text:
Rich, White Liberal Announces Plan To Kill Poor People. Audience Applauds
We have, for a long time, discussed just what were Margaret Sanger's intentions in funding pro-abortion organizations: the control and elimination of other races, who are deemed "inferior" and "weaker". This has been Planned Parenthood's, and Leftists', objective, though they do not really tend to be open about this. In a recent climate change townhall, however, Bernie Sanders essentially admitted that that's what he wants to do as President of the United States.
During the townhall, a woman whom CNN identified as a teacher (and this terrifies but doesn't surprise me at the same time) said the following: "Human population growth has more than doubled in the last 50 years; the planet cannot sustain this growth. Empowering women, and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact. Would you (speaking to Sanders) be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?"
Okay, before we get to Sanders' answer (no points for those who can guess it), allow me to address this horrible woman's question. First, while the Earth's population did double in the last 50 years, we have only seen a DECREASE in poverty and NEXT TO NO FAMINES outside of socialist hellholes like Soviet Russia.
We are not overpopulated in the least. As I said in an article from early January of this year, the overpopulation argument stems from the heavily-flawed Malthusian theorem, wherein the theorem suggests that populations increase exponentially while food grows arithmetically, which is far from the truth, even for Malthus' own time.
Ignoring the fact that technology has made it so that a lot more food can be grown by a lot less people (farmers make up less than 2% of the U.S. employment numbers and can still grow enough food to send out not only to the rest of the country, but also other countries that buy our products), the theorem itself is based on pretty much nothing. More people means more food that can be grown.
What's better, having one person growing as much food as he can, or having 100 people grow as much food as they can? If populations increase exponentially, so does food (and we're only talking vegetables here, not even farm animals).
So the idea that we are overpopulated is entirely erroneous. What's worse, however, is the insistence that we must be able to "control" (in other words, eliminate) populations so as to not run out of food. This is what this teacher (and I can't believe she is one, but again, also not entirely surprised) is asking for and this is what Bernie Sanders answered:
"The answer's 'yes'. Women in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies and make reproductive decisions. And the Mexico City agreement – which denies American aid to those organizations around the world that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control – to me is totally absurd. So I think, especially in poor countries around the world where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies and where they can have the opportunity through birth control to control the number of kids they have, it's something I very strongly support."
Now, I have a lot to say about this. First, I find funny how he just feels the need to pander as much as possible. "Women… have the right to control their own bodies and make reproductive decisions." Who exactly gives them that right? It's nowhere in the Constitution, and it's most definitely not in the Bible. Someone doesn't have the right to something just because you say they do (and no, I'm not forgetting about the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade).
Second, notice the emphasis on controlling poor people's populations. HE is the one saying women in poor countries don't "necessarily want to have large numbers of babies". How exactly does he know that? But what's more, why specifically target poor people? Well, to be fair, that one is very much a rhetorical question. Planned Parenthood targets minority neighborhoods, those who are statistically more likely to be poor, regarding where they set up locations and are already controlling their populations. Since 1973, nearly 20 million black babies have been killed in the U.S. That's a little less than half of the current black population in America (at least according to the 2010 census). Planned Parenthood is already systemically controlling the black population of America and now, these Leftists are demanding that we use OUR TAXPAYER MONEY to fund EUGENICS around the world, particularly in poor countries?
Finally, I would simply like to point out a particular word that Bernie used here. Let me write what he said once again: "women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies…" Notice that last word there? This guy fully recognizes that the kind of people he intends to target are babies. When the shooting in Odessa, Texas happened earlier this past week, the Left had been trying to point out how a 17-month-old baby had been injured in the shooting. Tragic as that is, let's not beat around the bush: they do not care about that baby. 17 months earlier, they would argue that it didn't have the right to life and that it wasn't even human. So when is a baby a baby? These people don't answer that because they have no answer. There are those who argue in favor of killing the baby even AFTER it is born, such as current Virginia Governor Ralph "Coonman" Northam.
These people realize very much that what they are killing are human babies. Argue as they might against it, they know these are babies for a FACT. And yet, they argue that it's "women's rights" or "women's liberation" or even that it's "necessary to fight climate change" to kill babies.
My friends, these are not sane people. These are not good people. These people are pagans, sacrificing children to appease a god of their own creation: mother nature. And they think it's perfectly reasonable to do all this, not because it actually is reasonable, but because they have no heart – no soul – to tell them right from wrong.
They support this because they see it as right in their own eyes and not because they believe it is right in God's eyes (and it definitely isn't).
Killing children isn't going to "solve" climate change any more than banning meat or gas-powered cars or whatever communist plan these people shared in that townhall because WE DO NOT CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE AND CANNOT AFFECT IT SIGNIFICANTLY! Everything these people say is going to happen is utter bullcrap. Wanna know why? BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN SAYING THIS SAME CRAP FOR DECADES AND NOTHING OF THE SORT HAS HAPPENED!
The glaciers aren't melting, there isn't a hole in the ozone layer, coastal cities aren't going to get flooded, massive droughts and famines aren't happening and we are not CAUSING CLIMATE CHANGE! In fact, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. hasn't even seen any warming since 2005. And yet, Obama has gone on record pretty much year after year saying how that particular year was the "hottest year to date" as though he had the data of THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE PLANET to back up that claim.
Nothing the Democrats have suggested will do a darn thing to affect climate change because we can't do anything to it. The funny thing, though, is that even if we did have the power to do that, Democrats' plans wouldn't do anything anyway. AOC's former chief of staff said that the GND wasn't about climate change but about changing the economic system of the U.S. Makes sense, considering it costs $93 TRILLION according to some estimates and it would bankrupt us almost immediately, all-the-while giving the government all the power in the world.
But as bad as trying to ban meat might be, to me, an even worse idea is to suggest we start killing people, particularly poor people, to combat climate change. And if you think abortion is as far as they would go, think again. The teacher brought up the question on the basis that THERE ARE ALREADY TOO MANY PEOPLE ON THE PLANET. Abortion would only be the first step, followed by genocide.
This is the sort of thing that has led to people like Hitler to commit massive atrocities like the Holocaust. Only, instead of suggesting to kill all Jews and all non-Aryan people, they are suggesting killing minorities and poor people. First, those who have some sort of disability (as is the case in Europe, where they abort babies who are diagnosed with Down Syndrome), then some sort of illness (illnesses as defined by the state) and then on to poor people and other "undesirables".
Of course, the only people that get to not be killed are the rich, white liberals who think themselves gods. These people are demons in the flesh and they're just getting started laying out the policies of Satan.
Shame on that teacher, shame on the audience who clapped after Bernie gave his answer, shame on Bernie Sanders, shame on the Democrats who agree with him (wouldn't be surprised if that's all of them), and shame on anyone who tries to argue that we, Christians and conservatives, are the evil and intolerant ones.
"Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls."
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week's articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Planned Parenthood Self-Defunds By Prioritizing Abortions Over Title X Services
While Planned Parenthood still, for some reason, receives much more money from the federal government, it took a massive blow this past week when they chose genocide over continuing Title X services, which serve the needs of low-income Americans.
According to The Daily Wire, "The Trump administration had implemented a rule stating that any clinic accepting Title X funds must not refer women to an abortion provider or suggest where to get one." The New York Times added: "The move could affect more than 1.5 million low-income women who rely on Planned Parenthood for services like birth control, pregnancy tests and screening for sexually transmitted diseases."
The good news for those low-income women, of course, is that hospitals and other clinics that are not PP also provide those types of services and comply with Title X rules and regulations set by this administration.
In choosing to stick to mass infanticide, Planned Parenthood will lose $60 million in taxpayer funds. Unfortunately, they make a lot more than that in general, having reported almost $245 million in excess revenue for 2017-18, but this does a couple of things:
1) Planned Parenthood will lose some money, which is always a good thing.
2) Some babies will likely be saved as a result.
3) It further shows Trump to be one of, if not the most pro-life President we have had in ages.
Fox News reported that "Planned Parenthood's pullout followed a June order from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that lifted a nationwide injunction that had prevented the Trump administration from enforcing the new rule. The court's three-judge panel, with two judges appointed by President Trump, is still weighing Planned Parenthood's lawsuit to overturn the rule but has allowed the administration to begin enforcement – a sign that the administration will ultimately win on the merits."
While there is still more work to be done to fully defund Planned Parenthood, this is definitely a step in the right direction to doing that and yet another sign of Trump making and actually keeping the promises he made during the 2015-16 campaign trail.
Following the news, Catherine Glenn Foster, President and CEO of Americans United for Life, told Life News: "It's a great day for women's health in America. Planned Parenthood is America's deadliest nonprofit, and the news that they're refusing to accept taxpayer funds to target vulnerable women is a good thing for women's health. Women deserve the chance to live empowered, full lives that are free from the harms that Planned Parenthood poses through abortion and abortion-focused services. Women who need true healthcare will have their needs met by authentic and eager healthcare providers across America."
And that's another point: Leftists will argue that PP helps with women's healthcare issues like getting mammograms, checkups, pregnancy tests, etc., and as a result, they argue that PP is necessary and good for women, but hospitals, other clinics and even pharmacies provide the same services. Planned Parenthood will use these things as a cover for suggesting that they are women's health providers when they are nothing more than a glorified slaughterhouse. Their main objective, as is clear from pulling out of Title X funding, is abortion. They care nothing of women or their healthcare, but to make money off of women's poor sexual decisions. They take advantage of women, particularly low-income women, who do not feel they are capable of raising a child, and so suggest they get an abortion. That is what Planned Parenthood was doing with their Title X patients and the rule change regarding those kinds of suggestions puts that mission in peril, which is why they chose to forego Title X.
This PROVES they don't care about women's healthcare AT ALL. They only care about taking advantage of vulnerable women and killing as many babies in the womb as they can, seeing as they can make a huge profit off of their blood.
To them, killing children is more important than providing REAL health services to women. Seeing as they reportedly provided over 330,000 abortions in its latest annual report, it's quite obvious that their main trade is the blood of the innocent. No longer can anyone even try and make the claim that Planned Parenthood is about providing women with healthcare. They made their choice here (no pun intended) in choosing abortion over Title X service of low-income women. If they are not allowed to kill poor people's children, they leave. They never cared for the millions of women they serviced. Their only target was the life growing inside the pregnant women.
I imagine Satan is very proud of these child-killers.
Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."
Thank The Lord: British Appeals Court Overturns Forced Abortion Ruling
Late last week, a female British judge "ordered a pregnant woman who reportedly has developmental disabilities and a mood disorder to have an abortion, even though the woman and her mother allegedly strenuously object," reported The Daily Wire.
The Catholic News Agency reported that the pregnant woman in question is 22 weeks pregnant, is described as being "in her twenties", is Catholic with a mother from Nigeria and "has the mental capacity of a grade school-age child," according to The Daily Wire. CNA also said: "The woman's mother, reported to be a former midwife, registered her absolute opposition to the abortion citing the Catholic faith of herself and her daughter."
Justice Nathalie Lieven of the Court of Protection is the one who presided over the ruling and ultimately ordered the abortion, citing: "I am acutely conscious of the fact that for the State to order a woman to have a termination where it appears that she doesn't want it is an immense intrusion… I have to operate in [her] best interests, not on society's views of termination." But wait, there's more. Not only is she a massive hypocrite for taking away the woman's choice on this matter (something that would be considered a cardinal sin for the Left if the ruling had ordered a woman to keep a baby she wouldn't want), but she then goes on to insult the woman's intelligence by saying: "I think she would like to have a baby in the same way she would like to have a nice doll."
So she's not only a massive hypocrite and murderer but she is also deeply insulting of the woman being ordered to kill her own child. Look, I don't know the pregnant woman in question on a personal basis (she is unidentified), but if she is adamantly against the order of aborting her own child, I seriously doubt she considered her own baby to be in any way similar to a "nice doll". I think she understands very well that what she is carrying inside her womb is a baby and that she very much wishes to have said baby and is (or was) heartbroken over the decision from the judge that she had to terminate the baby she wanted to keep.
But rejoice, everyone, as the public outcry that resulted from that decision has led the English Court of Appeals to overturn the original judge's decision.
The Catholic News Agency reports that Lord Justice McCombe, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Peter Jackson overruled the June 21st decision made by Justice Lieven. The original decision reportedly triggered more than 75,000 people to sign a petition from Right to Life UK asking U.K. Health and Social Care Secretary Matthew Hancock to "intervene in this case, so far as possible, to prevent this gross injustice being inflicted by the State on this family and ensure this woman is not forced to have an abortion."
