The homophobic manifesto

A counterblast to Michael Swift’s famous essay

The Gay Revolutionary

published in Gay Community News, 15-21 Feb. 1987

You will probably enjoy this more, if you read Swift’s original essay first, re-published here, by Jesuits.

-

-

This essay is an outré oasis of sanity, a triumphant, benign fantasy, an eruption of inner love, joy and peace, on how the oppressed desperately dream of a world where nobody is persecuted for “thought crimes”, not even homophobic people.

We who are homophobic shall rectify your miseducation of our sons about sodomy (I hope before you get around to sodomising too many more of them).  Our sons are the pride and joy of our under-valued masculinity, of our noble dreams and lasting truths.  We shall rescue them from you in our schools, in our dormitories, in our gymnasiums, in our locker rooms, in our sports arenas, in our seminaries, in our youth groups … (etc) … wherever men are with men together.  Our sons shall be educated and free and make their own fully-informed lifestyle choices.  Many of them will (or so many of us hope), show by their lives that they remain cast in the image of God, no less. They may well come to crave and to adore Him.

All laws banning homophobia will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be enforced which upholds our freedom of thought and expression.

All homophobic people must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to our illiberal, intolerant and spiteful persecutors.

If you dare to cry bigot or homophobe at us, we will giggle at you, because we know in our hearts that we are free men, entitled to think any thoughts, express any ideas, we wish.

We shall write poems of the love of men for freedom; we shall stage plays in which man openly expresses his beliefs to man and nothing bad happens to him at all; we shall make films about the virtue of heroic men which will complement the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, pro-gay propaganda presently all-too prevalent on our cinema and television screens, even the broadcasts of our televised Parliament.  We shall sculpt statues of whatever those of us gifted in sculpture feel like sculpting (and will generously allow you to do the same).  The museums of the world will be filled with anything and everything that the museum management consider worthy to occupy exhibit space.

Our writers and artists, and yours, will write and make whatever they damn well want, and we will strive to protect their artistic freedom, and yours, because we’re not mean or hateful, just homophobic.  We will fight tooth and nail against the present persecution of homophobic people through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we do not need to be “skilled” in employing like you, when ridiculing such an easy target as your spoilt-brat intolerance.

We will embarrass the homophobic people who have traded principle for a small measure of power, behaving as intolerant zealots, out of fear of the gay lobby.  People will be surprised and amused when they find that their presidents and their sons, their industrialists, senators, mayors, civic leaders etc, are hypocritically playing safe, by outwardly posing as politically correct, whilst secretly being just as homophobic as the rest of us.  Homophobic people are everywhere; we have no need or desire to infiltwate your ranks.  Be careful when you speak ill of homophobic people because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in a bed near you, but hopefully not too near.

There will be a return to good old British compromise. We are probably not all middle-class weaklings, but what matter if we were? We are not all highly intelligent, still less “the natural aristocrats of the human race”, though at least we aren’t doing anything as unnatural as you advocate.  We don’t hunger for power like you, only for our lost freedom.  Steely-minded liberals or libertarians, even those of us who happen to be homophobic people, never settle for less than liberty. Those who oppose our right to our opinion will be therefore be patronised, and frowned at, and sued if they keep on causing us trouble.

We shall not need vast private armies to defeat you; reason alone will do the trick.  Homophobic people as a demographic group don’t typically want to conquer the world themselves, because most of us don’t want anybody to conquer the world, least of all your lot.  Your rhetorical “warriors” who you said were “inspired by and banded together by” homosexual vice and dishonour were not “born gay”, they were born losers.  You will one day be as dead as is every one of those ancient Greek soldiers of your perverse fantasy.

The family unit – admittedly occasionally the spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence, but far more often of truth, loyalty, excellence, sincerity and love – will surely survive your tantrums.  The family unit, which seldom  ”dampens imagination” as you claim, nor “curbs free will”, will therefore never be eliminated, I predict.  (Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory, you say?  My my, you really meant what you said about your essay being a “madness”, didn’t you?  Bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants?  Over our dead bodies!)

