Once again, the liberal mainstream media are touting Francis I, their "pet pope," by cherry picking portions of his Laudato Si' — what the environmentalists call "the Vatican’s encyclical on climate change." Besides embracing totalitarians' notion of "man-made global warming," the Pope also ripped advocates of abortion, transgenderism, population control, animal rights, etc. for worshiping God's creation as a god itself.
For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:
Pope Decries Abortion, Again; Media Ignore Him
Vatican Says Media Distort Pope's Words
Media Filter Pope's Procreation Declarations
Pope Cracks Down on American Liberal Nuns, Priests
Pope Blasts Liberal 'christians' as Pagans
-- From "Pope Francis: Climate Change and Abortion Are ‘Interrelated’" by Clare Foran and Jason Plautz, National Journal 6/18/15
The highly anticipated document says that global warming is real, is caused partly by human activity, and is a grave threat to humanity. . . .
For Pope Francis, caring about the environment goes hand in hand with taking a strong stand against abortion. . . .
Francis suggests that efforts to slow population growth are misguided and a distraction . . .
The encyclical says that governments need to think as "one world with a common plan" . . .
One solution that Francis swiftly dismisses is a deal that would use carbon credits in a cap-and-trade scenario.
Francis takes on pesticides in a section of the encyclical focused on "pollution, waste, and the throwaway culture." After noting that daily exposure to pollutants can create serious and even deadly health risks, the pope says that "fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, and agrotoxins in general" cause pollution that impacts everyone.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Pope Francis links saving the planet to ending abortion" by Rose Troup Buchanan, UK Independent 6/18/15
Pope Francis’s has explicitly linked protecting the environment with protecting the life of an unborn child in his encyclical.
The publication of the Pope’s first solely authored encyclical has been widely celebrated by environmentalists, climate change campaigners and other religious leaders.
However, the text confirms the Pope’s views on abortion and the sanctity of life in line with traditional Roman Catholic teaching.
His comments were welcomed by conservative elements in the Catholic Church – no doubt concerned by his liberal leanings towards the poor, as well as the LGBT community – but dismayed pro-abortion campaigners.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Pro-Lifers: Pope Rejects Population Control, Abortion As Solutions To Global Warming" by Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller 6/17/15
“Importantly, he suggests that to look to population control for a solution to environmental problems is not facing the real problem of waste and overconsumption,” John-Henry Westen, pro-life advocate and co-founder of the news site LifeSiteNews.com, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
“In keeping with the pro-life traditions of the Church, the pope also condemned the ‘throw-away culture,’ and specifically said that we may not justify abortion with an appeal to protecting nature,” Westen told TheDCNF.
“He also criticized those who would turn nature into a god, and he criticized many animal rights activists who are, hypocritically, unwilling to save human beings,” Westen added.
One concern among pro-life advocates was that two of the pope’s environmental advisers have advocated for population control methods such as abortion, contraception and sterilization. Pro-lifers are referring to economist Jeffrey Sachs and climatologist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Pope Francis Slams Abortion and Population Control in New Environmental Encyclical" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 6/18/15
“When we fail to acknowledge as part of reality the worth of a poor person, a human embryo, a person with disabilities – to offer just a few examples – it becomes difficult to hear the cry of nature itself; everything is connected,” Pope Francis writes. “Christian thought sees human beings as possessing a particular dignity above other creatures; it thus inculcates esteem for each person and respect for others.”
The leader of the Catholic Church continues: “Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?”
“If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away,” he adds.
“This false model of man and society embodies a practical atheism, de facto negating the Word of God that says: ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness,’” he explained.
The Pope said “there is an originary dignity of every man and woman that cannot be suppressed, that cannot be touched by any power or ideology.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "For Pope Francis, ‘green’ equals pro-life" by Thomas D. Williams, research fellow at the Center for Ethics and Culture at the University of Notre Dame, posted at Crux 6/18/15
This Pope had already revealed on multiple occasions his understanding that abortion is a “scourge” and that “a just society recognizes the primacy of the right to life from conception to natural death.” Using his characteristically colorful language, Francis has compared abortion activists with the Italian Mafia, drawn a parallel between abortion and Herod’s slaughter of the innocents, and wondered aloud how “modern” societies can get up in arms over parents spanking their children when they have laws “allowing them to kill their children before they are born.”
Now in his second encyclical, Laudato Si’, the Pope has integrated the care and protection of the unborn with responsible stewardship of creation. In rather blunt language, Francis has stated that concern for the protection of nature is simply “incompatible with the justification of abortion.”
This explicit disassociation of ecological engagement from the taking of unborn life will no doubt encourage those who had been worried that Francis’ environmentalism was dangerously close to being coopted by international programs advocating abortion as an essential means of population control.
. . . For the pope, this interconnectedness means that a person who cares for the protection of an endangered species or worries about the melting of the polar ice cap must also care for the unborn. “When we fail to acknowledge as part of reality the worth of a poor person, a human embryo, a person with disabilities — to offer just a few examples — it becomes difficult to hear the cry of nature itself; everything is connected,” he said.
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Catholic Bishops Warn Voting for Democrats is 'Grave Sin' for example, Rep. Nancy Pelosi is a Fraud, Catholic Leaders Say
And read Pope Francis I Says Wayward Politicians Can't Take Communion
From "Pope’s encyclical: Pro-climate-change, but anti-population control, pro-life, and anti-gender ideology" by John-Henry Westen, LifeSiteNews 6/18/15
The environmental tome of 180 pages – the longest encyclical in history – is an often-fascinating read, with many touching passages reflecting on a Catholic vision of care and concern for creation. These many passages, however, are being largely lost and subsumed under the most emphatic – even alarmist – passages devoted to detailed descriptions of "climate change" theory (described as fact) and the dire consequences of failing to take drastic measures to fight such change.
And those startling quotes have stolen the media narrative, making this, at least for the media world and thus the general public, the "climate-change encyclical." Released, as the encyclical was, just prior to the pope’s visit to the United Nations and the US Congress in September, as well as the World Climate Summit in Paris in December, this narrative was at least partially intentional on the part of the Vatican and the pope.
. . . The new encyclical also continues the tradition launched by popes Benedict and John Paul II of tying respecting nature to respecting life in the womb and God-given gender. The pope also clearly decries the idea of reducing population to address environmental concerns.
Out of the 245 paragraphs, the pope devotes two to debunking population control as an appropriate means to fighting climate change or general environmental degradation.
. . . This is the fourth time Pope Francis has condemned gender ideology [in his paragraph #155]. He does so this time in the language of respecting nature; in January, he did so by blasting the forcing of gender ideology onto students as a form of "ideological colonization" comparable to Hitler Youth indoctrination.
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
Excerpts from "Full text: The encyclical letter of the Holy Father Francis - Laudato Si': On Care for Our Common Home" posted at Catholic Herald 6/18/15
iii. The Crisis and Effects of Modern Anthropocentrism
115. Modern anthropocentrism has paradoxically ended up prizing technical thought over reality, since “the technological mind sees nature as an insensate order, as a cold body of facts, as a mere ‘given’, as an object of utility, as raw material to be hammered into useful shape; it views the cosmos similarly as a mere ‘space’ into which objects can be thrown with complete indifference” The intrinsic dignity of the world is thus compromised. When human beings fail to find their true place in this world, they misunderstand themselves and end up acting against themselves: “Not only has God given the earth to man, who must use it with respect for the original good purpose for which it was given, but, man too is God’s gift to man. He must therefore respect the natural and moral structure with which he has been endowed”.
116. Modernity has been marked by an excessive anthropocentrism which today, under another guise, continues to stand in the way of shared understanding and of any effort to strengthen social bonds. The time has come to pay renewed attention to reality and the limits it imposes; this in turn is the condition for a more sound and fruitful development of individuals and society. An inadequate presentation of Christian anthropology gave rise to a wrong understanding of the relationship between human beings and the world. Often, what was handed on was a Promethean vision of mastery over the world, which gave the impression that the protection of nature was something that only the faint-hearted cared about. Instead, our “dominion” over the universe should be understood more properly in the sense of responsible stewardship.
117. Neglecting to monitor the harm done to nature and the environmental impact of our decisions is only the most striking sign of a disregard for the message contained in the structures of nature itself. When we fail to acknowledge as part of reality the worth of a poor person, a human embryo, a person with disabilities – to offer just a few examples – it becomes difficult to hear the cry of nature itself; everything is connected. Once the human being declares independence from reality and behaves with absolute dominion, the very foundations of our life begin to crumble, for “instead of carrying out his role as a cooperator with God in the work of creation, man sets himself up in place of God and thus ends up provoking a rebellion on the part of nature”.
118. This situation has led to a constant schizophrenia, wherein a technocracy which sees no intrinsic value in lesser beings coexists with the other extreme, which sees no special value in human beings. But one cannot prescind from humanity. There can be no renewal of our relationship with nature without a renewal of humanity itself. There can be no ecology without an adequate anthropology. When the human person is considered as simply one being among others, the product of chance or physical determinism, then “our overall sense of responsibility wanes”. A misguided anthropocentrism need not necessarily yield to “biocentrism”, for that would entail adding yet another imbalance, failing to solve present problems and adding new ones. Human beings cannot be expected to feel responsibility for the world unless, at the same time, their unique capacities of knowledge, will, freedom and responsibility are recognized and valued.
119. Nor must the critique of a misguided anthropocentrism underestimate the importance of interpersonal relations. If the present ecological crisis is one small sign of the ethical, cultural and spiritual crisis of modernity, we cannot presume to heal our relationship with nature and the environment without healing all fundamental human relationships. Christian thought sees human beings as possessing a particular dignity above other creatures; it thus inculcates esteem for each person and respect for others. Our openness to others, each of whom is a “thou” capable of knowing, loving and entering into dialogue, remains the source of our nobility as human persons. A correct relationship with the created world demands that we not weaken this social dimension of openness to others, much less the transcendent dimension of our openness to the “Thou” of God. Our relationship with the environment can never be isolated from our relationship with others and with God. Otherwise, it would be nothing more than romantic individualism dressed up in ecological garb, locking us into a stifling immanence.
120. Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? “If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away”.
121. We need to develop a new synthesis capable of overcoming the false arguments of recent centuries. Christianity, in fidelity to its own identity and the rich deposit of truth which it has received from Jesus Christ, continues to reflect on these issues in fruitful dialogue with changing historical situations. In doing so, it reveals its eternal newness.
Practical relativism
122. A misguided anthropocentrism leads to a misguided lifestyle. In the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, I noted that the practical relativism typical of our age is “even more dangerous than doctrinal relativism”. When human beings place themselves at the centre, they give absolute priority to immediate convenience and all else becomes relative. Hence we should not be surprised to find, in conjunction with the omnipresent technocratic paradigm and the cult of unlimited human power, the rise of a relativism which sees everything as irrelevant unless it serves one’s own immediate interests. There is a logic in all this whereby different attitudes can feed on one another, leading to environmental degradation and social decay.