Bishop John Keenan of the Diocese of Paisley also encouraged people to sign the petition, stating the original ruling "introduces a dangerous new development in the overreach of the power of the state over its citizens." Another bishop, Bishop John Sherrington of the Archdiocese of Westminster said: "Forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will, and that of her close family, infringes upon her human rights, not to mention the right of her unborn child to life in a family that has committed to caring for the child. In a free society like ours there is a delicate balance between the rights of the individual and the powers of the state. This is a sad and distressing decision for the whole family whom we keep in our prayers. This case, for which all information is not available, raises serious questions about the meaning of 'best interests' when a patient lacks mental capacity and is subject to the court's decision against her will."
Both bishops are absolutely right. That original decision was a gross overreach by the government, not unlike the Chinese communists, in infringing the rights of a woman. But this is the danger of big government. They get to decide what is in your "best interests" should you reportedly lack the mental capacity to apparently make your own decisions (even though the woman is adamantly explaining she wishes to keep her child). The government gets to decide whether or not your child gets to live if you are deemed not capable, in any way, of taking care of the child, which is seriously moronic. "Well, you see, Karen, you are incapable of making decisions for yourself and would not be able to properly take care of your child, so we're gonna have to kill it for ya, how does that sound?" That's the sort of logic trail people like Lieven (not even going to include her title since there was no justice at all in her decision) use when it comes to abortion: better the baby be killed than it perhaps live a poor life even with the chance to live a good one.
It's not only asinine, it's outright demonic. It's the sort of thing pagan cultures would do on a regular basis: child sacrifice. And like pagan cultures, these pro-abortion people in the government do it to please false gods: themselves.
How is it in the woman's best interests to force her to eliminate a child she wants to keep? May I also remind you of the fact that the woman, among developmental disabilities, also has a mood disorder? Meaning that there is an even greater chance of sending the woman into a deep depression upon forcing her to eliminate her own child. So how exactly is that decision being made in the woman's "best interests"?
The answer, of course, is it's not. It's acting in the government's best interests, as they are the ones who also get paid for the abortion occurring in the first place at one of the government-owned abortion facilities. It's also acting in the government's best interests by setting a precedent for this sort of thing. If the government wishes to eliminate your child for whatever reason and you say no, well there's really nothing you can do because the government would've had this decision as a basis for future decisions. Granted, I highly doubt this is the first time the U.K. government has forced a woman to eliminate her child, but this could've still set a very dangerous precedent moving forward.
Of course, the government, if unchecked, will do whatever it wants regardless of precedent, but it is good that this issue was so widely talked about to the point higher judges in the U.K. legal system had to intervene.
But this is merely a preview for where the Left wishes to take us next. The only reason being "pro-choice" is so popular is because people like having a choice as to what to do. But as we can see from this example, there are plenty of people on the Left who are not "pro-choice" at all if the choice being made is not the "right one" in their minds. You don't get to choose what school to send your kids to, you don't get to choose what politician you want to win elections (*ahem* Google *ahem* the Obama administration *ahem*), you don't get to choose to follow your religious beliefs if it is perceived that they are discriminatory to someone else, and as was the case for this pregnant woman, she did not have the choice to keep her child apparently because she's too stupid, in the mind of the government, to keep her child and live a good and happy life.
These people aren't about choice but dominance. There is a very good reason I said they view themselves as gods in the comparison with pagan cultures who would perform child sacrifices. They see themselves as gods in control of everything and everyone, or at least they believe they ought to be given said control. I've said this before, but it's plenty relevant right now: for people who claim not to believe in God, they sure try hard to be like one.
But thanks be to God that He reigns supreme and the forces of evil could not take the life of an unborn child this time. Thank the Lord that He caused this story to be so widely spread and found so horrid that higher Justices in the U.K. legal system were moved to intervene in this matter. I just hope this serves as a wake-up call for the people of the U.K.: their government has gotten too big for their own good if they can force abortions on women who don't want them.
"But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."
The Claim That Abortion Reduces Crime Is Rooted In Racism, According To Pro-Life Researcher
Yesterday, we looked at an argument the Left often makes about climate change, that man-made climate change causes severe weather events like hurricanes and the like. However, we found that nothing could be further from the truth and there is no actual link between climate change itself and extreme weather. Similarly, the Left makes the argument that abortion reduces crime rates, but that one is not only wrong (and we will see why that is in a moment), but is rooted in racism.
Dr. Brian Clowes is a pro-life researcher working for Human Life International and recently had an interview with LifeSiteNews discussing a research paper by economists John Donohue III and Steven Levitt titled: "The impact of legalized abortion on crime over the last two decades," which is a paper that expands upon a study they published back in 2001 that essentially claimed the same things – that abortion reduces crime rates.
What the economists found is that crime rates dropped after 1973, which is something Clowes acknowledges in the interview. However, he asserts that the reason for this is "not because fewer people were born but because fewer people in the 25-40 age bracket were committing a crime. This was partly due, [Clowes] said, to improved police techniques and a reduction in the widespread use of crack cocaine."
So there are two things to note here. First, older people were committing less crimes at least in part due to improved police techniques, improvements in technology and an overall reduction in the use of hardcore drugs such as cocaine, which really exploded in the 1980s. This much makes sense, as improving police techniques often leads to good results that impact crime rates in a good way.
The second thing to note is the actual age bracket used here: 25-40. Statistician David Murray, whom Clowes cites, confirmed that the majority of crimes committed in the U.S. are by males between the ages of 17 and 25. Both Clowes and Murray assert that if abortion truly did reduce crime rates, the number would have dropped in that age range first, not in older ranges, which is what the economists found.
Back in 2001, when the report was first released by the economists, Murray told Fox News that homicide rates did drop among that age group, but aggravated assault among that age group increased. While I don't exactly have the data, it stands to reason that at least part of the reason for this is an improvement in the medical field to treat wounds that otherwise would've been fatal. And again, police techniques can also be attributed, at least to some extent. The point is that while one type of crime was reduced, a different type, which can often lead to the first type, increased significantly, rendering the economists' findings irrelevant at best.
But there is one other major component that we must take into account when talking about this issue whatsoever. And that component is the simple fact that while the economists recorded a drop in crime rates int the U.S. since Roe v. Wade passed (which is really more correlation than causation, as far as we can see), similar data was not replicated outside the U.S.
What do I mean? Well, the United Kingdom legalized abortion in 1968. But according to LifeSiteNews, "Eighteen years later, crime was increasing across the country, precisely when Donohue and Levitt's analysis would have predicted a decline." The same could be said of Russia, which, despite the fact they have some of the highest abortion rates in the world (37.4 per 1000 women aged 15-44 as of 2010) with a peak of 5.5 million abortions performed in 1965, ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, violent crimes in the country skyrocketed.
So not only do abortions not seem to cause a decrease in crimes, other countries in the world with far higher abortion rates and legalized abortion for longer periods found themselves with HIGHER crime rates than before. I won't go as far as to say that abortions cause crime (though abortions help rapists get rid of the "evidence" of their misdeeds), but abortion seems to not have anything to do with decreased crime rates. Countries that have had legal abortion for longer periods of time than the U.S. and have higher rates of abortion don't seem to see any drop in crimes at all.
And now, let's get to the part about how that study is rooted in racism, shall we?
Clowes noted that murder rates among African Americans skyrocketed by more than 500% from 1984 to 1993 despite the fact that African American women have abortions three times more often than white women do. Yet another example of the rates absolutely going the opposite way that the pro-abortion economists claimed they would go.
Clowes then went on to assert that both studies reflect a "eugenics mentality". Clowes even went as far as to say that "the racism of eugenics and Planned Parenthood advocate Margaret Sanger is revealed in the assumptions found in Donohue and Levitt's study," according to LifeSiteNews.
"The unstated assertion behind all of this is that black people supposedly commit more crime than white people," Clowes said. And given not only the rates at which a black woman is more likely to get an abortion than a white woman, but also the amount of times PP clinics emphasize going to minority neighborhoods and also target minority women, as well as the fact that Margaret Sanger considered black people to be "weeds", you can logically observe that the study that makes the claim that abortion reduces crime rates are heavily rooted in racism.
The claim alone, considering the rates at which minorities will be more likely to get abortions, sounds rooted in racism. Another way to write that claim would be: "Abortion of minorities leads to reduced crime rates!" So while the economists don't explicitly talk about minorities, the claims they make (which are wrong anyway) suggest that it's good that minorities are having so many abortions because they create less criminals.
Now doesn't that sound wrong to your ears? Well, it should, given just how incredibly wrong these two economists (and by extension, all who use their research) are when it comes to their positions. Abortion does not reduce crime. Neither do we see that actually happen in the U.S. nor do we see that happen outside the U.S. in countries like the U.K. and Russia, which actually show an increase in crime. But beyond that, it is racist to claim that abortion reduces crime because the vast majority of people who get abortions are minorities.
So the next time someone cites these economists and claims abortion reduces crime, remind them that minorities get abortions more often than white people, so that is the same thing as to say that minorities cause more crimes and aborting them reduces those crime rates. In other words, you can (rather credibly) call them racist and have some data to back up that claim that often gets thrown around so much.
"For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve."
Pro-Life Kid Compares Abortion To Slavery And Makes Leftists Crazy
I have often times drawn comparisons between abortion and slavery, making different points about the similarities between the people who claim abortion is a "right", similar to how old Southern Democrats claimed slavery was a "right", and other similar points. But I am 23 years old and only became this nuanced with regards to the topic some years ago. But in Raleigh, North Carolina during a city council meeting, a 13-year-old girl made her case for making abortion illegal and comparing it to slavery (video below).
The girl began: "My name is Addison Woolsey. I strongly believe that abortion is murder. I also believe murder is wrong, so I'm here to ask you to make abortion illegal in Raleigh. Abortion should be illegal because it's murder. The definition of murder is the killing of one human being by another without justification and acting with intended malice. When mothers choose to slaughter their innocent babies they already have fingerprints, noses; they can recognize their mom's voice. They can hiccup and their heart is beating… On ultrasounds the baby tries to run away from the disturbing instruments that try to kill the baby. The baby's mouth opens wide in a scream when being killed. These babies are alive. They feel being killed. It hurts them and there is nothing they can do about it. There is no way around it. Abortion is murder."
That in itself drew a few negative reactions from pro-abortion people in the crowd, which is to be expected. Even I was surprised at what the girl was saying.
Again, she is only 13 years old and is already so much wiser than probably 70% of the people in that room; certainly more-so than the pro-abortion crowd. She understands, at such an early age, just how horrific abortion is and fully understands that it's nothing short of murder.
Do you want to know what I was mainly worried about when I was 13? Completing Grand Theft Auto IV. Finishing a video game was the most important thing for me at the time. I was aware that Obama was President, but I could not care less at the time. And while everyone was making a big fuss about him being the first black president, all I thought was "huh, cool, I guess. I mean, I don't honestly care what his race is, but whatever," and then went on with my day. Heck, even when I was 14, 15 and 16, I didn't care all that much about politics (until around the 2012 election came around, at least).
My main priorities at the time were getting enough passing grades to graduate on time and getting a good kill/death ratio in the newest Call of Duty game. That's it, and here we have a thirteen-year-old girl who is far more intelligent than I certainly was at the time and far more nuanced.
In any case, she continued: "There's no way around it. Abortion is murder. So why is it if an infant is destroyed before birth there's no problem but if killed after birth it's considered a brutal murder? These babies aren't 'it's' or 'fetuses'; they are human beings and they deserve to get the same human rights as any other person. As good ole' Dr. Seuss said: 'a person's a person no matter how small.'"
She then also went on to quote scripture, specifically Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I set you apart and appointed you a prophet to the nations." And while obviously that verse was specific to Jeremiah, it does speak that God knows every single one of us before He formed us in our mothers' womb. That part I liked a lot.
But later came the part that had the pro-abortion people shouting at her to stop talking and overall causing a ruckus:
"Abortion reminds me of slavery. Owners said that their slaves were their property and they could do whatever they wanted with them. Just how moms feel about their babies. My hope is that in a few years we'll look back at abortion and think, 'That was so cruel. I can't believe we did that.' Just how I look back at slavery. The question is, who will you be? The slave owner?... Rosa Parks? Or Abraham Lincoln? Who are you going to be? Make a choice. My choice is made. I'm here today standing up for what's right. I'm here today speaking for those who can't speak for themselves. Are you choosing to be like the plantation owner flogging the little black child?"
Absolutely powerful stuff that hits the nail right on the head. Many of the same arguments pro-abortion people make are the same ones pro-slavery people made back in the day. "It's my body, my choice" is awfully similar to "it's my property to do with as I wish." "They are not humans, they're fetuses" is as ridiculous as "they are not humans, they are property".
And if you really want to take it one step farther, it is equally as easy to draw comparisons between abortion and the Holocaust.
The slave owners at least had the decency to not try and kill what they considered their property. But pro-aborts, like the Nazis, aim to kill groups of people.
Let's not forget Margaret Sanger herself acknowledged her desire to rid the world of what she considered "weeds" and "imbeciles": the black race. But of course, black people aren't the only ones Planned Parenthood targets, similar to how Jews weren't the only targets of the Nazis.
