center (OPERM).

OPERM will supply grant funding, scientific expertise, a “nonhuman primate animal resource,” lab and procedural infrastructure, and administrative support to chosen investigators for assessing new nonsurgical contraceptive techniques, according to the Oregon University Health and Science website.

This latest multi-million-dollar Gates grant to prevent women from bearing children is just one in a lengthy list. Support for population control from Bill and Melinda Gates, under the guise of philanthropy, goes back year.

The news of the Gates Foundation’s funding for a permanent contraception has drawn condemnation from pro-lifers who warn of eugenics concerns.

Human Life International’s Stephen Phelan said the Gates Foundation’s obsessive focus on promoting contraception in the third world is based upon a faulty notion of what constitutes authentic ‘development,’ as well as highly suspect data about the actual desire for such contraception. “It is difficult to determine what is more outrageous,” Phelan told LifeSiteNews, “the uncritical and fawning ‘news’ reporting on every new Gates Foundation sterilization development grant even as coercive sterilization campaigns continue around the world, or the fact that the Gates Foundation continues to act as if every problem in the developing world can be solved by sterilizing women.”

Phelan also disputed the oft-cited claims that hundreds of millions of women in developing countries desire artificial birth control: “To simply repeat the claims of population control organizations, including the absolutely baseless claim that what 200 million poor women of color want most is the ability to stop becoming pregnant (where exactly did this statistic originate – let’s see the data) is reckless and irresponsible.”

Phelan also questions why foundations like Bill Gates’ focus their philanthropic efforts on population control when “what these women always say they want most when asked is better basic healthcare, education, opportunity, and just governance.”

See also “Warren Buffet gives $millions for abortions.”

~Éowyn

Methodist minister said caring about aborted babies is idolatry

It’s bad enough that the United Methodist Church supports legalized abortion, but what a Methodist pastor says about those who care about unborn babies should tell us how low the church has sunken.

Steve Ertelt reports for Life News, May 18, 2015, that pro-life advocate Sarah Terzo, who has a knack for documenting the history of the abortion debate and the abortion advocacy movement by posting quotes from pro-abortion activists through the years, posted a new quote that features Methodist Minister John M. Swomley.

Terzo explains that Swomley is an ordained United Methodist minister who was professor of Christian Ethics (!) at St. Paul’s school of Theology in Kansas City, Missouri from 1960 to 1984, president of Americans for Religious Liberty, and a longtime board member and sometimes vice president of the pro-abortion American Civil Liberties Union and chair of its church–state committee.

This is what Methodist Minister John Swomley wrote about pro-life Americans in his 1999 book Compulsory Pregnancy: the War against American Women:

Opponents of abortion in America have attributed to fetal life a sacredness that is actually idolatry… Fetal idolatry denies a woman’s right to control her body, her life, her destiny, all of which must be sacrificed to an embryo or fetus once she is pregnant…

Fetal idolatry shows no mercy. … One of the major critiques of idolatry about unborn life is its lack of concern for the abundant or purposeful life to which all of us should be called. No one of us should be an unwanted child or have to experience emotional abandonment or lack of compassion and love in childhood.”

Nothing much has changed in the United Methodist Church (UMC) since Swomley’s book. As examples:

This is why pro-life Methodists have left the denomination over the last couple of decades and continue to leave the church in droves, causing historic low membership rolls for the church.

John M. Swomley

I did an Internet search for John M. Swomley and discovered that he died on August 16, 2010, in Kansas City, Missouri at age 95 after living with Alzheimer’s for several years.

That’s 95 years more than the millions of aborted unborn babies, whom Swomley dismissed as “idols,” who never had a chance to breathe even one day of air.

See also:

~Éowyn

Medical Expert Confirms Unborn Children Feel Excruciating Pain During Abortions

20_week_fetus

LifeNews.com: On May 12, 2015, David A. Prentice, Ph.D., Vice President and Research Director of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, was invited to speak on the science of fetal pain on Point of View radio talk show. On May 13, 2015 the United States House of Representatives passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

Ms. Penna Dexter: We want to talk about fetal pain […] because this bill is so much stronger. It actually bans abortions after twenty weeks, and that’s because – I don’t think there’s a doubt now that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks?

Dr. David Prentice: The science is pretty conclusive at this point. And there are always going to be people, especially those in favor of abortion, who will say, “Oh that really doesn’t happen, and they’ll throw up a smokescreen. And what they usually do is they refer to an old study back in 2005 that was published actually by people who had associations with Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

But the real science – and there’s some new things in fact, that have come out in the last few months – but the science pretty conclusively demonstrates: Young babies still in the womb at 20 weeks after conception, and probably even earlier, do indeed feel pain, and in fact, may feel more intense pain than a newborn or an adult

Ms. Dexter:  And that is because [of] their development?

Dr. Prentice: Exactly, they have a higher density of nerve receptors. Like you said, your skin is not very thick at that point, but there is another aspect.