123. The culture of relativism is the same disorder which drives one person to take advantage of another, to treat others as mere objects, imposing forced labour on them or enslaving them to pay their debts. The same kind of thinking leads to the sexual exploitation of children and abandonment of the elderly who no longer serve our interests. It is also the mindset of those who say: Let us allow the invisible forces of the market to regulate the economy, and consider their impact on society and nature as collateral damage. In the absence of objective truths or sound principles other than the satisfaction of our own desires and immediate needs, what limits can be placed on human trafficking, organized crime, the drug trade, commerce in blood diamonds and the fur of endangered species? Is it not the same relativistic logic which justifies buying the organs of the poor for resale or use in experimentation, or eliminating children because they are not what their parents wanted? This same “use and throw away” logic generates so much waste, because of the disordered desire to consume more than what is really necessary. We should not think that political efforts or the force of law will be sufficient to prevent actions which affect the environment because, when the culture itself is corrupt and objective truth and universally valid principles are no longer upheld, then laws can only be seen as arbitrary impositions or obstacles to be avoided.
. . .
136. . . . it is troubling that, when some ecological movements defend the integrity of the environment, rightly demanding that certain limits be imposed on scientific research, they sometimes fail to apply those same principles to human life. There is a tendency to justify transgressing all boundaries when experimentation is carried out on living human embryos. We forget that the inalienable worth of a human being transcends his or her degree of development. In the same way, when technology disregards the great ethical principles, it ends up considering any practice whatsoever as licit. As we have seen in this chapter, a technology severed from ethics will not easily be able to limit its own power.
. . .
155. Human ecology also implies another profound reality: the relationship between human life and the moral law, which is inscribed in our nature and is necessary for the creation of a more dignified environment. Pope Benedict XVI spoke of an “ecology of man”, based on the fact that “man too has a nature that he must respect and that he cannot manipulate at will”. It is enough to recognize that our body itself establishes us in a direct relationship with the environment and with other living beings. The acceptance of our bodies as God’s gift is vital for welcoming and accepting the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home, whereas thinking that we enjoy absolute power over our own bodies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy absolute power over creation. Learning to accept our body, to care for it and to respect its fullest meaning, is an essential element of any genuine human ecology. Also, valuing one’s own body in its femininity or masculinity is necessary if I am going to be able to recognize myself in an encounter with someone who is different. In this way we can joyfully accept the specific gifts of another man or woman, the work of God the Creator, and find mutual enrichment. It is not a healthy attitude which would seek “to cancel out sexual difference because it no longer knows how to confront it”.
To read the Pope's entire encyclical letter above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Vatican Says Gay Agenda is 'a Defeat for Humanity'
And read Pope Said the Gay Agenda is the Work of the Devil
Showing posts with label antihumanism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label antihumanism. Show all posts
Friday, June 19, 2015
Monday, May 25, 2015
Animals Should be Treated as Humans: Gallup Poll
A new public opinion poll shows that 94% of Americans believe that humans have a responsibility to consider animals worthy of protection from harm, while one-third of respondents said that "animals deserve the exact same right as people" — an increase over seven years ago.
Plants' & Animals' Civil Rights - Antihumanism
Chimps Like Black Slaves: Animal Rights Lawsuit
President Obama's Czar Nominee Elevates Animals to Human Stature
American Trend: Fewer Children, More Animals/Pets
-- From "A third of Americans believe animals deserve same rights as people, poll finds" by Alan Yuhas in New York, UK Guardian 5/19/15
Earlier this year Pew found that Americans were closely divided on animal research, with 50% opposed to animal testing and 47% in its favor; Pew also found that 89% of scientists supported animal research.
But Americans also remain among the largest consumers of meat in the world, with only 5% of the population identifying as a vegetarian and 2% as vegan. A 2014 study found that 84% of American vegetarians and vegans eventually return to eating meat.
Disparate campaigns for animal rights and protections have steadily gained momentum in recent years . . .
The US and Europe have also gradually changed their approaches to animal research. The EU banned cosmetics with animal-tested ingredients in 2013, and the US suspended medical research on chimpanzees in 2011 and began retiring the animals two years later. In the past two years, Congress has also initiated reviews of the treatment of animals in federal research programs, namely in agricultural programs found to keep livestock in dire conditions and to pose likely health risks to human consumers.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Many Americans Support Equal Rights for Animals" by Tanya Lewis, Staff Writer, LiveScience 5/22/15
Across all demographic groups, an increasing fraction of people support equal rights for animals, although women were more likely than men to have this view, the poll found. About 42 percent of the women polled supported full animal equality in 2015, compared with 22 percent of men. However, the percentage of men and women who support this view has increased by about the same amount since 2008 — from 35 percent to 42 percent for women, and 14 percent to 22 percent for men.
In addition, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents were more likely than their Republican counterparts to support complete animal equality. About 39 percent of liberal-leaning people supported that view this year, compared with 23 percent of conservative-leaning people. But the number of both Democrats and Republicans who support animal equality has increased since the last poll, according to Gallup.
Meanwhile, views on the treatment of marine or farm animals may have been influenced by popular documentaries such as "Blackfish" and "Food, Inc.," which sought to expose truths about the treatment of whales at SeaWorld and of farm animals raised for consumption, respectively.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "In U.S., More Say Animals Should Have Same Rights as People" by Rebecca Riffkin, Gallup 5/18/15
The percentage of Americans who support the idea that animals' rights should be equal to those of humans increased across all major U.S. demographic groups. . . . There continues to be little difference between younger and older Americans.
To further discern Americans' feelings about animal rights, for the first time, Gallup asked Americans about their level of concern for the treatment of animals in various settings. The percentage saying they are "very" concerned ranges from 33% for animals used in research to 21% for animals in the zoo. When combined with those "somewhat" concerned about each, Americans are most concerned about animals in the circus, animals used in competitive animal sports or contests and animals used in research, with just over two-thirds expressing concern about each. They are least concerned about the treatment of household pets, with 46% saying they are very or somewhat concerned.
And despite increasing attention focused on the treatment of chickens, cows and other animals mainly used for human food -- as exposed in the 2008 documentary Food, Inc. -- Americans show relatively less concern for how these animals are treated, with 54% at least somewhat concerned, including 26% very concerned.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Walmart Pushes for Improved Animal Welfare" by Stephanie Strom, New York Times 5/22/15
Walmart, the nation’s largest grocery retailer, said on Friday that it would ask its meat, seafood, poultry, deli and egg suppliers to adopt animal welfare standards that include sufficient space and easy access to food and water.
The company also said it would ask its suppliers to report to it annually on their use of antibiotics, and asked them to limit treatment with antibiotics to animals that are sick.
Over the last several years, dozens of companies have announced commitments to better animal welfare and to eliminating the use of human antibiotics from animal husbandry. McDonald’s won applause when it announced in March that it would begin using meat from chickens that are not raised with antibiotics important to human medicine, and a month later, one of its major chicken suppliers, Tyson Foods, said it would stop using such drugs in poultry production by 2017.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Wal-Mart's Push on Animal Welfare Hailed as Game Changer" by Anne D'Innocenzio, Associated Press Retail Writer 5/22/15
The guidelines also aim to get suppliers to stop using pig gestation crates and other housing that doesn't give animals enough space. They're also being asked to avoid painful procedures like de-horning or castration without proper painkillers.
Other major companies, including McDonald's Corp., Nestle and Starbucks Corp., have already pledged to reduce or eliminate the use of gestation crates for pregnant sows and otherwise improve animal treatment. But activists hailed Wal-Mart's steps and said its guidelines would be one of the most sweeping and could become the blueprint for the food industry.
Wal-Mart said its own research showed 77 percent of its shoppers said they will increase their trust and 66 percent will increase their likelihood to shop at a retailer that improves the treatment of livestock.
Wal-Mart said it has adopted the "five freedoms" outlined by the World Organization for Animal Health to guide its approach to animal welfare. They include freedom from pain and injury and freedom to express normal behavior.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Acceptance of Bestiality Visible on the Horizon
And read Federal Health Official Arrested for Bestiality
“We have listened to our customers, and are asking our suppliers to engage in improved reporting standards and transparency measures regarding the treatment of farm animals.”For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:
-- Kathleen McLaughlin, Senior Vice President, Walmart
Plants' & Animals' Civil Rights - Antihumanism
Chimps Like Black Slaves: Animal Rights Lawsuit
President Obama's Czar Nominee Elevates Animals to Human Stature
American Trend: Fewer Children, More Animals/Pets
-- From "A third of Americans believe animals deserve same rights as people, poll finds" by Alan Yuhas in New York, UK Guardian 5/19/15
Earlier this year Pew found that Americans were closely divided on animal research, with 50% opposed to animal testing and 47% in its favor; Pew also found that 89% of scientists supported animal research.
But Americans also remain among the largest consumers of meat in the world, with only 5% of the population identifying as a vegetarian and 2% as vegan. A 2014 study found that 84% of American vegetarians and vegans eventually return to eating meat.
Disparate campaigns for animal rights and protections have steadily gained momentum in recent years . . .
The US and Europe have also gradually changed their approaches to animal research. The EU banned cosmetics with animal-tested ingredients in 2013, and the US suspended medical research on chimpanzees in 2011 and began retiring the animals two years later. In the past two years, Congress has also initiated reviews of the treatment of animals in federal research programs, namely in agricultural programs found to keep livestock in dire conditions and to pose likely health risks to human consumers.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Many Americans Support Equal Rights for Animals" by Tanya Lewis, Staff Writer, LiveScience 5/22/15
Across all demographic groups, an increasing fraction of people support equal rights for animals, although women were more likely than men to have this view, the poll found. About 42 percent of the women polled supported full animal equality in 2015, compared with 22 percent of men. However, the percentage of men and women who support this view has increased by about the same amount since 2008 — from 35 percent to 42 percent for women, and 14 percent to 22 percent for men.
In addition, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents were more likely than their Republican counterparts to support complete animal equality. About 39 percent of liberal-leaning people supported that view this year, compared with 23 percent of conservative-leaning people. But the number of both Democrats and Republicans who support animal equality has increased since the last poll, according to Gallup.
Meanwhile, views on the treatment of marine or farm animals may have been influenced by popular documentaries such as "Blackfish" and "Food, Inc.," which sought to expose truths about the treatment of whales at SeaWorld and of farm animals raised for consumption, respectively.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "In U.S., More Say Animals Should Have Same Rights as People" by Rebecca Riffkin, Gallup 5/18/15
The percentage of Americans who support the idea that animals' rights should be equal to those of humans increased across all major U.S. demographic groups. . . . There continues to be little difference between younger and older Americans.
To further discern Americans' feelings about animal rights, for the first time, Gallup asked Americans about their level of concern for the treatment of animals in various settings. The percentage saying they are "very" concerned ranges from 33% for animals used in research to 21% for animals in the zoo. When combined with those "somewhat" concerned about each, Americans are most concerned about animals in the circus, animals used in competitive animal sports or contests and animals used in research, with just over two-thirds expressing concern about each. They are least concerned about the treatment of household pets, with 46% saying they are very or somewhat concerned.