Planned Parenthood also targets Hispanics such as myself. The Nazis also targeted those who were not of the Aryan race. And even those Hitler didn't kill he still held disdain for. He thought of the Italians as lesser people to the Aryan race because they were a darker skin tone; more Mediterranean.
Planned Parenthood also targets people with disabilities like Down Syndrome, autism, etc. Guess who were some of the first targets of the Nazis? Lame people; people with disabilities who were deemed to be holding back the human race.
But whatever you wish to compare it to, abortion is as horrific and wrong as those two things were.
Addison then continued speaking, even talking over some of the protests: "Are you choosing to be like the plantation owner flogging the little black child? Or are you going to protest even if it is going to cost you your life like Martin Luther King Jr.? Who are you going to be? If you think abortion should be illegal, would you please stand up? We need to change the law so that we can change the world. So let's stand up and do it."
An absolutely wonderful statement to make to her City Council. And again, she is just 13 years old. She must have pretty great and smart parents for her to not only be nuanced enough about abortion but to also be brave enough to go up to speak at a podium to the City Council, knowing full-well that there are others there who disagree and not knowing how they might react, but still speaking anyway.
One of the women in the pro-abortion side even started to yell at her after she finished about how she was being "inappropriate". Odd that she finds that a thirteen-year-old comparing abortion to slavery is more "inappropriate" than the advocacy of infant slaughter.
If you go back to the beginning of her statement, she clearly remarked that babies in the womb have fingerprints, noses, heartbeats, can recognize their mom's voice and can hiccup – many characteristics of something that is ALIVE. She also remarked that the babies FEEL BEING KILLED and have no alternatives; no voice; no personal choice to make. Their entire lives are being ended by a choice they did not make and could not make. They were being eliminated in the place where they ought to feel the safest and FEEL WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THEM AS THEY ARE MURDERED! They cry out in pain when they are being killed.
Comparing abortion to slavery is not inappropriate. ADVOCATING FOR THE SLAUGHTER OF CHILDREN IS! And at the end of the day, that's exactly what is being advocated here. It's not women's rights; no man or woman has the right to kill another person including their unborn child. It's not women's liberation; no one is free by being enslaved by sin. It's not women's healthcare; healthcare is about helping and saving people, not killing them. It's about people's supposed "right" to have all the sex they want without repercussions. It's about people's supposed "right" to eliminate any life that is deemed inconvenient to them. It's about women's supposed "right" to be used and abused by men all their lives.
Abortion is one of the most anti-woman things that one can advocate for. It's one of the most anti-woman procedures one can do.
The fact this little girl understands so well precisely what abortion is and how horrible it is truly warms my heart. And like her, I also hope one day we will look back at abortion with the same lenses as we do slavery, recognizing how utterly inhumane those things were.
God bless her and her family.
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I set you apart and appointed you a prophet to the nations."
Pre-Marital Sex Is Deemed Morally Acceptable, But Adultery Is Not, According To Poll
When it comes to the issue of morality, I will always reply with the ever-true statement that morality comes from God, as He was the one who created this planet and us, and thus decides what is considered morally righteous and morally bankrupt.
Of course, despite this, man is naturally evil. That is not to say we are horrible beings that always cause harm and do evil deeds no matter what, but we are totally depraved in as far as the original sin committed by Adam and Eve upon their disobedience to God lives within us all and we can only be forgiven by Jesus Christ. But of course, not everyone is forgiven by Him, so there are those who are often morally depraved but believe themselves to be morally in the right.
A recent Gallup poll shows this to some extent.
The poll covered a total of 21 topics relating to their moral acceptability; things like gambling, abortion, the death penalty, etc.
While the title focuses mostly on pre-marital sex and adultery, and while I will be covering those topics, I would like to explore as many of the 21 topics in the poll and talk in large about morality in general. I won't get to every single one for the sake of time, just the ones that I believe I should talk about.
The topic that was viewed as most morally acceptable is birth control, with 92% of people saying they believe it is morally acceptable and only 6% saying it is morally wrong. Personally, I do not entirely disagree with this.
My biggest issue about birth control is that abortion is often considered to be a part of it. However, things like "the pill" or condoms I do not consider to be morally wrong, personally. That being said, of course, this issue is often at least somewhat tied to pre-marital sex, which I wholeheartedly disagree with (and we'll get to that). However, I do not necessarily consider birth control options outside of abortion to be a bad thing. And as far as the Bible goes, well, you are not likely to find much about this at all. That is why I default to simply being against abortion under this circumstance because I know full-well that the Bible speaks often of the value of life and the love the Lord has for us on an individual basis.
Next came drinking alcohol, with 79% of people saying it is morally acceptable. This one I can bring the Bible to discuss. Obviously, getting drunk is a big no-no. Verses like Ephesians 5:18: "And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit," and Proverbs 20:1: "Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise," are only some that speak against drunkenness. However, particularly with verses like Proverbs, there appears to be at least some moral acceptance of alcohol, provided it does not lead someone to get drunk and debauch and to overall sin against the Lord, being led astray by it. Similar to how it is okay to seek wealth, as long as it does not lead you from the path of the Lord, I think drinking alcohol is okay so long as you are not led astray by it and it causes you to debauch yourself and others. And let us not forget that Jesus turned water into wine, so it is not morally wrong to consume alcohol. Personally, though, I would not drink alcohol because of the long-term effects it can cause to the body and its risk for addiction.
Then comes the issue of divorce, with 77% of people believing it to be morally acceptable and 20% saying it's unacceptable. I know depending on the denomination, different Christians will hold different views on it. Personally, I think divorce is okay under the following circumstances:
1) The marriage is abusive to either partner. If someone is being verbally, mentally or physically abused, then divorce is okay especially because of the following point.
2) One or more of the partners is not a Christian. If someone is abusive of another person, the abuser is not really a Christian, even if they were to claim to be so. If the marriage is not a union under the Lord, it is not a true, Christian marriage. Receiving a marriage certificate may make you and your spouse legally married as far as the country's laws go, but that does not necessarily mean you are married in God's eyes. A marriage is a holy matrimony; a union not only between two people, but among two people and God, with God at the head of the marriage.
So when it comes to divorce, I believe it is okay under certain conditions, but I believe it should be avoided by two Christians if the reasons for them desiring to divorce are petty and fixable. Just saying "I don't love him/her like I used to" is not a good enough reason.
Next comes sex between an unmarried man and woman, with 71% saying it's acceptable and 28% saying it's not. No doubt, the Bible speaks against this. This constitutes adultery. Having sex with anyone who is not your spouse is considered adultery, even if you do not have a spouse.
I am reminded of a twitter debate I have spoken of already around the time Alabama passed one of the most pro-life laws in the country, the topic of pre-marital sex came up (somewhat) and I was mocked for believing it to be good to not have sex until marriage and being darn proud of believing this. That only goes to show the kind of thinking the secular world has brought about.
Next comes gambling, with 68% saying it's acceptable and 31% saying it's not. Now, gambling is not explicitly covered in the Bible. It largely speaks about wealth and riches, with verses like Proverbs 13:11 saying: "Wealth gained hastily will dwindle, but whoever gathers little by little will increase it," and 1 Timothy 6:10 saying: "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs."
Again, it's the love of money, not necessarily the pursuit of it, that is sinful and evil. So I am not quite sure about this one. Personally, I don't mind if people gamble, but wouldn't do it myself because of the risk of addiction (and I consider it a massive waste of money anyway).
After this comes smoking marijuana, with 65% deeming it morally acceptable and 33% disagreeing. As with other things, drugs are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible. However, one verse in particular ought to stand out: 1 Corinthians 6:19-20: "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body."
This verse speaks highly of our own bodies. But beyond that, it speaks largely to Christians. The part about being bought with a price does not apply to non-Christians – to those whom God has not elected to be saved. If anything, the verse speaks about Christians not doing anything to their own bodies, for it is God's. So if God decries doing such things to our bodies, the conclusion one must reach is that any intake of things that mess with it in such a way is morally wrong (yes, I know alcohol could technically count here too, but it largely becomes a problem for your body when you have too much alcohol in your system and when you have been drinking alcohol for a long time, leading to your bodily systems and organs to decay as a result. Drugs have a more immediate negative effect on your body, particularly the brain, and it's more severe).
Afterwards comes stem cell research, with 64% finding it acceptable and 31% disagreeing. Obviously, this one falls in a similar category as abortion does in general (speaking of which, it is at an interesting 42% finding it acceptable and 50% finding it unacceptable, mirroring a recent poll from Harvard/Harris). Stem cell research stems (pun intended) from fetal tissue – more specifically, from a dead fetus. More often than not, aborted fetuses are used for this type of research, so don't be surprised if the Bible deems this to be immoral.
Next is having a baby outside of marriage, with 64% saying it is morally acceptable and 34% disagreeing. Similar to pre-marital sex and extra-marital sex, considering the act of having a baby results on having sex, this is also morally wrong. That's not to deem the baby to be less than human – he or she is still loved by the Lord – but having a child outside of marriage is not morally right.
In Genesis 38, we learn of Judah and Tamar. Tamar was Judah's daughter-in-law, though a widow. At one point, Tamar went to Timnah, where Judah was also going to shear his sheep. While she was wearing her widow's garments at the time, she had taken them off because her groom-to-be, whom she was promised by Judah, Shelah, Judah's other son, was grown up and she desired to be ready for him. However, in taking off those widows' garments and putting on a veil, covering her face, she made herself look like a prostitute of the time. Judah saw her, thought she was a prostitute, and slept with her, even conceiving with her (like I've said multiple times, the Bible is filled with sinners). When it was found out she was pregnant, Genesis 38:24 says: "About three months later Judah was told, 'Tamar your daughter-in-law has been immoral. Moreover, she is pregnant by immorality.' And Judah said, 'Bring her out, and let her be burned.'"
Yes, Judah is a hypocrite here, something he himself acknowledges later in that chapter when they discover the baby is his and they don't burn her, but we can see clearly that child-conception outside of marriage is deemed to be morally unacceptable. Judah is a sinner here, as is Tamar, who accepted to lay with her father-in-law, and their child-making (though I doubt they intended to do it) was marred in immorality and unrighteousness.
Next comes gay or lesbian relations, with 63% believing it is morally acceptable and 35% disagreeing. This is the easiest one to make a case against. Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."
Suffice to say that same-sex relations are not morally acceptable by any means. Now, while I would not wish to put to death people who do this, I understand that what they do is, indeed, an abomination that would lead them to the ultimate death, the second death, should they not repent of their sins. As I've said time and time again, homosexuality is a sin. All sins lead to death if not repented for and forgiven by Christ.
Now, while there are other topics that I would like to cover more, like doctor-assisted suicide, suicide in general, sex between teenagers, etc., the last item I will talk about is extra-marital affairs, with only 9% believing it to be morally acceptable and 89% saying it is not morally acceptable.
This, as with pre-marital sex, is morally unacceptable according to God. But all things considered, I'm not really all that surprised to see that people think pre-marital sex is fine but extra-marital sex is not. Extra-marital sex is a betrayal from one of the partners. No one wants to be betrayed like this. It's more of an emotional issue to most people than necessarily a moral one.
But then again, many of these answers can be answered in a similar, emotional manner. Those who say things like pre-marital sex and same-sex relationships are okay do so with emotions in mind, be it their own or someone else's. Sex feels good and people don't like it when you point out that it's wrong to do so outside of marriage.
But this is why morality has to have an absolute source. Morality cannot be dictated by society, else morality fails to be morality and becomes normality – what is considered normal. In this day and age, pre-marital sex is considered normal, but that doesn't make it moral. 71% of people deeming pre-marital sex to be moral does not actually make it moral.
Often times, people deem moral what is immoral and immoral what is moral. I know perfectly well that Hitler viewed his actions to be perfectly moral and acceptable. To him, he was getting rid of people who were holding humanity back. The search for the ubermench was seen as perfectly moral. But what he did was entirely immoral. It's not simply that people would agree today that that was immoral, but that speaking in absolute moral terms, according to God's morality, what Hitler did was abhorrent.
So that is why morality cannot be determined by society. What is moral today may not be tomorrow and vice versa. But that's not absolute morality. Morality, as I've repeated countless times, comes from God.
As the Ruler of the Universe, as King, God is the one who determines what is moral and immoral. Man has absolutely no right to determine morality given our original sin. We sinned against God. We are God's creatures. Who are we to determine what is right and wrong when we are NATURALLY EVIL!?
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who turn darkness to light and light to darkness, who replace bitter with sweet and sweet for bitter."
Majority Say Roe Should Be Modified Or Overturned, According To Poll
Often times when discussing abortion and Roe v. Wade in specific, people will point to polls that claim somewhere around 70% of people support Roe v. Wade and think it shouldn't be even touched whatsoever by the Supreme Court. However, a recent Harvard CAPS/Harris poll shows us that that's not even close to being true.
The Hill recently reported on the findings, though did what many MSM sources often do: lie about what is actually the case.
The Hill's article was titled: "Nearly half of Americans say Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade."
Technically, that's correct, but it attempts to mislead the audience by focusing on what is seemingly "good news" for pro-aborts.
"Forty-six percent of respondents said the high court should uphold the ruling in Roe if the issue comes before the justices, while 36 percent said the Supreme Court should modify the 46-year-old ruling. Eighteen percent wanted the ruling to be overturned altogether," reported The Hill.
