Daily Archives: June 25, 2012

WHO: “Killing The Unborn” Is The New “Healing The Sick”.

One of the problems with Creation is that is tends to do things pretty much in the right way. Whilst perfection is obviously not of this world, one cannot avoid noticing, say, how a child than play football on the hard asphalt without ever breaking any bone (ask me, and millions of other Italian children of a less wealthy age), how wonderfully skin heals, and the like.

One of the aspects of this fundamental godliness of Creation is, if you ask me, how difficult it is to kill a baby. Nature (or better said: God) has made things in a such a way, that when the new entry announces himself, it is not easy at all to cancel the order. On the contrary, the soon-to-be-born baby will immediately start an enthusiastic race toward development and then birth, which will cause a  perfectly formed human being to be created in less than it takes to take a serious professional qualification, or to learn the solid basis of a foreign language. How prodigious the process is after birth is, no doubt, under the eyes of everyone of us.

You would say this is beautiful and clearly godly. But this shows you don’t work for the World Health Organisation, a tax-payer funded genocidal monster now publishing a manual of instruction on how to safely abort a child. One wonders whether there is anything at all nowadays made by any UN organisation which is not extremely corrupt, extremely inefficient, intrinsically stupid, or outright genocidal.

If this is not disgusting enough, please reflect nowadays the WHO (whose remit would, I though, have to do with health) doesn’t limit itself to suggest how to best kill a baby (not an easy task anyway, thank… God), but is even active in encouraging pro-abortion legislation, so that the genocide may more easily be spread all over the planet.

The effect on the health of the millions of babies thus killed does not seem to interest the WHO.

I wonder how many ages of the past were as monstrous as this one. The Spartans did left out in the cold some of their children, but in their cruel world the practice at least had a logic which you might call patriotic, or at least unselfish: the sacrifice of individual interests to the greater good of the community. Cruel and inhuman as it was, the practice wasn’t based on nowadays’ desire to pursue a hedonistic lifestyle, giving to it some fancy name and cloaking it in “human right” language. Bad as it was, it was perceived as a matter or survival, in times in which the vanquished didn’t automatically have a right to live or to exist as culture or people.

Today we witness a completely different phenomenon: the annihilation of everything coming in the way of one person’s enjoyment of every whim, and be it that the life of a child. Absurdly, this phenomenon is encouraged by organisations whose aim should be to help people live, rather than help to kill them.

This is what happens when religious principles are abandoned and substituted for an extremely sugary, soppy-sounding, vocabulary-defying (reproductive… what??!) Nazi ideology instead.

I thought health had to do with healing the sick, not killing the unborn. One is reminded of the delightful piece of English humour above.

What a world we live in.


Reblog of the day

Mundabor's Blog

I never cease to be amazed at that particular form of human stupidity expressing itself in people insisting that things be the contrary of what they are. Say, I am buddhist and I’d like to think that Jesus was Buddhist, therefore I persuade myself that Jesus was Buddhist.

The problem with that is that one can’t believe one thing and ts contrary. Unless he is outright stupid or deluded to the point of stupidity, of course. If you believe in Jesus you can’t believe that he was Buddhist and if you think that Jesus was Buddhist you don’t believe in Jesus, you believe in a self-made religion to which you conveniently attach what you and many other like in an attempt to make it credible.

The same happens here. You can’t believe that you are a Catholic and that Catholicism is wrong on doctrinal issues. You really can’t. It’s…

View original post 470 more words

%d bloggers like this: