Stream: The UN Dislikes People: Here’s Their Plan For Fewer Of Them

The UN Dislikes People: Here’s Their Plan For Fewer Of Them.

In an entry for Most Obnoxious Euphemism, United Nations category, we have reproductive health. The words sound serious and caring, with a slight evocation of adults concerned about the “rights” of women.

Yet the term means the exact opposite of its plain English sense. Reproductive health is literally non-reproduction, non-health. The euphemism is always put in service of contraception, to the prevention of human life, to discouraging reproduction, to killing human life via abortion.

It’s no wonder, then, that reproductive health is a key feature of the United Nations so-called sustainable development goals, as admitted by Guy J. Abel and three others in the peer-reviewed paper “Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals leads to lower world population growth” in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

Sustainable development itself is a kind of euphemism, or code phrase that is calculated to simultaneously frighten and hold forth what appears to be a solution to the fright. That which is unsustainable is, of course, alarming. And development sounds cheering, even though it must be government-guided.

But a trick is being played. There is no accepted definition of sustainable: it means whatever the political forces in power want it to mean. Because there is no rigorous definition, it is always be possible for our leaders to claim that whatever programs in place for taxation, regulation, and control to make development “sustainable”, they have been newly discovered to be “unsustainable”, and thus need to be strengthened.

We can glean one clear thing from the use of the term. People are not sustainable. People are not wanted. People are up to no good. As Abel says…

This is clear evidence that “education” is not a value-free word. It does not mean just knowing more, but knowing and acting on secular principles as specified by the UN. People have to be taught to act in ways that are unnatural. Reproduction and the desire for children are natural; the pursuit of sexual activities so that children are prevented is unnatural. Just think: No culture ever needed “sex education” to learn how to propagate. “Education” was only necessary to encourage or force non-propagation.

If you still exist, click here.

18 Comments

  1. Since there is no accepted definition of “sustainable,” apparently its counterpart in the Church is “ecumenism,” for which there is no definition at all, accepted or not. It is just a “movement” toward some illusory “unity.”

    But since the Church has been hijacked by the mealy-mouthed, it’s only logical that our hierarchy would embrace their fellow mealy-mouths (can you say that quickly 10 times?): http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20160421_sustainable-development-goals_en.html

  2. Briggs makes a couple of assertions that seem either unsupported (false) or in conflict with Catholic Church doctrine:

    – He represents the study as a United Nations (UN) Plan. It is not. It may align with any number of UN goals, and it does have a section where the authors use UN data and conduct a sensitivity analysis on UN Probabilistic Population Projections (i.e. they did use UN-origin data), but the study is wholly conducted by independent entities.

    – Briggs states at The Stream, “Reproduction and the desire for children are natural; the pursuit of sexual activities so that children are prevented is unnatural.” In applying “natural” he concocts a nonexistent criterion (and one with undesirable implications) that even the Catholic Church rejects — specifically, the Catholic Church DOES endorse “Natural Family Planning” that DOES includes techniques Briggs dubs “unnatural”:

    “Making decisions therefore, about when and how many children to have in marriage is a sacred responsibility that God has entrusted to husband and wife. This is the foundation of what the Church calls, “Responsible Parenthood”–the call to discern God’s will for your marriage while respecting His design for life and love.

    “The Catholic Church supports the methods of Natural Family Planning (NFP) because they respect God’s design for married love. In fact, NFP represents the only authentic approach to family planning available to husbands and wives because these methods can be used to both attempt or avoid pregnancy.”
    – That & more is available at: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning/

    The authors of the Briggs-maligned paper state, among other things:

    “In operationalizing the SDG fertility scenario, the assumption
    that achieving “universal access to sexual and reproductive
    health-care services, including for family planning, information
    and education” will result in 20% lower education-specific fertility
    rates by 2030 is relatively straightforward.”

    That education includes the very type the Catholic Church endorses (but Briggs rejects as “unnatural”).

    The paper addresses other objectives: “Many other of the 13 specific health targets relate to individual causes of death such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, water-borne diseases, accidents, substance abuse, chemical pollution, and preventable noncommunicable diseases in general.”

    Who can really be opposed to that???

    One one particular detail Briggs might — might — be right: The authors may be endorsing abortion under the euphemism of “services,” but if so and to what extent is by no means clear.

    One thing, however, is very clear: Rejecting the entirety of a paper, its authors, and contrived associations via a hubris-filled ad-hominem-style attack that misrepresents & selectively presents the facts, the authors, and an influential [like it or not] institution is certain to ensure conflict or at least getting oneself ostracized.

    Perhaps it would be more productive to point out the positives, zero in on the particular negatives, and then lobby for changes in those areas — and only those areas — with which one disagrees?

    About “natural” — animals in the wild routinely reject the small, weak & sickly, and unwanted, pushing them from the nest/den/etc. to die in the elements. Humans have done that as well. That is natural — and under Briggs introduction of “natural” as a criterion, taking unwanted infants to some disposal place to die would be a resumption of a “natural” population control technique. Not that anybody is endorsing that. …though…applying the kind of argument presented here one might conclude this is on Briggs’ agenda?

  3. At the risk of “getting oneself ostracized,” my view is that progressives like UN Ken are dysanthropic; anti-human being, pro-genocidal mass murders or wannabes ala Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, etc etc.

    I am sorry to “ensure conflict,” but it appears that the Murder Off the Human Race crowd creates its own conflict, n’est-ce pas? Tens of millions of babies slaughtered by “independent entities” may be cooperative, but it is not peaceful nor “His design for life and love”.

    Dysanthropy is the diametric opposite of Christianity, Ken. Pray on that instead of preying on humanity.

  4. @Ken
    The UN is obviously disingenuous that they even use the terminology “reproductive health” in regards to services designed to suppress natural fertility. Yea, the UN is not going to come out and say that abortion is awesome, and a good way to reduce populations just like they aren’t gonna call birth control “drugs that stop your repro organs from functioning properly”. Stop being intentionally ignorant we know what the UN is about.

  5. Lets also credit the UN with backing the bans on DDT and Freon
    flawed measures and science that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of
    millions of people throughout the third world. How many exactly
    no one really knows or cares. Malthus would be proud of all the
    eugenic measures undertaken by the UN over the years. The latest
    driving impoverished populations from their land to create “carbon sinks”
    held in trust by various Western corporate interests while enriching
    dictatorial governments for selling their people out, if necessary
    burning them alive in their own homes to move them along. Why just
    focus on “reproductive health” when there is so much more to their
    credit.

  6. under Briggs introduction of “natural” as a criterion

    Of course, “natural” means “according to one’s nature as a species.” What is natural for a lion is not natural for a water buffalo. It is true that many societies imposed a sort of “fourth trimester abortion” on women by enforcing the exposure of unwanted infants — primarily girl infants — shortly after birth; but this does not mean it was in their nature to do so. This was signified not only by the deep-seated grief experienced by the mothers but also by the use of such things as masks and rituals by the exposers to distance themselves from their acts (in one West African society, it was carried out by a mythical creature [masked women-elders] who entered the hut at night and took the baby into the bush). The Spartans threw the unwanted girls and the weakling boys into the pit called Apothete, which ensured the surviving boys grew up without women and were especially fierce warriors, something that happened more generally across Hellas, though in less concentrated form. Even the Athenians had the motto: “The strong take what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”

    Besides, reproductive control comes naturally even when not mandated and governed by authority. The birth rate in the USA declined fairly uniformly — i.e., with ups and downs, from 1820 (when estimates could be made from the Census) to the present with no government-subsidized birth-control pills. Indeed, for most of that time with no pills at all. In the USA, the birth rate spiked sharply downward in 1919, which says something charming about American women and the function of marriage as a control on birth rates. Of course, it spiked above the curve in 1920, which says something about American men after they had been away from their wives for a year or two and finally returned home. But then in 1921, the birth rate returned to where the trend line [sorry, Matt] would have taken it had the Great War not interrupted things, and continued down until the 1930s when it flattened out for the Depression when, out of work, people had nothing to do except to Do It. Then it started up again in the 40s, dipped again when Johnny went off to war again, spiked again when Johnny came marching home again, reaching a peak when my father came marching home, then leveled off for the Boom, dropped again during the 60s/70s in a perfect imitation of the 20s, had a mini-spike following the Summer of Love then settled into a low-level sub-replacement level steady-state.

    There is, of course, a difference between Not Doing It and Obliterating the Result of Doing It. Other means of limiting the birth rate include such things as virginity before marriage, faithfulness in marriage, arranged marriages, chaperones and duennas, celibate clergies and sisterhoods, and a whole host of other safeguards for women that we have thrown out the window in the past half century and replaced with killing babies.

    It is only fairly recently that we have tried to both limit reproduction and propagandize sexual activity at the same time. The libidinous teenager is a product of modern suburbia. Renaissance teenagers were working dogs, modern teenagers are neurotic lapdogs. Guess which ones can support a family?

    Population growth is another matter, and has been accomplished more by not dying as much than by giving birth more.

  7. 1 It was the W.H.O who banned DDT and who lifted the ban some years ago.
    2 Statistics cannot prove cause.
    3 Plenty of Americans were buying babies from Ireland’s Catholic baby machine, from unmarried mothers who were forced into slave labour for six months following the birth of their baby and who were told, just like the children that the baby/parent had died/did not want to know them respectively.

    So to make sweeping statements about saying something charming about American women is to miss an important and very high profile habit. Jane Russell was one actress featured in the movie which tells the story of the plight of such women.

    This attitude still informs behaviour of women today. Women who perhaps in the past would have had the baby removed from them in secret at a place of hiding now go off and have an abortion thinking they will be able to keep their secret. They are not all the same kinds of woman except in the one consideration.

    This is another example of why shaming a woman is a stupid and dumb thing to do. Some women, one on London’s underground threw herself under a train because she was pregnant outside of wedlock.

    Such idiotic social pressure. All because some can’t stand to be around other people’s sin.

    Note their own sin is kept very well hidden.

    The only was out for this problem is for a nation to split itself in half with half living under one law and the other half living under the other law. Atheists or even religious folk who don’t mind about abortion on one side and people, atheists and religious folk who do mind about abortion on the other.

    It will never be settled. Certainly if I were to try to convince anyone I wouldn’t start by hiding from important truths.

    As for people insisting that other people do not use contraception? That is idealism. Pure and simple. Everybody has their own idea about that. It’s none of the government’s business or the creepy nosy people, to quote JMJ.

  8. Actually it was the EPA that first banned DDT in !972 with
    full support from international bodies like the UN, and WHO.
    The ban was not lifted until 2006 by the WHO for indoor application
    only.

  9. Frederic,
    I’m sure you’re right, I only knew that the WHO had lifted the ban in 2006 or I should say a few years before I read a single thing about climate change or statistics.
    The three organisations lean on each other for support just as the EU uses whoever and whatever it can and individual governments do the same to justify their politics.

    There’s nothing good that I can think of to say about the UN. Perhaps they have done some good at some time.

    Governments and people should stay out of other people’s business unless they are invited in.

    I once had, years ago now, a patient say to me on describing their situation with their back pain and medical history,
    “the government doesn’t care.
    There’s nothing to be said to that except move forward and look for something hopeful to say. (I expect the Un would have cared even less.)

  10. Reproduction and the desire for children are natural; the pursuit of sexual activities so that children are prevented is unnatural.

    Mr. Briggs, is it natural for you to make the above statement? Is it a good or bad to pursue sexual activities so that children are prevented? Is it natural to have only two children? Why do people only have two children? Are there common reasons as to why some women have painful abortions? Are you saying you always have (had) the intention of getting a woman (the woman, really) pregnant when you engage (engaged) in sexual activities with her? My younger brother just told me his favorite saying last week again – human beings are often not what they appear to be.

  11. Why do people only have two children?

    a) One of them dies after two.
    b) One of them becomes infertile after two.
    c) Stillbirths after two.
    d) They’ve been sold a bill of goods that this will mean ZPG rather than declining growth.
    e) Misanthropy

    Are you saying you always have the intention of getting a woman pregnant when you engage in sexual activities with her?

    Intentions do not matter. It is only that in the common course of nature, the marital act results in children. Note that in the Code of Khamurapi, barrenness is given as a reason for putting one’s wife away and even in the Church, the failure to consummate (i.e., perform the marital act) is evidence that the marriage does not in fact exist.

  12. let’s ‘unpack’ a bit more…
    F) contraception,
    g) Sterilisation of male or female,
    h) not having intercourse by default or choice,
    i) physical or mental health problem resulting in (g, h or l)
    j) Non pathological non conception without infertility despite the layperson’s understanding of the word infertility vs non conceive and pathology for that matter.
    k) Separation, which would also be a cause of (i)
    l) Terminations.
    m) Miscarriages (not the same as still births)
    Yet reproductive medicine continues…Don’t shoot the messenger;.

    Seems some people need a lesson on the birds and the bees?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *