A little self-governance for a change would be just what the doctor ordered in the face of Obama and Frieden’s “catastrophic incompetence or prior ideological commitment.”
In the first part I sought to tease out the basis for Dawkins’ claim that what he said “follows logically from the ordinary pro-choice stance.” It is to the reader to decide if my analysis is correct, and if not, what the real basis is. It is important, however, to understand that Dawkins is not …
No one wants to be told that they cannot play with their toy. No one wants to be told that their toy might even be dangerous in certain contexts–like the child that wishes to play baseball in the living room does not like being told to take the baseball bat and ball into the field, where that toy is more appropriate–or, that they shouldn’t bash people in the head with the baseball bat.
Today’s headline on the Drudge Report did not surprise me in the slightest: ABORTED BABIES INCINERATED TO HEAT HOSPITALS The article linked to is this one in the Telegraph: Aborted babies incinerated to heat UK hospitals: The remains of more than 15,000 babies were incinerated as ‘clinical waste’ by hospitals in Britain with some used …
An interesting thing has happened, so rare it might even be deemed a singularity on par with the Big Bang: There will be a debate between a young earth creationist* and an avowed evolutionist. The debate, to be held on Feb. 4th, 2013, is between Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis and Bill Nye… the Science Guy. I attempted to get tickets; they were sold out within just a few minutes. This is indicative of the kind of interest there is in such an event. It is no doubt good publicity for the Creation Museum, but sitting here as a young earth creationist myself, I wish to lodge my (obviously belated) advice to Mr. Ham: cancel the debate.
Limbaugh and others are correct in detecting the eugenics thinking behind this comment but do not go far enough in their explanation. The problem is that a moment’s thought, especially amongst those with only a passing knowledge of the phrase ‘eugenics’, would recall that early 20th century eugenics had essentially embraced Darwin’s formula, “Survival of the fittest.” Given that evolution, as expressed in this maxim, was a raw scientific fact, early eugenicists saw the genetically inferior as a burden on society that needed to be eliminated. So how was Gruber being like a eugenicist if he was targeting the genetically fit?
It may seem hard for some of us to learn that Planned Parenthood submitted abortion on demand as a population control measure, and was even willing to consider compelling women to get abortions, but that is precisely what they did. Whether or not this remains their agenda, of course we’ll never know, because, like the Enemy, they lie.