Yes, 46% of respondents in the poll said the Court should uphold Roe, but combining that 36% who said they should modify it and 18% saying they should overturn it garners 54% of the respondents supporting some sort of change.
Do you see the kind of mind games these people try to play? Again, technically, their headline is true, as 46% is nearly half of Americans, but it misses the larger point that a majority of Americans wish to see some sort of change to Roe be made, whether it is adjusting it in some sense (in what way, I don't know) or outright getting rid of it.
So at the end of the day, the poll's findings are not very good news for the pro-abortion crowd at all.
When it came to how restrictive abortion laws are, 37% said they are "too restrictive", 34% said the existing laws are "just right" and 29% said they were "too liberal". Again, putting things together, 63% of people don't think abortion laws are too restrictive and don't want there to be a change towards them being less restrictive. Either they think they are currently okay (I personally disagree, but that doesn't matter much here) or they are too liberal and ought to be more restrictive.
What's more, despite the fact that Democrat after Democrat is adopting extreme positions on abortion, like supporting late-term abortion or even up-to-birth abortion, the vast majority of people do not agree with them:
"A plurality – 41 percent – said the procedure should be allowed only in cases of rape or incest. Twenty-nine percent said it should be permitted up until the first trimester of pregnancy, while 17 percent said it should be allowed until the second trimester. Only 8 percent said abortions should be permitted up until the third trimester, and 6 percent said the procedure should be allowed 'up until the birth of the child,'" according to The Hill.
The poll seemingly didn't go into the percentage of people who think even in the cases of rape or incest abortion should not be allowed, but if it's only 41% who say it should be allowed (still a rather sizeable percentage, but far from the majority), it stands to reason that a majority of people don't think this way.
And the one thing I have come disagree with Trump on is this particular case of abortion. He thinks it is okay under these circumstances, but I heavily disagree. It's not the child's fault for being conceived.
Which reminds me of a tweet I had seen some time ago. Back when Alabama was in the process of signing one of, if not the most pro-life law in the country, I tweeted about it at pro-choice people, with someone particularly telling me that she would like for me to tell her 9-year-old children (she's a school teacher) that I thought it was "okay for them to have a kid at that age" or something along those lines. Of course, I do not think that whatsoever, but that's the sort of mindset these people have.
In any case, were I to actually get the chance to speak with them, I would say the following: "kids, would it be fair for your parents to punish you even though you did nothing wrong? Would you be okay with getting grounded, getting sent to your room, getting your toys/electronics taken away from you despite not being the one at fault for something bad happening to your parents? It certainly wouldn't be fair, would it? And yet, there are people who think you should be punished with some of the worst punishment imaginable for things that are well outside of your abilities to control. Those people are mean, aren't they?"
Would I be wrong in saying that to children? Would that be factually wrong? Some people think it's okay to abort a child if it was conceived from rape or incest. I can definitely sympathize with children who are the victims of rape and conceive as a result. It's absolutely heart-breaking, but the punishment should not come to the child in the womb, but to the soulless bastard who defiled and took away a child's innocence. The young mother ought to be well taken care of and heavily supported in whatever way possible, but the child inside the womb should not be thrown away because he or she is such an inconvenience.
I can understand why people think abortion ought to be allowed in this circumstance, but that still doesn't make it right or okay. Regardless, as far as I can see, most people, or at least a good number of people, will likely agree with me on this. And even those who are fairly pro-choice, as we see in this poll, are only pro-choice up until a certain point.
Only 29% of people said it should be allowed until the first trimester of pregnancy (I imagine they mean up until near the end of it, as the moment a woman conceives is the moment she becomes pregnant and the moment the first trimester begins). Only 17% said they support it until the second trimester, only 8% until the third and only 6% support it up to the moment of birth.
Even combining the last two numbers, you only get around 14% of people who support such extreme abortion positions. Not a good thing for Democrats seeking the highest office in the land.
Not that it will matter at all to them. The Democrats only care about appearing to be the most "progressive" candidate running and will out-pander each other to get there. Despite how most people feel about abortion, they will insist on supporting it until the moment of the child's birth; an utterly barbaric belief. All this in an effort to be as unlike Trump as humanly possible, despite the fact he is enjoying some of the best numbers of his presidency, despite the fact he is doing just about everything right for the country, they have it engrained in their minds that he is the worst president in American history and ought to be swiftly beaten come 2020.
Why else do you think so many Democrats are jumping onto the race? They all believe they can beat Donald Trump, when it's unlikely even Joe Biden, the current Democrat frontrunner, has any chance of doing so.
Considering the type of news the MSM spreads, including this article from The Hill, which is meant to mislead people, I don't exactly blame them for being so out of touch with reality. They'd rather be told convenient lies than uncomfortable truths.
When they are told socialism has historically failed time after time, they go to someone who will try and point to Canada or some other socialist country that isn't doing too bad (as though socialism is something that destroys a country immediately. Venezuela took over a decade to get to this point and the Soviet Union was around since after World War I until the early 1990s). Despite the fact that socialism is all about taking other people's money, not creating it, they believe it works because it's "woke" or the SJW thing to believe in.
When they are told that a child inside the womb is, indeed, a baby and a child, and that even the word "fetus", which is what the Left often will use to replace the word "baby" still means "offspring", they believe that the baby is not actually a baby until it is. I know, a ridiculous logical fallacy, but they run with it anyway.
So when they are told that most people don't agree on third-trimester abortions, they will think it's fake news and dismiss it. Which is fine with me, as that is likely to ruin them come election time (along other things they completely dismiss), but I just wonder how long they will live in their own bubble until that bubble gets popped.
The problem with trying to shape reality is that reality always wins in the end.
"For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb."
Justice Thomas Warns That Abortion Could Be A Tool For Eugenicists. It Always Was
In recent time, the Supreme Court ruled (7-2, which was surprising), that Indiana had the right to require "medical facilities" like Planned Parenthood to provide dignified burials or cremation for aborted children. And while that is a nice little win for pro-lifers, the Court decided against ruling on a supposedly controversial part of the law that prohibited abortions on the basis of race, gender or disabilities.
Justice Clarence Thomas, after the ruling, said in a statement that while "further percolation may assist our review of this issue of first impression," and that the Court was smart to not rule on this part of the Indiana law, the Court cannot avoid this issue forever.
"Given the potential for abortion to become a tool for eugenic manipulation, the court will soon need to confront the constitutionality of laws like Indiana's. So long as the Supreme Court forces a policy of unfettered elective abortion on the entire country, it ought to at least allow for states to protect babies from unjust discrimination."
He added: "Although the court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever. Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this court is dutybound to address its scope."
The Indiana law in question largely focuses on the disabilities aspect, targeting abortions performed for the reasons of a baby having Down syndrome.
The law reads: "Indiana does not allow a fetus to be aborted solely because of the fetus' race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability."
According to The Daily Wire, "Thomas referenced genetic screening in his concurrence, noting that a baby's gender can be determined by an elective blood test given between 7 and 10 weeks, and that disabilities like Down syndrome can be detected before the end of the first trimester." Thomas said that pairing these screenings with largely unrestricted abortion access leads us to "modern-day eugenics."
Thomas ended by writing: "Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement. In other contexts, the Court has been zealous in vindicating the rights of people even potentially subjected to race, sex, and disability discrimination."
All-in-all, I largely agree with what Justice Clarence Thomas is saying here except for two points. One, I do not think it was smart of the Court to pass up on not ruling on this part of the Indiana law. More time given to look things over when they ought to be clear as day allows for other states that do not have a similar law to perform the sort of ethnic cleansing Margaret Sanger often dreamed of.
If one discriminates against someone based on any of these factors at any level, whether that be in business, in school, in sports, or in any other area, that person is punished to some capacity. Not allowing a black person to eat at your restaurant for the reason of his or her race is not allowed under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Nowhere can someone openly discriminate against someone for the reason of race, sex, etc. except in the womb. Let us not ignore the fact that Planned Parenthood disproportionally targets black and Hispanic neighborhoods, with almost 80% of their facilities located within walking distance of minorities. Let's not ignore the fact that 52% of African American pregnancies end in abortion or that roughly 1,800 black babies are aborted every day.
Let's not ignore the fact that babies who are diagnosed with Down syndrome are 60 to 80% likely to be aborted, according to the Guttmacher Institute. And that's just in the U.S. In Europe, Down syndrome is basically non-existent, not because they found a cure, but because they systematically abort babies diagnosed with Down syndrome.
And in places like China and India, unborn girls face a high probability of being aborted. The UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund. Yes, the letters don't match, but that's because they used to be called the United Nations Fund for Population Activities) says that "126 million women and girls were missing in 2010 due to gender-biased sex selection, which can include, for example, excess female mortality and prenatal sex selection."
That last reason they give, "prenatal sex selection" is simply their Leftist way of acknowledging abortion is the cause without actually blaming abortion. But you can plainly see that abortion is at least partly responsible for over 100 million women and girls "missing" (not sure what exactly that is supposed to mean here, but I may have a few ideas).
Countries like India show quite an imbalance in sex ratios, where there are 110 boys born for every 100 girls from 2011-2013. But that is nothing compared to China, which had 115.9 boys for every 100 girls born in 2014.
So throughout the world, abortion is already very much a tool of eugenics. Matter of fact, it always has been! And that's the second point that I don't entirely agree with Thomas. Abortion does not lead to eugenics. Abortion is already a tool of eugenics and always has been.
Let's not forget that Margaret Sanger saw black people as a "weed" to be uprooted and frequently employed Nazi sympathizers like Clarence Gamble and Lothrop Stoddard. And let's not forget that there have been a plethora of eugenics-based organizations, such as the Eugenics Record Office, the National Conference on Race Betterment, and the American Breeders Association.
These racist organizations were so vile that one particular man remarked: "I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock." And that "The demand that defective people be prevented from propagating equally defective offspring is a demand of clearest reason. If systematically executed, it represents the most humane act of mankind."
And just who was this man who viewed American eugenics and abortion as "the most humane act of mankind"?
None other than the leader of the Third Reich, Adolf Hitler. Yes, he absolutely adored American eugenics programs and sought to adopt them into his own German empire.
Margaret Sanger sought to utilize abortion as a eugenics tool long before there was even a Planned Parenthood. She sought to keep minorities, whom she considered "weeds" and "imbecilic" and overall "defective", from reproducing as much as possible.
And given the statistics we see today, that sort of racial discrimination is not only alive and well, but outright THRIVING. We easily see the dreams of Margaret Sanger, Clarence Gamble, Lothrop Stoddard, and Adolf Hitler being carried out by Planned Parenthood and other abortionists throughout the world.
Already, 61 million babies have been aborted in the U.S. since 1973 and 1.5 billion in the world since 1980. Almost 20 million in the U.S. were black.
Justice Clarence Thomas is certainly right in drawing the links between abortion and eugenics, particularly in race-based, sex-based, etc. abortions. The problem is that abortion doesn't lead to eugenics. Abortion IS eugenics. Now, not all eugenics are abortions, but all abortions are eugenics. The reasoning behind the abortions may not sound like eugenics, but at the end of the day, they are.
It's not "women's healthcare" or "liberation" for a black woman to kill off her own offspring (the literal definition of a fetus). It's eugenics, through and through.
And Thomas is certainly right in saying that the Supreme Court can't keep kicking this particular can down the road. Eventually, it will have to face the reality that this kind of abortion is outright discrimination and should be treated like any other kind of discrimination is today.
"But the Lord said to Samuel, 'Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart."
A Strong Majority Of Americans Support Banning Abortion After Heartbeat Has Been Detected
These last couple of weeks have been absolutely fantastic for the pro-life movement. First, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed into law a bill that would ban abortions once a heartbeat has been detected in a fetus (around 6 weeks into the pregnancy), soon after that, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey signed into law the country's most pro-life law, banning abortions outright, and criminalizing the act of performing an abortion (not receiving one, which is what Leftists often lie about) and the Missouri House of Representatives and Senate passed their own heartbeat bill.
Naturally, Hollywood and the Left went absolutely nuclear regarding these great news, though primarily on Georgia, considering how often movies tend to be filmed there thanks to the state's fairly low tax on production (in other words, it is cheap to film there).
Hollywood Leftists decided to boycott the state, citing the heartbeat bill as the reason for it:
"This law would make Georgia an inhospitable place for those in the film and television industry to work, including our members," the Writers Guild of America said in a statement.
"It should instead be called a 'forced pregnancy bill' – because it would outlaw abortion before a woman even knows that she is pregnant," C-list actress Alyssa Milano said. "It's the most anti-woman bill of its kind in the country, and it sends the exact wrong message about the kind of state Georgia's leaders wish to create. In short, HB 481 (the official name of the bill) would make Georgia the most regressive state in the country."
I personally have an awful lot to say about these things. First, regarding the Writers Guild's statement, how exactly is outlawing the murder of an unborn baby creating an inhospitable place for the film and television industries? Not being able to kill a child makes the state inhospitable to these industries? Perhaps, then, it's the industries' problem, not the State's, if they literally cannot live or work in a state where killing children in the womb is deemed illegal.
Second, regarding Alyssa Milano's statement, half of the victims of abortion are women, or girls. Why isn't that taken into consideration when discussing how a bill is "anti-woman"? And this is without even taking into consideration how truly heartless (pun not intended) you must be to understand that a fetus has a heartbeat, a rather strong indication of its viability, and still think it is okay to kill it.
Third, as far as "regressive" goes, I would think that the slaughter of the innocent for literally no reason is more regressive and barbaric than the pursuit of saving and preserving a life, one of the inalienable rights given to us by God as detailed in the Declaration of Independence.
But regardless of what Hollywood Leftists will say, claim and think, the vast majority of America actually disagrees with them, at least when it comes to the heartbeat bill.
According to a Hill/HarrisX survey, most voters think that six-week abortion bans are either "just right" or "too lenient".
34% of voters said they believe six-week abortion bans are "just right", while 21% believe they are "too lenient", with 45% of voters saying the bans are "too restrictive".
In other words, 55% of voters support these types of bans while 45% are against them, a 10-point difference.
What is interesting is the fact that younger voters are actually more supportive of these bans.
The Hill reports that 52% of "respondents 65 years of age and older said they believed that six-week abortion bans are too restrictive. Thirty-one percent said they were just right while 17 percent said they were too lenient." That's a 52-48 split, and a 4-point difference.
"Among voters between the ages of 50-64, 41 percent said the new laws were too restrictive, 38 percent said they were just right, and 21 percent said they did not go far enough." That's 59% of voters in that age range who support such a ban, while only 41% oppose it, an 18-point difference.
"A 45 percent plurality of voters between 35-49 said the laws were too restrictive, 36 percent said they were just right and 18 percent said they were too lenient." That's 54% in favor of the bans and 45% against it, a 9-point difference.
"The youngest voters polled, those 34 and under, were most likely to say the abortion bans did not go far enough, although far less than a majority – 27 percent – said this. Forty-three percent said the laws were too restrictive while 30 percent said they were just right." That's 57-43, a 14-point difference.
I cannot imagine how hard a pill this must be to swallow for the Left. Ignoring the fact that a majority of voters polled said they supported these types of bills, the younger generations all had considerably bigger gaps between those who supported these bills and those who did not support them.
Younger generations are the ones the Left most want to get their hooks on. It is often said that "children are the future", so it stands to reason that the Left wants younger voters siding with them on such issues than they would care about older ones. After all, they've already cast out old, white men from their voting bloc. They don't care about getting their votes, only younger generations'.
Why do you think the Left is so adamant about lowering the voting age to 16? Because a young person is more likely to believe the bull crap the Left spews than someone who has been alive for a long while, has life experience, and understands that what the Left is spewing is bull crap.
Winston Churchill is often attributed (though has never been confirmed) for saying: "If you are not a liberal at twenty, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at forty, you have no brain."
The quote (whether or not it's Churchill's) speaks at the fact that young people are often more emotionally-driven rather than intellectually-driven. Take climate change as an example. Young people are indoctrinated since Kindergarten now-a-days to believe we are destroying our planet. Obviously, that would not be a good thing if that were true, but because young people are TOLD what to think and will not often challenge such deeply-engrained beliefs, they go through life believing this sort of thing. After all, you would have to be a monster to be okay with killing our planet… if that were actually what was going on.
But as people grow older and garner more life experience and start to develop their own line of thinking, they will come to challenge things they've been told in their youth and seek to find out if those things are actually true. That's not to say that is what always happens, of course. Bernie Sanders was around when fire was discovered and he still thinks socialism is a great thing.
But what is expected of people is to learn basic truths about the world and shift from an emotional liberal to an intellectual conservative – going from believing we are killing our planet to using logic and reason to understand that we could do no such thing, at least with the methods described as being the culprit of such fabled destruction.
However, as we find in the aforementioned poll regarding six-week abortion bans, those who are younger actually take the more pro-life stance than the boomer generation, which saw the 1973 Roe v. Wade case essentially legalize abortion.
And even the boomer generation's statistics in the poll find that there is a slim majority of boomers who are against these types of bills. 52-48 is considerably closer than the Left would want.
But in any case, I am thankful to God that so many people are aware of the fact that there is a life growing inside the woman and that no "my body, my choice" argument seems to be effective in the least bit. After all, what we are talking about is not a woman's body, but the body that grows inside a woman. A separate entity with its own genetic code that is its own individual, will have its own name, life, and everything else that is attributed to humans once it is born. The general understanding here is that life is growing inside the womb, something even some (rather evil) Democrats understand.
While the fate of these bills in court is not exactly certain (let's just say I don't trust Kavanaugh any more), it is clear that a good number of Americans do not fall in line with the Left's barbaric thinking that women have the "right" to slaughter their own children growing inside the womb.
"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."
Alabama Is One Step Closer To Outlawing Abortion And Challenging Roe
A little over a month ago, the Alabama House of Representatives voted in favor of passing the most pro-life bill in the country, sending it to the Alabama Senate for a vote. Recently, the Alabama Senate voted 25-6 in favor of passing the bill, sending it to Governor Kay Ivey to sign into law, which she did a day after the passing of the bill.
Before debate was opened prior to the vote-taking of the bill, Alabama Sen. Clyde Chambliss began by saying: "When is a person a person? When does a life become a life? I believe that if we terminate the life of an unborn child, we are putting ourselves in God's place."
A great and significant statement to make regarding the entire issue of abortion, where Leftists often insinuate that a child growing inside the womb is not a person, a rather illogical assertion to make considering no one says the same about an unborn giraffe or elephant, for example. It is nothing but an attempt to dehumanize people so that the vast majority of people would be indoctrinated to believe what they are eliminating is not life but what equates to a disease.
But at the end of the day, we are talking about a person. Those who understand that tend not to favor abortion (unless you are a heinous Alabama Democrat who is 100% okay with killing babies in the womb), so the idea is to dehumanize the unborn.
The bill is also a sort of challenge to the fact that multiple Democrat states have either passed extreme pro-abortion bills or have discussed passing extreme pro-abortion bills wherein an unborn child is allowed to be killed up to even labor (and some have voiced their desire to allow for post-birth abortions).
As a reminder, the bill makes it so that abortion is considered a felony largely equating it to murder (because that's precisely what it is) but does not hold the mother criminally responsible if she were to have an abortion (which is what some Leftists will try and lie to people about, saying that women would be thrown in jail for getting an abortion when that's far from the truth).
The bill specifically states that "a woman who receives an abortion will not be held criminally culpable or civilly liable for receiving the abortion."
The bill also explains that the only exception would be in the extremely rare case in which the mother's life or health is in danger:
"In reasonable medical judgment, the child's mother has a condition that so complicates her medical condition that it necessitates the termination of her pregnancy to avert her death or to avert serious risk of substantial physical impairment of a major bodily function. This term does not include a condition based on a claim that the woman is suffering from an emotional condition or a mental illness which will cause her to engage in conduct that intends to result in her death or the death of her unborn child."
"However, the condition may exist if a second physician who is licensed in Alabama as a psychiatrist, with a minimum of three years of clinical experience, examines the woman and documents that the woman has a diagnosed serious mental illness and because of it, there is reasonable medical judgment that she will engage in conduct that could result in her death or the death of her unborn child."
In other words, a mother can't simply claim to have some sort of mental disease and therefore receive an abortion, rather there needs to be legitimate proof and medical analysis done to determine that there is serious mental health issues that could result in the mother engaging in behavior in which she would die or cause the death of her own child.
Of course, there exists the problem of psychiatrists misdiagnosing someone (willingly or unwillingly), but I believe this goes a long way towards protecting the unborn, as most (hopefully) psychiatrists likely won't put their own beliefs ahead of their careers, reputation, etc. to intentionally misdiagnose a pregnant woman to allow her to have a "legitimate" reason for her abortion.
The rather funny and interesting thing about the passing of this bill is that a senior staff attorney for the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project (there is no freedom in bondage, as I always say) threatened the Governor if she signs it with a lawsuit, writing in an email to CBS News: "We will not stand by while politicians endanger the lives of women and doctors for political gain. Know this, Governor Ivey: If you sign this dangerous bill into law, we will see you in Court."
I say that's rather funny and interesting because that is largely the point of the bill. The bill is not simply to outlaw abortions in the state; that's just the more immediate goal. The larger, overarching goal of the bill is to have this heavily challenged by these pro-abortion, pro-death Leftist lunatics that it might make its way up to the Supreme Court, forcing them to review the 1973 Court decision that declared abortion was constitutional (by the way, the entire court was filled with old, white men, but we don't hear anything about how they are somehow unfairly making decisions about a woman's body).
The mission here is to have the conservative (hopefully) Supreme Court review Roe v. Wade and overturn that horrible decision, leaving it up to the states to decide on their own abortion laws as the 10th Amendment allows.
As Rep. Terri Collins remarked (the woman who sponsored the bill) last week, "The heart of this bill is to confront a decision that was made by the courts in 1973 that said the baby in the womb is not a person. This bill addresses that one issue. Is that baby in the womb a person? I believe our law says it is." And after the bill passed, she then went on to remark: "This bill is about challenging Roe v. Wade and protecting the lives of the unborn because an unborn baby is a person who deserves love and protection. I have prayed my way through this bill. This is the way we get where we want to get eventually."
A very appropriate and wholesome response to the passing of the bill. The Left will go out of their way to mock prayer (as they often do after a tragic shooting takes place) but that only goes to show just who they are unashamed of siding with: Satan.
The redefining of humanity is evil. It's what Hitler did to the Jews (and other classes of people) and what old Southern Democrats would do towards black people (and still do, considering the fact that black people are disproportionately targeted by Planned Parenthood). And while Leftists can (and often will) make the claim that the banning of abortion is somehow evil, I will never be convinced that giving a woman the "right" to kill her own child for whatever reason she comes up with (and she doesn't even have to have a reason) is not evil in any way.
It is not women's "healthcare" to kill a child. And despite what the Left says about PP clinics, they do not perform any sort of healthcare to women. They are very strictly a slaughterhouse for the children of women who are either so scared about their pregnancy that they fall prey to their claws or simply are entirely apathetic or ignorant to the life that is growing inside them. And for the fact that these people claim to be "pro-choice", they sure make it their mission to discourage the mothers from simply giving their children up for adoption.
As I have said often in some of my latest articles surrounding this topic, there is nothing about abortion that is "healthcare" to women or "liberating" to them. It is no more a healthcare service than a demolition derby is a mechanic service for your vehicle. It is no more liberating than being enchained to your own sins.
And while I may sound like a broken record in saying this time after time, I believe it is a point that is seldom made. People will argue about what a woman's rights are regarding this (so will I), what the definition of life is and a lot of aspects, but the topic of being enslaved to sin is one that, while attached to this, is hardly, if ever, covered.
A few days prior to the Alabama bill passing, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed into law a "heartbeat" bill, which prompted Leftist Alyssa Milano to insist that women go on a "sex strike" as a response. I did not necessarily cover it myself, but I did think it was deliciously ironic considering that is largely where the problem stems: sex outside of marriage.
If that issue were to be resolved, no one would ever even discuss abortion because there would likely be no abortions at all. But society has essentially made it so that those who wait for marriage (aka Christians) are mocked for such a decision. I, myself, was mocked for holding that belief on a Twitter debate recently surrounding the topic of the Alabama Senate passing this bill. But I did not feel ashamed or embarrassed. Why would I? I'm the one siding with the Lord and they are the ones siding with Satan.
But it is here where we often find Man's true nature of evil. That which is of the Lord's and those who follow Him are mercilessly mocked. In the natural, Man wants nothing to do with God because he does not wish to be told that he is doing something wrong.
When Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, what did they do? Avoid God as much as they could. When Cain killed Abel, what did Cain do upon being questioned of his brother's whereabouts? He lied to the Lord to hide what he had done.
And yet, they knew that what they were doing was wrong. They could feel it deep down. Why do you think so many women who have an abortion feel so depressed and sad about it? You often have some sort of feeling of guilt when you are doing something wrong, but in the natural, you are drawn to do it anyway.
The gentleman with whom I was debating felt that I was judging him for his stance. I was doing no such thing, merely offering the reasons as to why he was wrong and hoping God would send His Spirit to him that he might see the Light. But nevertheless, he felt judged, not because I was judging him (far from it, as it is not my job to do so) but because he himself felt, at least to some extent, that he was in the wrong – that he was doing something wrong. He likely won't come to face that reality from just a random debate on Twitter, but I honestly hope it did at least something to help him out.
Regardless, as far as this Alabama Senate vote and signing of this bill by the Governor go, I am very proud of my state and look forward to the court challenges that will send it to the Supreme Court (if they actually decide to take it up and not stonewall like they have been for some other important cases).
"I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well."


Aronoff, Myron J. The Spy Novels of John Le Carré: Balancing Ethics and Politics (1999).
Britton, Wesley. Spy Television. The Prager Television Collection. Series Ed. David Bianculli. Westport, CT and London: Praeger, 2004. ISBN 0-275-98163-0.
Britton, Wesley. Beyond Bond: Spies in Fiction and Film. Westport, CT and London: Praeger, 2005. ISBN 0-275-98556-3.
Britton, Wesley. Onscreen & Undercover: The Ultimate Book of Movie Espionage. Westport, CT and London: Praeger, 2006. ISBN 0-275-99281-0.
Spy-Wise The official website of Wesley A. Britton, author of three books on the fictional spy genre in print, on film and television. Contains extensive material on all aspects of spy fiction, interviews with actors, writers and producers and behind-the-scenes glimpses into the world of fictional spies.


To contact Kevin Knauss regarding anything posted on this website or to report any problems you may visit Kevin's Contact Page and reference Health Plan News in the subject line.
Your information will not be captured and you will not receive any spam emails or be put on any annoying email list. I don't like spam or the taste of it. Therefore I will not engage in spam or try to feed it to people.


As Perth Glory prepare for their first home game of the season, let's see if the crowds are on the way back. Time to put up or shut up? It's getting to that stage.
Truth be told, the attendance at nib Stadium for the visit of Melbourne Heart will interest me more than the result. Why? Because, perhaps for the first time in the Hyundai A-League, the Glory have all their ducks in a row. A former player as coach, a clutch of talented young West Australians in the dressing room, and a squad deep enough - and good enough - to sustain a title challenge.
Then there's the stadium itself. For most of last season it was a construction site. Now it's complete, offering a level of comfort the fans have rarely enjoyed. Look back at footage of what was then-known as Perth Oval when the Glory debuted in the old NSL (1996) and you can see what I mean. The only constant is 'The Shed', and even that's had a makeover. In short, there's no place like home. Again.
Given an A-League record crowd of 16,708 showed up when the Glory re-opened their refurbished stadium in the final round of last season against Adelaide United, there are encouraging signs. We all know how Perth Glory were the dominant force, on and off the field, during the death throes of the NSL. Four grand finals, two championships, and crowds averaging 12,346 for their eight seasons in the old competition were extraordinary achievements given the future of professional club football in Australia, at the time, was routinely in doubt. In an unforgettable festive period in 1997/98, they pulled more than 17,000 to three home matches, while the club record (18,067) for the visit of South Melbourne the following season stands to this day.
But that was then, and this is now. In the eight seasons of the Hyundai A-League, Perth Glory have yet to hit the 10,000 average. At times, those averages have dipped below 8,000. Not good enough.
For a club which has such history, and pedigree, five-figure averages should be the bare minimum. Blessed with a monopoly on what, I still believe, remains a significant football market, it's clear there's been a serious disconnect. Spend anytime at the ground, or in the beer garden at the 'Brisbane', and you'll hear a litany of reasons why that's the case.
In no particular order, the complaints centre on the shortfalls of the coach, the lack of a genuine marquee, the lack of matchday entertainment (bring back Steve Armstrong perhaps), the absence of local players in the squad, results, kick-off times, and the level of media support. Let's be honest, fans are - by definition - malcontents. Every club in the country would hear similar concerns. The difference is the Glory had a rusted-on support base which - until recently - was looking in other directions.
Thankfully, the pendulum may finally be swinging back in the right direction. Reaching the 2012 grand final drew a line in the sand after years of poor results, while the sense of injustice at the way they were eliminated from last season's finals series provides extra motivation for the fans to start believing again.
A coaching staff headed by Alistair Edwards and including two other ex-Glory players - Scott Miller and Gareth Naven - creates an important sense of ownership. Having local players like Ryan and Cameron Edwards, Brandon O'Neill, Jack Clisby and Daniel de Silva in the mix fortifies the argument that the Glory are rediscovering their soul. Shane Smeltz is a bona-fide marquee, and imports Sidnei and Ryo Nagai are genuinely exciting. In short, there's a lot of reasons to believe the Glory will have a decent campaign. For the latent support there's far less justification for staying away. For the sake of the club, I hope they don't.
A strong, vibrant, Perth Glory is crucial to the evolution of the Hyundai A-League. If you look around the country - with the possible exception of Wellington - it's the market which has the most untapped potential. Let's be honest, the players must be sick of hearing about the good old days. One way to fix that is to deliver results. The rest, though, is out of their hands. That's up to the punters. The way I see it, they've run out of excuses.


purple and grey duvet cover comforter bedspread set king size bed shams floral bedroom sets covers red ki.
floral duvet covers king cover size vintage single rustic.
floral duvet covers king e pink size cover set.
enchanting floral duvet cover king green size covers pink beautiful.
shop duvet cover set king size floral bedding free shipping today overstock covers pink.
pink blue style floral girls bedding set king queen twin size bed duvet cover pillowcases black comforter sets covers.
duvet covers set with floral pattern zoom king size cheap super.
bedding set floral duvet cover black and white skull bedclothes colorful butterflies bed queen contemporary covers king from kin.
encyclopedia floral duvet cover covers king super size jewels pink double.
bedding blanket cover online blue and white duvet set discount duvets floral grey covers king size.
flowered bed sheets floral duvet cover king in flowery covers prepare twin pink size.
grey pink floral bedding comforter set king queen size bedspread duvet cover bed in a bag sheets sheet linen quilt cotton comforters be girls covers navy duv.
floral duvet covers king 3 size set.
floral duvet covers king blue cover set bedding super navy red fl.
purple lilac floral bedding comforter set king queen size bedspread duvet cover bed in a bag sheets sheet linen quilt cotton bedclothes bedroom covers red.
gray floral duvet cover king cal oversized modern flowers embroidered pattern cotton luxury 5 piece bedding and pillows pillowcases shams set covers red.
floral duvet covers king grey size cover.
blue floral duvet cover sheet sets set double covers king for sale bedding 3 piece.
blush bedding set floral duvet cover king soft cotton pastoral style pink sets queen covers navy size pa.
details about mandala duvet cover king bohemian bedding set soft microfiber floral covers size.
modern glamour cream navy blue floral duvet cover king covers grey size.
details about beige comforter 3 piece duvet cover sets king queen soft floral set covers for sale.
wholesale large size peach floral bedding sets flower rose duvet cover king flat sheets linen cheap from covers set.
green floral bedding set king queen size quilt duvet cover sheets bedspread bed in a bag linen flower cotton calla lily covers pink.
floral duvet covers king blue white bedding aspiration french country and also 4 green size cover grey.
blue and pink floral bedding duvet covers king flower cover sheets 2 pack dusky bed set image of black bright colored.
vintage flower floral bedding set king queen size duvet cover bedspread bed in a bag covers pink.
white blue pink color noble bedding set king queen size silk soft summer bedclothes floral duvet cover sets bed linen covers super.
colorful floral bedding sets pink blue cotton duvet cover bed comforter girls yellow covers king super size.
4 pieces floral duvet cover double bed linen sheet set flower bedding sets king size covers pink.
black floral duvet cover king pink and white bedding comforter f covers set size grey comfort.


text:
Jean Genet (IPA: //; ur. 19 grudnia 1910 w Paryżu, zm. 15 kwietnia 1986 tamże) – francuski pisarz i dramaturg.

Życiorys
Był porzuconym przez matkę sierotą, wychowankiem rodzin zastępczych, z których uciekał i popełniał typowe dla młodocianych zbiegów wykroczenia, które w wieku piętnastu lat zaprowadziły go do domu poprawczego. Jako osiemnastolatek zaciągnął się do armii, z której został oddelegowany w 1936 za popędy homoseksualne i opuścił Francję. Przemierzył wtedy Europę z fałszywymi papierami. Jego droga wiodła przez Polskę, gdzie przebywał w więzieniu w Katowicach. Po powrocie do kraju został skazany i osadzony w więzieniu za dezercję, posługiwanie się fałszywymi dokumentami i kradzieże.

Pisanie rozpoczął w podparyskim więzieniu we Fresnes, a w 1942 wydał na koszt własny poemat: Le Condamné à mort (Skazany na śmierć), Notre-Dame-des-Fleurs (Matka Boska Kwietna), w następnym roku – Le Miracle de la rose (Cud róży). Groził mu wyrok dożywotniego więzienia, gdy nastąpiła interwencja Jeana Cocteau i Jean-Paula Sartre'a w sądzie. Jean Genet został zwolniony z odbywania kary w 1944, a ułaskawienie uzyskał w 1949.

W latach 1945–1948 powstały trzy powieści: Pompes funèbres (Ceremonie żałobne), Querelle de Brest (Querelle z Brestu) i  Journal du voleur (Dziennik złodzieja), zbiór poezji, balet oraz trzy sztuki teatralne: Haute Surveillance (Ścisły nadzór), les Bonnes (Pokojówki) i  Spendid's.

W 1966 napisał Paravents (Parawany) i opublikował Lettres à Roger Blin (Listy do Rogera Blina), przeżył jednak kryzys i posunął się do zamachu samobójczego. W następnym roku wybrał się w długą podróż na Daleki Wschód, poznał obozy Palestyńczyków; trzy lata później wyjechał do Stanów Zjednoczonych, gdzie przebywał wśród Czarnych Panter. Oba te doświadczenia zaowocowały po piętnastu latach publikacją Un captif amoureux (Zakochany jeniec). We wrześniu 1982 przypadkowo przebywał w Bejrucie, gdy miała miejsce masakra obozów palestyńskich w Sabrze i Szatili – po powrocie napisał ważny tekst polityczny: Quatre heures à Chatila (Cztery godziny w Szatili).

W 1979 zachorował na raka gardła, co w 1986 stało się przyczyną jego śmierci. Jego grób znajduje się na hiszpańskim katolickim cmentarzu w Larache w Maroku.

Charakterystyka twórczości
Jego twórczość dotyczyła wykluczenia ze społeczeństwa, problemu wyobcowania i braku porozumienia. W warstwie narracyjnej odnajduje się opisy m.in. służby domowej, prostytutek, wyrzutków społecznych, złodziei. Geneta-pisarza i Geneta polityka-moralistę interesowały zagadnienia emigrantów materialnych (kwestia obozów uchodźczych Palestyńczyków) i emigrantów we własnym kraju (homoseksualiści, Czarne Pantery w USA). Niektórzy krytycy literaccy uważają, że nie powodowały nim zainteresowania społeczne, lecz potrzeba wyrażenia wściekłości, uczucia poniżenia i odrzucenia. W opublikowanej w 1997 monografii Le dernier Genet (Ostatni Genet) Hadrien Laroche porównuje go do obu: współczesnego mu filozofa Michel Foucaulta i myśliciela Reformacji Erazma z Rotterdamu.

Jest pisarzem wzbudzającym silne emocje, uważanym jednocześnie za burzyciela i moralistę.

Uwagi

Przypisy

Francuscy autorzy literatury erotycznej
Francuscy dramaturdzy XX wieku
Francuscy prozaicy XX wieku
Francuscy przestępcy
Pisarze literatury LGBT
LGBT we Francji
Pisarze związani z Paryżem
Ludzie urodzeni w Paryżu
Urodzeni w 1910
Zmarli w 1986

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia