Jerry Agar is a famous conservative media personality from Canada. Working in radio and television in both the USA and Canada and formerly a part of the Sun News Network, Jerry Agar was standing in for Ezra Levant at Rebel Media when he made this segment, entitled' Struggling to pay bills? Then don't have kids':
In addition, Rebel Media posted the following on its Twitter feed:
Rebel Media is a part of the entire "new conservatism" that has emerged over the past ten years that we have heavily criticized for being anything but conservative. This is particularly true with regard to homosexuality, as they heavily promoted Milo Yiannopoulos and currently hose the radio show for Gavin McInnes, who we have shown to be an open supported of homosexuality and bisexuality, as he discusses various acts indetail on his show and even went so far as to make out with Milo.
But what bothered me was at 0:47-0:48 he says "Children aren't a right. They are a responsibility."
Nobody who has children doubts that they are a major responsibility. Children are little people, and raising little people is a difficult task no matter who does it. They will eat up your time, tax your patience, drain your energy, and interrupt plans, and often at inconvenient times.
But children are never, ever not a "right." While certainly there are bad parents and people who do not care and should not be parents, the logical corollary to this is that if children are not a right, then they are a privilege. If children are a "privelage," then it means that having them means they can be taken away from because they do not actually belong to you in the first place. When Mr. Agar's line of logic is followed far enough, it means that children are not just merely not yours but they can be regulated by an outside force, up to and including another person saying "you have had too many children- the government now requires that you are to be sterilized." Not only that, but if children are a "privelage" that is bestowed externally but not an internal gift that is given from God as a part of man's creation, then it means that men would be able to have the power to determine if certain children were "fit" to "be a part of society."
This is the approach which certain others nations have taken towards children, most blatantly China. In China, for a long time only one child was permitted. That number has recently been raised to two, and for certain upper middle class or wealthy Chinese, they are able to pay off authorities to let them have a third. But forced sterilization, abduction, forced abortion, and outright murdering children and babies after birth is common place in China because of this way of thinking.
If [a woman] lived in a small village, for example, she would probably be scrutinized by a group, she would probably be grouped together with a set of households and come under what they call a cluster leader, somebody who sort of monitors the progress and fertility rights of a certain set of households. ... So if this woman ... fell pregnant then most likely this cluster leader would know about it very quickly and then she would report to higher up. ... Probably at first a village leader would show up at their doorstep and say, "You know very well you should not have this; you could have all sorts of problem with this. You may have to pay a fine." I've met enforcers who have gone to these houses and say, "We used to take away something valuable to show that we mean business." ... Like a television set, for example, or a pig, or sometimes if the household was a very poor household they'll take away homespun cloth or grain or something, something that had to make it hurt, basically — that was in a village setting, of course.
In a city setting they could maybe, if you worked for a [civil service-like] job they might threaten to fire you. ... This is for having a child. If you went for a termination, all of this would go away. But, of course, then there were people who really wanted the child and then they would try and evade the whole process of being taken away for a forced abortion, because here's the thing: Between your conception and your delivery date, all bets are off — they can make you. (source)
But the situation in China or government policy does not even have to be so in other countries for this problem to exist. All that it takes for is for a "eugenics mindset"- a way of looking at the world which says that the lives of certain people are worth less than that of others, and that other men have the right to tell other men who can live and who can die based on their own criterion.
A very disturbing example of this is the current state of "birth defects screening," most notably with Down's Syndrome. It was revealed last year that in the tiny nation of Iceland, a nation the size of the state of Tennessee but with fewer people in the whole nation than in just the city of Chattanooga, the abortion rate for potential Down's Syndrome babies is 100%. The crisis is so bad that an Icelandic photographer began taking pictures of people in Iceland with Down's Syndrome in order to help people remember that these people are humans and just as worthy of dignity and life as anybody else.
And she is worried that her son will grow up in a world where more parents choose not to give birth to babies diagnosed with the condition. She gives the example of Iceland, where almost everyone screens for Down's and 100% of women who have a positive diagnosis now terminate.
Icelandic photographer Sigga Ella, whose aunt had the condition, took a series of portraits of people with Down's to raise awareness of the Down's community there.
But in the UK about a third of pregnant women opt out of screening, so if that remains the case, any of these babies who have Down's will continue to go undetected until they are born.
In the UK the new test is being developed by Lyn Chitty at Great Ormond Street Hospital - professor of genetics and foetal medicine.
She carried out a study to see what women do when they are offered NIPT. Based on this research she believes that an extra 195 babies with Down's could be diagnosed in England and Wales each year before birth.
But even though 90% of women in the UK with a positive Down's diagnosis have abortions, she doesn't believe it means most of these 195 pregnancies will be terminated. (source)
Jakob, one of the children in Iceland with Down's Syndrome. Look into his face, and then tell him "you don't deserve to live" while stabbing him repeatedly- because that is what abortion is and is the mindset what men like Mr. Agar have. They would murder children like him in the name of "convenience" and "rights."
The modern "conservative movement" clearly has nothing to do with the sanctity of human life. As we have pointed out, both the liberals and the conservatives do not care about people- they see them as means to an end for their particular political ends.
I remember three years ago when MSNBC anchor Melissa Harris Perry went on television and outright said that "children do not belong to their parents, but to whole communities." I remember the outrage on "conservative media" about how horrible she was for saying, this, how she was advocating that the government should take children, and how "conservatives" need to stand against this.
Now I look at the new "conservative" media, and what is Agar doing any different from Perry? It is not at all, except the difference is that the one speaking is a guy named Jerry Agar and the other is a woman named Melissa Perry. Both of them are poisoned with a eugenics mindset, both of them want to government to come and control your life and your fertility, and both of them want to play "god" with other people because they think they have a right to determine who lives and who dies. Both of them are evil. However, I have far more respect for Melissa Perry not because I agree with her at all, but because the "Democrat" or "liberal" (call it what you will) agenda in America is openly eugenicist. They are eugenicists, but they don't try to hide and instead they brag about it. To their credit, they are at least being honest with themselves and their viewers, while conservatives such as Agar will wrap themselves in the mantle of "traditional values" and "family values" all the while they are just as murderous and deceitful as the liberals are.
And coming back to the issue of eugenics, what true good has it done? Again, look back at the situation in China. By aborting and adopting out (mostly to American and European families) millions of baby girls in favor of baby boys, the result is a dearth of available women to marry and glut of single, unhappy young men with, in their minds, no prospects for a future and no idea what to do.
In the case of Europe, while abortions are common, the issue is a limited family size that has caused a precipitous drop in population which in turn has created voids in the society. Jobs that need to be filled are not being filled because there are not enough people to fill them. So what has happened was that Muslims were brought over to fill the population gap left by the European people who refuse to reproduce (while some of this is certainly for policy reasons and political manipulation, there is also are real crisis going on). One only needs to turn on the news media to see what the result of this has been as Europe is literally being assimilated into the Middle East and North Africa.
In America, the issue is not as serious yet because of the immigration and how Americans, until recently, were at replacement rate with fertility but have since fallen. The result you see in the same- large numbers of immigrants, a changing culture, and social unstability.
Now the issue which I am driving at here is not that "immigrants are bad" or that "people should not take responsibility for themselves." Not the least. What I am saying is that society belongs to the people who show up, and if you do not have the children to occupy society as simply a part of your basic duty of being alive, then just like a house left vacant, somebody else will show up to occupy it, and the way to prevent this is to do what God said, which is to "be fruitful and multiply."
With regard to the issue of government welfare programs, that is a completely separate issue divorced from the fertility question. The willingness or unwillingness of parents to take care of their children is a matter of character. As I said earlier, parenting is hard work and requires a lot of sacrifice. One only needs to look at the old European immigrant families of the last century or at the many countless peoples across the world who give up la dolce vita in order to do what is good and right for their families.
If you ever have a chance, go down to your local "Deparment of Human Resources" or "Department of Social Services" office and attempt to apply for food stamps. You will get an application, and with that application (either separately or on the same paper attached to it) you will receive a mandatory paper asking you to register to vote if you have not already. This happens in every state. While one is not required to register, the fact is that the government welfare programs are entirely connected to vote grabbing from the Democrat as well as Republican parties. Welfare is simply a tool of public policy, a means of wealth transfer to promise the Roman idea of "bread and circuses" to the masses while not caring about whether or not this behavior encourages people to care about their stuation or not. That is the main issue with welfare that nobody wants to address.
People will rise to the occasion throughout history, and private charity through the Churches has always been used to help the truly destitute and needy, who we have a moral obligation to help. But helping society does not come through promoting eugenics in any form, and most certainly not through the deceitful idea that children are somehow property of anybody else but their parents regardless of who says it.
Post a Comment