Protecting Human Life vs Genocide: All About Values

http://www.a-human-right.com/

Click on the link above and you can see the site from which we obtain all the great posters. There is much more. The Second Amendment is the original Pro-Life Amendment and expresses a fundamental human right that is bestowed by God (thus, it is inalienable, according to the Founding Fathers). Armed self-defense has proven much more effective than the United Nations in preventing genocide. Just read Samantha Power’s article on the UN’s record in Rwanda for fighting genocide. It could be argued that the UN enabled those that would engage in ethnic cleansing. And there seems to be a pattern where the United Nations is concerned.

Modern times have created a venue in which the age-old contest between pantheistic human values (i.e., groveling in the face of governmental brutality) diametrically oppose theistic values (the dignity of human life founded in our Creator.

Some will try to mix the pagan ethos of social unity with vague notions of “spirituality” while embracing whatever current lie is propagated to extend big government control into more areas of American life.

http://www.a-human-right.com/

Before long the thugs will be at your door. The time to say enough is enough is now! If you compromise, your children and grandchildren will live under new forms of oppression to which the ancient tyrants never had access. Until now, the technology did not exist to pervade every aspect of our economic and private lives. In the last four decades governmental power and principalities have moved from abortion on demand toward eugenics, a perennial quest of people like Margaret Sanger, a racist and founder of Planned Parenthood, and Adolph Hitler, a progressive socialist who touted many of the same national policies that have now returned to popularity in Washington, DC.

Constitutional lawyers know that many state legislatures enacted laws requiring forced sterilization for people that were disabled and/or on welfare. In Buck v. Bell, the U.S. Supreme Court rules (8-1) that laws mandating the sterilization of the mentally handicapped do not violate the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes makes an explicitly eugenic argument:

“It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.”

“Though primarily associated with Nazi Germany, North Korea, and other oppressive regimes, U.S. forced sterilization laws fit in perfectly with the eugenic culture of early 20th-century Americana.”

In 1936 the National German Worker’s Party cited U.S. laws and Sanger’s eugenic movement to justify proposed policies for racial purification in Germany. After World War II, the atrocities committed by the Nazi government changed U.S. attitudes toward such technocratic innovation.

In Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that an Oklahoma law targeting some felons for sterilization violated equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.

In 1970, the Nixon administration dramatically increased Medicaid-funded sterilization of low-income Americans, primarily Americans of color. While these sterilizations were theoretically voluntary, evidence later suggested that patients were often misinformed, or left uninformed, regarding the nature of the procedures to which they had “agreed”.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *