40 Days for Life: Don’t Eat the Babies, Save the Babies!!!
In case you are not aware where “Eat the babies” came from, watch this priceless satire of the leftists’ absurd obsession with “climate change”:
The woman was a plant at an AOC townhall, and she appears distraught at the “three months” we have before “climate change” doomsday is upon us. Every time I think of the phrase, “We need to eat the babies,” I laugh, and hearing her voice saying it makes me laugh all the more. The point, so artfully made, and to the oblivious crowd gathered in that room, is that human beings are not the cause of our supposedly impending climate catastrophe. If the “climate change” alarmists are right, then we are, and why not “eat the babies.”
The More Secular a Society, The Fewer Children Will Be Born
When I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, the big concern and among fear-mongering apocalyptics was over-population. One best-seller at the time, published in 1968 by Stanford University Professor Paul Ehrlich, was subtly titled The Population Bomb. It predicted that there would be starvation on a mass scale by the 1980s because there would just be too many people. He starts his book this way:
The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate . . .
Not only did Ehrlich’s hysterical predictions prove laughably false, in the 21st century demographers are telling us the exact opposite is the problem. Population decline is now the fear. All over the Western and much of the Asian world, women are not having enough children to replace current populations. Unlike the apocalyptic fear-mongers (yes, that in includes you, Al Gore) who see human beings as leaches on society and the natural world, demographers understand that human beings are a net resource; fewer human beings, fewer resources. More human beings, more resources.
Is It Wrong to Torture Babies for Fun?
I can imagine you thinking at this moment, What kind of person would ask such a stupid question! Hang with me, and you’ll realize it’s not such a stupid question after all.
In my previous post I shared an Alice in Wonderland adventure I had with a postmodernist. As always in such encounters, one thinks of things one could of or should have said afterward. At one point I shifted the conversation to something called the moral argument. Simply stated, this means that the best explanation for morality, the sense that all human beings have of right and wrong and justice, can best be explained by the existence of a personal God. The postmodernist is a relativist, meaning morality is whatever an individual person or culture thinks it is. For them, there is no objective standard of right and wrong which exists outside of their own feelings or perceptions. By happy happenstance I was able to share a perfect example of postmodern relativism just this morning with my son. (more…)
Want to Make a Counter Cultural Statement: Have More Kids!
I became a Christian when I was 18, well before I was to get married and had to think about having children. When I did, like many conservative protestants, I uncritically accepted birth control and the family planning mentality; I saw having children as something of a choice for Christians, not unlike my secular neighbors. A few times over the years this mindset was challenged, but certainly not from within the evangelical community. Our seriously orthodox Catholic brothers and sisters would point out that life is a gift from God, and that God’s gifts must not be lightly rejected. Yet evangelicals continue to have their 2.2 kids like most Americans, and never question whether their embrace of the modern cultural norm is at all biblical.
Recent Comments