Daily Archives: December 25, 2012



The truth is that gynecologists should no longer be needed in such great numbers because they should not be performing so many unnecessary cesarians.  If a child birth is natural and the child suffers brain damage due to a lack of oxygen, the child dies if the parents do not want to support a brain dead or mentally impaired child.  Of course, if the parent requests a cesarian voluntarily then the procedure may still be performed.  No gynecologist should be sued because the parent wanted natural childbirth which resulted in an oxygen deprived grossly mentally defective child.  Natural childbirth should be promoted as much as possible unless the life of the mother is threatened.

Natural childbirth at home should be greatly encouraged, especially if the mother has already conceived a first child naturally and successfully without the aid of pain killing drugs or epidurals which is medical malpractice!!!

Abortions should be permitted up until about the trimester of pregnancy.  An unwanted child, a child with a debilitating disease, or one due to a rape is far greater a crime than the homicide of a relatively young fetus.

If the population of the world drops to less than a million people, which is highly improbable, abortion may once again be considered to be a crime not to be committed under any circumstances.

Adoptions should be encouraged for women who do not want a pregnancy but the ultimate choice to abort a pregnancy should still be the responsibility of the pregnant woman.

Premature births that can’t survive on their own should be discouraged but it is ultimately the responsibility of the parents to decide if they want to put the premature births on life support technology or let the child have a natural death.

MYTH: All life is precious and should be saved.

TRUTH: Unborn child fetuses which are suffering from debilitating illness are not precious and should not be saved because they are an unacceptable burden on the financial lives of parents and ultimately society which should not be asked to assume financial responsibility for a debilitating child which should have been aborted by the woman upon realizing that the child was so greatly handicapped. Raising the child of a criminal man after being a rape victim is an immoral burden to be assuming.

Being the victim of a crime should not force you to raise a child not conceived from your husband.  It would also cause him great financial harm and emotional misery for the rest of his life. A husband should not be punished financially or emotionally for the crime of a stranger. It is immoral to do so. You are stealing his money and his emotional wellbeing!!! The same applies to the raped wife or single woman who also is forced to live a life of financial ruin and emotional guilt for the rest of her life.

Aborting the life of a healthy child, hopefully when menstruation stops and the wife realizes she is pregnant is just behavior. Not doing so could cause tremendous financial and emotional burdens on the couple at the wrong time. The unwanted child would be unintentionally fraudulently stealing the finances and emotional wellbeing of the couple upon birth and this is an immoral act on the part of the child.

Of course a healthy child could be put up for adoption after birth but considering the overpopulation of the world, it is not a just thing to be doing. However, religious organizations should have a right to adopt these children into a member religious couple, even from another religion if they chose to do so. However, the financial burden or support of the child would become the responsibility of the religious organization if the couple became divorced or impoverished and there would not be enough money to support the child.

Religious organizations should have the right to support debilitated children financially according to their outdated immoral religious code. If they chose to do so their organization will sooner or later go bankrupt supporting debilitated children and it will be a just death of the organization. The surviving debilitated children will not be supported by the government but will be put to death and murdered if that is the word you would like to use. I would prefer to say that you justly put the child out of its misery. Even absolute morals have exceptions to the rule in society.

You can murder under very special rare circumstances and I have shown you one exception which I would highly recommend even though you may disagree and want to voluntarily take on the financial burden of the debilitated child yourself. Good luck with that illogical behavior!!!

Future adoptions should only be permitted by religious organizations amongst their members who will then bear the financial burden if the couple self-destructs financially during the course of their lives. If religious organizations are forced financially to support their immoral flock and immoral behaviors they will quickly become bankrupt because the bottom money line will destroy them. They will not be operating at a profit and will die a financial death. Nature will thank you if that happens and the sooner the better!!!