There are certain pathways that sort of tone down pain. If I hit my thumb with a hammer, I’m going to feel it because the pain sensation goes up to my brain, but there is also a return path to try and tone that down. That doesn’t even start to develop until about the time that you’re born, so you don’t get this dampening of the pain.

In fact, there was a study done, reported just a couple weeks ago, where they were looking at pain experience of newborns – just between one and six or seven days old and adults, and the headlines were, “Babies feel pain like adults and they feel it more intensely.”

The study actually looked at regions of the brain associated with pain using very sophisticated technology and comparing not really pain, just sort of like you’d take the end of a pencil and press it against the bottom of this baby’s foot, a little bit of pressure, a little sensation there.

A lot of the babies even slept through this whole procedure, but they were in this functional MRI machine, very sophisticated technology, and then they would do the same thing to adults to see how they responded.

Eighteen of the twenty pain regions lit up in babies, eighteen of the twenty that are the same as adults, and at four times as sensitive. So again, you don’t develop this feedback loop to shut down pain until right about that time, and it takes even several months after birth for it to start to mature.

Now, wind back the clock to five months after conception, you’re a little past halfway through development in moms womb. You don’t even have that feedback loop at all; it’s not starting until months later in your life – and now the pain is very intense. We don’t know exactly how much, but much more intense for the small amount that you might feel as an adult.

Ms. Dexter: So one of the arguments that’s made is that at twenty weeks the baby doesn’t have a mature cerebral cortex. What do you say to that argument?

Dr. Prentice: Well, if your listeners aren’t up to speed on brain anatomy, the cortex is sort of the outermost part that is, in terms of your conscious thoughts and so on, it’s the last part of the brain to develop.

There is indication that some of that neuronal material in your brain is already present, starting to be formed certainly by twenty weeks after conception, but it also turns out that that’s not the most important part of your brain for pain perception.

There’s another deeper layer that forms early in your brain called the thalamus, deep inside your brain. It forms even earlier in development – probably about 8 to 12 weeks is when you start to see it forming, and those nerve tracks already connect to the thalamus by the time you are 20 weeks after conception, or after fertilization.

In fact, there are individuals who are born without the cerebral cortex, and they feel pain. We know that for a fact.

So, you don’t need that cortical layer to actually feel pain. What you need are these deeper parts of the brain and simply the neural tracks for sensation. And those are definitely formed, intact, and responding by twenty weeks after conception.

Ms. Dexter: That argument that no mature cerebral cortex, and that’s necessary for perception of pain, that’s one of your smokescreen arguments that you’ve been talking about?

Dr. Prentice: It is definitely a smokescreen.

abortion-rights

Read the rest here. To listen to the audio: http://pointofview.net/show/tuesday-may-12-2015/?listen_now=1

DCG

A culture with no respect for human life: Cops investigate dead newborn at New York high school

baby praying

MyFoxNY.com: Police are investigating the death of a newborn whose body was left by its teenage mother in the nurse’s office at a central New York high school.

Syracuse police Chief Frank Fowler said at a news conference Wednesday that the baby’s mother is a student, but he wouldn’t give her name or age, or the baby’s gender. Fowler said the baby was dead before it was brought to Nottingham High School on Monday. He said the school nurse alerted police after looking inside a backpack the girl had left with her.

Fowler said investigators are still trying to determine the baby’s age and cause of death. He said homicide hasn’t been ruled out.

School Superintendent Sharon Contreras released a statement saying counseling was being made available to students and staff affected by “this difficult tragedy.”

messed up

This is horrific. This comment accurately describes what is wrong with America today.

“Why is this even news? Why are the police even investigating? It’s a dead “fetus” for pete’s sake, so what’s the difference whether the death occurs in front of or behind a human stomach? There’s no age limit on who can have an abortion, so why indicate she’s a “teenage mother?” I’m sure it would have been an inconvenient burden to her, so why should she bear responsibility on a potential human life that would have lived in misery anyway? She was doing the fetus and society a favor. There’s no ambiguity, it’s all perfectly legal. After all, this has occurred over 50 million times in America since 1973. What’s the big deal to a society that puts zero value on unplanned human life? Why should anyone be horrified by this story? In fact it would be extremely hypocritical for any pro-choice/Anti-Life advocate to show any type of sympathy for the murdered baby. This is what it’s come to. This is how sick society has become.”

Yet Planned Parenthood abortion business president Cecile Richards actively promotes death:

“Put simply: a 20-week abortion ban lacks compassion & it lacks respect.

And you wonder why teenagers have no respect for human life.

DCG

Baby in Pampers commercial makes devil sign

A baby in a TV commercial for Pampers makes the devil’s horns sign with his right hand and the Illuminati one-eye with his left hand.

Here’s a screenshot at the 0:05 mark of the video:

pampers baby makes satanic hand signs

H/t HenryMakow

The sign of the horns, more sinisterly called the Devil’s horns is formed by extending the index and little fingers while holding the middle and ring fingers down with the thumb (see pic below), which is exactly the sign made by the Pampers baby.

devil's horns

Signifying one’s allegiance to Satan, the hand sign was popularized in the late 1960s by the founder of the Church of Satan Anton LaVey (see pic below) and later was passed on to the masses by rock musicians who were into Satanism.

Anton LaVey

Oddly, the sign of the horns is also the sign for “I Love you” in American Sign Language.

But Helen Keller (1880-1968), who developed sign language for the deaf, is said to be into the occultic Theosophy that was founded by satanist Madame Blavatsky. She is quoted and extolled by Theosophy websites (see here and here). It is curious that, of the many possible signs one can make with the hand, Keller chose a sign for “I love you” which also signifies the Devil’s Horns. Wouldn’t you pick another hand sign instead?

Keller was a member of the Socialist Party of America and the Industrial Workers of the World, and campaigned for women’s suffrage, labor rights, socialism, “and other radical left causes.” (Wikipedia)

Keller was also an admirer of eugenicist Margaret Sanger. In a Dec. 8 1952 letter to Sanger, Keller called Sanger’s founding of Planned Parenthood in India to be “wonderful news” and obsequiously wrote: “Affectionately I salute you, Margaret Sanger, as the prophet and the the woman Prometheus of humanity’s highest physical and mental welfare.”

See also:

~Éowyn

Princeton ethicist: it’s ‘reasonable’ to kill disabled newborn babies

newborn-baby-reuters

Campus Reform: Princeton professor and animal rights activist Peter Singer argued in a radio interview that it is “reasonable” for healthcare providers, insurance companies, and government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid to kill mentally disabled babies.

Singer appeared on the Aaron Klein Investigative Radio show to discuss his latest book, The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically.

Klein asked Singer—who served as a task force coordinator on President Obama’s 2008 Presidential Campaign—if he believes that Obamacare will lead to healthcare rationing in the United States, specifically in relation to “disabled” babies. Singer’s answer? It already has.

For example, Singer said, doctors routinely end the life of babies born with brain hemorrhages. “If an infant is born with a massive hemorrhage in the brain that means it will be so severely disabled that if the infant lives it will never even be able to recognize its mother… doctors will turn off the respirator that is keeping that infant alive.”

Peter Singer, bioethicist

Peter Singer, bioethicist

Doctors who kill disabled babies, Singer explains, are likely “just influenced by the fact that this will be a terrible burden for the parents to look after.”

This is not a new position for Professor Singer; on his faculty page on Princeton’s website, Singer argues that “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person.” “A normal newborn baby has no sense of the future,” Singer writes, “and therefore is not a person.”

messed up

Similarly, in his 1979 book Practical Ethics, Singer claims that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.” Elsewhere in Practical Ethics, the bioethics professor claims that “[n]o infant—disabled or not—has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities.”

However, while Singer believes infants have little (if any) right to life, he has devoted much of his life to making the exact opposite argument with regard to chimpanzees and other non-human animals.

In 1975, Singer wrote his best-selling book Animal Liberation, which helped him earn a spot on TIME Magazine’s 2005 list of the world’s 100 most influential people. In Animal Liberation, Singer argued that “humans and animals are equal in the sense that the fact that a being is human does not mean that we should give the interests of that being preference over the similar interests of other beings. That would be speciesism.”

In 1993, Singer co-founded “The Great Ape Project,” which defines itself as “an international movement that aims to defend the rights of non-human great primates.” These rights, Singer explains in a 2006 article, include “life [and] liberty.” Singer bases his reasoning on “ the principle of equal consideration of interests,” which he says demands that humans give equal consideration to “non-human animals.” Those who “give greater weight to the interests of members of their own species when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of other species,” Singer says, are “speciesists.”

While “non-human great primates” have a “right” to life, that same right—according to Singer—does not extend to human infants. In a 2012 op-ed defending abortion, Singer claimed that “membership of the species Homo sapiens is not enough to confer a right to life.”

Singer takes the argument one step further in “Taking Life: Humans” by arguing that if killing a “haemophiliac infant” meant that the infant’s parents could have another child in his place, it would “be right to kill him.”

Most people, Singer argued, would say “I don’t want my health insurance premiums to be higher so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have expensive treatments.”

However, not all members of the Princeton community share Singer’s views towards infanticide. “Peter Singer’s views demonstrate the logical extreme to which a view of personhood based on some developed capability or trait must carry us,” Princeton junior Christine Smith told Campus Reform.

“When personhood is no longer defined by our innate humanity or our intrinsic value, then we necessarily approach a view that embraces the killing of seriously disabled, or even merely unwanted, infants,” she said. While Peter Singer’s views are obviously idiosyncratic, it is important to take them seriously because they reveal the inherent problem of trying to define certain categories of humans as more valuable or more protected than others.”

“[W]e are already taking steps that quite knowingly and intentionally are ending the lives of severely disabled infants,” Singer declared on Sunday. “And I think we ought to be more open in recognizing that this happens.”

DCG

Monday Funnies: Liberals don’t make sense!

libtards1libtards2libtards3libtards4

And here’s their leader!
idiot

H/t FOTM’s Dale C. and josephbc69

dancingbananadancingbananadancingbanana

~Éowyn