OK, I know you all want to know the answer to this question, ‘why did _____________ (enter name) unfriend me on Facebook?’ Well, the answer to that question may lie in the article linked to below. And I thought it was simply because they weren’t really your friend.
The mentally and morally “unfit” should be sterilized, Professor David Marsland, a sociologist and health expert, said this weekend. The professor made the remarks on the BBC radio program Iconoclasts, which advertises itself as the place to “think the unthinkable,” reports Hilary White, LifeSiteNews.com.
Pro-life advocates and disability rights campaigners have responded by saying that Marsland’s proposed system is a straightforward throwback to the coercive eugenics practices of the past.
Marsland, Emeritus Scholar of Sociology and Health Sciences at Brunel University, London and Professorial Research Fellow in Sociology at the University of Buckingham, told the BBC that “permanent sterilization” is the solution to child neglect and abuse.
“Children are abused or grossly neglected by a very small minority of inadequate parents.” Such parents, he said, are not distinguished by “disadvantage, poverty or exploitation,” he said, but by “a number or moral and mental inadequacies” caused by “serious mental defect,” “chronic mental illness” and drug addiction and alcoholism.
“Short of lifetime incarceration,” he said, the solution is “permanent sterilization.”
The debate, chaired by the BBC’s Edward Stourton, was held in response to a request by a local council in the West Midlands that wanted to force contraception on a 29-year-old woman who members of the council judged was mentally incapable of making decisions about childrearing. The judge in the case refused to permit it, saying such a decision would “raise profound questions about state intervention in private and family life.”
Children whose parents are alcoholics or drug addicts can be rescued from abusive situations, but, Marlsand said, “Why should we allow further predictable victims to be harmed by the same perpetrators? Here too, sterilization provides a dependable answer.”
He dismissed possible objections based on human rights, saying that “Rights is a grossly overused and fundamentally incoherent concept … Neither philosophers nor political activists can agree on the nature of human rights or on their extent.”
Complaints that court-ordered sterilization could be abused “should be ignored,” he added. “This argument would inhibit any and every action of social defense.”
Brian Clowes, director of research for Human Life International (HLI), told LifeSiteNews (LSN) that in his view Professor Marsland is just one more in a long line of eugenicists who want to solve human problems by erasing the humans who have them. Clowes compared Marsland to Lothrop Stoddard and Margaret Sanger, prominent early 20th century eugenicists who promoted contraception and sterilization for blacks, Catholics, the poor and the mentally ill and disabled whom they classified as “human weeds.”
He told LSN, “It does not seem to occur to Marsland that most severe child abuse is committed by people he might consider ‘perfectly normal,’ people like his elitist friends and neighbors.”
“Most frightening of all,” he said, “is Marsland’s dismissal of human rights. In essence, he is saying people have no rights whatsoever, because there is no universal agreement on what those rights actually are.”
The program, which aired on Saturday, August 28, also featured a professor of ethics and philosophy at Oxford, who expressed concern about Marland’s proposal, saying, “There are serious problems about who makes the decisions, and abuses.” Janet Radcliffe Richards, a Professor of Practical Philosophy at Oxford, continued, “I would dispute the argument that this is for the sake of the children.
“It’s curious case that if the child doesn’t exist, it can’t be harmed. And to say that it would be better for the child not to exist, you need to be able to say that its life is worse than nothing. Now I think that’s a difficult thing to do because most people are glad they exist.”
But Radcliffe Richards refused to reject categorically the notion of forced sterilization as a solution to social problems. She said there “is a really serious argument” about the “cost to the rest of society of allowing people to have children when you can pretty strongly predict that those children are going to be a nuisance.”
Marsland’s remarks also drew a response from Alison Davis, head of the campaign group No Less Human, who rejected his entire argument, saying that compulsory sterilization would itself be “an abuse of some of the most vulnerable people in society.”
Marsland’s closing comments, Davis said, were indicative of his anti-human perspective. In those remarks he said that nothing in the discussion had changed his mind, and that the reduction of births would be desirable since “there are too many people anyway.”
Davis commented, “As a disabled person myself I find his comments offensive, degrading and eugenic in content.
“The BBC is supposed to stand against prejudicial comments against any minority group. As such it is against it’s own code of conduct, as well as a breach of basic human decency, to broadcast such inflammatory and ableist views.”
Report from the Christian Telegraph
I have provided a review of the book ‘365 Ways to Change the World,’ by Michael Norton, on my book Blog ‘At the BookShelf’ at:
See the book review at:
Perhaps, at the start of a New Year, it is not a bad time to have a look at this book and begin to do something for the world in which we live – something that will make a difference.
There is a website for the book which provides a great place to start and also provides a way to purchase the book:
A growing number of Christian churches are joining forces with a grass-roots movement known as the Advent Conspiracy, which is seeking to "do away with the frenzied activity and extravagant gift-giving of a commercial Christmas," reports Thaddeus M. Baklinski, LifeSiteNews.com.
The group was founded by Portland pastor Rick McKinley, who with a group of fellow pastors realized that their own, and their congregations’, focus during the time of Advent revolved more around secular consumerism than preparing to celebrate the birth of Christ.
"What was once a time to celebrate the birth of a savior has somehow turned into a season of stress, traffic jams, and shopping lists," McKinley observed.
"And when it’s all over, many of us are left with presents to return, looming debt that will take months to pay off, and this empty feeling of missed purpose. Is this what we really want out of Christmas?"
"None of us like Christmas," McKinley said in a Time.com report, adding, "That’s sort of bad if you’re a pastor. It’s the shopping, the going into debt, the worrying that if I don’t spend enough money, someone will think I don’t love them."
McKinley, whose church donates money to dig wells in developing countries through Living Water International and other organizations, saw that a fraction of the money Americans spend at retailers in the month of December could supply the entire world with clean water.
As a result he and his friends embarked on a plan to urge their congregations to spend less on presents for friends and family, and to consider donating the money they saved to support practical and tangible charitable works.
"If more Christians changed how they thought about giving at Christmas," he argued, "the holiday could be transformative in a religious and practical sense."
McKinley observed that at first church members were uncertain. "Some people were terrified," McKinley recalled. "They said, ‘My gosh, you’re ruining Christmas. What do we tell our kids?’"
Soon though, the idea caught on and McKinley found that not only were people "relieved to be given permission to slow down and buy less" but were "expressing their love through something more meaningful than a gift card. Once church members adjusted to this new conception of Christmas, they found that they loved it."
According to the Time.com report the Advent Conspiracy movement has exploded, counting hundreds of churches on four continents and in at least 17 countries as participants.
The Advent Conspiracy video has been viewed more than a million times on YouTube and the movement boasts nearly 45,000 fans on Facebook.
To find out more about the Advent Conspiracy, click here.
Report from the Christian Telegraph
Many people, myself included, often wonder just what they can do to effect change in something that disturbs them, angers them, in something they strongly disagree with, etc. It could by a human rights issue, a health problem that plagues poor people, homelessness, a green issue, etc. The thing that galvanises a lot of people is their sense of inability to effect change and/or how to go about effecting the change they desire.
We might see a news report on the nightly news about a devastating famine or destructive tsunami and think that the problem is just too big and there is little we can actually do to help. At other times we might think, ‘if only there was some way we could help here,’ but we don’t because we don’t know how. Just maybe if there was some place we could turn that could give us some direction?
Thankfully there are places to turn and one of these places is change.org – the link follows at the end of this post. This site seeks to inform about issues and also to empower normal people to be able to do something about whatever that issue might be. The site covers a plethora of issues that people and groups are seeking to tackle all around the world and is a great place to visit on a regular basis. there is a blog to keep you up to date on what is happening.
Not only does the site inform, it also empowers. It is a portal to a massive range of issues and action groups seeking to change the world for the better, generally speaking. We may not agree with the mission statements for every single action group that we come across at change.org, but there are so many represented there that the chances are good that you will soon find one or more that you can actively support.
There are plenty of opportunities to get involved in should you wish. You can also donate to the causes that you wish to support via the site.
Did you know that saying no is a no no in NSW schools? I didn’t know that until recently, as only those in the know knew that to say no was a no no because it was so demoralizing to kids. That’s right, there is no such thing as saying no to students because it can be physcologically harmful to the development of students. So now you can’t say no and any real discipline of children is also frowned upon… one can only think what the next generation will be like – extremely self-centred and poorly behaved I would suggest, certainly in the majority of cases.
I would expect there will be plenty of people saying, ‘yeah, so what … it should be that way. A child’s dreams can be shattered, blah de blah de blah…’ In short, more of this ridiculous physco babble that is making society a bunch of cream puffs and wuses.
All across the length and breadth of modern society we are constructing a culture of weakness – poor social development, no social responsibility, disregard for authority, lack of respect, poor manners, an inability to behave in any acceptable manner, etc. All this because we have cast off those values which were once regarded as that which made a person decent and respectable. Sure, there was plenty that needed to go, but that which made real men and women has also been cast off, and in it’s place we are raising up generations of self-centred, ungrateful, obnoxious, dis-respectful cream puffs and wuses.
We now have young people out there who think nothing of ganging up on girls and raping them, of belting up older people for fun, of de-facing anything and everything they come accross, that have no ability to speak to others in a respectful manner, etc. I know of people in their thirties who behave like self-centred, tantrum throwing little children because society has allowed them to be brought up in such a fashion that that is all that they could become – adults who are nothing more than spoilt, immature and self-centred juveniles.
Just thought that was something to ponder tonight :-)
I never knew that being old made it allowable to be rude. However, this would seem to be the growing acceptable trend with older people. It would appear to me that this is the seeming policy in Aged Care these days, as well as in Retirement Villages, general public places, etc. You are no longer allowed to challenge poor behaviour in the elderly because they are old. Does being old give you a right to abuse people and to be rude ~ I wouldn’t have thought so, but apparently it is becoming an acceptable practice/trend.
Isn’t it interesting that in an age where any form of physical discipline of children is regarded as being child abuse, that the rate of poor behaviour in children is increasing to an alarming level? I have heard it said, that a lot of older people with Dementia-type illnesses return to a child-like state. But it seems to me, that by virtue of becoming old, a good number of older people are also being allowed to misbehave by society and are not being challenged concerning their behaviour simply because they are ‘old.’
Perhaps this is just another example of the way modern society is heading ~ a culture of disrespect for others and a strong sense of self-centredness.
I have a theory about all this ~ there is nothing really new under the sun. What earlier generations once called ‘sin,’ and what the Bible still does, modern society appears to be happy to call it becoming more self-aware and in touch with your needs, expressing healthy concern for self and meeting what self requires. I think I prefer the Biblical explanation. It is quite simply an expression of rebellion against God and disobedience to his law – in other words, sin.