PDA

View Full Version : Barbaric Indian Practices Open Window to Dark Future of Infanticide and Euthanasia


Petr
02-27-2008, 06:48 PM
True civilization is a golden mean between savagery and decadence... pre-Christians are usually in the former phase, post-Christians in the latter one.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08022605.html


Commentary: Barbaric Tribal Practices Open Window to Dark Future of Infanticide and Euthanasia

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman


BRAZIL, February 26, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The courageous journalism of Brazilian reporter Hugo Marques, published today for the first time in English by LifeSiteNews.com, opens a window to a dark vision of Brazil's savage, pre-Christian past, and the horrifying future that awaits the Western world should it decide to fully implement the ideology of death that is increasingly supported by the global intellectual and political establishment (see article at http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08022604.html).

As LifeSiteNews reporter John Jalsevac revealed on Friday, the world's most prestigious bioethics journal is now openly endorsing the practice of eugenic infanticide, the murder of helpless infants whose only crime is to be born with some sort of disability or disease. Marques' article, published in the Brazilian magazine ISTOÉ, gives us an idea of the nature of a society that has fully implemented this eugenicist principle, and a glimpse of our own future should we take the same path.

We meet a beautiful child named Amalé, who was unfortunate enough to be born to an unwed mother who was a member of the Kamiurá tribe in Brazil. The Kamiurá tribe has a simple, iron rule: children of unwed mothers are to be buried alive, by their own mothers. And so, he was.

Amalé, however, was fortunate enough to have an aunt who is not a member of the death cult that is becoming so popular among the Western cultural elite. She had the audacity to rescue her nephew and flee with him to Brasilia, Brazil's capital, where a charitable organization run by Protestants, and supported by Catholics, cares for victims of such "traditional practices."

But Amalé is one of the fortunate few to survive the murderous customs of Brazilian indigenous societies. Three other babies whom Amalé's aunt tried to rescue were killed after she was caught with them. Amalé escaped because he was too weak to cry until he was out of harm's reach.

According to Marques, hundreds of babies are murdered every year in Brazil for similar "offenses." Perhaps they are born crippled, or with some sort of disease. Or perhaps they are simply twins, or have a birth mark, or are born out of wedlock. They are buried alive, strangled, hung, and even hacked to death with machetes.

Brazilians are horrified by the revelation that such practices occur routinely in Brazil, and that the government does nothing to stop it. And yet the global empire of foundations, United Nations affiliated groups, and pro-abortion governments have been promoting the "culture of death" in Brazil for years, attempting to legalize and implement the practice of "therapeutic abortion" on a nationwide scale.

They portray their campaign as a humanitarian effort to eliminate suffering and liberate women from the "slavery" of their own bodies and the vocation of motherhood. However, there is little difference between their goals and the bloody rituals of Brazilian indigenous groups revealed in Marques' article.

Abortion is merely infanticide that it is committed out of sight, and out of mind, in the darkness of the mother's womb, the one place on Earth where a baby should be safe. There, under the cruel instruments of the abortionist, infants are literally torn apart with a vacuum, poisoned with saline solution or potassium chloride, or cut to pieces with a large scalpel.

Among the indigenous people of Brazil, no disingenuous distinctions are made between "pre-viable" and "post-viable" fetuses, attempting to deny the humanity of a child based on his helplessness and dependency on his mother's body. There is no pretence. There is only the cold and naked logic of the culture of death, shorn of any cheap humanitarian facade: this child is different, this child is defective, therefore this child must die. No "doctor" carries out the death sentence, bringing the prestige of his profession and the soothing rationalizations of "reproductive health". The mother herself, under duress by the rest of the tribe, is forced to do it.

This is our "brave new world", the dystopian future that is already here, the daily reality of abortion revealed in all of its evil. It is the end result of the false premises that underlie every assault on human life, the hellish destination to which we are moving with terrible speed. It is our choice to continue, or to return to the principle that is essential for society itself: that human life is sacred, the most fundamental of all rights.


Related Links:

The Indian Child who was Buried Alive
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08022604.html

Bronze Age Pervert
02-27-2008, 07:05 PM
This is not a bad thing. Allowing the infirm and denatured to continue would be to admit that mere life is the highest thing and worthwhile as such. It would be a sign that the will has become enervated, seeks comfort, seeks Protestant-optimistic satiety. That is true decadence. This by contrast is the same impulse by which Nature shapes a people. Once Western nations cast off the second cross (liberalism) we too can become more relaxed about sentimental fantasies like "value of human life" and can abandon ourselves to absorption in the instinct of the species. With this abandonment will come a firm and almost regal composure that those who battle against the tide can't even imagine right now.

Petr
02-27-2008, 07:12 PM
This is not a bad thing. Allowing the infirm and denatured to continue would be to admit that mere life is the highest thing and worthwhile as such. It would be a sign that the will has become enervated, seeks comfort, seeks Protestant-optimistic satiety. That is true decadence.
It might interest you to know that I have argued against this other extreme as well:

I'd say that both "keep on living at any cost" and "handicapped living is not worth living" approaches reek of humanistic materialism. We should be able to recognize the point where it's clearly no longer God's but man's will that someone should keep on living.

That point would seem to be where human being is clearly being kept alive by a machine only. This referring to both old people (especially if they are unconscious) and very seriously deformed babies.

And by that I don't mean that machine is assisting someone to live but that it is doing, for all the practical purposes, all the work of keeping someone alive, the God-given body itself contributing nothing. That's a sign that God did not intend this little person to stay long in this cruel world. "God takes those soonest whom He loves most."
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=52577&postcount=252

In the olden days, people didn't think that dying was such a big deal - neither Christians nor pagans. Most decent people were as ready to give their own life as they were ready to take lives when the justice called for it. Apostle Paul gives a good example of this attitude:

"For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar."

- Acts 25:11
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=52588&postcount=256


Petr

Bronze Age Pervert
02-27-2008, 07:25 PM
It might interest you to know that I have argued against this other extreme as well:


http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=52577&postcount=252


http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=52588&postcount=256


Petr

Interesting. But why God? Why not abandonment to Fate?

Draco
03-09-2008, 11:59 AM
Racially, this is good news, the fewer of them, the better. However, morally, I must also support it as eugenics always make good sense.

Also, is this "LifeSiteNews" the only website you visit Petr?

Petr
03-09-2008, 12:11 PM
Also, is this "LifeSiteNews" the only website you visit Petr?
Are dull 'n dumb one-liners the only thing you are ever capable of putting forward? :rolleyes:


Petr

Draco
03-10-2008, 12:44 AM
Are dull 'n dumb one-liners the only thing you are ever capable of putting forward? :rolleyes:


Petr

Is counting un-Christian? Brevity is a talent, rambling a curse.

I see two lines above, as well as here.

Jake Featherston
03-10-2008, 08:18 AM
There is something fucking wrong with someone who'd bury their own healthy baby alive. If I'd been called upon to do that to my son, I would have attempted to flee with my son, and otherwise made them kill me first, and hopefully taken some of them with me. I have no doubt his mother would feel identically. Its easy to excuse this kind of barbarism by talking of how these women have been raised within such societies, but try to visualize holding your own nerborn baby (this is easier if you've actually had a child), and then digging a hole in your backyard, placing him or her inside that hole, and then covering your crying baby with dirt, so that it suffocates under the ground. Do you really believe you'd do this, even if you'd been taught it was the right thing to do? People who do this are evil, and they should be suppressed.

Jake Featherston
03-10-2008, 08:20 AM
Allowing the infirm and denatured to continue would be to admit that mere life is the highest thing and worthwhile as such. It would be a sign that the will has become enervated, seeks comfort, seeks Protestant-optimistic satiety. That is true decadence.

Reasonable people can differ as to how a deformed child should be dealt with, but to bury a baby alive, merely because the mother is unwed, is barbaric in the extreme. One of the founders of the USA, Alexander Hamilton, was born of an unwed mother (possibly a prostitute). I'm sure the same can be said of many great men and women.

Draco
03-11-2008, 12:50 AM
<flame removed>


I have wondered if Christianity's opposition to eugenics stemmed from a fear it would dry up it's pool of donors, er, worshipers over the long-term. This "all life is sacred" bit is fairly new, and coincidentally timed a few decades ago when attendance started dwindling.

Petr
03-11-2008, 05:31 AM
I have wondered if Christianity's opposition to eugenics stemmed from a fear it would dry up it's pool of donors, er, worshipers over the long-term. This "all life is sacred" bit is fairly new, and coincidentally timed a few decades ago when attendance started dwindling.
You don't know that the Roman Catholic church was heading opposition to eugenics already in the 1920s and 1930s.


Petr

annoying bitch
03-11-2008, 07:58 AM
I have wondered if Christianity's opposition to eugenics stemmed from a fear it would dry up it's pool of donors, er, worshipers over the long-term. This "all life is sacred" bit is fairly new, and coincidentally timed a few decades ago when attendance started dwindling.

That is exactly it, I think. It certainly has nothing to do with 'all human life is sacred,' which is a completely alien secular humanist concept. What about all the heretics burned at the stake, were their lives sacred? :rofl:

It is good for the churches to have a large crop of imbeciles, ill and deformed. If you're intelligent, healthy and fit you usually don't have much reason to beg God for help through a priest (and so won't stop by to tithe, either). The pattern seen through the world is health + higher average IQ = higher standard of living and lower percentage of regular church attendance. People turn to superstitious nonsense when they are down-and-out in life or too dumb to know better.