All churches who condemn you will probably thrive, and win over the likes of us who are not presently church-goers at all.  (Churches that condemn us will not be as successful.)  Different homophobic people have different gods, or none.  We have nothing against handsome young men, even though we will never worship them.  Some of us are handsome young men themselves.  It’s just that they are homophobic handsome young men.  (So, if you say that one of us has a beautiful body, don’t expect him to hold it against you, darling.)

As a matter of fact, we quite like beauty, both moral and aesthetic, ourselves.  (That is exactly the reason why many of us are the homophobic people we are in the first place.)  We do not expect realistically to be able to annihilate all that is ugly and vulgar and banal, and nor should you.  We don’t necessarily agree with one another in the first place, as to what things are ugly or vulgar or banal, apart from homosexuality, about which we do agree.  We don’t even expect to “annihilate” homosexuality, just to be free to disapprove of it.   We are alienated from present day middle-class pro-gay conventions, but we remain free to think our own thoughts privately, guided, for example, by the dictates of pure conscience and aesthetic sense.  And we intend to emancipate ourselves from your slavery, becoming free once again to express our homophobic thoughts, without fear of reprisals.  For us, too young to learn about your vile habits is what we consider many of our own sons still to be.

We are not expecting an exquisite society to emerge.  We can barely imagine a worse government, for any society “exquisite” or otherwise, than one composed entirely of gay poets.  (Well, not on this earth.  Perhaps the planet Uranus?)  Any man contaminated with homosexual lust will be barred from talking on and on and on about it endlessly, posing as a “victim”, boring the pants off the rest of us.  We will do our best to ignore all males who insist on remaining stupidly homosexual.  We are homophobic people.   That’s what we do.  That’s who we are.  That’s how we want to stay.

We shall expect history to continue being rewritten, by all sorts of people, as it always has been.  But we will challenge homosexualist lies and distortions.  A few of us might (occasionally) portray the homophobia of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world.  We will certainly protest whenever academics are fired, for setting out to demonstrate that homophobia is inextricably linked with intelligence and imagination, or that homosexuality isn’t, or anything of the kind.

We shall probably be victorious eventually, but, unlike you, we are not fuelled by “ferocious bitterness”.  We are merely weary of being persecuted and maligned.  We have been bombarded with your dumbed-down, politically correct diatribes and insults for too many decades, perfectly able to see from the outset the absence of joined-up thinking from your propaganda.  We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate counter-revolution.  But why should we have to use guns, when we have reason and good old-fashioned liberal/libertarian values on our side?

Tremble, pro-gay swine.  We who are proud to be homophobic people intend to rip off your masks, and show you for what you are, to the whole world.  Our day will come.  One day, we will no longer lose our jobs, or our children, our liberty, or our lives, because of your disapproval of our disapproval of your craving for our feigned approval, at any cost to our consciences, of your favoured vice.

And please don’t even think of sodomising either of my sons, or I’ll scratch your ugly eyes out, duckie.

Two year-old’s contact stopped with “homophobic” dad

Guest post by “Gagged Dad”, whose real name must be kept secret, for legal reasons

When the police at last cleared me of the false allegation that I had hit my two year-old son, I expected to be allowed to see him again straight away.  I had been a part of his life since birth. I had been seeing him three times a week until almost two months ago, when all contact was abruptly stopped.  I miss him, and he must be missing me.

The social worker said that the alleged assault, for which I had documentary proof of an alibi that would have proved my innocence if the police prosecuted me, wasn’t an “insurmountable” problem.  But she had developed other “concerns”, about (if I remember the phrase correctly) my “parenting style”, because of my “beliefs”.  (She had presumably found out that I used to take my son to church every Sunday. He loved it.)

I asked her to explain. What beliefs?

She responded by asking me a weird question.  What if, when my my son was 14, he told me that he was “gay” and that he had a “boyfriend” and I was “violently opposed” to this?  She wanted to know what I would do, in this hypothetical situation.  How would I react to this announcement?   Presumably she anticipated that I would react “violently”, judging by the way she had worded her hypothetical question.  I reminded her that my son was only two.

She then asked me how I would react if one of my grown-up daughters one day told me that she had had an abortion.

I later learnt that social services had decided not to “promote contact.”  I missed his third birthday.  I don’t know whether I will ever see my little boy again.  If he can no longer have contact with me, who will take him to visit his three sisters and brother, or his aunts and uncles, or his nephews and nieces who are closer to his own age?  Who will take him to church?

Shopping for medical opinions

This blog post

Touch the image to read the gist in brief

Bipolar patient has capacity to decide to terminate pregnancy

about this judgment of the Court of Protection

SB (A Patient; Capacity To Consent To Termination), Re [2013] EWHC 1417 (COP) (21 May 2013)

has set me thinking.

. . .

A tense, life-or-death, courtroom drama

Pitched against her own legal team, the mental patient, Mrs SB, had two psychiatrists, her mother, her father, her husband (presumably the baby’s father) and the NHS hospital in which she was sectioned, along with their various solicitors and barristers, all agreeing that she was “not thinking straight”.

Her baby was not legally represented in court.  As the nice judge said, “the foetus has no independent rights which fall to be weighed or considered by me at all in these proceedings”. 

Present (though hardly as a disinterested, mere spectator), was the enterprising would-be sub-contractor who had put in a last-minute bid to do the job, less than a week before the mother reached 24 weeks pregnant, and the baby’s life would have become untouchable.   “A doctor employed by a well known body”, is how the judge described this potential beneficiary of the judge’s own hard day’s work, when the abortionist put in his own “hard day at the orifice”.

The abortion industry’s income, and love for humanity, have to weighed jolly carefully in the scales of justice nowadays

At 23 and a bit weeks, the foetus could perhaps be delivered alive, and would stand a chance of surviving.  The slower the wheels of justice ground, the better the foetus’ chances of making it.  But the court wasn’t “Thinking outside the botch” today.   Nothing but death would suffice, for some reason.  That was what was stipulated in the abortionist’s – er – contract.

The case would therefore need to be decided quickly.  There was robust justice to be done.  The judge didn’t start delivering his judgment until 8 o’clock in the evening.  What a hero.  Tomorrow might have been too late.  They still had to find a second doctor to sign the death warrant, and time was running out.   What if not even the “well-known body” could come up with a second signatory, who knew how to “weigh” stuff that “fell to be considered”?

Here is the gist of the UK Human Rights blog post’s summary of the court’s judgment:

66

The patient … was a 37 year old highly intelligent graduate… 8 years she presented with symptoms … of bi-polar disorder. She had been detained … at various times … These proceedings were issued … because the mother concerned was “very strongly” requesting a termination … It was clear from the patient’s own evidence that she herself did want a baby at the time that she conceived it.  But after the first trimester had elapsed, in April, she started to show signs of her disorder and there was a “total reversal” in her attitude towards the baby …

The judge was prepared to take the unusual step of differing from the view of the psychiatrists that she would bitterly regret the termination. …  The decision, with its risks of consequent regret, was one that the patient should be at liberty to take.  The judge fully appreciated her situation, including the fact that she was currently compulsorily detained. … the Court … the judge has to consider whether the reasons for a decision are rational.  This does not mean that they have to be good reasons, nor does the court have to agree with the patient’s decision…

99

-

A victory for the rights of mental patients

The good news is that the lady with “paranoia”, which the doctors said was the entire reason for her change of heart towards her baby, won the right to choose something, even though it wasn’t the right to choose whether to be in a mental hospital or not, which might have been more useful.  And the abortionist was given his (shall we say?) weighty reason to grin like a Cheshire cat all the way home.  So, the foetus’ will not have died in vain, if that is what did happen to him or her.  His sacrifice has struck a blow in the long struggle for equality of mental patients.

-

But why this case?

Didn’t bringing this case, in this situation as it was, when the objective was to protect the patient’s mental health from Post-Abortion Syndrome kicking in as soon as her Bipolar Disorder got better, amount to putting the cart before the horse, so to speak?

The question before the court was whether the patient had mental capacity to “request” an abortion.  If we had abortion on demand in the UK, whether an abortion had been “requested” would be an important question, since any mother who requested an abortion, would be likely to have an abortion, just because she had requested it.   But, under UK law, the patient having requested abortion is an irrelevant consideration.  The patient’s request is not one of the tests to apply, under the Abortion Act, in determining whether an abortion would not after all be a criminal offence.  First, the question has to be answered by doctors, whether there are medical grounds for abortion.  Then the question has to be asked whether the mother consents to the abortion procedure.  The Abortion Act doesn’t mention “requesting” at all.

As evidence of the patient’s capacity to make the irrelevant “request”, the patient showed that she had a rational reason for requesting an abortion, namely not wanting to bring up her unborn child herself after he or she had been born.  But this was not a reason that two doctors “acting in good faith” could possibly take into consideration, when both forming one of the necessary medical opinions set out in section 1(1) of the Abortion Act, the statutory criteria for medical abortions to be lawful.  In the UK, an abortion is not made legal merely by a mother not wanting to bring up her child, thank God.

To put the horse before the cart, as one should, the patient could have simply asked her two psychiatrists to form the opinion in good faith that (to quote the Act) “the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to her mental health”.  (This was the ground for 97.9% of the legal abortions in England and Wales during 2011.)  Who better to ask?  If they formed that opinion in good faith, then, and only then, the only important mental capacity question would arise, the question as to whether the patient had mental capacity to consent herself to the abortion procedure itself.

(Exceptionally, I suppose, that there is an outside chance that she was one of the 2.1% of mothers who legally qualify for an abortion other than on the mental health grounds.  Had there been any reason to suppose this – and there seems not to be – I suppose that the question could have arisen then, as to whether she should have also been be attended by two other doctors, specialists in whatever far less common risk that continuation of the pregnancy posed to her physical health, whatever that might have been.)

-

What is really going on here?

What this case seems to be about, is what I will call opinion shopping, an ethically dubious activity which I nevertheless suspect has become an everyday occurrence throughout the length and breadth of the land.  I would even go so far as to say that the word on the streets is that if woman goes to this rather than that “well known body”, then they might even have stocks of forms ready-completed and pre-signed with the very opinion she wants to buy, on which her name can simply be penned in.

Mentally ill woman (or woman who is willing to play the “mental health card” deceitfully) wants abortion.  Psychiatrists (and who better to know?), say (or would say, if asked) that their medical opinion, formed in good faith, is that continuance of the pregnancy does not involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to her mental health, perhaps even the very opposite.  But that is not what woman wants to hear.

Woman wants instead to shop around for the opinion she wants to hear, amongst doctors known to be more enthusiastic than psychiatrists are likely to be about abortion, since psychiatrists see the ill-effects on mental health outcomes (or at least the lack of beneficial effects).  Woman wants to keep trying other pairs of doctors, until she finds a pair of doctors only too glad to pander to her wishes.   Doctors who are not psychiatrists, experts in predicting mental health outcomes.  Abortionists, who stand to gain financially from saying “in good faith” what psychiatrists might not be willing to say, in order to give a semblance of legality to about 97.9% of legal abortions, if the figures for England and Wales in 2011 are typical.

Woman wants to see if she can persuade one of these other pairs of doctors, less well-placed to comment on the risks to her mental health than her psychiatrists, to say that the opinion of psychiatrists is wrong.  She wants them to form “in good faith” the exact opposite of the opinion of the best qualified experts; namely that continuance of pregnancy DOES involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to woman’s mental health.

That seems to be an opinion elicited “in good faith” easily enough from most abortionists, on the part of any mentally ill woman who wants an abortion, or any woman who merely pretends to be mentally ill to trick the abortionists into forming “in good faith” the opinions of which they need a steady stream anyway, just in order to provide 97.9% of the abortion industry’s income, and thus keep their jobs.

________________________________

See also the post “Giving evolution a helping hand“, on this blog, for more thoughts about “psychiatric” abortions that psychiatrists do or would oppose, but which abortionists gladly approve willy nilly, in the name of dubious better mental health outcomes for those who provide their bread and butter.

UK judge okays “Don’t ask, don’t tell”

The Guardian reports the fate of British school teacher Robert Haye here:

Homophobic teacher loses appeal against classroom ban

-

Robert Haye flouted the benign British “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy towards people with opinions that are not approved by the government.

As a homophobe, Robert Haye’s job was safe, as long as he remained in the closet.  He would have been perfectly within his rights to have given a detention to whichever students in his class of fifteen and sixteen year-olds had pestered him to know whether he was homophobic.  They had, after all, violated the “Don’t ask” rule themselves, the first half of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Instead of stifling any discussion of homophobia in the classroom as he was apparently required to do, Mr Haye responded by violating the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy himself.  Asked, he told, thus breaking the second of the rules of the policy, “Don’t tell”.   In his honesty, he outed himself as homophobe.   He even outed himself as a Christian, a confession arguably even more dangerous, for a science teacher to make.

Mr Haye should have stone-walled the impudent enquiry.  As somebody now openly Christian and homophobic, Mr Hayes quickly discovered that he had forfeited the safety which he had enjoyed whilst he had remained in the closet.    He had stepped out from beneath the shelter of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” umbrella.   It had become inevitable that his comeuppance would rain down upon him, and rain it did.

Mr Haye will almost certainly never be allowed to work as a school teacher in this country again.

-

Don’t ask, don’t tell

The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was pioneered in the United States of America, where it was applied to people serving in the armed services, who self-identified as having homosexual or bisexual sexual orientations, or who practised homosexuality.  The policy has been adopted and adapted throughout the UK, where it is nowadays applied to workers with opinions with which the government or their own private sector employers disagree, but who nevertheless need to work for a living somewhere.  This generous, merciful policy provides complete protection from victimisation for all those with dissident beliefs, as long as they keep their mouths shut about their beliefs, in the workplace, or anywhere else (such as on social media) where workplace colleague would-be informers might discover their secret perverted opinions, and denounce them.

-

Stupid, or what?

Which part of the expression, “Don’t ask, don’t tell”, is it so hard for these Christians, homophobes and other dissident minorities to understand?  Why do these and other non-mainstream free-thinkers insist on being in the faces of normal people, by admitting to their dissident beliefs openly, instead of taking advantage of the fair-minded “Don’t ask, don’t tell” toleration offered to people like them, if only they will just learn to keep their disgusting opinions to themselves?

You mark my words:  They’ll be holding “pride” parades next, demanding a new policy that makes even more generous accommodations to minorities like them.  More generous, that is, than the present, perfectly reasonable “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of toleration shown towards silent dissidents.  They’ll be demanding equality for different opinions next, if we don’t watch out.

Oh, wait a minute … isn’t “pride” a sin?  Well, in that case, they’ll have to think of something else to call their “pride” parades instead, won’t they?  I know: How about calling them “Not Ashamed” parades?  That’s got rather a nice ring to it.

-

If you enjoyed this, you might also enjoy these other posts:

Burning the poppy

B*ggers CAN be choosers!

Reinstate or compensate Adrian Smith

Catherine Schaible’s right to choose

If you don’t know who Catherine Schaible is, then please click on her picture below, and take your pick of the various news stories and blog posts in the search results.

The executive summary is that Ms Schaible’s son died aged two, and she was convicted of involuntary manslaughter.  (Allegedly, her son died because Ms Schaible hadn’t called a doctor when her son fell ill.)  She was sentenced to ten years probation.  Recently, another of her five children, who was only eight months old, hardly what you’d call a “person” yet, also fell ill and died.  Again, she hadn’t called the doctor.  Again, she found herself in trouble with the law, in the fascist, theocratic state Pennsylvania.

A lot of bigoted fanatics have been saying unkind things about Ms Schaible online and in the media.  I have been posting comments like the following on some of the websites that contain such criticism of her, criticism that is often very strongly worded, for example even calling this innocent woman a “murderer”, would you believe? 

66

Catherine Schaible

If you don’t want to kill YOUR baby by neglect, then don’t kill your baby by neglect. Simple.

It is nobody’s business but Catherine Schaible’s what she did with her OWN BABY.  It is was her RIGHT, as a woman with inalienable reproductive rights, to CHOOSE whether or not to call the doctor when her baby was taken ill.  All you fanatical zealots who want to force your beliefs in medical science down the throats of non-believers like Ms Schaible, need to learn to keep your noses out of other people’s bedrooms and family business.

This woman obviously didn’t want to keep her baby (at least, not enough to save its life by calling the doctor.)   That’s not a decision any woman takes lightly.  She should not be vilified and treated like a criminal, merely for exercising her constitutional rights in this way.   She is not just a brood mare for the state of Pennsylvania!

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the government has NO RIGHT to interfere in a woman’s private relationship with her physician.  It is just as unconstitutional to persecute Catherine Schaible for failing to call the doctor so that her unwanted baby would die, as it would be to interfere in that relationship if she had needed her doctor’s help to get rid of her unwanted baby.

What sort of life would the baby have had anyway, with a mother who wished it dead?  Ms Schaible is right.   The baby is better off dead.  Leave Ms Schaible alone, all you misogynistic men.  You mere men can’t give birth, so this has nothing to do with you, even though, admittedly, both of Ms Scaible’s dead children happen to have been male.

99

Clearly, Ms Schaible should have had somebody as clever as me as her defence lawyer, don’t you think?

Giving evolution a helping hand

Giving evolution a helping hand, when evolution isn’t working fast enough, is called “eugenics”.

This blog post presents evidence that eugenics is being practised, here in the United Kingdom.

The eugenics movement, is no unproven conspiracy theory.  It is proven conspiracy fact.  For example, compulsory sterilisation in the USA is documented in this learned paper (in PDF format, so some readers might have to download it), published in 1991 in the American Journal of Human Genetics.  The compulsory sterilisation was at first of “criminals, the insane, feeble-minded persons”, but later of “alcoholics, paupers, orphans, derelicts, delinquents, prostitutes and those unable to support themselves”.

Who could deny that many people believe that hereditary factors play a part in the aetiology of mental illnesses?  There is certainly ample academic research exploring this very possibility.

-

Let me therefore formulate a hypothesis, and then make a prediction of empirical measurements that will be made if an appropriate experiment is conducted.  Then conduct (or cite) an appropriate experiment.  We can then find out whether the results that the hypothesis predicts, are yielded by the experiment.  (That’s the proper “scientific method” for testing a hypothesis, isn’t it?)

-

Hypothesis

A contemporary eugenics programme is being practised in the UK today, the effect of which will be to reduce the prevalence in future generations of mental illness, to whatever extent mental illness is hereditary.

-

-

Prediction

If the hypothesis were true, we would expect to observe the disproportionate extermination, in comparison with other children, of those who could be surmised to be more likely than other children to have inherited the genetic material that predisposes certain people to develop mental illnesses.  For example, we might expect to observe that the children of mothers who have, or are considered likely to develop, mental illnesses, would become the deceased party during terminations of pregnancy under the Abortion Act 1967,  disproportionately more often than the children of mothers who didn’t exhibit mental illness, nor were identified as being at risk of exhibiting mental illness in the future.

-

Caveats

Before moving on to the necessary experiment, we must ensure that my proposed method is rigorous.  I can foresee two problems, which I will endeavour to address first.  Readers are welcome to suggest other possible flaws in my method.

Firstly, what was merely a slight over-representation of the children of mothers with, or diagnosed at risk of, mental illness, amongst the casualties of the abortion industry, might not be able readily to be seen to be statistically significant, capable of vindicating the  hypothesis.  Tedious mathematical tests for statistical significance would then be needed, in order to evaluate what (if anything) a merely slight over-representation told us.  I would wish to avoid the need for these.

What I therefore need to do, is to refine my prediction, to eliminate this potential flaw in my method.  What we would need to learn, I now say, from the experiment, would be that there was a preponderance of casualties who were the sons or daughters of mothers with, or at risk of, mental illness.  A majority so overwhelming that it would be churlish to deny statistical significance, to deny that the experimental result amounted to evidence of eugenics by psychiatric abortion.

We must eliminate the distorting effect of any mothers who don’t belong anyway to the demographic “mentally ill, or likely to become mentally ill”. (Touch the picture with your mouse cursor for more.)

Secondly, we would need to eliminate any distortion of the experimental results, from what I will call “psychiatrically prophylactic abortion”, abortions performed upon a woman who, as a result of her more robust genetic make-up, is not mentally ill, nor at exceptional risk of developing mental illness later in life, but to whom, some scientific evidence or other suggests, continuing with an unwanted pregnancy posed a risk of her developing mental illness for the first time in her life, a risk that clearly exceeded any risk posed to her mental health by having her pregnancy terminated.

Happily, we are able to eliminate completely this potential distortion.  For example, this recent research, tells us that continuing with their pregnancies does not pose any greater risk to the mental health of mothers in general, who have unwanted or unintended pregnancies, than having their pregnancies terminated.  In fact, there is evidence that termination actually increases the risk of mental illness.

-

Experiment

Fortunately, we don’t need a laboratory of our own, or one that is any smaller than two entire countries of the United Kingdom, to test whether the prediction of the eugenics programme hypothesis is born out.  The British government’s Department of Health itself has already performed the experiment that I would otherwise have to design and perform, and published here its meticulously gathered statistics for all the legal terminations of pregnancy conducted in England and Wales throughout the year 2011.

What percentage of all the legal abortions carried out in England and Wales during 2011 would you guess were carried out for reasons associated with the mother’s mental health?  A quarter?  Half?  More than half?  Let’s find out, shall we?

-

Result

The answer, to three significant figures, is 97.9%.  That is the preponderance, the overwhelming majority I hoped would be found, if the hypothesis wasn’t just true, but was also going to turn out to be easy to prove, without tedious tests for statistical significance.   It is the sort of empirical measurement predicted by a strong version of my hypothesis, that eugenics by psychiatric abortion isn’t merely happening, it’s  happening on a massive scale.

Thank you, British government, for doing all the experimental work for us, so that we can simply read off the experimental result.  That 97.9% of the legal abortions in England and Wales, during 2011, were psychiatric abortions.

-

Conclusion

The experimental result is entirely consistent with the presence hypothesised, at least in England and Wales and during the year 2011, of eugenics by psychiatric abortion, ridding future generations of those most likely to be carrying genes that contribute to the aetiology of mental illness, assuming that such genes exist.   In fact, it is no overstatement to say that eugenic psychiatric abortion appears to be the dominant purpose of the entire abortion industry.

-

Discussion

What this experiment does not demonstrate, is that the de facto British practice of eugenics by psychiatric abortion, the existence of which the experimental result demonstrates conclusively, is intentionally the practice of eugenics, on the parts of those working in the abortion industry.  But, it might well be said that the intention of sex-selective abortion isn’t to raise a future population in which there are (for example) more men than women.  Nevertheless, that is the inevitable side-effect of an accumulation of individual decisions, in a cultural milieu that enables and tolerates such sex-selective abortion decisions.

Sex-selective abortion is technically unlawful, but the government is concerned that it is happening anyway.  Psychiatric selective abortion, about which nobody I know of apart from myself seems to be in the least bit concerned, apparently accounted for about 49 out of every 50 legal abortions in England and Wales in 2011.

Link to the Abortion Act 1967

Mental illness, or mental illness risk to the mother, should be repealed forthwith, as one of the grounds for abortion permitted in the Abortion Act.  That provision is quite obviously being abused, in order to perpetrate eugenics by psychiatric abortion.   How else, besides repealing the enabling legislation, will we ever become able even to make a start at putting an end to this British practice of eugenics by psychiatric abortion?

________

If you or a loved one has been personally affected by any the issues raised in this blog post, you may find helpful one or more of websites that you can visit, by clicking on the logos below.

Thinking outside the botch

What should happen to a baby born alive after a botched abortion?

That is a question that has  stirred passions in the USA recently, what with this one minute-long political TV ad

-

and this Planned Parenthood’s represenatives testimony before a legislative committee (just under six minutes long)

-

and this gruesome news story, about a “house of horrors”, and the forthcoming murder trial of a medical doctor (just over 21 minutes long).

-

-

Maybe, “What should happen to a baby born alive after a botched abortion?” is the wrong question.

-

The objective (other than in extremis) of the various procedures we call “abortion”, if I understand correctly, is to implement the choices of mothers who want to stop being pregnant, somewhat sooner than the natural ends of human pregnancies would happen anyway, usually the births of live human babies.

Click to visit a UK Pro-Choice website

The objective is the termination of pregnancy.   (The mothers are often said to have a “right” to “choose” this outcome for their own “bodies” because they are “women”.)

For some reason, anti-abortion people often call themselves “pro-life”, whilst the pro-abortion people refuse to call themselves “pro-abortion” (still less “pro-death”), but instead favour “pro-choice”.  I take it that the latter’s sincere purpose is to emphasise the true objective of the abortion industry.  The purpose of the abortion industry, apart from profit, is merely the termination of pregnancy, whenever a mother does not choose to continue her pregnancy to full term, and the law allows her that choice (or there is little chance of getting caught breaking the law).

Click to visit a UK Pro-Life website

Anti-abortion people object to abortion, not because they are spoilsports who resent the relief it gives the mothers from having to give birth to a full-sized, live babies, in a few months time.  Nor do they object, because they are envious of the pay cheques of abortion industry workers.  They object only because of something that has been viewed, until recently, as an unfortunate but unavoidable side effect of abortion, the killing of unborn children.

But the purpose of the abortion industry wasn’t ever to kill the children, for the sake of killing them, was it?  The deaths of unborn children have always been just a regrettable and unavoidable side effect of the crude methods of abortion used, and of when, during the courses of pregnancies, abortions are carried out.

In the third video above, the abortionist’s staff, by all accounts on hundreds of occasions,  found themselves holding or looking down at live babies who had survived their mothers’ abortions.   Sadly, these were always murdered, by the sticking of a pair of scissors into the backs of their heads, and the severing their spines.  (It was easy to see that the victims didn’t enjoy this manner of death.)   The staff who did this, apart from when the man in the white coat did it himself, presumably having the Milgram Experiment defence available that they were only obeying orders, all successfully plea-bargained their way down to guilty pleas of third degree murder, as far as I know.

 Their boss,  Dr Kermit Gosnell, whose questionable skills as a professional abortionist have made nevertheless him a millionaire (as well as a contender for the title of world’s most prolific serial killer) has more to lose than his staff.   He wants to enjoy his savings.   Perhaps, for this reason, he is gambling with his own life, albeit with better odds of living to write his memoirs than his victims had of living to write theirs, once their mothers had walked through his clinic doors.  (If the abortion didn’t kill ‘em, he’d make sure the scissors did.)  Dr Gosnell is pleading not guilty to seven (specimen) counts of first degree murder, of seven of the babies he killed.

But what this tarnished African American role model seems to have stumbled upon accidentally, is actually a most fortuitous scientific discovery.  It is possible, after all, to terminate unwanted pregnancies, without harming the children aborted in the process.

Click on the medal to visit the official Nobel Prize website

Once the technique of “botching” abortions is perfected, the mothers can cease to be pregnant (their choice), without this causing the deaths of their children.  Mankind will be well on the way of solving the abortion problem, keeping both sides of the debate happy.  The reluctant mothers and the pro-choicers will be able to keep their right to choose.  The babies will be able to keep their right to life, which will please the pro-lifers no end.   For making all this possible, Dr Kermit Gosnell could become the first person to win both the Nobel Prize for medicine, and the Nobel Peace Prize, all whilst being accommodated on Death Row.

Link to the Abortion Act 1967

Parliament originally allowed abortion up to 28 weeks.  The law set a maximum age at which one could legally be aborted.  That age limit has come down since then.  And the age at which children can survive outside the womb, with suitable help, has come down and down and down over the years too.  Recently a pair of twin boys survived after being evicted from the womb at only 23 weeks gestation, which is roughly 21 weeks after their conception.

In future, we should change the legislative approach completely, and set a minimum age for abortion, at say 24 weeks to be on the safe side, and only allow abortions to be performed using the brilliant “late term” techniques that Dr Gosnell pioneered.

Dr Joseph Mengele

What folly it would be to refuse to stand upon the shoulders of this ethical dwarf, but medical research giant.  Why, it would be as churlish an example of “looking a gift horse in the mouth” as (say) refusing to use Dr Josef Mengele’s valuable scientific research in Auschwitz (if he’d done any scientific research that was valuable, that is), in order to save lives.

Dr Gosnell should therefore not be executed (don’t worry, in Pennsylvania he probably won’t be anyway, unless he signs the consent form) until we have debriefed him.  We need to paperclip this genius, before we let him die.  (To learn about Operation Paperclip, please click on the image below.)

We need to learn the secret of his failure.  For what, to him, was a failure, “Damn!  Another scissors job!”, if only viewed as the success it truly was, and built upon, will save millions of lives – 55 million in the USA alone since Roe v Wade.  It will allow an outbreak of peace between the two presently warring factions, pro-life and pro-choice.

“Truth is found neither in the thesis nor the antithesis, but in an emergent synthesis which reconciles the two.”  [Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]

____

Readers who enjoyed this might also enjoy

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?