Ex-Planned Parenthood would probably endorse a holocaust.
Adam
2012/05/05 00:27:39
|
|
|||||
|
8 votes
|
|
33% | |||
|
2 votes
|
|
8% | |||
|
9 votes
|
|
38% | |||
|
5 votes
|
|
21% | |||
http://liveaction.org/blog/ex-planned-parenthood-director-new...
If you read this article about an ex-Planned Parenthood employee you will see that he says that the one child law in China is a good start. He believes in reducing the population of the world. So here is the question: If a one child law that china has is just a good start what do you think he has in mind for making it better. My guess would be a holocaust. This is the horrific kind of people we are dealing with when it comes to Planned Parenthood.
If you read this article about an ex-Planned Parenthood employee you will see that he says that the one child law in China is a good start. He believes in reducing the population of the world. So here is the question: If a one child law that china has is just a good start what do you think he has in mind for making it better. My guess would be a holocaust. This is the horrific kind of people we are dealing with when it comes to Planned Parenthood.
Top Opinion
-
goatman112003 2012/05/05 01:30:48PP/Obama wants a holocaust.
+6There are too many people supporting this group with heavy money that want to eliminate a whole bunch of people via anyway they can and that includes lining them up and shooting them.
I'm not advocating abortion or sterilization but there are other incentives to urge people to limit their families. Instead of giving a tax deduction for every child you have, give a deduction for the first child and none for any additional children. Or a deduction for every year you don't give birth. You could give other inducements as well like offering free or low cost college tuition for only children.
I know this is something no one wants to hear but it's a fact and we had better start dealing with it before it's too late.
I like a lot of people, do not believe in using any means of "birth control," and certainly not of ever imposing population "control" upon people. Awful, unnatural, shoddy Big Pharma contraceptive potions and poisons, are admitted to have a long list of terrible side effects. But the world balks at "natural" methods of "birth control," saying that they require too much willpower. So that leaves the virtues of the "no method" method that we could discuss. If people are either unwilling or unable to "control" their fertility, then the obvious alternative is to welcome the planet to grow denser and denser with people, which I have long advocated, since parents' reasons for having children, I am quite sure, are easily PLENTY GOOD ENOUGH.
So I certainly agree with and commend parents for having as many as 19 children, as many as they can, for God clearly commanded, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Besides, human beings are amazing creatures, cr...
I like a lot of people, do not believe in using any means of "birth control," and certainly not of ever imposing population "control" upon people. Awful, unnatural, shoddy Big Pharma contraceptive potions and poisons, are admitted to have a long list of terrible side effects. But the world balks at "natural" methods of "birth control," saying that they require too much willpower. So that leaves the virtues of the "no method" method that we could discuss. If people are either unwilling or unable to "control" their fertility, then the obvious alternative is to welcome the planet to grow denser and denser with people, which I have long advocated, since parents' reasons for having children, I am quite sure, are easily PLENTY GOOD ENOUGH.
So I certainly agree with and commend parents for having as many as 19 children, as many as they can, for God clearly commanded, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Besides, human beings are amazing creatures, created in the image of God. Each and every person is of immense and sacred value, so we ought not interfere with the natural spread of human life.
To say the the world should have but only 3 billion people, sounds very ARBITRARY. What is the logical basis for choosing such an arbitrary round number? Who chose it? Who died and made that person God? Why was I not consulted, when the vote or debate was to be made, for I would have said to let world population expand to trillions or to infinity, as it may do or need to, for population is what it is. Why do we think we can "control" such a "mighty force of nature" that some might imagine human reproduction to perhaps be becoming?
"World population is barely large enough for you and I to have been born." --somebody said
"The more the merrier," they used to say. BTW, why don't I hear that much anymore?
How do you know, the world can't support trillions of people? It would take so long to populate to such a level, that there would be a lot of time to expand various population accommodating technologies. How do you know there wouldn't be Star Trek "food replicators" by then? And how long are we talking about anyway? Demographers seem to doubt that world population will even double once more. They are claiming a peak population of around 9 or 10 billion, although I don't trust that assessment, as they say, "You can't fool all the people all the time." Population tapering off, is based upon the assumption, that most people will continued to be duped into using the nasty unnatural Big Pharma contraceptive devices and drugs. Isn't that a questionable assumption?
Even now, the government may be hiding "free energy" and flying saucers from us. Such technologies would do wonders towards allowing even this world, to grow far more dense with people than many population phobics dare imagine.
A. Either we control our numbers,
B. Or nature will.
Why do pagan earth-worshipers try to confuse us with their liar A\B choices? Where's the undisclosed option C?
C. Wrong. Nature won't! Why do you think we are growing so populous?
Genesis 1:26 gives the simple answer. People are NOT "animals." God gave dominion over nature and other creatures, to man. This largely explains why nature is either unable or unwilling to keep expanding human populations "in check."
Why do New World Order criminal elitists, make grandiose depopulation agenda plans, to eliminate the growing "surplus" world "overpopulation?" Because apparently, nature is unwilling or unable to keep us "in check." (And perhaps not enough people are "volunteering" to use the nasty Big Pharma, treat-us-as-lab-rats, shoddy contraceptive devices and drugs?) So wouldn't that mean, that Malthusian gloom-and-doom poverty religion, is outright demonic fraud? And perhaps some people would rather "take their chances" with nature, than have an evil depopulation agenda imposed against them. At least they would have a far better chance.
We are growing more populous because people either can't or won't control their reproduction. We will, at some point, reach the point where there are too many people. It won't be til then that we'll see the intervention of nature in terms of famine, disease, wars and who know what other kinds of disasters. We are already seeing the death of sea life all around us, the depletion and extinction of species, and destruction of our wilderness areas.
It's going to happen unless we do something and controlling population growth is a huge part of it.