And despite increasing attention focused on the treatment of chickens, cows and other animals mainly used for human food -- as exposed in the 2008 documentary Food, Inc. -- Americans show relatively less concern for how these animals are treated, with 54% at least somewhat concerned, including 26% very concerned.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Walmart Pushes for Improved Animal Welfare" by Stephanie Strom, New York Times 5/22/15
Walmart, the nation’s largest grocery retailer, said on Friday that it would ask its meat, seafood, poultry, deli and egg suppliers to adopt animal welfare standards that include sufficient space and easy access to food and water.
The company also said it would ask its suppliers to report to it annually on their use of antibiotics, and asked them to limit treatment with antibiotics to animals that are sick.
Over the last several years, dozens of companies have announced commitments to better animal welfare and to eliminating the use of human antibiotics from animal husbandry. McDonald’s won applause when it announced in March that it would begin using meat from chickens that are not raised with antibiotics important to human medicine, and a month later, one of its major chicken suppliers, Tyson Foods, said it would stop using such drugs in poultry production by 2017.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Wal-Mart's Push on Animal Welfare Hailed as Game Changer" by Anne D'Innocenzio, Associated Press Retail Writer 5/22/15
The guidelines also aim to get suppliers to stop using pig gestation crates and other housing that doesn't give animals enough space. They're also being asked to avoid painful procedures like de-horning or castration without proper painkillers.
Other major companies, including McDonald's Corp., Nestle and Starbucks Corp., have already pledged to reduce or eliminate the use of gestation crates for pregnant sows and otherwise improve animal treatment. But activists hailed Wal-Mart's steps and said its guidelines would be one of the most sweeping and could become the blueprint for the food industry.
Wal-Mart said its own research showed 77 percent of its shoppers said they will increase their trust and 66 percent will increase their likelihood to shop at a retailer that improves the treatment of livestock.
Wal-Mart said it has adopted the "five freedoms" outlined by the World Organization for Animal Health to guide its approach to animal welfare. They include freedom from pain and injury and freedom to express normal behavior.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Acceptance of Bestiality Visible on the Horizon
And read Federal Health Official Arrested for Bestiality
Friday, February 27, 2015
Muslims Kill Christians, NOT News; Focus on Museum
Little seen headline: Islamic State jihadists kidnap hundreds of Christians and begin mass executions
Top news story: ISIS extremists ransack Mosul museum, destroy ancient artifacts
Today's review of the mainstream media shows few words written about the genocide, but reams of articles and hours of news video reporting the destruction of material objects.
For background, read President Obama Compares Christians to Islamic Terrorists and even Ignores Christian Genocide (focuses on furthering Gay Agenda)
Also read President Obama Ignores Hate Crimes Against U.S. Christians
And read Muslim Beheads Christians in New Jersey per Koran
-- From "ISIS Onslaught Engulfs Assyrian Christians as Militants Destroy Ancient Art" by Anne Barnard, New York Times 2/26/15
A rampage reminiscent of Tamerlane or Genghis Khan, perhaps, but in reality, according to reports by residents, activist groups and the assailants themselves, a description of the modus operandi of the Islamic State’s self-declared caliphate this week. The militants have prosecuted a relentless campaign in Iraq and Syria against what have historically been religiously and ethnically diverse areas with traces of civilizations dating to ancient Mesopotamia.
Assyrian leaders have counted 287 people taken captive, including 30 children and several dozen women, along with civilian men and fighters from Christian militias, said Dawoud Dawoud, an Assyrian political activist who had just toured the area, in the vicinity of the Syrian city of Qamishli. Thirty villages had been emptied, he said.
The assault on the Assyrian communities comes amid battles for a key crossroads in the area. But to residents, it also seems to be part of the latest effort by the Islamic State militants to eradicate or subordinate anyone and anything that does not comport with their vision of Islamic rule — whether a minority sect that has survived centuries of conquerors and massacres or, as the world was reminded on Thursday, the archaeological traces of pre-Islamic antiquity.
The Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, has presented itself as a modern-day equivalent of the conquering invaders of Sennacherib’s day, or as Islamic zealots smashing relics out of religious conviction.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Activist: ISIS now holds 262 Christians hostages in Syria" by Laura Smith-Spark, CNN 2/26/15
The London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights put the number of Assyrian hostages seized over three days at 220, in a statement released Thursday.
They were taken from 11 villages in the Tal Tamer area in al-Hasakah Province, the monitoring group said. Its information indicates that ISIS has taken them to the Mount Abdelaziz area, southwest of Tal Tamer.
Besides those captured by ISIS militants, thousands of families have been forced to flee their homes, he said.
ISIS has proven, time and again, its willingness to ruthlessly go after minority groups which don't subscribe to its extreme take on Islam.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Militants abduct more Christians, smash ancient artifacts" by Zeina Karam and Sinan Salaheddin, Associated Press 2/26/15
The destruction of artifacts in the Mosul museum is part of a campaign by IS extremists who have destroyed a number of shrines — including Muslim holy sites — to eliminate what they view as heresy. They also are believed to have sold ancient artifacts on the black market in order to finance their bloody campaign in the region.
In the video released Thursday, militants used sledgehammers and drills to smash and destroy several large statues, which are then shown chipped and in pieces. The five-minute video also shows a black-clad man at an archaeological site in Mosul, drilling through and destroying a winged-bull — an Assyrian protective deity — that dates to the 7th century B.C.
Irina Bokova, director general of the U.N.'s culture agency UNESCO, said in a statement that she was "deeply shocked" at the video. She said she asked for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council be convened "on the protection of Iraq's cultural heritage as an integral element for the country's security."
"I condemn this as a deliberate attack against Iraq's millennial history and culture, and as an inflammatory incitement to violence and hatred," Bokova said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "ISIS kills 15 Assyrian Christians, charity reports" by Ed West, Catholic Herald 2/26/15
Aid to the Church in Need reported that the Islamist group murdered a number of Assyrians it took from Hassake governorate in Syria.
Abbot Emanuel Youkhana passed on the news to various Catholic agencies working in the area, and said the number still being held totalled 350.
The charity reports that another source claimed that people in the Sunni Arab village of Bab Alfaraj have been told to attend “a mass killing of infidels” at Mount Abdul Aziz tomorrow.
There are no families left in the 35 Assyrian Christian villages of the area. The only people left in the region are Christian militia fighters who are fighting alongside Kurdish troops
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "ISIS kills 15 Christian hostages in Syria, beheads woman" posted at ANSAmed 2/26/15
The news was given by Archimandrite Emanuel Youkhana to the Catholic organization Aid to the Church in Need on Thursday. . . . One woman was beheaded in the village Tel Hormidz and two men were shot to death. There is no information at the moment on how the other 12 were killed. Youkhana added that the number of those known to have been taken hostage had risen to about 350. In addition to the hundreds previously reported, some 80 inhabitants from the Tel Jazira village, 21 from Tel Gouran, 5 from Tel Feytha and 3 from Qabir Shamiya have been taken. Almost all are being held in the Sunni Muslim village Um Al-Masamier.
. . . One source has said that a mass execution is being planned for Friday, February 27, in the mosque of Bab Alfaraj, a Sunni village in the area. There has been no confirmation of the news.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Islamic 'Call to Prayer' at National Cathedral in Washington D.C.
And read Florida School Teaches Islam Including Prayer Rugs
Top news story: ISIS extremists ransack Mosul museum, destroy ancient artifacts
Today's review of the mainstream media shows few words written about the genocide, but reams of articles and hours of news video reporting the destruction of material objects.
For background, read President Obama Compares Christians to Islamic Terrorists and even Ignores Christian Genocide (focuses on furthering Gay Agenda)
Also read President Obama Ignores Hate Crimes Against U.S. Christians
And read Muslim Beheads Christians in New Jersey per Koran
-- From "ISIS Onslaught Engulfs Assyrian Christians as Militants Destroy Ancient Art" by Anne Barnard, New York Times 2/26/15
A rampage reminiscent of Tamerlane or Genghis Khan, perhaps, but in reality, according to reports by residents, activist groups and the assailants themselves, a description of the modus operandi of the Islamic State’s self-declared caliphate this week. The militants have prosecuted a relentless campaign in Iraq and Syria against what have historically been religiously and ethnically diverse areas with traces of civilizations dating to ancient Mesopotamia.
Assyrian leaders have counted 287 people taken captive, including 30 children and several dozen women, along with civilian men and fighters from Christian militias, said Dawoud Dawoud, an Assyrian political activist who had just toured the area, in the vicinity of the Syrian city of Qamishli. Thirty villages had been emptied, he said.
The assault on the Assyrian communities comes amid battles for a key crossroads in the area. But to residents, it also seems to be part of the latest effort by the Islamic State militants to eradicate or subordinate anyone and anything that does not comport with their vision of Islamic rule — whether a minority sect that has survived centuries of conquerors and massacres or, as the world was reminded on Thursday, the archaeological traces of pre-Islamic antiquity.
The Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, has presented itself as a modern-day equivalent of the conquering invaders of Sennacherib’s day, or as Islamic zealots smashing relics out of religious conviction.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Activist: ISIS now holds 262 Christians hostages in Syria" by Laura Smith-Spark, CNN 2/26/15
The London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights put the number of Assyrian hostages seized over three days at 220, in a statement released Thursday.
They were taken from 11 villages in the Tal Tamer area in al-Hasakah Province, the monitoring group said. Its information indicates that ISIS has taken them to the Mount Abdelaziz area, southwest of Tal Tamer.
Besides those captured by ISIS militants, thousands of families have been forced to flee their homes, he said.
ISIS has proven, time and again, its willingness to ruthlessly go after minority groups which don't subscribe to its extreme take on Islam.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Militants abduct more Christians, smash ancient artifacts" by Zeina Karam and Sinan Salaheddin, Associated Press 2/26/15
The destruction of artifacts in the Mosul museum is part of a campaign by IS extremists who have destroyed a number of shrines — including Muslim holy sites — to eliminate what they view as heresy. They also are believed to have sold ancient artifacts on the black market in order to finance their bloody campaign in the region.
In the video released Thursday, militants used sledgehammers and drills to smash and destroy several large statues, which are then shown chipped and in pieces. The five-minute video also shows a black-clad man at an archaeological site in Mosul, drilling through and destroying a winged-bull — an Assyrian protective deity — that dates to the 7th century B.C.
Irina Bokova, director general of the U.N.'s culture agency UNESCO, said in a statement that she was "deeply shocked" at the video. She said she asked for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council be convened "on the protection of Iraq's cultural heritage as an integral element for the country's security."
"I condemn this as a deliberate attack against Iraq's millennial history and culture, and as an inflammatory incitement to violence and hatred," Bokova said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "ISIS kills 15 Assyrian Christians, charity reports" by Ed West, Catholic Herald 2/26/15
Aid to the Church in Need reported that the Islamist group murdered a number of Assyrians it took from Hassake governorate in Syria.
Abbot Emanuel Youkhana passed on the news to various Catholic agencies working in the area, and said the number still being held totalled 350.
The charity reports that another source claimed that people in the Sunni Arab village of Bab Alfaraj have been told to attend “a mass killing of infidels” at Mount Abdul Aziz tomorrow.
There are no families left in the 35 Assyrian Christian villages of the area. The only people left in the region are Christian militia fighters who are fighting alongside Kurdish troops
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "ISIS kills 15 Christian hostages in Syria, beheads woman" posted at ANSAmed 2/26/15
The news was given by Archimandrite Emanuel Youkhana to the Catholic organization Aid to the Church in Need on Thursday. . . . One woman was beheaded in the village Tel Hormidz and two men were shot to death. There is no information at the moment on how the other 12 were killed. Youkhana added that the number of those known to have been taken hostage had risen to about 350. In addition to the hundreds previously reported, some 80 inhabitants from the Tel Jazira village, 21 from Tel Gouran, 5 from Tel Feytha and 3 from Qabir Shamiya have been taken. Almost all are being held in the Sunni Muslim village Um Al-Masamier.
. . . One source has said that a mass execution is being planned for Friday, February 27, in the mosque of Bab Alfaraj, a Sunni village in the area. There has been no confirmation of the news.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Islamic 'Call to Prayer' at National Cathedral in Washington D.C.
And read Florida School Teaches Islam Including Prayer Rugs
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Limiting Births Fails to Save Earth: Gov't Report
A new study from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which receives 85% of its funding from President Obama's federal government agencies, has concluded that even a world-wide one-child policy for population control is not enough. The Academy's environmentalists, concerned that humans are destroying the planet, also determined that even massive deaths from cataclysmic events such as nuclear war and unprecedented pandemics would not succeed in saving the non-human life of the Earth.
Obama White House Says Lower Birth Rates Will Lower Costs
Obama White House Advises 'Green' Abortions
Hillary Clinton Agrees 'Family Planning' Critical vs. Climate Change
Vice President Biden Sees Need for China's One-Child Policy
World Health Organization: Earth's Enemy is Too Many Babies
Green Abortions: Hospitals Burning Babies for Heat
Also read Environmentalists Say Trade Babies For Climate Change
-- From "Restricting Population Growth May not solve Environment Issues" by Felix Balthasar, Maine News 10/28/14
According to a new study, controlling population growth will not solve global issues of sustainability in the short term. The study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences stated that if the world follows one-child policy, then the number of people in 2100 remained around current levels.
The study also reported that even if a catastrophic event in the future kills billions of people, it would have a little effect on the overall impact. According to the study, in 2100, there will be about 12 billion people on the earth.
The authors of the study stated that about 14% of all the humans who ever existed on the earth were alive today. Growth in population means an impact on the environment than ever. In near future, humans will have to face problems like conversion of forests for agriculture, climate change, pollution and rise of urbanization.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Culling The Population Is Not A Realistic Environmental Solution" by News Staff, posted at Science 2.0 10/27/14
In the 1960s and '70s, population bomb reality was said to be as settled as climate change is today. No less than Dr. John Holdren, current Obama administration Science Czar, co-authored a book called Ecoscience, which argued that forced sterilization and mass abortions might be necessary, and even viable under the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
And older people today still think population is the problem, though since food and energy are not major issues, they argue culling humanity might be necessary to save the environment. New multi-scenario modeling of world human population has concluded that even mandatory sterilization or abortions or a mass kill-off would not bring about large enough change to solve issues of global sustainability as they are portrayed. So World War III won't save the planet.
Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, ecologists Professor Corey Bradshaw and Professor Barry Brook from the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute say instead that we should focus on policies and technologies that reverse rising consumption of natural resources and enhance recycling for more immediate sustainability gains.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Reducing population is no environmental 'quick fix'" posted at Eureka! Science News 10/28/14
New multi-scenario modelling of world human population has concluded that even stringent fertility restrictions or a catastrophic mass mortality would not bring about large enough change this century to solve issues of global sustainability. . . .
Fertility reduction efforts, however, through increased family-planning assistance and education, should still be pursued, as this will lead to hundreds of millions fewer people to feed by mid-century.
The researchers constructed nine different scenarios for continuing population ranging from "business as usual" through various fertility reductions, to highly unlikely broad-scale catastrophes resulting in billions of deaths.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Population controls 'will not solve environment issues'" by Matt McGrath, Environment Correspondent, BBC News 10/27/14
The picture is complicated by the fact that while the overall [worldwide population] figures have been growing, the world's per-capita fertility has been declining for several decades.
"We've gone past the point where we can do it easily, just by the sheer magnitude of the population, what we call the demographic momentum. We just can't stop it fast enough," said Prof Corey Bradshaw from the University of Adelaide.
In their paper, the researchers also look at the impact on numbers of a global catastrophe in the middle of this century. They found that even an event that wiped out two billion people would still leave about eight and a half billion in 2100.
"Our work reveals that effective family planning and reproduction education worldwide have great potential to constrain the size of the human population and alleviate pressure on resource availability over the longer term," said Prof Barry Brook from the University of Tasmania.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Humanity's 'inexorable' population growth is so rapid that even a global catastrophe would not stop it" by Steve Connor, Science Editor, UK Independent 10/27/14
Two prominent ecologists, who normally study animal populations in the wild, have concluded that the number of people in the world today will present one of the most daunting problems for sustainable living on the planet in the coming century – even if every country adopts a draconian “one child” policy.
Professor Bradshaw told The Independent that the study was designed to look at human numbers with the insight of an ecologist studying natural impacts on animals to determine whether factors such pandemics and world wars could dramatically influence the population projections.
Simon Ross, the chief executive of the charity Population Matters, said that introducing modern family planning to the developing world would cost less than $4bn – about one third of the UK’s annual aid budget.
“So, while fertility reduction is not a quick fix, it is relatively cheap, reliable, and popular with most, with generally positive side effects. We welcome the recognition of the potential of family planning and reproductive education to alleviate resource availability in the longer term,” Mr Ross said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below to read more background articles:
Where Liberalism Flourishes, Population Diminishes
Utopian Dream Shattered by Reality of Birth Rate
Plants' & Animals' Civil Rights - Antihumanism
Environmentalism is the Greatest Threat to Civilization
Also read how low birth rates cause European nationalities to fear that they will cease to exist, especially Russia and even Germany.
“We were surprised that a five-year WWIII scenario mimicking the same proportion of people killed in the First World War and Second World War combined, barely registered a blip on the human population trajectory this century.”For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:
-- Professor Barry Brook, Ecologist, University of Adelaide
Obama White House Says Lower Birth Rates Will Lower Costs
Obama White House Advises 'Green' Abortions
Hillary Clinton Agrees 'Family Planning' Critical vs. Climate Change
Vice President Biden Sees Need for China's One-Child Policy
World Health Organization: Earth's Enemy is Too Many Babies
Green Abortions: Hospitals Burning Babies for Heat
Also read Environmentalists Say Trade Babies For Climate Change
-- From "Restricting Population Growth May not solve Environment Issues" by Felix Balthasar, Maine News 10/28/14
According to a new study, controlling population growth will not solve global issues of sustainability in the short term. The study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences stated that if the world follows one-child policy, then the number of people in 2100 remained around current levels.
The study also reported that even if a catastrophic event in the future kills billions of people, it would have a little effect on the overall impact. According to the study, in 2100, there will be about 12 billion people on the earth.
The authors of the study stated that about 14% of all the humans who ever existed on the earth were alive today. Growth in population means an impact on the environment than ever. In near future, humans will have to face problems like conversion of forests for agriculture, climate change, pollution and rise of urbanization.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Culling The Population Is Not A Realistic Environmental Solution" by News Staff, posted at Science 2.0 10/27/14
In the 1960s and '70s, population bomb reality was said to be as settled as climate change is today. No less than Dr. John Holdren, current Obama administration Science Czar, co-authored a book called Ecoscience, which argued that forced sterilization and mass abortions might be necessary, and even viable under the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
And older people today still think population is the problem, though since food and energy are not major issues, they argue culling humanity might be necessary to save the environment. New multi-scenario modeling of world human population has concluded that even mandatory sterilization or abortions or a mass kill-off would not bring about large enough change to solve issues of global sustainability as they are portrayed. So World War III won't save the planet.
Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, ecologists Professor Corey Bradshaw and Professor Barry Brook from the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute say instead that we should focus on policies and technologies that reverse rising consumption of natural resources and enhance recycling for more immediate sustainability gains.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Reducing population is no environmental 'quick fix'" posted at Eureka! Science News 10/28/14
New multi-scenario modelling of world human population has concluded that even stringent fertility restrictions or a catastrophic mass mortality would not bring about large enough change this century to solve issues of global sustainability. . . .
Fertility reduction efforts, however, through increased family-planning assistance and education, should still be pursued, as this will lead to hundreds of millions fewer people to feed by mid-century.
The researchers constructed nine different scenarios for continuing population ranging from "business as usual" through various fertility reductions, to highly unlikely broad-scale catastrophes resulting in billions of deaths.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Population controls 'will not solve environment issues'" by Matt McGrath, Environment Correspondent, BBC News 10/27/14
The picture is complicated by the fact that while the overall [worldwide population] figures have been growing, the world's per-capita fertility has been declining for several decades.
"We've gone past the point where we can do it easily, just by the sheer magnitude of the population, what we call the demographic momentum. We just can't stop it fast enough," said Prof Corey Bradshaw from the University of Adelaide.
In their paper, the researchers also look at the impact on numbers of a global catastrophe in the middle of this century. They found that even an event that wiped out two billion people would still leave about eight and a half billion in 2100.
"Our work reveals that effective family planning and reproduction education worldwide have great potential to constrain the size of the human population and alleviate pressure on resource availability over the longer term," said Prof Barry Brook from the University of Tasmania.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Humanity's 'inexorable' population growth is so rapid that even a global catastrophe would not stop it" by Steve Connor, Science Editor, UK Independent 10/27/14
Two prominent ecologists, who normally study animal populations in the wild, have concluded that the number of people in the world today will present one of the most daunting problems for sustainable living on the planet in the coming century – even if every country adopts a draconian “one child” policy.
Professor Bradshaw told The Independent that the study was designed to look at human numbers with the insight of an ecologist studying natural impacts on animals to determine whether factors such pandemics and world wars could dramatically influence the population projections.
Simon Ross, the chief executive of the charity Population Matters, said that introducing modern family planning to the developing world would cost less than $4bn – about one third of the UK’s annual aid budget.
“So, while fertility reduction is not a quick fix, it is relatively cheap, reliable, and popular with most, with generally positive side effects. We welcome the recognition of the potential of family planning and reproductive education to alleviate resource availability in the longer term,” Mr Ross said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below to read more background articles:
Where Liberalism Flourishes, Population Diminishes
Utopian Dream Shattered by Reality of Birth Rate
Plants' & Animals' Civil Rights - Antihumanism
Environmentalism is the Greatest Threat to Civilization
Also read how low birth rates cause European nationalities to fear that they will cease to exist, especially Russia and even Germany.
Wednesday, December 04, 2013
Chimps Like Black Slaves: Animal Rights Lawsuit
Chimpanzees are being enslaved against their will according to multiple lawsuits filed in New York that use the same legal arguments made to free black slaves prior to the Civil War.
In addition, read 'Planet of the Apes' Possible, Warn Scientists
-- From "Group Seeks ‘Legal Personhood’ Status For Chimpanzees" by The Associated Press and CBSNewYork 12/3/13
Nonhuman Rights Project, an animal rights group . . . is asking New York courts to recognize scientific evidence of emotional and cognitive abilities in chimpanzees and to grant the animals “legal personhood” so that they are ensured better treatment. The activists argue that the chimps are not things to be possessed and caged by people and should be released from “illegal detention.”
“In this case, we are claiming that chimpanzees are autonomous,” said Massachusetts lawyer Steven Wise, the founder of the Nonhuman Rights Project. “That is, being able to self-determine, be self-aware, and be able to choose how to live their own lives.”
The national group says it is dedicated to changing the common law status of some species other than humans. . .
If the lawsuits succeed, similar ones could eventually be filed on behalf of other species considered autonomous, such as gorillas, orangutans, whales, dolphins and elephants, Wise said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "New York lawsuit seeks 'legal personhood' for chimpanzees" by Bernard Vaughan and Daniel Wiessner, Reuters 12/3/13
The lawsuit states that chimps are entitled to a "fundamental right to bodily liberty," which Wise told Reuters is the basic right to be left alone and not held for entertainment or research.
The lawsuit was filed at "the earliest point at which we have some reasonable chance at winning," said Wise, a well-known animal rights activist and author of books including the 2000 title "Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals."
"These are the first cases in an open-ended, strategic litigation campaign," he said. "We're just going to keep filing suits."
Nonhuman Rights Project in 2007 began a nationwide search for an optimal venue to file the lawsuits, Wise said. New York was ultimately chosen because of its generally flexible view of requests for a writ of habeas corpus, the centuries-old right in English law to challenge unlawful detention, he said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Chimps should be recognized as 'legal persons,' lawsuits claim" by Holly Yan and Mayra Cuevas, CNN 12/3/13
"To be a 'legal person,' one doesn't need to be a human being or even a biological being. A corporation is a legal person," wrote Joyce Tischler, co-founder of the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
Even if the chimpanzees don't understand what a lawsuit is, they benefit from being directly represented, she said.
"We see that in children. They can be removed from an abusive home and be protected, even though the child might not be able to formulate those desires and the issues represented in the court of law," Tischler told CNN.
"Lawsuits have to address a real problem faced by an individual plaintiff. You cannot sue on behalf of all animals everywhere," Tischler said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Suit champions chimp's right to not be held as a pet" by Donna Leinwand Leger, USA TODAY 12/2/13
Tommy [the chimp], who lives with a couple who have a reindeer farm in Gloversville, N.Y., is illegally imprisoned and under New York law has the right to live a more "chimpanzee-like" life at a sanctuary, says attorney Steven Wise, president of the Nonhuman Rights Project.
The lawsuit accuses Patrick and Diane Lavery of holding Tommy, a 26-year-old chimp, captive. The Laverys are "detaining Tommy in solitary confinement in a small, dank, cement cage in a cavernous dark shed" at their property, the lawsuit says.
Chimpanzees can make choices and, like humans, have an interest in freedom to live as they wish, Wise says. "It would seem exceedingly unlikely that any chimpanzee would choose to live life in a cave."
The cage in New York where Tommy now lives exceeds federal and state standards and is inspected every year . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Courts Should Reject Chimp Habeas Corpus!" by Wesley J. Smith, National Review Online 12/4/13
This suit furthers the subversive animal rights agenda–known as “animal standing“–which would allow animals to sue their owners and others in court. Of course, the real litigants would be animal rights fanatics who would be using the animals as fronts to further their own ideological agendas.
. . . these lawsuits are a malicious attack on human exceptionalism. A judge ruling that chimps have human-type rights won’t elevate them to our status, it will reduce us to theirs. If this lawsuit carries the day, the predictable and unpredictable deleterious consequences to human wellbeing will be hard to quantify.
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 12/4/14: "Chimpanzees don’t have same rights as humans: court" by Chris Perez, New York Post
“So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties,” a three-judge Appellate Division panel said in a statement obtained by the Associated Press.
“Needless to say, unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions.”
The judges ruled unanimously that chimpanzees are not entitled to the same rights as human beings. Tommy’s owner, Patrick Lavery, was happy with the decision.
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
Also read In Defense of Human Exceptionalism
In addition, read American Trend: Fewer Children, More Animals/Pets
"Not long ago, people generally agreed that human slaves could not be legal persons, but were simply the property of their owners. We will assert, based on clear scientific evidence, that it's time to take the next step and recognize that these non-human animals cannot continue to be exploited as the property of their human owners."For background, read Plants' & Animals' Civil Rights - Antihumanism and also read Austrian Court Considers if Chimpanzee Deserving of “Human Status” as well as Obama Czar Nominee Elevates Animals to Human Stature
-- Attorney Steven Wise, president of Nonhuman Rights Project
In addition, read 'Planet of the Apes' Possible, Warn Scientists
-- From "Group Seeks ‘Legal Personhood’ Status For Chimpanzees" by The Associated Press and CBSNewYork 12/3/13
Nonhuman Rights Project, an animal rights group . . . is asking New York courts to recognize scientific evidence of emotional and cognitive abilities in chimpanzees and to grant the animals “legal personhood” so that they are ensured better treatment. The activists argue that the chimps are not things to be possessed and caged by people and should be released from “illegal detention.”
“In this case, we are claiming that chimpanzees are autonomous,” said Massachusetts lawyer Steven Wise, the founder of the Nonhuman Rights Project. “That is, being able to self-determine, be self-aware, and be able to choose how to live their own lives.”
The national group says it is dedicated to changing the common law status of some species other than humans. . .
If the lawsuits succeed, similar ones could eventually be filed on behalf of other species considered autonomous, such as gorillas, orangutans, whales, dolphins and elephants, Wise said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "New York lawsuit seeks 'legal personhood' for chimpanzees" by Bernard Vaughan and Daniel Wiessner, Reuters 12/3/13
The lawsuit states that chimps are entitled to a "fundamental right to bodily liberty," which Wise told Reuters is the basic right to be left alone and not held for entertainment or research.
The lawsuit was filed at "the earliest point at which we have some reasonable chance at winning," said Wise, a well-known animal rights activist and author of books including the 2000 title "Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals."
"These are the first cases in an open-ended, strategic litigation campaign," he said. "We're just going to keep filing suits."
Nonhuman Rights Project in 2007 began a nationwide search for an optimal venue to file the lawsuits, Wise said. New York was ultimately chosen because of its generally flexible view of requests for a writ of habeas corpus, the centuries-old right in English law to challenge unlawful detention, he said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Chimps should be recognized as 'legal persons,' lawsuits claim" by Holly Yan and Mayra Cuevas, CNN 12/3/13
"To be a 'legal person,' one doesn't need to be a human being or even a biological being. A corporation is a legal person," wrote Joyce Tischler, co-founder of the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
Even if the chimpanzees don't understand what a lawsuit is, they benefit from being directly represented, she said.
"We see that in children. They can be removed from an abusive home and be protected, even though the child might not be able to formulate those desires and the issues represented in the court of law," Tischler told CNN.
"Lawsuits have to address a real problem faced by an individual plaintiff. You cannot sue on behalf of all animals everywhere," Tischler said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Suit champions chimp's right to not be held as a pet" by Donna Leinwand Leger, USA TODAY 12/2/13
Tommy [the chimp], who lives with a couple who have a reindeer farm in Gloversville, N.Y., is illegally imprisoned and under New York law has the right to live a more "chimpanzee-like" life at a sanctuary, says attorney Steven Wise, president of the Nonhuman Rights Project.
The lawsuit accuses Patrick and Diane Lavery of holding Tommy, a 26-year-old chimp, captive. The Laverys are "detaining Tommy in solitary confinement in a small, dank, cement cage in a cavernous dark shed" at their property, the lawsuit says.
Chimpanzees can make choices and, like humans, have an interest in freedom to live as they wish, Wise says. "It would seem exceedingly unlikely that any chimpanzee would choose to live life in a cave."
The cage in New York where Tommy now lives exceeds federal and state standards and is inspected every year . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Courts Should Reject Chimp Habeas Corpus!" by Wesley J. Smith, National Review Online 12/4/13
This suit furthers the subversive animal rights agenda–known as “animal standing“–which would allow animals to sue their owners and others in court. Of course, the real litigants would be animal rights fanatics who would be using the animals as fronts to further their own ideological agendas.
. . . these lawsuits are a malicious attack on human exceptionalism. A judge ruling that chimps have human-type rights won’t elevate them to our status, it will reduce us to theirs. If this lawsuit carries the day, the predictable and unpredictable deleterious consequences to human wellbeing will be hard to quantify.
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 12/4/14: "Chimpanzees don’t have same rights as humans: court" by Chris Perez, New York Post
“So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties,” a three-judge Appellate Division panel said in a statement obtained by the Associated Press.
“Needless to say, unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions.”
The judges ruled unanimously that chimpanzees are not entitled to the same rights as human beings. Tommy’s owner, Patrick Lavery, was happy with the decision.
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
Also read In Defense of Human Exceptionalism
In addition, read American Trend: Fewer Children, More Animals/Pets
Monday, September 16, 2013
Plants' & Animals' Civil Rights - Antihumanism
Environmentalists lay claim to the next civil rights movement . . .
We've seen movements for gay rights, pedophile rights, zoophile rights, Muslim rights and more, but now it's people fighting for those who can't fight for their own rights: plants and animals.
-- From "Natural wonder" posted at Denver Westword News 9/12/13
On Wednesday, September 18, the [Boulder County] planning commission will listen to a presentation from staff and ponder whether to include a statement in the comprehensive plan declaring that "Boulder County acknowledges the rights of all naturally occurring ecosystems and their native species populations to exist and flourish."
Whether or not it's approved, the proposed language signals that the Rights of Nature movement has landed in Colorado, complete with website and Facebook page. It's essentially a push by a wide array of environmental activists and thinkers to grant a kind of legal standing to native species; if corporations that promote fracking and other forms of environmental degradation can be granted personhood in the political arena, why can't entire ecosystems have rights, too?
Since 2008, laws that specifically acknowledge such rights have been passed in countries such as Bolivia and Ecuador and more than three dozen U.S. towns and cities. The locals pushing for a similar measure in Boulder include the president of the county's Audubon Society; an attorney whose bio lists "life-long experience in the study of consciousness, nature and the law"; an "ecopsychologist and poet"; and Priscilla Stuckey, author of Kissed by a Fox: And Other Studies of Friendship in Nature.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "For those who want to be together forever, NY says pet cemeteries can bury ashes of humans" by The Associated Press 9/14/13
New regulations will allow New York animal lovers to spend eternity with their pets.
The cemeteries can bury pet owners’ ashes as long as they don’t charge a fee for it and don’t advertise human burial services.
Ed Martin, owner of the 117-year-old Hartsdale Pet Cemetery in Westchester County, says he gets five or six requests a year from humans who want to have their ashes buried with their pets.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Examining the Cult of Antihumanism" book review by Connie Marshner, National Catholic Register 8/31/13
Robert Zubrin’s book examines the philosophy that underlies one side of the struggle to value human life and dignity.
The first half examines the intellectual origins of antihumanism. The second half examines how the idea underlies current environmentalist policies and documents the compulsory worldwide population control that has been the foundation of U.S. foreign-aid policy since 1965.
Zubrin documents how eugenics is linked to environmentalism. In 1913, the neo-pagan tract Man and Earth, which became the bible of the continental back-to-nature youth movement, “laid out in full the conservationist case against humanity, technological progress, industrial development and advanced agriculture that has played a central role in the environmental movement ever since.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
We've seen movements for gay rights, pedophile rights, zoophile rights, Muslim rights and more, but now it's people fighting for those who can't fight for their own rights: plants and animals.
. . . antihumanism — the belief that people are the problem. As the Club of Rome summarized it in 1974: “The World Has Cancer, and the Cancer Is Man.”For background, read Swiss Government 'Plant Rights' along with Animal Rights and also read American Trend: Fewer Children, More Animals/Pets as well as White House Favors Lower Birth Rate and 'Green Abortions'
-- From "Natural wonder" posted at Denver Westword News 9/12/13
On Wednesday, September 18, the [Boulder County] planning commission will listen to a presentation from staff and ponder whether to include a statement in the comprehensive plan declaring that "Boulder County acknowledges the rights of all naturally occurring ecosystems and their native species populations to exist and flourish."
Whether or not it's approved, the proposed language signals that the Rights of Nature movement has landed in Colorado, complete with website and Facebook page. It's essentially a push by a wide array of environmental activists and thinkers to grant a kind of legal standing to native species; if corporations that promote fracking and other forms of environmental degradation can be granted personhood in the political arena, why can't entire ecosystems have rights, too?
Since 2008, laws that specifically acknowledge such rights have been passed in countries such as Bolivia and Ecuador and more than three dozen U.S. towns and cities. The locals pushing for a similar measure in Boulder include the president of the county's Audubon Society; an attorney whose bio lists "life-long experience in the study of consciousness, nature and the law"; an "ecopsychologist and poet"; and Priscilla Stuckey, author of Kissed by a Fox: And Other Studies of Friendship in Nature.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "For those who want to be together forever, NY says pet cemeteries can bury ashes of humans" by The Associated Press 9/14/13
New regulations will allow New York animal lovers to spend eternity with their pets.
The cemeteries can bury pet owners’ ashes as long as they don’t charge a fee for it and don’t advertise human burial services.
Ed Martin, owner of the 117-year-old Hartsdale Pet Cemetery in Westchester County, says he gets five or six requests a year from humans who want to have their ashes buried with their pets.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Examining the Cult of Antihumanism" book review by Connie Marshner, National Catholic Register 8/31/13
Robert Zubrin’s book examines the philosophy that underlies one side of the struggle to value human life and dignity.
The first half examines the intellectual origins of antihumanism. The second half examines how the idea underlies current environmentalist policies and documents the compulsory worldwide population control that has been the foundation of U.S. foreign-aid policy since 1965.
Zubrin documents how eugenics is linked to environmentalism. In 1913, the neo-pagan tract Man and Earth, which became the bible of the continental back-to-nature youth movement, “laid out in full the conservationist case against humanity, technological progress, industrial development and advanced agriculture that has played a central role in the environmental movement ever since.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, February 02, 2013
American Trend: Fewer Children, More Animals/Pets
The data is known, but few talk about the reality: a world where 97% of its population lives in countries with a declining birth rate; where white, college-educated female Americans have a fertility rate of 1.6 children; and America's total fertility rate is 1.93 -- all less than the replacement rate of 2.1 children per female.
For background, read Fiscal Cliff: Government Says 'Be UNfruitful and Do NOT Multiply' and also read U.S. Teenage Birth Rate Lowest on Record as well as Childless Women: White and More Educated
This doesn't help: Kids are Hazardous to Marriage, Say Liberal Studies
Low birth rates cause European nationalities to fear that they will cease to exist, especially Russia and even Germany.
UPDATE 10/28/14: Limiting Births Fails to Save Earth: Government Report
-- From "Animal Planet: Pets Outnumber Children 4 to 1 in America" by Daniel Halper, The Weekly Standard 2/1/13
In a new book on demographics set to be published next week, Jonathan V. Last writes that pets now outnumber children 4 to 1 in America. The book is titled What to Expect When No One’s Expecting.
“In 1994 Americans spent $1.7 billion on pets; by 2008 that number had risen to $4.3 billion. By 2010, even in the face of a massive recession, it had climbed over $4.8 billion. The evidence suggests that pets are increasingly treated like actual family members: In 1998, the average dog-owning American household spent $383 on medical care for their dogs; by 2006, that figure had risen to $672” [writes Jonathan Last].
“Wealthy dog owners have successfully lobbied for changes in estate law allowing pets to legally receive inheritances and trust funds. A bill put forward in Congress recently called for a $3,500 tax break for pet-care expenses—which is more than families get for a child.”
“[E]ducated, middle-class people have all but stopped having babies,” he writes. “Pets have become fuzzy, low-maintenance replacements for children.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "America's Baby Bust" by Jonathan V. Last, posted at The Wall Street Journal 2/1/13
For two generations we've been lectured about the dangers of overpopulation. But the conventional wisdom on this issue is wrong, twice. First, global population growth is slowing to a halt and will begin to shrink within 60 years. Second, as the work of economists Esther Boserups and Julian Simon demonstrated, growing populations lead to increased innovation and conservation. . . .
Low-fertility societies don't innovate because their incentives for consumption tilt overwhelmingly toward health care. They don't invest aggressively because, with the average age skewing higher, capital shifts to preserving and extending life and then begins drawing down. . . .
If our fertility rate were higher—say 2.5, or even 2.2—many of our problems would be a lot more manageable. But our fertility rate isn't going up any time soon. In fact, it's probably heading lower. Much lower.
There's a constellation of reasons for this decline: Middle-class wages began a long period of stagnation. College became a universal experience for most Americans, which not only pushed people into marrying later but made having children more expensive. Women began attending college in equal (and then greater) numbers than men. More important, women began branching out into careers beyond teaching and nursing. And the combination of the birth-control pill and the rise of cohabitation broke the iron triangle linking sex, marriage and childbearing.
By 1973, the U.S. was below the replacement rate, as was nearly every other Western country. [And not coincidentally, since 1973 a total of 55 million Americans were "terminated" in the womb.]
Immigration has helped make up for America's dropping birth rate.
To read the entire very detailed and lengthy article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Michael Barone: Fewer dollars and babies threaten social programs" by Michael Barone, Senior Political Analyst, The Washington Examiner 2/1/13
When Medicare was established in 1965 and when Social Security was vastly expanded in 1972, America was accustomed to the high birthrates of the posWorld War II baby boom. It was widely assumed that the baby boom generation would soon produce a baby boom of its own.
Oops. The birthrate fell from the peak of 122.7 in 1957 to 68.8 in 1973 and hovered around that level until 2007. The baby boom, it turns out, was an exception to a general rule that people tend to have fewer babies as their societies become more affluent and urbanized.
Birthrates fell sharply during the Depression of the 1930s. They have fallen significantly since the housing collapse, from 69.3 in 2007 to 63.2 in 2011. The steepest decline in births since 2007 has been among Hispanic immigrants, who were also hit hard by housing foreclosures.
Low economic growth or even decline can shape expectations and become a self-fulfilling prophecy. "An economic recovery has begun," Obama said in his inaugural speech last month. The implication: This is all you're going to get.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read 44% of 'Middle America' Births are Out of Wedlock
And then there's the liberals' nightmare: Christians Will Flourish Demographically, Academic Says
Plus, get this: Billionaire Liberal Elites Want Fewer Non-elites Born
For background, read Fiscal Cliff: Government Says 'Be UNfruitful and Do NOT Multiply' and also read U.S. Teenage Birth Rate Lowest on Record as well as Childless Women: White and More Educated
This doesn't help: Kids are Hazardous to Marriage, Say Liberal Studies
Low birth rates cause European nationalities to fear that they will cease to exist, especially Russia and even Germany.
UPDATE 10/28/14: Limiting Births Fails to Save Earth: Government Report
-- From "Animal Planet: Pets Outnumber Children 4 to 1 in America" by Daniel Halper, The Weekly Standard 2/1/13
In a new book on demographics set to be published next week, Jonathan V. Last writes that pets now outnumber children 4 to 1 in America. The book is titled What to Expect When No One’s Expecting.
“In 1994 Americans spent $1.7 billion on pets; by 2008 that number had risen to $4.3 billion. By 2010, even in the face of a massive recession, it had climbed over $4.8 billion. The evidence suggests that pets are increasingly treated like actual family members: In 1998, the average dog-owning American household spent $383 on medical care for their dogs; by 2006, that figure had risen to $672” [writes Jonathan Last].
“Wealthy dog owners have successfully lobbied for changes in estate law allowing pets to legally receive inheritances and trust funds. A bill put forward in Congress recently called for a $3,500 tax break for pet-care expenses—which is more than families get for a child.”
“[E]ducated, middle-class people have all but stopped having babies,” he writes. “Pets have become fuzzy, low-maintenance replacements for children.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "America's Baby Bust" by Jonathan V. Last, posted at The Wall Street Journal 2/1/13
For two generations we've been lectured about the dangers of overpopulation. But the conventional wisdom on this issue is wrong, twice. First, global population growth is slowing to a halt and will begin to shrink within 60 years. Second, as the work of economists Esther Boserups and Julian Simon demonstrated, growing populations lead to increased innovation and conservation. . . .
Low-fertility societies don't innovate because their incentives for consumption tilt overwhelmingly toward health care. They don't invest aggressively because, with the average age skewing higher, capital shifts to preserving and extending life and then begins drawing down. . . .
If our fertility rate were higher—say 2.5, or even 2.2—many of our problems would be a lot more manageable. But our fertility rate isn't going up any time soon. In fact, it's probably heading lower. Much lower.
By 1973, the U.S. was below the replacement rate, as was nearly every other Western country. [And not coincidentally, since 1973 a total of 55 million Americans were "terminated" in the womb.]
Immigration has helped make up for America's dropping birth rate.
To read the entire very detailed and lengthy article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Michael Barone: Fewer dollars and babies threaten social programs" by Michael Barone, Senior Political Analyst, The Washington Examiner 2/1/13
When Medicare was established in 1965 and when Social Security was vastly expanded in 1972, America was accustomed to the high birthrates of the posWorld War II baby boom. It was widely assumed that the baby boom generation would soon produce a baby boom of its own.
Oops. The birthrate fell from the peak of 122.7 in 1957 to 68.8 in 1973 and hovered around that level until 2007. The baby boom, it turns out, was an exception to a general rule that people tend to have fewer babies as their societies become more affluent and urbanized.
Birthrates fell sharply during the Depression of the 1930s. They have fallen significantly since the housing collapse, from 69.3 in 2007 to 63.2 in 2011. The steepest decline in births since 2007 has been among Hispanic immigrants, who were also hit hard by housing foreclosures.
Low economic growth or even decline can shape expectations and become a self-fulfilling prophecy. "An economic recovery has begun," Obama said in his inaugural speech last month. The implication: This is all you're going to get.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read 44% of 'Middle America' Births are Out of Wedlock
And then there's the liberals' nightmare: Christians Will Flourish Demographically, Academic Says
Plus, get this: Billionaire Liberal Elites Want Fewer Non-elites Born
Saturday, March 03, 2012
To Cut Costs, Lower Birth Rate, Says White House
ObamaCare will lower health care costs by pushing "free" contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilizations to reduce births, according to congressional testimony by President Obama's Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
For years, Obama's troops have been touting population control to combat "global warming."
For background, read White House Advises 'Green' Abortions and also read U.S. Census Shows Fewer Children; Birthrate Below Replacement as well as Sex on the Rise, Procreation in Decline
UPDATE 10/28/14: Limiting Births Fails to Save Earth: Government Report
UPDATE 9/16/14: ObamaCare Lies: Study Shows Abortion Covered by Taxpayers
UPDATE 5/14/14: Utopian Dream Shattered by Reality of Birth Rate
UPDATE 3/7/12: ObamaCare “health dictator” could lead to a government-mandated childbirth policy -- a.k.a. "birth panels"
-- From "Sebelius: Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate" by Fred Lucas, CNSNews.com 3/1/12
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a House panel Thursday that a reduction in the number of human beings born in the United States will compensate employers and insurers for the cost of complying with the new HHS mandate that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions.
“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for cost of contraception,” Sebelius answered.
“So you are saying, by not having babies born, we are going to save money on health care?” [Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) responded.]
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Sebelius: Fewer Babies Born Will Save Health Care Costs" by Andrew Bair, LifeNews.com 3/1/12
The same statutory authority of the Administration to mandate contraception could just as easily mandate abortion on demand. The Administration believes in essence that employers are not really paying for contraceptives or abortion since they would be cheaper than providing for prenatal care, childbirth or child care.
As a means of cutting costs under Obamacare, the Secretary of HHS has the authority to mandate coverage of anything he or she adds to a “preventive services” list. The recent HHS edict was the result of contraception being added to that list. Because the list is fluid and left solely to the whim of the Administration, there is no statute preventing an abortion mandate.
Certainly abortion coverage is the next logical step.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Activist Asserts Contraceptives for ‘Women and Girls’ Will Reduce Carbon Emissions" by Penny Starr, CNSNews.com 2/27/12
Giving women and girls access to contraceptives is good for them and it's also good for the planet, activist Kavita Ramdas said at a discussion about “women’s health” and “climate adaptation” at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington, D.C. on Monday.
Ramdas said the studies – “The World Population Prospects and Unmet Need for Family Planning” by the Futures Group, and “Global Demographic Trends and Future Carbon Emissions” by the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis – “demonstrate that giving women and girls access to contraception offers a precious co-benefit: a substantial reduction in carbon emissions.”
At Monday’s discussion, which included Daniel Schensul, a “technical specialist” with the climate change, population and development branch of the United Nations Population Fund, Ramdas said educating women around the world is no longer about the stereotypical “12-year-old in pigtails” in a classroom, but should include sex education.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
For further background, read ObamaCare Stakes Ground in War on Christianity
Also read this column in the Washington Post arguing that large families are "archaic."
For years, Obama's troops have been touting population control to combat "global warming."
For background, read White House Advises 'Green' Abortions and also read U.S. Census Shows Fewer Children; Birthrate Below Replacement as well as Sex on the Rise, Procreation in Decline
UPDATE 10/28/14: Limiting Births Fails to Save Earth: Government Report
UPDATE 9/16/14: ObamaCare Lies: Study Shows Abortion Covered by Taxpayers
UPDATE 5/14/14: Utopian Dream Shattered by Reality of Birth Rate
UPDATE 3/7/12: ObamaCare “health dictator” could lead to a government-mandated childbirth policy -- a.k.a. "birth panels"
-- From "Sebelius: Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate" by Fred Lucas, CNSNews.com 3/1/12
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a House panel Thursday that a reduction in the number of human beings born in the United States will compensate employers and insurers for the cost of complying with the new HHS mandate that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions.
“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for cost of contraception,” Sebelius answered.
“So you are saying, by not having babies born, we are going to save money on health care?” [Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) responded.]
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Sebelius: Fewer Babies Born Will Save Health Care Costs" by Andrew Bair, LifeNews.com 3/1/12
The same statutory authority of the Administration to mandate contraception could just as easily mandate abortion on demand. The Administration believes in essence that employers are not really paying for contraceptives or abortion since they would be cheaper than providing for prenatal care, childbirth or child care.
As a means of cutting costs under Obamacare, the Secretary of HHS has the authority to mandate coverage of anything he or she adds to a “preventive services” list. The recent HHS edict was the result of contraception being added to that list. Because the list is fluid and left solely to the whim of the Administration, there is no statute preventing an abortion mandate.
Certainly abortion coverage is the next logical step.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Activist Asserts Contraceptives for ‘Women and Girls’ Will Reduce Carbon Emissions" by Penny Starr, CNSNews.com 2/27/12
Giving women and girls access to contraceptives is good for them and it's also good for the planet, activist Kavita Ramdas said at a discussion about “women’s health” and “climate adaptation” at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington, D.C. on Monday.
Ramdas said the studies – “The World Population Prospects and Unmet Need for Family Planning” by the Futures Group, and “Global Demographic Trends and Future Carbon Emissions” by the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis – “demonstrate that giving women and girls access to contraception offers a precious co-benefit: a substantial reduction in carbon emissions.”
At Monday’s discussion, which included Daniel Schensul, a “technical specialist” with the climate change, population and development branch of the United Nations Population Fund, Ramdas said educating women around the world is no longer about the stereotypical “12-year-old in pigtails” in a classroom, but should include sex education.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
For further background, read ObamaCare Stakes Ground in War on Christianity
Also read this column in the Washington Post arguing that large families are "archaic."
Monday, March 07, 2011
Evolutionist: 'Original Sin' is Creation of Man
A Nobel Prize winner is warning that the forces of natural selection in evolution instilled mankind with an innate "original sin" that – if not overcome – may lead to humanity's extinction.
-- From "Nobel winner: Natural selection threatens humanity's future" by Clint Witchalls, posted at CBS News 2/28/11
"Natural selection has resulted in traits such as group selfishness being coded in our genes," said Christian de Duve the co-winner of the Nobel prize for his research into cellular structure. In a Q & A with NewScientist, de Duve, who is a professor emeritus at the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium and at Rockefeller University in New York, argues that those same traits which once helped ensure the survival of the species have fostered a sort of "here today, damn tomorrow" myopia that threatens our very future.
"These [traits] were useful to our ancestors under the conditions in which they lived, but have become noxious to us today. What would help us preserve our natural resources are genetic traits that let us sacrifice the present for the sake of the future. You need wisdom to sacrifice something that is immediately useful or advantageous for the sake of something that will be important in the future. Natural selection doesn't do that; it looks only at what is happening today. It doesn't care about your grandchildren or grandchildren's grandchildren."
To read the entire interview above, CLICK HERE.
From "Nobel scientist has new spin on 'original sin'" by Drew Zahn © 2011 WorldNetDaily 3/5/11
De Duve has written a book, "Genetics of Original Sin," in which he explains how he sees the intersection of his theories with the Bible.
"I believe that the writers of Genesis had detected the inherent selfishness in human nature that I propose is in our genes," he told NewScientist, "and invented the myth of original sin to account for it."
. . . while the Bible prescribes redemption and regeneration of the human heart through Jesus Christ as the solution to mankind's inherent selfishness, de Duve proposes another answer: population control.
"It is a simple matter of figures," he says. "If you want this planet to continue being habitable for everyone that lives here, you have to limit the number of inhabitants.
"Hunters do it by killing off the old or sick animals in a herd, but I don't think that's a very ethical way of limiting the population," he continues. "So what remains? Birth control. We have access to practical, ethical and scientifically established methods of birth control. So I think that is the most ethical way to reduce our population."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Nobel winner: Natural selection threatens humanity's future" by Clint Witchalls, posted at CBS News 2/28/11
"Natural selection has resulted in traits such as group selfishness being coded in our genes," said Christian de Duve the co-winner of the Nobel prize for his research into cellular structure. In a Q & A with NewScientist, de Duve, who is a professor emeritus at the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium and at Rockefeller University in New York, argues that those same traits which once helped ensure the survival of the species have fostered a sort of "here today, damn tomorrow" myopia that threatens our very future.
"These [traits] were useful to our ancestors under the conditions in which they lived, but have become noxious to us today. What would help us preserve our natural resources are genetic traits that let us sacrifice the present for the sake of the future. You need wisdom to sacrifice something that is immediately useful or advantageous for the sake of something that will be important in the future. Natural selection doesn't do that; it looks only at what is happening today. It doesn't care about your grandchildren or grandchildren's grandchildren."
To read the entire interview above, CLICK HERE.
From "Nobel scientist has new spin on 'original sin'" by Drew Zahn © 2011 WorldNetDaily 3/5/11
De Duve has written a book, "Genetics of Original Sin," in which he explains how he sees the intersection of his theories with the Bible.
"I believe that the writers of Genesis had detected the inherent selfishness in human nature that I propose is in our genes," he told NewScientist, "and invented the myth of original sin to account for it."
. . . while the Bible prescribes redemption and regeneration of the human heart through Jesus Christ as the solution to mankind's inherent selfishness, de Duve proposes another answer: population control.
"It is a simple matter of figures," he says. "If you want this planet to continue being habitable for everyone that lives here, you have to limit the number of inhabitants.
"Hunters do it by killing off the old or sick animals in a herd, but I don't think that's a very ethical way of limiting the population," he continues. "So what remains? Birth control. We have access to practical, ethical and scientifically established methods of birth control. So I think that is the most ethical way to reduce our population."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Getting Hot? Condoms will Cool the Earth, says U.N.
The battle against global warming could be helped if the world slowed population growth by making free condoms and family planning advice more widely available, the U.N. Population Fund said Wednesday.
-- From "Fight Climate Change With Free Condoms, U.N. Population Fund Says" by Maria Cheng, Associated Press 11/18/09
The agency did not recommend countries set limits on how many children people should have, but said: "Women with access to reproductive health services ... have lower fertility rates that contribute to slower growth in greenhouse gas emissions."
The U.N. Population Fund acknowledged it had no proof of the effect that population control would have on climate change. "The linkages between population and climate change are in most cases complex and indirect," the report said.
On Wednesday, one analyst criticized the U.N. Population Fund's pronouncements as alarmist and unhelpful.
"It requires a major leap of imagination to believe that free condoms will cool down the climate," said Caroline Boin, a policy analyst at International Policy Network, a London-based think tank.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Also read the never-ending calls to limit procreation (follow embedded links).
-- From "Fight Climate Change With Free Condoms, U.N. Population Fund Says" by Maria Cheng, Associated Press 11/18/09
The agency did not recommend countries set limits on how many children people should have, but said: "Women with access to reproductive health services ... have lower fertility rates that contribute to slower growth in greenhouse gas emissions."
The U.N. Population Fund acknowledged it had no proof of the effect that population control would have on climate change. "The linkages between population and climate change are in most cases complex and indirect," the report said.
On Wednesday, one analyst criticized the U.N. Population Fund's pronouncements as alarmist and unhelpful.
"It requires a major leap of imagination to believe that free condoms will cool down the climate," said Caroline Boin, a policy analyst at International Policy Network, a London-based think tank.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Also read the never-ending calls to limit procreation (follow embedded links).
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
New York Times Reporter: Cap-And-Trade For Babies?
" . . . probably the single most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the light or driving a Prius, it's having fewer kids, having fewer children."
UPDATE 12/11/09: Copenhagen Hears Birth Control Solution to Climate Change
-- From "Cap-And-Trade For Babies?" posted at Investor's Business Daily 10/19/2009
It's long been a mantra on the left that people are a plague on the earth, ravaging its surface for food and resources, polluting its atmosphere and endangering its species. Now we are endangering its very climate to the point of extinction. Even the result of our breathing — carbon dioxide — has been declared by the EPA to be a dangerous pollutant.
New York Times environmental writer Andrew Revkin participated in an Oct. 14 panel discussion on climate change with other media pundits titled "Covering Climate: What's Population Got To Do With It?" People who need people they are not.
Participating via Web cam, Revkin volunteered that in allocating carbon credits as part of any cap-and-trade scheme, "if you can measurably somehow divert fertility rate, say toward accelerating decline in a place with a high fertility rate, shouldn't there be a carbon value to that?"
"More children equal more carbon dioxide emissions," Rivkin has blogged, wondering "whether this means we'll soon see a market in baby-avoidance carbon credits similar to efforts to sell CO2 credits for avoiding deforestation." Save the trees, not the children.
Rivkin's views are unfortunately shared by people with power and influence. Jonathon Porritt, chairman of Britain's Sustainable Development Commission, believes that "having more than two children is irresponsible" and that people should "connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint."
This brave new world is not too far-fetched for science adviser John Holdren, who has advised taking population control to quite another level. He has at various times advocated forced abortion and sterilization and views people as a burden, not as the ultimate resource, as we do.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 12/11/09: Copenhagen Hears Birth Control Solution to Climate Change
-- From "Cap-And-Trade For Babies?" posted at Investor's Business Daily 10/19/2009
It's long been a mantra on the left that people are a plague on the earth, ravaging its surface for food and resources, polluting its atmosphere and endangering its species. Now we are endangering its very climate to the point of extinction. Even the result of our breathing — carbon dioxide — has been declared by the EPA to be a dangerous pollutant.
New York Times environmental writer Andrew Revkin participated in an Oct. 14 panel discussion on climate change with other media pundits titled "Covering Climate: What's Population Got To Do With It?" People who need people they are not.
Participating via Web cam, Revkin volunteered that in allocating carbon credits as part of any cap-and-trade scheme, "if you can measurably somehow divert fertility rate, say toward accelerating decline in a place with a high fertility rate, shouldn't there be a carbon value to that?"
"More children equal more carbon dioxide emissions," Rivkin has blogged, wondering "whether this means we'll soon see a market in baby-avoidance carbon credits similar to efforts to sell CO2 credits for avoiding deforestation." Save the trees, not the children.
Rivkin's views are unfortunately shared by people with power and influence. Jonathon Porritt, chairman of Britain's Sustainable Development Commission, believes that "having more than two children is irresponsible" and that people should "connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint."
This brave new world is not too far-fetched for science adviser John Holdren, who has advised taking population control to quite another level. He has at various times advocated forced abortion and sterilization and views people as a burden, not as the ultimate resource, as we do.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Obama White House Advises 'Green' Abortions
President Obama's science czar, John Holdren: "Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying."
UPDATE 1/23/14: President Obama Praises Abortion on Roe 41st Anniversary
UPDATE 1/28/14: Secret ObamaCare Abortion Fees Make President Obama a Liar
UPDATE 4/27/13: President Obama Asks God to Bless Planned Parenthood
UPDATE 4/2/12: President Obama Makes New Promise to Fund Killing Babies
UPDATE 3/3/12: To Cut Costs, Lower Birth Rate, Says White House
-- From "Obama science chief: Abortion can save planet" by Jerome R. Corsi © 2009 WorldNetDaily 9/21/09
Despite the claims of some media watchdogs, President Obama's science czar contended in a textbook he co-authored that involuntary birth-control measures, including forced sterilization, may be necessary and morally acceptable under certain conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by "climate change."
[Holdren's textbook "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment"], last revised in a 1977 edition, was co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich and Ehrlich's wife, Anne.
The authors also advocated abortion as an acceptable form of population control and proposed that the best survival strategy for a pregnant woman is to abort her baby.
"When performed today under appropriate medical circumstances by a qualified physician … abortion is much safer than a full-term pregnancy," Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote.
Instead of publishing a new edition now that Holdren has risen to the position of White House science czar, Holdren and his White House supporters have tried to distance him from the views expressed in the book, arguing it is now more than three decades old.
Moreover, a statement released by the White House argued that while the textbook discussed compulsory methods of population control, including forced abortion and sterilization, the Ehrlichs and Holdren never advocated involuntary birth control but preferred milder, voluntary population control measures.
A close reading of "Ecoscience," however, shows the authors clearly stated their acceptance of abortion as an effective population-control technique.
"An abortion is clearly preferable to adding one more child to an overburdened family or an overburdened society, where the chances that it will realize its potential are slight," Holdren and the Erhlichs argued on page 760 of the 1977 edition of "Ecoscience."
"There is little question that legalized abortion can contribute to a reduction in birth rates," the authors wrote on page 761. "Liberalization of abortion policies in those countries where it is still largely or entirely illegal is therefore justifiable both on humanitarian and health grounds and as an aid to population control."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "GOP Congressmen Say Science ‘Czar’ Should Explain His Views" by Christopher Neefus, CNSNews.com 9/21/09
White House science adviser John Holdren should return to Congress to explain his views, including his notion that a baby that has already been born might “ultimately” become a human being if given the proper resources.
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) told CNSNews.com that the “science czar” should “absolutely” come back to explain his views, and more than a dozen other GOP congressmen nodded in agreement.
Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), co-authored the books “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions” (1973) and “Ecoscience” (1977) with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, renowned population control advocates.
In the former, published by W.H. Freeman Company, Holdren and his coauthors said a born baby might “ultimately develop into a human being.”
In Chapter 8 of the book, called “Population Limitation,” the three argued for legalized abortion as a means of keeping the global population in check. In that context, they wrote: “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.”
The Senate confirmed Holdren for his position in April, but no senators questioned him about his views on when a baby becomes a person.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
The following is an excerpt from many interesting comments by John Holdren -- click here for more from Holdren.
“Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. . . . neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Where the society has a 'compelling, subordinating interest' in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”
Take note of the world-wide chorus: Click here and follow the trail of embedded links.
UPDATE 1/23/14: President Obama Praises Abortion on Roe 41st Anniversary
UPDATE 1/28/14: Secret ObamaCare Abortion Fees Make President Obama a Liar
UPDATE 4/27/13: President Obama Asks God to Bless Planned Parenthood
UPDATE 4/2/12: President Obama Makes New Promise to Fund Killing Babies
UPDATE 3/3/12: To Cut Costs, Lower Birth Rate, Says White House
-- From "Obama science chief: Abortion can save planet" by Jerome R. Corsi © 2009 WorldNetDaily 9/21/09
Despite the claims of some media watchdogs, President Obama's science czar contended in a textbook he co-authored that involuntary birth-control measures, including forced sterilization, may be necessary and morally acceptable under certain conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by "climate change."
[Holdren's textbook "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment"], last revised in a 1977 edition, was co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich and Ehrlich's wife, Anne.
The authors also advocated abortion as an acceptable form of population control and proposed that the best survival strategy for a pregnant woman is to abort her baby.
"When performed today under appropriate medical circumstances by a qualified physician … abortion is much safer than a full-term pregnancy," Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote.
Instead of publishing a new edition now that Holdren has risen to the position of White House science czar, Holdren and his White House supporters have tried to distance him from the views expressed in the book, arguing it is now more than three decades old.
Moreover, a statement released by the White House argued that while the textbook discussed compulsory methods of population control, including forced abortion and sterilization, the Ehrlichs and Holdren never advocated involuntary birth control but preferred milder, voluntary population control measures.
A close reading of "Ecoscience," however, shows the authors clearly stated their acceptance of abortion as an effective population-control technique.
"An abortion is clearly preferable to adding one more child to an overburdened family or an overburdened society, where the chances that it will realize its potential are slight," Holdren and the Erhlichs argued on page 760 of the 1977 edition of "Ecoscience."
"There is little question that legalized abortion can contribute to a reduction in birth rates," the authors wrote on page 761. "Liberalization of abortion policies in those countries where it is still largely or entirely illegal is therefore justifiable both on humanitarian and health grounds and as an aid to population control."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "GOP Congressmen Say Science ‘Czar’ Should Explain His Views" by Christopher Neefus, CNSNews.com 9/21/09
White House science adviser John Holdren should return to Congress to explain his views, including his notion that a baby that has already been born might “ultimately” become a human being if given the proper resources.
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) told CNSNews.com that the “science czar” should “absolutely” come back to explain his views, and more than a dozen other GOP congressmen nodded in agreement.
Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), co-authored the books “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions” (1973) and “Ecoscience” (1977) with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, renowned population control advocates.
In the former, published by W.H. Freeman Company, Holdren and his coauthors said a born baby might “ultimately develop into a human being.”
In Chapter 8 of the book, called “Population Limitation,” the three argued for legalized abortion as a means of keeping the global population in check. In that context, they wrote: “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.”
The Senate confirmed Holdren for his position in April, but no senators questioned him about his views on when a baby becomes a person.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
The following is an excerpt from many interesting comments by John Holdren -- click here for more from Holdren.
“Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. . . . neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Where the society has a 'compelling, subordinating interest' in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”
Take note of the world-wide chorus: Click here and follow the trail of embedded links.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
