If you think that contemporary sex education is good for our children, reduces teen sex, and reduces the risk of infection and disease, you had better think again. The sex ed crowd is not interested in actually helping kids, but in pushing radical agendas.

They will not tell our children about abstinence and moral values; instead they will push every amoral and immoral agenda item there is, be it cross-dressing, sadomasochism, androgyny and “diversity”. Instead of helping our children, this group of radical social engineers is in fact harming our kids.

Miriam Grossman, M.D., knows all about this. She has been working with young people for decades in this area, and she has seen firsthand the tremendous damage being done to our young people by the very powerful and very insidious sex ed lobby.

Buy this from Amazon: You're Teaching My Child What?: A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Ed and How They Harm Your Child by Miriam Grossman M.D. Click Here

Says Grossman, “Sex education is not about health – it’s a social movement, a vehicle for changing the world. It happens one child at a time, and it goes on right under your nose.” One simply has to look at the sex ed curriculum to see the truth of this.

Armed with big bucks and harmful ideologies, the militant sex education industry has been doing inestimable damage to our young people, and is using our schools to push their relativistic, anything-goes ideology. Based on the lies and perverted agendas of sexologists like Alfred Kinsey, the sex ed lobby is working overtime to indoctrinate our young, break down their moral values, and turn them into hyper-sexualised individuals.

But despite this avalanche of sex education, there has been a huge rise in sexually transmitted infections, teen pregnancies, abortions, and promiscuity. All this tsunami of sex ed has done is compound the problems, not reduce them.

In the US today a quarter of all adolescent girls have a STI. The sex ed industry is directly responsible for this pandemic. Says Grossman, “they are dedicated to promoting radical social ideologies, not preventing disease.” Instead of following good science, these educators are instead following radical and flawed agendas.

The mega-rich groups like SIECUS and Planned Parenthood simply ignore the data and evidence which argues for gender differences, the case for abstinence, and the dangers of early sexual activity. Instead their message is: ‘the more sex ed the better, and the earlier the better’.

As Grossman documents, the main concern of these groups is not the health and safety of young people, but complete sexual freedom. They want kids to experience sexuality in any and every form, and ignore the values and beliefs of their parents and communities.

Our impressionable and innocent children will learn all about sex play, threesomes, gender-bending, adult products, sado-masochism, and every type of kinky and bizarre sex acts. That is what is being pumped into our kids’ hearts and minds.

The mantra of the sex ed lobby is that sex is always only good, and any and every expression of it should be embraced. Nothing is taboo, and everything goes. The only vice according to the sex ed lobby is the narrow and restrictive values of parents and church groups.

Indeed, the worst thing that can be done is to offer any moral framework about sex. No judgment is allowed. In fact, Planned Parenthood insists that “the most important lesson we can share with our kids is, ‘Being different is normal’.” There you have it. Is your thing homosexuality, S/M, group sex, or incest? No probs, it is all fully normal, and the main thing is to give free rein to all your sexual urges, and make sure no one judges you for your particular tastes.

These groups insist that children are sexual from the womb, and the only real damage to them comes from those who say they should wait, abstain, and be monogamous. These are the dangers the sexperts want to keep our kids from. They want to turn our kids into sexual dynamos who will try everything and say no to nothing.

“The experts do not provide teens with all they need to know to make informed decisions, nor is their information medically accurate. They dismiss fundamentals of child development, and omit critical findings in neurobiology, gynecology, and infectious disease.”

With tonnes of detail and evidence, Grossman backs up these claims, and then some. Indeed, it is the detail that really makes for depressing reading. She mentions one former SIECUS president who is now a minister. She is so committed to pre-marital sex that she refuses to marry couples who are not already sexually active!

These groups are not so much interested in science or medicine, safety or protection, as they are in pushing their sexual libertarian agendas. And even if they do tell kids the cold, dry facts on STIs, they are not telling them about the emotional consequences, or telling them that these are fully avoidable.

“For many people, especially teens, the diagnosis is a devastating, life-changing event – the worst thing that’s ever happened to them. To pretend that such an event is unavoidable is nothing short of irresponsible…. The medically accurate message is that all sexually transmitted infections, and the anguish that accompanies them, are 100 percent avoidable.”

She continues, “A life free of herpes, warts, chlamydia, and others is possible. One simply has to delay sexual behaviour, find someone who also waited, and then be faithful to one another.” But that of course is the last message the sex ed lobby wants to present. That runs counter to their doctrinaire sexual license philosophy.

Grossman looks at various other agenda items of the sex ed brigade: the push for androgyny and a genderless society; the push for homosexuality and related alternative lifestyles; the promotion of abortion as the chief solution to the “problem” of pregnancy; and so on.

Every chapter in this well-documented book makes for scary reading. This is nothing less than a war, and it has been declared on our children. Adult social-sexual agendas are trumping the well-being of our children. Indeed, the concern is not for our children at all, but for the promotion of a radical worldview.

It is time to resist all this. Just as we have declared war on smoking and drink driving, so too we need to declare a war on teen sexual behaviour – all three are equally serious and equally deadly. Above all else kids need to be taught how to say no to sexual pressure, and learn how to control sexual appetites, rather than inflame them.

The truth is, not all sexualities and sexual activities are equal. Many are downright dangerous, and we have a responsibility to our children to let them know these truths. Lying to them to push a radical agenda helps no one. Indeed, it is killing our kids.

Our young people need to be told the truth about sexuality. They are certainly not getting it from the sex ed crowd. This book offers a wealth of fact, evidence, truth and sexual sanity. Our kids desperately need this. Every concerned parent should grab this book, master its contents, and spread the word.

[1172 words]

The last frontier is the war on our children, and paedophilia is everywhere today coming out of the closet. Now that we have managed to convince ourselves that homosexuality is a human rights issue, the activists are calling for child sex to be legalised. After all, we don’t want to deny the adult perverts their rights to get their sexual thrills.

Every day we seem to have news items about the slow but steady promotion of this war against children. In just the last few days four news items have caught my attention, and taken together they make for depressing reading. Let me begin with the warnings of Dr. Keith Ablow.

He writes, “There were those who scoffed at my contention that Abercrombie and Fitch, the edgy retailer, was paving the way for mainstream pedophilia when it began marketing breast enhancing bikinis to girls as young as eight. There were those who railed against my contention that the French edition of Vogue was kindling pedophilia and embracing it with its racy depictions of 10-year-olds in heavy makeup, a plunging neckline and stiletto heels.”

He continues, “But, now, there should be no doubt that our culture is poised to begin embracing pedophilia as a lifestyle choice, just like homosexuality. A group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals called B4U-Act, which has representatives from Harvard and Johns Hopkins, gathered recently in Baltimore to organize their push to change the negative perception of pedophiles and encourage them to get help in a nonjudgmental environment.

“While B4U-Act is not representative of mainstream psychiatry, and while the American Psychiatric Association (APA) did not participate in the group’s meeting, psychiatry has a history of caving into cultural pressure to stop defining controversial illnesses as pathological.”

He concludes, “I’ve told more than one of my patients that his real diagnosis, given his behavior in embracing drugs, instead of his family or employment, shouldn’t be alcohol dependence or heroin dependence, but ‘scumbag.’ And I then have quickly added that they can do better than that—that they must choose to do better than that, because, deep inside, they are good and decent and lovable. I tell them they can find the courage to do the right thing, instead of the wrong thing. Yes, I sometimes use the word ‘wrong.’ I judge them. It helps.

“I would not hesitate to tell a pedophile that his desires are to injure and torture a child—that they are morally wrong—and that it is his responsibility to ferret out the source of those destructive desires and extinguish them. I wouldn’t for a moment commiserate about how hard it is to live in a society that criminalizes the acts he is moved to commit.

“Suggesting to pedophiles that their thoughts and impulses are ‘understandable’ and that they won’t be judged by the members of B4U-Act is the kind of message that encourages them to push harder to change what they think of as unfair laws that keep them from their base desires. I hate to say I told you so, but . . . well . . . OK, I won’t.”

Examples of the sexualisation of our children, and the push to normalise adult perversions can be found all over the Western world. Consider what is happening in Switzerland at the moment. One report says this: “Kindergarten children in Basel, Switzerland will be presented this year with fabric models of human genitalia in a ‘sex box’ to teach them that ‘contacting body parts can be pleasurable.’ The kit for teachers to give sex-education lessons to primary school children uses models and recommends having children massage each other or to rub themselves with warm sand bags, accompanied by soft music.”

Great, just what little five year-olds need. Fortunately not everyone was thrilled with the idea: “Daniel Trappitsch of the Citizens for Citizens association called the idea a ‘catastrophic development.’ ‘Sex education, sure, but it shouldn’t been done this early and it certainly shouldn’t be obligatory,’ he said. His group said they would fight the proposal.”

And consider similar sexual insanity in the US. The Obama government – arguably the most anti-family and anti-faith government ever in the US – is pushing these anti-child measures as well. “The Obama administration is renewing efforts to promote sex to children — following on the heels of decisions by the pro-abortion president to de-fund abstinence education programs that have helped teenagers.”

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services claims that “Children are human beings and therefore sexual beings. It’s hard for parents to acknowledge this, just as it’s hard for kids to think of their parents as sexually active. But even infants have curiosity about their own bodies, which is healthy and normal.”

This is what it says about masturbation for example: “Parents should only be concerned about masturbation if a child seems preoccupied with it to the exclusion of other activities. Victims of sexual abuse sometimes become preoccupied with self-stimulation.”

Again, not everyone has fallen for this rubbish. Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, said this: “The idea that ‘children are human beings and therefore sexual beings’ is one of the most destructive myths of the sexual revolution. To a large extent, this myth may be traced to the ‘research’ conducted by Alfred Kinsey, including the infamous ‘Children of Table 34’ experiments, which involved the deliberate sexual abuse of children as young as 6 months old under ‘experimental’ conditions.”

I have discussed in detail – and the details are sickening indeed – the perverted activities of Kinsey and the child abuse he took part in elsewhere. I urge every single one of you to see for example this article: www.billmuehlenberg.com/2005/01/15/kinsey-con-job/

Sprigg continues: “The fact that young children are aware that their bodies include genitalia hardly makes them ‘sexual beings,’ and it is improper (and potentially dangerous) to treat them as such before puberty. Sex is sex, whether ‘experimental’ or not, whereas abstinence is abstinence –and the latter should be the expected standard of behavior for unmarried teens.”

Finally, if you ever wondered why so much decadent, sleazy and perverted stuff flows out of Hollywood, it seems there is a very good reason for this.  Consider this headline: “Actor Claims Pedophilia Is Hollywood’s Big Secret”. Here is how the article begins:

“Actor Corey Feldman recently went out on a limb to talk about something nobody wants to talk about in Hollywood: sexual abuse of children and child actors – otherwise known as pedophilia. In ABC’s specific interview with Feldman, the actor makes some disturbing claims. Being famous and underage, he said, caused serious damage to him and his friends, including loss of innocence and a lost childhood. ‘I can tell you that the No. 1 problem in Hollywood was and is and always will be pedophilia. That’s the biggest problem for children in this industry. … It’s the big secret,’ Feldman said.

“‘I was surrounded by [pedophiles] when I was 14 years old. … Didn’t even know it. It wasn’t until I was old enough to realize what they were and what they wanted … They were everywhere, Feldman, 40, said. The trauma of pedophilia contributed to the 2010 death of his closest friend and ‘The Lost Boys’ co-star, Corey Haim, Feldman said. ‘There’s one person to blame in the death of Corey Haim. And that person happens to be a Hollywood mogul. And that person needs to be exposed, but, unfortunately, I can’t be the one to do it,’ Feldman said, adding that he, too, had been sexually abused by men in show business.”

Ladies and gentlemen, we are in a war. This is a war being fought with the highest of stakes, and the prize will be our very children. Either we abandon them to despicable sexual perverts, or we stand up for them and fight this evil every step of the way.

Which side will you be on? It’s your call. I know which side I am on.

www.foxnews.com/health/2011/08/25/paving-way-for-condoning-child-rape/?cmpid=cmty_fb_Gigya_Paving_the_Way_for_Condoning_Child_Rape

www.lifesitenews.com/news/sex-box-for-swiss-kindergarteners-has-genitalia-toys-will-teach-sexuality-i?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=0dd38d9b1d-LifeSiteNews_com_Intl_Headlines08_25_2011&utm_medium=email

www.lifenews.com/2011/08/23/obama-admin-pushes-sex-on-kids-children-are-sexual-beings/

www.citizenlink.com/2011/08/25/actor-claims-pedophilia-is-hollywood%E2%80%99s-big-secret/

[1379 words]

In an updated version of the story in the Herald Sun, we find this report: “Both major political parties are strongly opposed to Family Planning Victoria’s radical proposal to hand out free condoms at high schools. As revealed in this morning’s Herald Sun, students as young as 12 could get free condoms at high schools in a radical plan to reduce teenage pregnancies.

“Prime Minister Julia Gillard dismissed the idea today. ‘It is completely absurd,’’ she said. The idea was also opposed by the Federal Coalition Government. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said the idea of providing condoms in schools was not on his agenda. ‘I have no plans to go down that path,’ he said.

“Family Planning Victoria wants condoms made available for years 10-12 – and to younger students in special circumstances. But according to the results of a heraldsun poll, almost 70% of readers believe that children as young as 12 should not be given free condoms. The taxpayer-financed group said they should be kept in student common rooms, or distributed by machines.”

These types of proposals are always idiotic and counter-productive. All they do is put up the white flag of surrender. They in effect tell kids that there is just no stopping sexual activity, and that they should just give in to any passions and lusts that grip them.

We are simply telling our kids they are no better than animals with such counsels of despair. We are sending our children a clear message that they do not have the ability to say no, to exercise self-control, to learn to resist sexual pressure.

Yet those are exactly the sort of messages we need to be giving to our young people. They need to be taught to respect themselves, and taught how to resist sexual pressure, not cave into it. They are human beings with the ability to make choices.

As it happens, I just debated on radio the sexpert in question. She was predictably out to lunch as she sought to justify this sexual suicide. She said we should leave questions of right and wrong out of all this. Great, just what we need – an amoral approach to one of the most moral issues facing our young people.

It is a moral framework with which to discuss these issues which is so desperately needed. Yet these so-called experts think it is nothing but a biology lesson. Sorry, our children are human beings with a moral nature who do not just need bare information, but the ability to make moral assessments.

But this proponent of the condom culture was out of her depth in other ways. She tried to claim that studies show that sex ed and condom handouts reduce teen sexuality. But as I said on the radio debate, the very opposite is the case. In fact, I cited a major study from the world premier sex-ed outfit, Planned Parenthood International.

According to their own research, kids who take comprehensive sex education programs are in fact more likely to be sexually active, more likely to fall pregnant, and more likely to have all the other problems associated with teen sexual activity.

And how did the big cheese from Family Planning Victoria respond? Incredibly, she just said ‘No! That’s not so’. I was staggered. Here she simply denied in public the research done by her own side. She is either living in complete denial, or deliberately seeking to mislead the public about all this.

Indeed, I cited another study, this time from England, which found that teen pregnancy rates soared wherever government programs featuring comprehensive sex-ed and condom distribution were promoted. Once again, she was totally unable or unwilling to respond. But how could she? She had an ideological agenda she was trying to push, while I had the data.

But this is so typical of these sexual revolutionaries. They want to cram their mad hatter programs down the throats of our children, and live in la-la land as to the actual facts and evidence. Radicals pushing social engineering agendas cannot be bothered with mere trifles such as facts and data. They are on a crusade.

On occasion however some reality breaks into this dream world. Consider this story: Some 800 sexologists were asked at a world congress whether they would rely on a condom for protection if they had available the partner of their dreams and knew the person carried HIV. After a long delay, one hand was timidly raised in the back of the room. The speaker was irate. She told her audience that it was completely irresponsible to give advice to others that they would not follow themselves.

Quite right. Merely relying on condoms is simply offering our teens a go at Russian roulette. With around 16 per cent failure rates, this is the last thing we should be throwing at our kids. But this is the best our sexperts can offer. Our kids deserve far better.

They deserve to be told the truth about themselves, about sexuality, and right and wrong, and about personal responsibility. They do not need to be sold a bill of goods by these social engineers who will simply destroy our children and their innocence. Indeed, why they want to simply throw around condoms seems incomplete at best.

As I said on the radio interview, why don’t we just go the whole hog, and offer beds in our schools, maybe even red-light districts? That is certainly the direction these activists are taking us in.

www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/students-as-young-as-12-to-get-free-condoms-at-school-under-new-plan/story-e6frf7kx-1225901838473

[965 words]

Alexander Solzhenitsyn offered a suggestion some decades ago which is most likely the correct one: “It is because we have forgotten God – that is why all this is happening to us”. The secular left hegemony over so much of the West accounts for a good part of our woes.

And every day the headlines confirm this. Indeed, as one commentator put it, “History is little more than the story of man’s sin, and the daily newspaper a running commentary on it.” And the press has just offered up a few more prime examples of this.

Consider this headline, “Transsexual spared jail for own safety”. That in itself raises a number of issues and concerns, but it gets worse as the article elaborates: “A transsexual who downloaded child pornography has walked free from a UK court because a judge said she would not be safe in prison, reports say.”

It continues, “Laura Voyce, 20, who used to be called Luke, was convicted of 14 counts of downloading indecent images of children. Some of the images on her laptop were graded at the second most sickening level of abuse. Voyce, who is biologically still a man but legally a woman, was sentenced at Manchester Crown Court to a nine-month jail term suspended for 12 months.”

There is plenty in this story to get bent out of shape about. But what really enrages me is how our wishy-washy judiciary is continuously showing more concern for the welfare of criminals than the rights of crime victims. They are happy to let the criminals go scot free while the victims bear the unending suffering.

And in this case the victims are as tragic as they come: innocent little children who are sexually and physically abused so sicko perverts like this guy/girl/it can get their cheap thrills. This irresponsible judge was more worried about this trannie pervert than about the wellbeing of children who are being horribly abused.

Indeed, this sham judge has simply sent a green light to every would-be child porn addict: just claim to be a transsexual and you will escape prosecution. Watch all the degrading child porn you like, because our judges are more concerned about your “rights” than they are about the rights of our most vulnerable and defenceless children.

No wonder we are going down the tubes so fast with clowns like this calling the shots. Of course all these secular left judges are products of our secular left and Marxist law schools, which have long ago lost the plot concerning criminal justice.

Indeed, today criminals are not getting true justice, but a free pass. It is the victims who are getting injustice time and time again. The rule of law is being undermined by activists and social engineers who want to remake society in their own mage.

And we ordinary law-abiding citizens are the ones who are paying the price for all this. Chesterton said it well: “A society is in decay, final or transitional, when common sense really becomes uncommon.” Given that our legal eagles seem to have long ago lost any remaining sense, it appears that the decay is terminal.

But wait, there’s more. In Montana the school system wants to extend sex education all the way down to kindergarten. According to FoxNews, the proposal has sparked outrage amongst concerned parents. Here is how the story is introduced:

“According to the 62-page draft proposal, beginning in kindergarten, school nurses will teach students proper terms such as ‘nipple, breast, penis, scrotum and uterus.’ Once they are promoted to first grade, children will learn that sexual relations could happen between two men or two women. By the time students are 10 years old, instruction will include the various ways people can have intercourse, be it vaginally, orally or through ‘anal penetration,’ according to the proposal.”

As is often the case, those pushing such radical moves insist that such sex-ed programs for the youngest of children are needed to prevent STDs and pregnancy. “Melanie Reynolds, a district health officer, defended the proposed curriculum, saying early education and intervention was needed to prevent HIV infection or other sexually transmitted diseases.”

Of interest is the fact that staff from Planned Parenthood were involved in the committee that developed the document. These guys are always pushing this kind of rubbish. But their rationale for all this has just taken a big blow by a major new study.

As one source puts it, “The Center for Disease Control and Prevention released a new study last month showing that most teens are virgins – which American Life League (ALL) has said contradicts propaganda disseminated by sex-education giant Planned Parenthood.”

Judie Brown, president of ALL said, “This study has huge significance for our nation’s public and even private schools – many of whom have been regurgitating Planned Parenthood’s dangerously inaccurate sex-education curriculum”. Quite right.

Indeed, we know that comprehensive sex ed courses in fact increase sexual activity amongst young people, not decrease it. So the whole agenda of groups like PP is as misguided as it is counterproductive. But they will keep pushing to have ever-expanding courses forced upon ever-younger children.

These are just two more scenes from the culture wars, and two more examples of how the Western world is daily being assaulted by secular leftists who do not seem to mind if they pull the whole structure down in their bid to recreate it into their own diabolical image.

All the more reason why we need to redouble our efforts to protect our children, our families, our culture, and our faith from these nihilistic social engineers.
.

www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/transsexual-spared-jail-for-own-safety/story-e6frf7m6-1225891816876

www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/14/montana-kindergarten-sex-ed/

www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10071404.html

[982 words]

While we ignore the battles going on all around us, and the greater war these are a part of, the other side is tireless, committed, and determined to achieve its goals. And a primary way of doing this is to capture our children, and enlist them in their cause.

There are many ways this is being done, and I have documented this often on this site. Here I present two further case studies in how children are being targeted, and how the culture wars are being fought all around us. Fortunately in the second example, a good outcome transpired.

But these victories are few and far between. Everywhere we look the war against faith, family and life is making great headway. The first thing we must do to reverse this trend is to be aware of the battles taking place. Thus this article. These two recent episodes happen to be from North America, but plenty of similar examples could be found down under as well.

The first concerns a small North Eastern town in the US. It is simply the latest in a very long line of cases in which our children are being deliberately exploited and sexualised by our secular sexperts. An article entitled “With Liberty and Prophylactics for All!” describes the situation this way:

“A tiny town on Cape Cod has taken one thing off its back-to-school list: parental involvement. To the astonishment of most every media outlet in America, the Provincetown school board voted unanimously to pass out condoms to all students – starting with first graders.”

So let’s get that straight: condoms given to first graders. Just how many first graders need condoms? Just how many should even know what one is? This is sheer madness. Not only are kids not hopping into beds with each other as first graders, but how in the world would they even get a chance to do so in first grade?

Do they have little bedrooms set up next to the finger painting easels, if they start getting a bit too randy? Do they have a red light district next to the sandbox? The only thing that will even remotely get a first grader thinking about being sexually active is when some idiot school board decides to pass out condoms to them.

And this is not just some optional extra: “As if that weren’t outrageous enough, school leaders won’t allow parents to opt-out. The rule specifically states that Provincetown will not honor requests from moms and dads who want to keep their kids out of the distribution program.

“In fact, some board members argued that the new policy didn’t go far enough. Committee member Shannon Patrick actually complained that students can’t have private access to the stash of condoms. ‘I don’t like that students can’t be discreet about this,’ she told reporters. ‘They have to go and ask for it. I’d rather them not have the conversation.’ I suppose she would prefer baskets of free birth control at the elementary school doors?”

These guys ought to have some laundry detergent poured into their nasty, foul minds. Nothing is worse than adults seeking to sexualise young innocent children. And if young children do need information in these areas, it should come from their parents, not a bunch of secular humanists who are pretending they are teachers.

As the article states, “In most schools, kids can’t even take a Tylenol without their mom’s or dad’s permission, but now it’s okay to encourage six-year-olds to have sex without ever calling home? On matters that directly affect a child’s health, it is imperative that families are central in the decision-making process.”

The article continues, “Even parents who are supportive of condoms for older children should be warned that research shows they aren’t effective. Greater access to contraception doesn’t reduce teen pregnancies or abortion. David Paton, who has authored four major studies in this area, went so far as to say that ‘It is clear that providing more family planning… has actually led to an increase [in conception rates]… It appears that if people have access to family planning advice, they think they automatically have a lower risk of pregnancy.’

“Unfortunately, this is exactly the kind of ‘health care’ that this administration envisioned for every school in America when it passed ObamaCare. School-based clinics, free birth control pills, millions of dollars for Planned Parenthood – it’s all in there. And when those fail, as even liberals expect them to, taxpayers will give free abortions to every woman who wants one. What a difference an administration makes. Under President Bush, kids learned about the real ABCs: abstinence, be faithful, and (as a last resort) contraception.”

If folks are not yet convinced that the West is bogged down in a major culture war, this episode should remove all doubt. On the one side are innocent children, their parents, morality and common sense. On the other side are social engineers and radicals who are deliberately targeting our children and destroying their childhood.

The second example concerns a private school in Canada, which sought to exempt itself from some suspect ethics course. As one writer reports, “The case was initiated by Loyola, a private, anglo, Catholic high school located in Montreal. Loyola had requested an exemption from a provincially mandated ethics and morality course – Éthique et Culture Religieuse (ECR) – on the grounds that it provides its students with an equivalent program, albeit one imbued with the school’s Jesuit pedagogical principles.”

A Quebec court ruled that the school could not pull out of it. But the school did not stop there, but appealed the ruling. Thus on “June 18, Justice Gérard Dugré found that the government’s decision to refuse Loyola’s request was invalid because the refusal was based on the assumption that a confessional program could not accomplish the goals of ECR.”

Barbara Kay provides more background to this important decision: “ECR begins in kindergarten and continues through to high school graduation (with one year off). The course is supposedly benign, a means of exposing children to a panoply of belief systems by inculcating in them ‘absolute respect for every religious position.’ But according to ECR materials, ‘every religious position’ includes pagan animism, witchcraft (‘Wiccans are women like any other in daily life’) and even the nutbar Raelian movement. In one of the high school workbooks, Catholicism is allotted 12 pages, feminism 27 pages.

“Religious activists opposed to the program see it as a blatant case of social engineering, a statist indoctrination of children into the ideology of moral relativism. Their quite reasonable fear is that the course will convince impressionable children that no religion is unique or has any superior moral insight to offer or is worthy of special reverence.”

Most Christian schools do teach about other religions and worldviews. Thus they do not need some PC state-approved course muscling in on the territory. Kay concludes, “Absorption of a particular identity does not preclude learning about other religions and cultures, and students at religious institutions such as Loyola do that already. But ECR goes further, obliging religious institutions to treat many ethical approaches as morally equivalent. Loyola High School would be refused the right to teach that, say, deferred sexual gratification and fidelity to one’s mate is a preferable ethical choice to hedonism and early sexual gratification.

“In his 63-page decision, Judge Dugré issued a surprisingly aggressive and even humiliating rebuke to the Ministry of Education: ‘The obligation imposed on Loyola to teach the ethics and religious culture course in a lay fashion assumes a totalitarian character essentially equivalent to Galileo’s being ordered by the Inquisition to deny the Copernican universe.’ By insisting on rigidly secular guidelines for the teaching of religion, Judge Dugré said, the Quebec Charter of Rights had been violated.

“This is an excellent decision and sends a clear, strong message that secular institutions should stay out of the business of instructing children in how to think about religion. That’s not to say schools shouldn’t teach the objective evolution of various religions or religious wars and so forth in their history courses. But scientifically acquired knowledge is one thing, the inculcation of belief another. In a secular state’s education system, evidence-based facts are welcome; in-your-faith brainwashing isn’t.”

Here, here: finally a bit of common sense in a world gone mad. But such good outcomes are all rather rare today. But this case does demonstrate that if pro-family and pro-faith forces are willing to stand up and fight for what they believe in, some victories will be had along the way.

www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU10F19&f=PG07J01

fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/22/barbara-kay-score-one-for-quebecs-religious-freedom/

[1490 words]

The news item, found in today’s Herald Sun, begins this way: “Children as young as three have been questioned about kissing and flirting in a project by a university researcher from Melbourne. Monash University’s Dr Mindy Blaise, who spent five days at an unnamed childcare centre, wants sexuality to be an official subject at kinders and preschool centres. It would include discussions about homosexuality. Dr Blaise said it was important that kids felt ‘healthy sexuality was not dirty or wrong’. Boys and girls as young as three were asked questions such as ‘Are you a flirt? and ‘Have you ever kissed a boy?’”

Here we go again – another know-it-all sexpert invading the lives of very young children. Just how much sex is on the brain of a three-year-old for heaven’s sake? It seems these Monash eggheads would have us believe toddlers have deep thoughts and discussions about sexuality just like we find in Sex in the City.

There’s little Bobby talking about his latest orgasm; little Lisa remarking on her fling with homosexuality; and tiny Tina speculating on the best methods of contraception. Yep those toddlers are sex-obsessed alright, and the sooner we adults have some deep and meaningfuls with them the better.

Pul-leeese. When are we going to put these academics out of their misery? They are causing enough damage with adults and teens. Now they want to meddle with our toddlers, and turn them into informed sex experts before they even know who is playing for the Melbourne Football Club or what 10 times 12 is.

This is nothing other than a type of child abuse. To deliberately foist adult concepts of sexuality on very young children who simply are not ready physically, mentally, psychologically or emotionally is irresponsible in the extreme. Indeed, it reminds me of some despicable “research” conducted on very young children years ago by Kinsey, the American sexual pervert.

He is the one who infamously conducted his experiments into sexuality, trying to undermine the morality of a generation. I have written up this rather vile character elsewhere, so let me here simply quote from myself:

“Kinsey of course is the notorious American sexologist (1894-1956), whose agenda was to soften up the public to the view that any and every sort of sexuality is permissible. He sought to convince us that there is no norm when it comes to human sexuality, and that we should embrace any sexual expression whatsoever. Here are some of his ‘findings’:

“-All orgasms are ‘outlets’ and are equally valid – whether between husband and wife, boy and dog, man and man or adult and child – for in sexual expression, normal is individually determined.

“-The more ‘outlets,’ the healthier the person – and beginning as early as possible is better than waiting.

“-Human beings are naturally bisexual. Religious bigotry and prejudice force people into chastity, heterosexuality and monogamy.

“-There is no medical or other reason for adult-child sex or incest to be forbidden.

“People like Hugh Hefner of Playboy fame of course helped to carry out this agenda. And today we see the result of this social and sexual revolution: broken families, marriage disintegration, a tsunami of pornography, including child pornography, an epidemic of promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases, skyrocketing abortion rates, a crisis in teenage pregnancies, an explosion of rape and sexual assault, and a culture that believes that hedonism is the highest good, and self control and restraint the greatest evil.”

So what about the children of Table 34? That too I have written up before, so let me again draw upon my earlier material about a Hollywood film which sought to turn Kinsey into some sort of saint:

“Thus a whole range of sexual activity that used to be frowned upon has become normalised because of Kinsey. But it is not only the fruits of his research that was dangerous; so too was the research itself. We know that Kinsey and his associates used children ranging from 5 months to fourteen years in his sex experiments.

“For example, in Table 34 of his Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948), Kinsey sought to show that the youngest of children could be sexually active. He said that even ‘the youngest males, as young as 5 months in age, are capable of such repeated reactions [orgasms]’ In the table, four-year-old boys, for example, were sexually stimulated for 24 uninterrupted hours.  A five month baby is said to have produced 3 orgasms in an unspecified amount of time.

“An eleven month baby is reported to have had 14 orgasms in 38 minutes. The book also examines some of the reactions to such ‘experimentation.’ These ranged from ‘extreme tension with violent convulsion … gasping, eyes staring … mouth distorted, sometimes with tongue protruding … whole body or parts of it spasmodically twitching … groaning, sobbing, or more violent cries … more or less frenzied movements … extreme trembling, collapse, loss of color, and sometimes fainting … of subject.’  These reactions, recorded with cold, clinical precision, are nothing less than descriptions of criminal child abuse.

“Remarkably, however, the study of the reactions concludes by noting that the subject ‘will fight away from the partner and may make violent attempts to avoid climax, although they derive definite pleasure from the situation.’  Does that sound like pleasure?  It sounds like child sexual assault of the worst kind.

“And as one paediatrician noted, ‘these children had to be held down or subject to strapping down, otherwise they would not respond willingly.’ Thus it is amazing that Hollywood should come out with this hagiography on Kinsey. We have such huge problems with child pornography right now, and our entertainment capital will simply compound the problem.

“Indeed, the film will cover up a lot of details about Kinsey. For example, decades ago Kinsey renamed paedophilia as ‘cross-generational sexual contact’. And as mentioned already, Kinsey was quite happy to use paedophiles in his research on human sexuality.”

I challenge you to read those last five paragraphs again. If they do not make you physically ill, then perhaps you need to do a check-up on the state of your humanity and morality. These were absolutely revolting “experiments” which would have traumatised those young babies and children for perhaps their entire lives.

Yet our sexperts think this is all good and important “research”. Now what these Monash academics were doing was not in the same league as was what Kinsey was doing. But both groups are operating under the same premises: that babies and children are sexualised beings and adults can feel free to force their sexual concepts onto them.

There is another group in society which also wants to soften little kids up to all things sexual: the paedophiles. They also believe little children are sexually active and need to interact with adults. They love it when we can sexualise them at the earliest possible age.

I am sure the Monash eggheads have no such thing as this in mind. But they should know better that other groups do have such things in mind, and anything that softens kids up to such dangers should be avoided at all costs. All we can say about these Monash researchers is shame, shame, shame.

www.heraldsun.com.au/news/children-as-young-as-three-questioned-about-kissing-and-flirting/story-e6frf7jo-1225867935481

www.billmuehlenberg.com/2005/01/15/kinsey-con-job/

[1260 words]

Those words were penned over half a century ago. How true they appear in 2009. If we look at just one nation – England – we quickly discover how accurate Sorokin was. Consider three recent reports coming from this country concerning the issue of sexuality. They certainly speak of “momentous consequences”, and do not auger well for the future of civilisation.

The first story concerns a National Health Service leaflet which states that school kids have a “right” to a hot sex life. The NHS has produced a document called “Pleasure” in which it tells teens that along with eating lots of fruits and veggies, “sex or masturbation twice a week” is good for their health.

The slogan of the campaign is “an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away”. I wish I could say I was making this up, but alas I am not. According to one media report, the knucklehead behind this campaign “believes that as long as teenagers are fully informed about sex and are making their decisions free of peer pressure and as part of a caring relationship, they have as much right as an adult to a good sex life.”

Never mind our skyrocketing rates of teen promiscuity, teen pregnancies, teen abortions and teen STDs. Our dizzy sexperts want our kids to just do it. For them the highest value in life seems to be an orgasm, and the worst thing in life seems to be acting like a human being who does not need to descend to the level of animals and give in to every sexual urge that comes along.

But this is all part of how our elites are running the asylum. They have simply told kids to give in to whatever craving they experience, and forget about such things as self-control, temperance and delayed gratification. And they have especially told the kids to forget about anything smacking of morality.

Indeed, the second story has to do with more English sexperts spewing forth their perverted understanding of human sexuality. It seems that the children’s minister, Beverley Hughes, is about to circulate a government leaflet which tells parents to keep morality out of sex lessons.

As the Sunday Times reports, “Parents should avoid trying to convince their teenage children of the difference between right and wrong when talking to them about sex, a new government leaflet is to advise. Instead, any discussion of values should be kept ‘light’ to encourage teenagers to form their own views, according to the brochure.”

Great, just what hormonally charged teenagers need to hear. Forget all this business about right and wrong – just go for it. Perfect advice for wild dogs and mountain goats, but is it what impressionable young people need to hear?

In truth this is sheer madness. A moral framework is exactly what young people need as they confront such heady issues as human sexuality. To pretend that such a vital area can be a moral-free zone is absolute lunacy. Our prisons are already filled with amoral sex offenders, who have had drummed into their heads the mantra that we should just do whatever feels good.

Children need moral guidance in every area of life, not least of which in the area of sexuality. As social commentator Christina Hoff Summers has rightly remarked, “To my mind, leaving children alone to discover their own values is a little like putting them in a chemistry lab and saying, ‘Discover your own compound kids.’  If they blow themselves up, at least they have engaged in an authentic search for the self.”

Yet these mentally challenged sexperts want to strip the whole discussion of sexuality out of the moral framework in which it belongs. As former US Secretary of Education William Bennett put it, “Sex education has to do with how boys and girls, how men and women, treat each other and themselves — or, rather, should treat each other and themselves.  Sex education is therefore about character and the formation of character.  A sex education course in which issues of right and wrong do not occupy center stage is evasive and irresponsible.”

But we have now had decades of sex ed which tells kids all about the mechanics of sex, without a word about morality and what human personhood is all about. And the truth is, this approach has been a colossal failure. A number of reports on the success of amoral sex ed courses have appeared, and the verdict is not good.

Consider a very recent report, documenting how English sex ed courses have fared. As one English press account puts it, “A multi-million pound initiative to reduce teenage pregnancies more than doubled the number of girls conceiving. The Government-backed scheme tried to persuade teenage girls not to get pregnant by handing out condoms and teaching them about sex. But research funded by the Department of Health shows that young women who attended the programme, at a cost of £2,500 each, were ‘significantly’ more likely to become pregnant than those on other youth programmes who were not given contraception and sex advice. “

Are we supposed to be surprised? For a half century we have been telling our kids that they are really just animals in an evolutionary world; there is no right and wrong; instant gratification of one’s desires is just hunky dory; all one needs is a condom; and notions such as self-control and learning to say no are antiquated Victorian hangovers.

Surprise, surprise. In such an environment, we have even more problems with teen sexuality. Duh. Maybe it is time to round up all those sexperts and government bureaucrats and force them to take up real jobs, and return to the traditional wisdom that has served us so well for generations.

To our ruling elites today, it may sound all very old-fashioned, but give me the advice of Alan Keyes any day: “If we encourage our kids to believe they can’t control their sexual desires, what of their greed, their anger, their prejudice, and their hate?  What condoms will we distribute to protect them from the consequences of those?  Perhaps it’s time we remembered that for a free people the first challenge of education is not to fill our children’s heads with knowledge, but to instill in their hearts the confidence they need to quell the storms and tempests of unruly passion.”

Edmund Burke was quite right when he wrote, “Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

In the area of sexuality – as in so many other areas – we are in a moral freefall. While our elites promise us that freedom is the outcome of such sexual libertinism, the opposite is the case: we simply succumb to a new slavery, and in effect dig our own graves.

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article6689953.ece

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article5780725.ece

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1198228/6m-drive-cut-teen-pregnancies-sees-DOUBLE.html

[1254 words]

That is why they never tire of actively seeking to reach our children. They know if they can bypass parental concerns and values, they can get direct access to even toddlers in order to indoctrinate them in their radical worldview. Thus it comes as no surprise that yet another example of this has cropped up in the news.

This is how one media outlet begins the story: “A book that teaches children about lesbian mums getting pregnant using sperm donors is being pitched at kids as young as two. The controversial publication, Where Did I Really Come From?, also features a drawing of two gay men holding a baby, in a chapter about surrogacy. The publisher’s marketing spruiks the book, which includes in-depth descriptions of sexual intercourse, as suitable to be read to two-year-old children.”

The book is written by Narelle Wickham, and illustrated by Ingrid Urh. It has actually been out since 1992, but this new edition came out late last year. So what is the problem here? Let me count the ways.

As I told one reporter, sex ed in general is something that toddlers are simply not ready for. A case can be made that no one under high school age needs to be exposed to graphic sex education materials such as this. So why in the world is this being rammed down the throats of toddlers?

Also, this is not just about some harmless sex ed material, but is of course all about radical groups indoctrinating our children. It is about pushing agendas, and softening up kids to the moral relativism of the sexperts.

And it is all done to avoid any moral concerns that parents might have. Indeed, we are informed that the book offers “simple, non-judgmental explanations” about sexuality. They got that right. We don’t want to be judgmental and inform little toddlers that if and when they mess around with homosexuality they might contract HIV/AIDS or any number of other dangerous STDs. We would not want to tell them they might die young by getting into this very high risk lifestyle. No that would be judgmental.

As if we can leave values out of something as important as human sexuality. But this is really no value-free sex ed. It is chock a bloc full of the values of the militant sexual libertines and the homosexual lobby. Those are the real values that are being pushed fast and hard here. So spare us this nonsense about “non-judgmental explanations”.

And when ideologues want to push their agendas, truth is always the first casualty. Consider this howler which comes from the author herself: “All the research shows that in terms of outcomes for young people, family connections and warmth is more important than family structure.” There is perhaps no more patently and demonstrably false statement to be found on this issue than this.

We now have over forty years of social science research on this very question. Over 10,000 international studies have made it absolutely clear that family structure is the most important component for the wellbeing of a child. The research is so extensive and settled on this, that only a homosexual activist who wants to deliberately deceive people could even dare to make such a wild claim.

Family structure matters overwhelmingly, and the research demonstrates that no other family structure is as vital to the healthy development of a child than that of a biological mother and father, preferably married. No other family structure even comes close to providing the tremendous benefits which biological parents do. So here we have a deliberate and blatant falsehood, all in the interests of pushing the misleading agenda of the homosexual lobby.

And by the way, this is not some neutral, impartial academic who has written this book. Wickham is a lesbian activist, although you wouldn’t know it by the way the MSM reported the story. The book’s publisher and promoter are Learn to Include, which promotes the homosexual agenda, and Two Lives Publishing.

As to the former, it has printed numerous homosexual books, including that of another Australian lesbian activist, Vicki Harding. We are also told this on its website: “This project is supported by the NSW Attorney General’s Department – Crime Prevention Division”. It sounds like taxpayers are therefore funding this homosexual propaganda.

And we learn this about the latter: “Welcome to TwoLives.com, the online home of Two Lives Publishing. Our mission is to publish and distribute quality books for LGBT families.” Just in case you don’t know, LGBT of course stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender.

And the author offers an accommodation on a same sex travel website. The ad she has proudly proclaims her accommodation to be “Same Sex Owned and Operated”. And it also turns out that Wickham has a child who “was lovingly conceived through self donor insemination 22 years ago” as we are informed in an interview with her in a homosexual newspaper. So there is nothing objective about this: it is homosexual indoctrination pure and simple.

Not only should parents be in charge of the education of their young, especially when it comes to sexuality, but those with vested interests which are not in the interests of the child, such as the militant homosexual lobby, should be kept at arm’s length from these innocent and impressionable young people.

They definitely do not need to learn about homosexual relationships, sperm donors and all this other adult content as two-year-olds. It is questionable whether it is even of any value for most adults. But once again, our children are under attack from militants who will go to any length to target and exploit our kids. Enough is enough.

www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25422818-662,00.html

news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/nsw-govt-denies-link-to-gay-sex-ed-book-20090504-arle.html

www.starobserver.com.au/entertainment/2008/09/03/getting-the-facts-of-life/1514

[1009 words]

Primary school kids are being targeted by a website developed by La Trobe University. The site, thehormonefactory.com, uses cartoons to tell 10 to 12-year-olds about how they can get “interested in sex”. It also informs them what a relief it can be if a woman has an abortion.

Indeed, this is part of the advice given to our children about “not making babies”: abortion “can also be a relief. If a woman has a termination she can still have a baby at another time.” How about some truth telling here guys? Why not inform these kids that abortion increases the risk of sterility? Chances are good there will not be a next time. But why let facts stand in the way of propaganda?

The site itself is filled with plenty of other helpful information. Indeed, it is filled with plenty of misinformation. Consider what it has to say about HIV/AIDS: “HIV is the name of the germ or virus that can give a person AIDS. HIV is mostly passed from one person to another by having sexual intercourse. Safer sex can help stop it passing from one person to another.”

This is one of the most disgraceful and misleading remarks on the whole site. This site is an Australian site, devoted to educating Australian children. Therefore it should tell the truth about the Australian situation. If these folk were interested in really helping kids, instead of pushing politically correct ideology, the site should have said this: “HIV is mostly passed from one male to another male by having sexual intercourse.”

HIV/AIDS in Australia is overwhelmingly transmitted by male homosexual activity, along with intravenous drug use. Heterosexuals have a very low chance indeed of contracting the disease. And since this site is quite happy to talk about homosexuality, it is disingenuous at best, and downright mischievous at worst, for these sexperts to deliberately mislead impressionable and vulnerable young people about this important information.

And speaking of health issues, it is interesting that the site speaks of “safer sex”. Indeed, the myth of safe-sex has long ago been discarded. But the safer sex message is not much better. Just talking a lot about condoms is no real help at all.

Indeed, I am reminded of a meeting of sexologists that took place some years ago. At a World Congress of Sexology, a speaker asked the 800 sexologists present this question: “If you had available the partner of your dreams and knew the person carried HIV, how many of you would have sex depending on a condom for protection?” Not one person raised their hand. After a long delay, one hand was timidly raised in the back of the room. The speaker was irate. She told them, “it was irresponsible to give advice to others that they would not follow themselves.”

But this site is not just selling our kids short with false and misleading information, it is involved in pushing agendas. In this case it is the usual sexual liberationist agenda, complete with pro-homosexual indoctrination. Check out this agenda-laden bit of bias and indoctrination:

“Many people do not easily fit one label or another. It is normal and human for feelings to change in a lifetime. Sometimes it is hard for a person who is gay, lesbian or bisexual, because some people think they should not be gay, lesbian or bisexual, and that heterosexual is the only right way to be. It is normal to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual, or heterosexual.”

Telling young and naive children that the high-risk and dangerous homosexual lifestyle is “normal” and therefore OK is the height of irresponsibility. How many children will receive a premature death sentence because they experimented with homosexuality after being told by this site and others like it that such alternative lifestyles are quite alright?

And the website, complete with cute cuddly cartoon figures, assures our young children that masturbation is just fine, and exploring one’s sexuality is just peachy. Indeed, our young children are being told how neat sex is, with the whole thrust of the message being, ‘Go ahead, try it. You’ll like it. There is nothing wrong with it any of it whatsoever.’

That advice may make a tad more sense for adults, but not for primary school children. Indeed, the way the message is presented, one would expect to see even more child sexual activities taking place. After all, consider how cool sex is according to the site: “People do this because it feels nice. The feelings are warm and tingly and exciting. Sometimes they get so excited that a lovely shiver called an orgasm comes over them.” Gee, let’s do it!

Parents of course should be the first port of call when introducing children to sexuality. Their values are an important part of this. But our government sexperts think that if we just cram all the information we can into little Johnny’s and Suzy’s minds, without any moral framework, they will all go out and do the right thing.

Somehow I don’t think so. This value-free approach to sex ed is a recipe for disaster. It basically assumes our young people are on a level with animals, lacking in the ability to say no, to achieve self-discipline. It is the white-flag approach.

As Christina Hoff Summers once put it, “To my mind, leaving children alone to discover their own values is a little like putting them in a chemistry lab and saying, ‘Discover your own compound kids.’  If they blow themselves up, at least they have engaged in an authentic search for the self’.”

This defeatist approach is like saying we have lost the war against tobacco, so let’s teach our young children all about “safer smoking”. Let’s teach them about nicotine, filters, etc. Let’s tell them that smoking can give you feelings that are warm and tingly, and may even produce a lovely shiver.

If our sexperts want to target adults, and do it with their own funding, that is one thing. But we certainly do not need these guys insisting that our children be the subject of their questionable agenda, and that we be forced to subsidise this with our tax dollars.

www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25300274-3102,00.html

[1068 words]

Even if we are overpopulated – and many experts dispute the claim – abortion is not the answer. Just as the answer to a crowded apartment building is not murdering half the residents, so too here, murdering the unborn is not an acceptable solution. There are many couples eager to adopt children. That is certainly a more humane solution.

And if we are serious about proposing death as a solution for the problems of world hunger and overpopulation, why stop at just killing unborn babies? Why not kill adults? After all, they eat a lot more than the unborn, they consume a lot more resources, they take up a lot more space, they make more demands on our environment, etc. The point is, one serious social problem cannot be solved by means of another serious social problem.

Indeed, apply this to any other situation. Many prisons are experiencing manifest overcrowding. Would it therefore be right to kill, say, a third of all prisoners, in the interests of reducing prison populations and to relieve overcrowding?

And many hospitals are full to overflowing. Overcrowding in our hospitals is a perennial problem. In order to free up much needed hospital beds, should we simply go through the wards and bump off, say, forty per cent of patients? That would certainly free up the beds. (BTW, this is not a foolish and far-out proposal. In 1994 the Economic Planning Advisory Commission discussed the rising costs of health care for the elderly, and the problem of overcrowding in hospitals. In a publication called “Australia’s Aging Society,” EPAC actually looked at the use of euthanasia as one option in the whole discussion!)

While arguments for overpopulation seemed to carry some weight back in the 1960s (recall Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb), today the real problem is not a population explosion, but a population implosion. Rapidly falling fertility rates are becoming a major concern around the world, certainly in the West.

A number of recent books have documented this population implosion, including The Empty Cradle by Phillip Longman (2004); and Fewer: How the New Demography of Depopulation Will Shape Our Future by Ben Wattenberg (2004).

And concerns about supposed overpopulation have often resulted in many draconian and inhumane policies, such as forced abortions, sterilisations, and widespread eugenics policies. Jacqueline Kasun warned about this in her important 1988 book, The War against Population.

Much more recently population expert Stephen Mosher released a book tackling these very issues. Entitled Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefit, it offers a sober warning about how population control zealots are using draconian methods and implementing eugenics policies in their push to curb human numbers.

As Mosher puts it, “For over half a century, the population controllers have perpetuated a gigantic, costly and inhumane fraud upon the human race, defrauding the people of the developing countries of their progeny and the people of the developed world of their pocketbooks.” He continues,

“Determined to stop population growth at all costs, the controllers have abused women, targeted racial and religious minorities, undermined primary health care programs, and encouraged dictatorial actions if not dictatorship. They have skewed the foreign aid programs of the U.S. and other developed countries in an anti-natal direction, corrupted dozens of well-intentioned nongovernmental organizations, and impoverished authentic development programs. Blinded by a zealotry worthy of Al-Qaeda, they have even embraced the most brutal birth control campaign in history: China’s infamous one-child policy, with all its attendant horrors.”

In 250 fact-filled pages, Mosher carefully documents these claims, and shows how eugenics is alive and well, being promulgated by the no-growth zealots. Indeed, he reminds us that there are many serious voices urging us to not just stop population growth, but to radically reduce current population levels. Many are saying our 6 billion-plus population should be cut back to one billion, or two billion at the most.

Of course how these 4 to 5 billion people are supposed to be bumped off is not always clearly stated. And none of those calling for such drastic measures seem to have volunteered to lead the way here. But they are very happy for other people to “do their bit” to save the planet.

Mosher documents the horrendous human rights abuses that are occurring in the name of fertility control. And he reminds us that the real problems people face in the developing world – lack of adequate food, water, shelter, health care – are being overlooked by the population controllers.

For example, every 20 seconds a person dies of malaria, or about 1.5 million people per year. Yet a group such as USAID spends $10 million to target this deadly disease, while spending hundreds of millions on fertility reduction programs.

Developing countries are awash with condoms, abortifacients, sterilisation agents  and antenatal products and programs, while the people there simply want clean running water, basic health care and proper sewage facilities. But Western governments think they know better, and are inundating these nations with their anti-life arsenals.

Our problem then is not too many people, but wrong policies being pushed onto the developing world by the developed world. We do not need to force people to not have children. What we need to do is offer them the basics in care and health that we expect for ourselves.

It is true that we do have a population problem. But it is a population implosion, not an explosion, which is the real problem. Abortion and fertility control programs are not only contributing to the problem, but those pushing such antenatalism are coercive utopians who are promoting the same eugenics line that Hitler and the Nazis did on a bigger and nastier scale.

In a few short decades the world’s population will peak at around 8 billion people, then a process of decline will set in. Today eighteen countries already fill more coffins than cradles each year, and that number is steadily rising. Yet the pro-aborts and population controllers seem oblivious to this fact.

In the light of all this, it is interesting to note that Norma McCorvey, the “Jane Roe” of the 1973 Roe v Wade abortion decision in the US is now both a Christian and an anti-abortion campaigner. She tells of one of the key reasons why she had such a radical change of heart from her earlier pro-abortion days.

She says she was in a park one day which was nearly deserted. No kids were playing on the swings or having fun on the slides. She wondered where all the children were. Then it hit her like a ton of bricks: ‘We have been aborting ourselves out of existence”.

Abortion is always wrong as it takes the life of an innocent human being who is unable to protect himself or herself. And it is certainly wrong when done for a bogus reason like the so-called population explosion. The world is facing a birth dearth, and abortion is part of the problem, not the solution.

[1228 words]