Boinkie's Blog

Universalis

Monday, May 27, 2013

Manila as the "inferno"? Yes, to the elites....

Old Leftie bishop, Archbishop Cruz, (ret) is back on his soapbox condeming vote buying by rich families from poor people, who then stay rich by taking their share of the loot.

But he also notes that there was a lot of new money floating around this election, even though the present president is running around on his reputation for honesty.

It is good to note well and to be much aware that there is something cooking in the kitchen of the rich and powerful so-called “leaders” in the country – courtesy of foreign pressure together with questionable if not downright unethical value system of certain locally well-known figures.

This is not exactly along the line of the fable “Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!” when no single frightening wolf is around. It is simply meant to give an honest warning to those concerned. Why? As some people already know, Malacañang, with the collaboration of its good number of faithful and obedient allies in the Legislative Department, has an ominous plan of making key changes in the 1986 Constitution of the Philippines. Yes. Constitutions are drawn and changed and redrawn – but with integrity and prudence for the common good and public welfare of the people, not in subservience to foreigners with their self-serving and errant plans, programs, and projects.
Translation: Lots of outside money pushing the "correct" candidates this year, so that the Philippines will allow progressive laws so beloved by the US elites.

Yes, as I noted in earlier posts, the payments for votes here was higher than usual, and the vote buying was so bad it was noticed in the press.

At the same time, there were carefully placed "articles" discussing the loss of influence of the Catholic church here. The progressive agenda is infiltrating the Christian communities with an anti catholic strain so they let the church fight the war with forced "family planning" at government clinics, not realizing that easy divorce and abortion are the next on the agenda, and then gay rights. We saw this in the US when the abortion laws were changed. Even my medical school yearbook had open ridicule of the pope in it, and I was failed for not assisting in abortions (later rescinded under appeal).

There is a recent book about gender imbalance that has as part of it's history the US/European funding of abortion and family planning, even before Nixon opened relationship with china.

Ditto for India.

So now, millions of men will face life without a spouse, meaning more women will be pushed into prostitution to serve their needs at a basic level without the hope of ordinary lives. (quick: Do you really think prostitution is okay? Les Mis is about right...it is a quick downhill slide into hell for all except for maybe a few high class prostitutes).

Sigh.

I also finished "skimming" the new Dan Brown book Inferno. I skimmed it because it was so wordy and complicated, but essentially it has all the usual asides against the Catholic church (forcing poor africans not to use condoms: uh fellahs, most Africans are not catholics, and those who are often mix catholicism with local customs). 

And of course, he made Manila the gates of hell. Too many people...

But note his answer: The elites "save" the world by releasing a virus to make one third of the people in the world infertile.

And despite all the wordiness, no one bothers to say: This is evil, this is not your decision. True, the one releasing the virus is shown as crazy but well meaning, but his girlfriend is shown as nice, so never mind.


Ironically, I also have just read David Goldman's book on "why civilizations die"...and he argues that depopulation will be the next major crisis, and unlike europe, where they are busy getting ready to kill off their elderly, in the third world, it will be worse for the elderly without children to support them in fifty years.

Oh well. Never mind.

The meek will inherit the earth...and PNoy is busy making sure that it won't be filipinos.

Monday, May 20, 2013

welcome to the culture of death

BMJ

The arguments

Public policies

Responses

    Mini-symposium on after-birth abortion

Electronic pages: Responses

  • Why should the baby live? Human right to life and the precautionary principle

    1. Benedetto Rocchi
    1. Correspondence to Dr Benedetto Rocchi, Department of Economics and Management, Vua delle Pandette, 32, 50127 Florence, Italy; benedetto.rocchi@unifi.it
    • Received 16 April 2012
    • Revised 29 December 2012
    • Accepted 31 January 2013

    Abstract

    This paper discusses the issue of ‘post-birth abortion’ from an applied perspective. Three hypothetical situations where a newborn considered as a ‘potential person’ is at risk of being killed are proposed to highlight the potential controversial outcomes of post-birth abortion. The internal consistency of the argument proposed by Giubilini and Minerva to morally justify newborn killing is contested as well. Finally, an alternative moral strategy based on the precautionary principle and excluding any distinction between potential and actual persons is proposed as rational.
  • The basic human experience of the atrocities in the first half of the 20th century has significantly strengthened the recognition of human dignity and human rights for all born people at the political level. Therefore, the Charter of the United Nations in 1945 and its Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, Article 1 affirms: ‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights’. This article provides an ethical justification of why we in this political consensus should not waver, and why we should grant the right to life to all born human infants. Moreover, there is an ethical justification to granting the right to life even to unborn human beings, who already bear a human face.
  • Two notable limitations exist on the use of personhood arguments in establishing moral status. Firstly, although the attribution of personhood may give us sufficient reason to grant something moral status, it is not a necessary condition. Secondly, even if a person is that which has the ‘highest’ moral status, this does not mean that any interests of a person are justifiable grounds to kill something that has a ‘lower’ moral status. Additional justification is needed to overcome a basic wrongness associated with killing something possessing moral status. There are clear arguments already available in this regard in the case of a foetus that are not available in the case of a newborn infant. Hence, there is scope to consistently hold that abortion may be permissible but that after-birth abortion may not be permissible.
    • [Abstract]
    • [Full text]
    • [PDF]

Sex selection

interview at Freakonomics

Amazon link

Chinese newspaper interview

septic abortion in India after sex selection

From the Times of India:

HYDERABAD: When India was busy celebrating International Women's Day, a group of women activists were protesting the death of a woman who was forced by her family to undergo an abortion to get rid of her five-month-old female fetus, which eventually led to her death. The activists, armed with a fact finding report, revealed the gory details of how 28-year-old M Vijayalakshmi died after a botched-up abortion which was carried out in a private nursing home in Nalgonda.
Vijayalakshmi's death has once again put the spotlight on thriving sex selective abortions and the grim girl child sex ratio in the state, they said. Nalgonda in fact has the third lowest girl child sex ratio in AP with 921 girls per 1,000 boys, with high preferences for boys.