“You should have killed your baby.”
No, that wasn’t a quote from Lycurgus of ancient Sparta. No, that wasn’t a quote from Adolf Hitler. No, that wasn’t a quote from Nathan Bedford Forrest, a member of the KKK, or even Margaret Sanger.
This maniacal little tidbit of parenting “advice” is offered to the world from University of Chicago professor Jerry Coyne (Department of Ecology and Evolution).
“It is time to add to the discussion the euthanasia of newborns,” he says.
Reading Coyne’s apathetic blog post is enough to make you run for the hilltops. Through a series of moral justifications, A.K.A. excuses, Coyne presents his case, arguing in favor of the murder of infants who aren’t up to par; all this in the name of morality and compassion. Infants qualifying for the death sentence include those who are severely “deformed or doomed,” or those infants who’s “life cannot by any reasonable light afford happiness.” Coyne lists several conditions, including spina bifida, a condition where an incomplete closure of the backbone and of the membranes surrounding the backbone occurs. It should be noted that a number of successful individuals have spina bifida.
The benevolent professor’s argument in favor of infanticide goes like this…
- In spite of the fact that “suffering,” “quality”, and “happiness” are all undefinable terms as related to the lives of human beings, the good professor encourages a subjective (and guaranteed to be ever-expanding) understanding of “suffering” be used to quantify the value of a human being in order to determine whether he should be murdered or be allowed to live.
- Equating human infants with animals, Coyne makes the claim that infants have “no rational faculties” and that, like dogs and cats, human children “don’t know about death and thus don’t fear it.” As a person degreed and licensed in child development, I am astonished at this biologist’s fallacious claim. Never mind the fact that a human baby is always more precious than a pet.
- Euthanasia has become more accepted, thanks to “a tide of increasing morality,” and so we should all be totally okay with the murder of human infants. After all, euthanizing old people was frowned upon 50 years ago. As Coyne blissfully goes on to say, “I believe some day the practice will be widespread, and it will be for the better.”
- Don’t worry your conscience, because no babies will be murdered without parental consent. The kindly professor fails to recollect the case of poor Charlie Gard, whose parents did not consent and were stripped of their parental rights by the state. Pay no attention to the man being the curtain.
- Religion is the one thing holding society back, it is society’s single obstacle, from engaging “widespread” infanticide. Woe to thee. The compassionate professor thus states, “When religion vanishes, as it will, so will so much of the opposition to both adult and newborn euthanasia.” It must be said that Professor Coyne’s indication that it takes “religion” to uphold the moral absolutes of right and wrong in this world is a direct and automatic indictment of the depravity of the human condition left on its own. Coyne’s statement is in fact a sound argument in support of religion, of the very belief system that prohibits the murderous tendencies of mankind.
- The Netherlands does it, so it must be okay.
At least one medical professional, Lisa Dennis – a long-time nurse (RN, CCP, LP) and the mother of a disabled child (now a young adult) – isn’t buying into Professor Coyne’s murderous premise. I shared Coyne’s blog post with Lisa. Her rebuke of the spiritually near-sighted and morally bankrupt professor is both poignant and compelling.
“My son with Down Syndrome, though non-verbal, is the most sociable young man at his school. Jeffrey gives all he meets the gifts of kindness, enthusiasm, and warmth. He exudes all the best of humanity. While pursuing confirmation at church, he spiritually inspired all who witnessed his journey. He personifies the quote attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, Spread the Gospel; use words if necessary,” she said.
“The professor states, that when religion vanishes, as it will, so will much of the opposition to both adult and newborn euthanasia. My response is that when religion vanishes, so will mankind. Future generations will judge today’s society, not for the respect for new life (even flawed and brief), but for the brutality of ending so many pre-term lives in the brutal practice of abortion. Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person.- Deuteronomy 27:25.”
“There is none so innocent as a babe in the womb or just after birth. Jeffrey was born with Trisomy 21, a PFO, VSD, and PDA. His first 16 days were spent in the NICU. His first year was filled with trials and tribulations. Where does the professor suggest the line be drawn between worthy and unworthy life? The gift of life is to be honored and cherished rather than dissected to find flaw and destroy,“ Lisa continued.
Jeffrey, though non-verbal, has learned to communicate with those around him, and he never sleeps on the job. On Sundays (dressed in his white acolyte rob) Jeffrey raises his hand in the air as Pastor Hatcher said, “in classic ‘rock on’ configuration,” and takes his bow before taking his seat. In “what looks to some like a signal for Angus Young to keep shredding his Gibson SG is actually sign language for ‘I love you.”
Jeffrey has always been an ever-present, awe inspiring soul to countless other people. His pastor once recounted, “When Jeffrey gave his Confirmation essay last summer, there wasn’t a dry eye in the house. God has worked a faith in this kid that goes well beyond his ability to articulate it. He doesn’t play football. He may not end up as an influential businessman or politician. He is, however, a shining paradigm of what it means to deeply love Christ.”
“God gives us many gifts.; one must only open one’s eyes to see them,” said Lisa. I wish Professor Coyne could meet Jeffrey. Perhaps then he could understand the real value, the real worth of a human life, regardless of how “doomed” or how “unhappy” that life may have first appeared to the benevolent professor.
As Pastor Hatcher touchingly stated, “So, forth and short in the Red Zone, down five with thirty seconds left to go… Give me Tim Tebow. A faithful model of the love of Christ, on the other hand… I’d rather have Jeffrey Dennis.” Me too.
PRIDE: Portland renames major street after pederast, cult defender
In 2016, the U.S. Navy named a ship after the late politician, Harvey Milk. In 2009, President Obama posthumously bequeathed Milk with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Now, city officials in Portland, Oregon, have voted to rename a 13-block section of one of the city’s major streets, Southwest Stark Street, after Harvey Milk, the first open homosexual to serve on the San Francisco, CA, Board of Supervisors. Milk was murdered in 1978, by a fellow democratic Board of Supervisors member.
Harvey Milk was also a serial pederast. As his friend and biographer, Randy Shilts, wrote:
“Harvey always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems.”
Milk was also a defender the now infamous Marxist cult leader Jim Jones. As Daniel J. Flynn wrote at City Journal in 2009, in a piece entitled, “Drinking Harvey Milk’s Kool-Aid”:
Nine days prior to Milk’s death, more than 900 followers of Jim Jones — many of them campaign workers for Milk — perished in the most ghastly set of murder-suicides in modern history. Before the congregants of the Peoples Temple drank Jim Jones’s deadly Kool-Aid, Harvey Milk and much of San Francisco’s ruling class had already figuratively imbibed. Milk occasionally spoke at Jones’s San Francisco-based headquarters, promoted Jones through his newspaper columns, and defended the Peoples Temple from its growing legion of critics. Jones provided conscripted “volunteers” for Milk’s campaigns to distribute leaflets by the tens of thousands. Milk returned the favor by abusing his position of public trust on behalf of Jones’s criminal endeavors.
“Rev. Jones is widely known in the minority communities here and elsewhere as a man of the highest character, who has undertaken constructive remedies for social problems which have been amazing in their scope and effectiveness,” Supervisor Milk wrote President Jimmy Carter seven months before the Jonestown carnage. The purpose of Milk’s letter was to aid and abet his powerful supporter’s abduction of a six-year-old boy. Milk’s missive to the president prophetically continued: “Not only is the life of a child at stake, who currently has loving and protective parents in the Rev. and Mrs. Jones, but our official relations with Guyana could stand to be jeopardized, to the potentially great embarrassment of our State Department.” John Stoen, the boy whose actual parents Milk libeled to the president as purveyors of “bold-faced lies” and blackmail attempts, perished at Jonestown. This, the only remarkable episode in Milk’s brief tenure on the San Francisco board of supervisors, is swept under the rug by his hagiographers.
Along with Stoen, 275 other children also perished that day in Jonestown.
Portland’s Southwest Stark Street is at the center of the largely LGBTQ Burnside Triangle neighborhood.
According to an article at LGBTQNation.com, “this change symbolizes the districts history as well as the legacy of Harvey Milk.”
Portland Mayor, Ted Wheeler, prior to the vote, spoke about the importance of this name change, saying that it “sends a signal that we are an open and a welcoming and an inclusive community.”
Portland now joins several other cities, including San Diego and Salt Lake City, which have honored Harvey Milk.
Those on the right side of the aisle are regularly accused of vilifying the LGBTQ community. Oddly enough, it’s the most vociferous activists on the left – specifically, it’s those who select, uplift, and honor “heroes” like the sexual predator Harvey Milk – who do the most damage to the image of the LGBTQ community, along with the ideologues who simply go along with it.
What could the right possibly do to harm the image of the LGBT community which the radical activists haven’t already inflicted themselves? I can’t think of anything. Can you?
Conservative Picks for the Oklahoma Primary
Oklahoma is one of the more Conservative states in this country. The GOP has a stranglehold and the Democrats are on life support. This election cycle boast an opportunity to expand and maintain on the state’s decent Conservative record. Oklahoma has better incumbents than most red states, measuring by fiscal and social conservatism. The most exciting race in Oklahoma is the 1st District where Jim Bridenstine is leaving the seat.
Best Picks: Andy Coleman, Nathan Dahm, James Taylor
Worst Picks: Kevin Herns, Tom Cole
Best Race: District 1
Worst Race: District 3
There is a plethora of Conservative endorsements in this race. They are split between Andy Coleman and Nathan Dahm. Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan both favor Coleman who appears poised to be the newest inductee to the Freedom Caucus. Rand Paul, the Republican Liberty Caucus, and Thomas Massie are coming out in support of Nathan Dahm. Dahm has a more libertarian styled campaign and platform. Coleman boasts a strong military and legal background while also having a history of supporting persecuted Christians in the Middle East through Voice of the Martyrs. Nathan Dahm is likely less formidable.
The worst candidate in this race has the most funding. Kevin Herns is the businessman insider posing as an outsider. This race has big shoes to fill and he is least likely to fill them. Herns also is lying about his support from Jim Bridenstine, the current Rep. who is vacating the seat to head NASA. Bridenstine responded to this deception.
Ideally, Coleman and Dahm advance to the runoff. Realistically Herns is poised for the next round, so Conservatives will have to combine the vote. But of course this assumes that Herns’s funding has him ahead.
Conservative Pick: Andy Coleman
Markwayne Mullin is a decent Congressman, but not so much as to dismiss his opponents. His most serious threat is John McCarthy. There is nothing that really separates the two other than McCarthy’s populist style campaign language. He emphasizes keeping his word, but being an outsider, he doesn’t have a track record. Mullin isn’t a RINO nor has he been in the House for too long.
Conservative Pick: Markwayne Mullin
Frank Lucas is an unchallenged RINO.
Tom Cole is another incumbent RINO. He is being challenged by James Taylor. This man understands John Locke. He is a Conservative and with the low threshold of Cole to beat, he is the clear choice in this race.
Conservative Pick: James Taylor
Steve Russell has gotten more Conservative as time passes which is the opposite of many Republicans. He is challenged but faces no serious contender.
Conservative Pick: Steve Russell
Conservative Picks for Utah Primary
Conservatism is under assault in Utah. Leading the assault is Mitt Romney, the carpetbagging fipflopper using his Mormon status to target a vacant seat in Utah. The Senate is finally rid of Orin Hatch. RINOs Jeff Flake and John McCain’s days are numbered and there are some solid Conservatives advancing to November in easier to win seats. But Conservatives in the Senate will face their newest opponent in Mitt Romney. Romeny will, no doubt, be a vocal vote. He is campaigning on “calling them as he sees it,” which is fine if you have a Conservative worldview. But this is Mitt Romney. He is the author of Obamacare’s framework. He ran one of the worst campaigns in modern history in 2012. He’s the first reason we have Trump. Should Romney win he will vote as any establishment player would: from the left of Trump.
Conservatism in Utah is at a critical point and will have to overcome celebrity politics. The convention tried and failed. It’s now up to the electorate.
Best Pick: Mike Kennedy, Chris Herrod
Worst Pick: Mitt Romney
Best Race: District 3
Worst Race: US Senate
There literally could not be a worse candidate than Mitt Romney. He’s a rich carpetbagger riding the Salt Lake City Olympics, which shouldn’t matter. Mike Kennedy is the only chance for Conservatives in this race.
Conservative Pick: Mike Kennedy
Ron Bishop is unopposed. He’s a mediocre career politician.
Chris Stewart is decent and unopposed.
John Curtis is opposed after a single term that was the result of a special election. He hasn’t seen enough action to prove a RINO. In fact, he may be fiscally responsible. He voted against Omnibus. His opponent is Chris Herrod. Herrod is running as a fiscal hawk. What is unique about him is the depth of principle he comes with. His opposition to spending and socialized medicine along with his support for individual freedoms make him a more ideal Conservative and less likely to disappoint in the future than Curtis.
Conservative Pick: Chris Herrod
Mia Love went to DC with much fanfare and high expectations. So far she has been a huge disappointment boasting an F Liberty Score. She is unopposed.