How Will They Kill Billions of People?

by Stewart Cowan

 How Will They Kill Billions of People?

By ‘They’ I mean the unelected, unaccountable elites who think of the rest of us as “cattle” and who consider that there are far too many of us already. Far, far too many and we need culled.

This is what ‘sustainability’ really means. It is what UN Agenda 21 is really about and I have been thinking for quite a while about how they could kill off billions of us and after reading this post by Leg-iron today, it occurred to me they could achieve it in many ways.

I am assuming that they won’t go down the blatant route of the likes of Stalin and have us lined up and shot, but you really never know.

How about the Third World War? Ukraine seems like a good firelighter. But then, while it might kill billions of us, they’ve nuked their global playground. Biowarfare? Or up the food warfare, which has been going on for a couple of decades or more with artificial ingredients causing harm of all kinds and GM food which kills the lab animals they test it on but declared ‘safe’ for humans to eat.

Leggy points to an article about studies which have shown that we are far too reliant on far too few plant crops and he concludes that,

The number of different varieties grown in the world has been in decline for quite some time, and it’s now at a point where the emergence of a single wheat pathogen can all but wipe out the world’s wheat – because we are all growing the same few varieties.

If the depopulators can factor in just a handful of varieties of each crop and produce pests with voracious appetites which can strip them bare, they’ll have instant mass starvation. Well they’ll be fine, of course. We’ll be starving.

If the world goes completely GM and Monsanto produces all the seed and accidentally on purpose gets things horribly wrong then there’s mass starvation or if they sell the seed at exorbitant prices (they already do), farmers can’t afford it, so the crops are not grown and even when they do grow, can produce poor harvests and send farmers into debt. 250,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide partly due to Monsanto’s false promises on yields and unworkably high prices of seed, which of course has to be bought from Monsanto every year, as it is patented.

I’m convinced that with increasing global governance China’s one child policy will be rolled out across the planet, even though the birth-rate in many countries is in decline and Japan is expected to see its population fall by a quarter in the next few decades, such is the low fertility rate there.

That’s why the eugenicist Gates’s are in Africa (billionaires many times over, but still in receipt of UK taxpayers’ money for their ‘charity’ work). To reduce the birth-rate and fill the babies full of vaccines, which they admit will also reduce the population.

There are all sorts of measures already in place. ‘Family planning’, devised by truly mad, humanity-hating individuals, like Marie Stopes and Margaret Sanger, reduced the UK fertility rate to a dangerous level a few years ago and it’s due to the immigrant influx that it’s nearly up to the 2.1 children per woman required to sustain the current population.

Power shortages and further large price increases to come due to the government sabotaging our power stations by order of the EU will undoubtedly kill off even more old folk in winter, but probably younger people too, especially if combined with food shortages, unemployment and cuts or complete loss of benefits.

The real purpose of the carbon con, I believe, is to deindustrialise the West, thus leaving us open to the ‘saviour’ of a relative Utopia via a global government that will promise to help us with food and power supplies.

Things are going to get very ugly indeed, because most people aren’t interested in ‘bad news’ when there’s footie on the telly and a pizza in the oven and a few tinnies in the fridge. As the theme from ‘Auf Wiedersehen Pet’ says, “That’s living alright”.

Not for much longer.

The whole shebang goes very deep. The WHO seems to be run by Big Pharma, whose Codex Alimentarius resulted in the EU banning hundreds of over-the-counter natural remedies, which have never been proven to have caused any deaths unlike the Pharmers’ catalogue of disasters.

But again, it’s about killing people. That’s what socialised ‘healthcare’ seems to be increasingly concerned with.

It was the WHO that changed the definition of a pandemic just so that the Pharmers could sell tens of millions more of their expensive vaccines to governments.

Dr Mercola goes on to write:

I was so convinced this was a deceptive scam that I wrote an entire book on the subject; The Great Bird Flu Hoax. In it I explained how:

Multi-national drug companies and food corporations pour billions into manipulating your perception of health and the daily news, just to increase their profits … and the health threats (and ethics breaches) they are REALLY responsible for

Scientists are bought by drug companies and other big business to report whatever “research findings” they have been purchased to report

Government is more than just complicit – it works with the drug companies and other stalwarts of the conventional healthcare paradigm, and are directly responsible for raising false alarms in order to draw your attention AWAY from the real public health and safety issues they perpetuate

The UNESCO biospheres are about land grabs, essentially, so that we are forced, even more so, into towns and cities and people denied the opportunity to engage in commerce and house-building on large swathes of land.

Scotland’s first biosphere is right on my doorstep and covers around 2,000 square miles, which is one-fifteenth of the total area. Biospheres consist of three zones, the Core, the Buffer and the Transition on the outside. Even the Transition area,

is the part of the Biosphere Reserve where people live and can work together to make the best use of our local resources. Such as the development of low energy housing, environmentally friendly farming, and nature based tourism.

What the area is actually being used for is a giant wind farm. These are the approvals and applications for this part of the world:

I assume that by “nature based tourism” they mean, “come and see the birds being chopped up by the turbines”.

What is really happening is that human activity is being stunted. You can’t expect to have a thriving tourist industry with a landscape covered in giant turbines. This part of the world has been more or less an unspoilt area in over forty years that I have visited as a tourist and to see relatives and now living here. It doesn’t need ‘protection’. What we need are jobs, not barriers to employment.

UN and EU involvement makes the notion of Scottish independence a complete mockery. Where will the next ‘biosphere’ be located? What EU legislation will make what remains of our industry even less competitive?

Take a look at the North Devon Biosphere.

north-devon-biosphereIt occupies a huge chunk of the county and has national parks on two sides, so restrictions on human activity all around.

It is a slow and gradual takeover of the entire planet and the enslavement of the people.

34 responses to “How Will They Kill Billions of People?

  1. Liam Pickering

    Re the famous producer of GM crops, readers might want to avoid the popular brand of breakfast cereal mentioned in this blog post:

  2. Agenda 21 is real – very real (Glenn Beck has done good work in getting news of this danger to many people in the United States – sadly it is still relatively unknown in the United Kingdom).

    However, it is not about benefiting big companies – quite the contrary. It is a about being “natural” and “sustainable” – the standard anti “bi business”, “Green” totalitarianism.

    For those people who really hate the rich – there is a Canadian billionaire who is a big backer of Agenda 21, but it was basically the work of various socialists (such as the former Prime Minister of Norway) working via the United Nations and various national (and local) administrative structures.

    When, for example, a local government officer tells a councillor “we have to do this – it is POLICY” (“policy” is a magic word in government – if the magic word is uttered all logic and reason vanishes).

    But why is X insane thing “policy”?

    The local government officer normally does not know themselves. But If one traces it right back – one finds Agenda 21.

    As for “Monsanto” – if people want to hear attacks on them, they can go to Mr Putin’s “Russia Today” television station and hear all the attacks they want (but that does rather divert attention from what Agenda 21 is actually about).

    On “Big Pharma” – the drug companies will (of course) get betrayed by Mr Obama and co. They have been promised the Moon and Stars for making supportive noises back when the “Affordable Healthcare Act” was being passed – now they (the big medical drug companies) are no longer politically useful, so they will be betrayed.

    It is very hard to feel much sympathy for them. They were greedy fools.

  3. Avoiding a certain brand of breakfast cereal will do absolutely nothing to hold back Agenda 21. Indeed, as I point out above, it misses the point about what Agenda 21 is really about (Agenda 21 was not written by people who have the interests of “big business” at heart – yes there is a Canadian billionaire involved, but he is a hard core “Green”, he really is a “True Believer” in this stuff).

  4. “…….now they (the big medical drug companies) are no longer politically useful, so they will be betrayed.”
    Well, they may not be politically useful to Obama, since his term is nearly up, but I’m sure they will be of great benefit to somebody in the next election campaign. And that favour will be returned of course.
    There is a glimmer of hope in the US, where we have politicians of the calibre of Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Paul Broun and a handful of others. Men who stand for the Constitution and can’t be bought. (I should explain that I divide my time between the UK and the US). Even my own Congressman Richard Nugent is absolutely on the side of ‘We the people’ and against the Establishment politicians. These are genuine people, the like of which we just don’t seem to have in the UK (with the exception of Frank Field and a small handful of others, but they will always be kept down by the political ‘elite’).

  5. If you are relying on “reliable” polit-pork you are in for a rude awakening.

  6. I think they will release a virus that causes the dead to re-animate and prowl the lanscape in packs, shambling slowly around while attempting to bite, scratch and eat the remaining humans. Only destroying the brain of the “walker” will destroy it; luckily the virus causes the skull to become very soft, such that it can be penetrated by a penknife, Bic pen, soft twig, etc.

  7. I did do a good comment earlier, about how I don’t believe a word of that anti-Monsanto shit. And that if “seeds are too expensive for farmers” then how can the bastards buy them then? And more about that greeNazi crap.

    But it’s probably increasingly obvious that the GramscoFabiaNazi greeNazis actually don’t want there to be more than about 300 or 400 million people. That includes the few million of themselves, plus about a third of a billion for “slave stocking purposes” and for a ready supply of the less untoothsome children, of both sexes, for capture and for subsequent shagging and eating.

    • Sound likely, though I prefer the Ian B scenario

      • I am fully stocked and prepared to survive the Zombie Apocalypse. I am hoping that with additional training, stockpiling and preparation I may one day be sufficiently ready to survive my local area being managed by the Environment Agency.

        • Best wait for the zombies. I did once think of moving myself and my women to Bluewater when they came. But I suspect the local Sainsbury will do just as well.

          • I plan to decamp to Waitrose. Not only will there be a superior class of ready meals, but also many zombies will be reluctant to approach due to a residual class unconsciousness.

    • Concerned Briton

      Some of the stuff can get a bit carried away, however, from what I understand of the situation it is the matter of patents and control which is one of the main issues with Monsanto and others, along with the usually cited dangers of meddling with the food chain in this way (which goes way beyond natural tinkering), especially from the company that brought us Agent Orange.

      When companies literally “own” the right to grow crops, where seeds become a new form of currency, where neighbouring crops are found with traces of “their product” and subsequently burnt to the ground as a result, where products purposefully do not re-seed on their own meaning you have to buy seeds forever from these corporations, when the actual “goodness” in the food is declining at a great rate…..and when there are studies into the collapse of the bee population linked to these kinds of things…… then, I think it is a worry and that people ought to be concerned.

      As for curbing population growth, as mentioned in the article, it is awful for me to suggest it, but when the third world has trends that are set to make it double to over 2.2 Billion people within 35 years, with no seeming capacity to look after themselves, sustain themselves, provide schools, jobs, healthcare, etc for themselves, often seeing no hopes, hard lives, starvation, illness and death….. doing something to curb it may not be such a bad idea, as “family planning” and such is not working.

      ….Particularly when the never ending supply and overspill of demographics is going to be heading to Europe in a constant re-population scheme of the continent, seeing as Europeans are said to be on a “death spiral” decline in places like Germany and below replacement level in England, France, Denmark and elsewhere.

      In general though, I just don’t feel comfortable with GM for all the reasons I cited earlier. I am not claiming to be an expert, but I just think it is a really bad idea to let things head in that direction, and my cynicism does allow me to believe that there may be a joint “agenda” between various companies and world shapers to carry devastating programmes out for mutual reward.

  8. Julie near Chicago

    Paul refers (I am sure) to Maurice Strong, the Canadian billionaire who now lives in China and is an avowed Communist. Mr. Strong is very big on Agenda 21. His Wikipedia entry:

    “Maurice Strong was a child during the Great Depression, enduring serious poverty; his father was laid off at the beginning of the depression era and thereafter supported his family on odd jobs….” I have read that he blamed crooked capitalists for his family’s misfortunes (don’t know if he was right or wrong about this) and developed a positive hatred of capitalism in response. (Didn’t stop him from playing the game, though.)

    So much for M.S. My real aim is to address Agenda 21. But speaking of H. George, K. Carson, and anti-private-property-in-land generally, and “Social Justice,” I offer this excerpt from a posting on what is surely an Agenda 21 initiative, Cal.’s bill SB 1, “Sustainable Communities Investment Authority,” at :
    . . .
    ‘“Social justice” means the abolition of private property. Here’s an excerpt from a report published at the U.N.’s Habitat I Conference in 1976:

    ‘Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole.”

    ‘It’s not fair that individuals own land or property. What will make it fair is if it is collectively owned. The United Nations wants to mandate global communism. They just don’t call it that. They call it “social justice.” And they’re going to execute “social justice” through “sustainable development.’
    . . .
    The bill is published at
    . . .

    In the interest of reportorial completeness:

    The bill did pass in both houses of the California legislature in 2013, but happily–for now–Gov. Brown didn’t sign it and it has been placed in the “Inactive” file. This I think does not speak to Brown’s sudden acceptance of the principles of private property, for the next thing I have found is a piece from last week entitled “Gov. Jerry Brown seeks redevelopment replacement,” which commences thus:

    “To cover his out of control spending and massively deficit budget, Guv Brown closed down local government Redevelopment agencies and stole the money—that money was used to “balance” the State budget. …”

  9. Sean – Bluewater, yes like the mall in one of the Zombie films (I forget which one).

    David and Ian – yes, of course the big-business-is-out-to-murder-billions stuff is drivel.

    It reminds me of the “Resident Evil” films – I do not think the lead character is played by a bad actress (the lady does quite well). It is the plots that do not make sense – how does the “Umbrella Corporation” MAKE A PROFIT from its demented activities? Also it seems to be a very odd corporation – in that it tries to be in every industry (it does not specialise) that sort of unfocused company tend to run into terrible problems (economies of scale are real – but so are diseconomies of scale, especially if you can not make up your mind “what your trade is”). The closest company to “Umbrella” would be General Electric (which tried to do everything – and screamed for a bailouts whenever a section, such as “GE Capital”, got into trouble and threated to drag down the whole company).

    I once heard the GE Vice President of the European operations say (he was not talking to me of course) “other companies are obsessed with customers – we are the partners of governments”. In a Hollywood film he would then have unleashed his monsters. In reality the company (the parent company) had to sell NBC because it (GE) was running short of cash (the bailouts were just enough for a company that was not “obsessed” with customers).

    Hugo – no the medical drug companies will be betrayed, it is already “baked into the cake”.

  10. Yes Julie – I was thinking of Maurice Strong (too many blows to my head over the years).

    Hard to think of Mr Strong as a tool-of-big-business.

    Although I can think of him stroking a white cat and saying ………

    “No, Mr Bond. I do not expect you to talk – I expect you to DIE!”.

    Seriously people – Agenda 21 is real and is dangerous.

    Do not mislead by the silliness into making the mistake of thinking that Agenda 21 is not real, or is not dangerous.

    By the way “Common Purpose” (another thing that conspiracy theorists, including anti-Semites, have turned into a joke) is also real – and is also dangerous .

  11. Yes Julie – nice twist-in-the-tail from California.

    Basically “we would like to enforce totalitarianism (really we would) but we have stolen the money from the enforcement agencies…….” Could not happen in Britain – unfortunately.

    Governor Brown also took money from a lot of rich “Greens” (including a big Hedge Fund nutcase – sort of “Maurice Strong Lite”) on the understanding that he would close down the oil and gas industry in California.

    However, Governor Brown has sort-of “forgotten” to do this.

    “One would have to have a heart of stone – not to laugh.”

  12. So, libertarians are to hate on people like Margaret Sanger, who gave women control over their own bodies and futures, as opposed to creating more unwanted, neglected children who can grow up to be criminals, further justifying the protective State? That’s part of a better “agenda”? There is a fundamental problem with pro-lifers calling themselves libertarians, handing the state the ultimate tool of full-bodied slavery by a Jesuitical argument about clusters of dividing cells being “humans.”

    • The abortion debate is a complex one. Most libertarians tend to be pro-abortion.

      But it’s an interesting “libertarian” position to argue that lives should be extinguished to avoid them possibly becoming criminals. I can think of a number of liberty-based arguments for abortion and “reducing criminality” as sure as shit isn’t one of them. We don’t do eugenics. That’s the Progressives and other social fascists.

    • Isn’t that sort of the neglected children’s right? I know a number of people who had a rough childhood, pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps and made something out of themselves. The “women who control their own bodies” is just a euphemism for abortion and you and I both know it. The ONE THING that all real libertarians agree on is the principal of non-aggression, meaning as soon as you throw the first punch at me you have initiated force and I have the legal and moral right to respond in kind. A woman aborts her baby. Doesn’t that constitute initiation of force?

  13. Julie near Chicago


    Horsefeathers. If St. Margaret’s work “gave women control over their own bodies … as opposed to creating more unwanted children….” why do we not see the results of this noble effort in a decline in the number of children produced by irresponsible people who then depend on the State to support the children, and, often not coincidentally, themselves?

    And by the way, asking a person to bear the responsibility for the outcome of his or, in this particular case, her, actions is hardly a “toll of bull-bodied slavery” by anybody.

    Now. In the first place, Planned Parenthood was purposely conceived as a part of the Eugenicist movement, not to give women “control over their bodies,” but rather to discourage attempts to conceive by women considered by the Eugenicists likely to produce children who were other than optimal representatives of the human species. (Please do not ask who would define “optimal” in this context. Common sense, paranoid though it might be, suggests there would be two sorts: the Übermensch, and the human beast designed for slavery. Of course, it ought to be obvious why such a “social order”–if one can call it that–could never work, even if it were possible.)

    In the second place, if Planned Parenthood were really as its name suggests — that is, a most worthwhile counselling service trying to help young couples to figure out how to plan their lives, so as to have whatever children they desired (if any) at such time as they could afford to have them — then they would be offering advice on the use of contraceptive methods (including the best timing, for those whose religion forbade any other sort of contraception), as opposed to pushing a method, not of contraception but of abortion, that inevitably becomes, at some point of embryonic development, infanticide: murder.

    Kindly note that I am not a religious believer. For my detailed libertarian argument against abortion, see my comment headed ” Julie near Chicago | 1 April, 2013 at 11:21 pm ” at .

    I won’t re-post the whole thing here, but it commences:

    ‘First, any sensible discussion about [abortion’s] permissibility has to begin with an agreement in principle as to when, in the developmental process from fertilization to full adulthood, human life begins.

    ‘There are those “bioethicists” or “medical ethicists” who figure that anyone younger or very much older than 25 is not at his or her prime, so therefore is fair game for being killed off if it would free up resources to support the well-being or proper development of those in their prime. I won’t name any names….

    ‘So for purposes of discussion, let us pretend we’re all agreed that we are talking about an organism which, though not fully developed, has the attributes which define it as being somewhere on the continuum of what is properly called human life (which could begin at conception, if one believes a soul attaches at conception, or a week or two later perhaps–I’d be very conservative about the estimate myself).

    ‘Now. People generally argue for the permissibility of abortion on one or more of four grounds: ….’

    [ … SNIP of detailed argument ]

  14. Julie near Chicago

    Oh dear…. s/b, “a tool of full-bodied slavery….”

    Also, what Ian said!

  15. “………. a Jesuitical argument about clusters of dividing cells being “humans.””
    Surely this is not a Jesuitical argument – it is science? One can of course debate the point at which these ‘clusters of dividing cells’ achieve the status of humanity, but the process is undeniable – it is not a ‘Jesuitical argument’.
    In the Bible Belt of the Deep South one often sees billboards with a picture of an infant and the slogan “My heart begins beating at 18 days”. I have no idea whether this is factually correct, but it certainly starts beating at some point after conception. If a mother were to slaughter her new-born infant it would be regarded as a terrible crime. But if she slaughters the same infant a few weeks earlier, by which time it’s heart has surely started beating, that’s ok. Doesn’t make any sense to me.

  16. Julie is right about Margaret Sanger and what is now called Planned Parenthood.

    It is true that Margaret Sanger abandoned the international socialism of her father (the idea. spread by P.P. that she came from a “devout Catholic home”, is drivel) But the National Socialism that Sanger adopted in place of her former international socialism, is not exactly wonderful either. Her closeness to Progressive organisations such as KKK (and it was a Progressive organisation – contrary to Hollywood) was not a good thing.

    How the eugenicist state worshippers can be considered “libertarian” I leave to others.

    By the way……

    I repeat that the authors of Agenda 21 (and so on) do not have the interests of “big business” at heart – quite the contrary. Like all “Green” movements (such as the German National Socialists) they will use anyone (including large companies) – but they will not share power with anyone (no one at all).

    Those who try and make deals with such totalitarians get betrayed.

  17. Human beings are born – that’s when they become human, when they are no longer dependent upon one individual for their survival. Or are you in favor in principle of allowing one “human” to compel another to support him? A woman forced to host a fetus she does not want is denied the choice of non-support. But a REAL (i.e.”born”) human can be supported by nearly anyone. How can you call yourself a libertarian and yet deny the arrival of CHOICE as the defining moment of humanity? Once BIRTH has occurred, CHOICE of caregiver is possible. Got it? Can you understand that CHOICE is both the defining moment of humanity AND the only moral and practical basis for human interaction? One point you would-be libertarians always fail to address in your JESUITICAL arguments for denial of choice in oh, just this ONE instance is what, then, is the proper response, in your version of a libertarian world, to two conspirators to premeditated murder: a woman, and a doctor. If it is on the order of a slap on the wrist, shunning, etc. then you belie your belief that abortion is really murder and even your tortured argument about fetal humanity dissolves. So, redeem yourselves – tell me what you would have society, or the state, do with these two arch criminals.

  18. So people only become people at birth?

    Well at least that rules out “partial” birth abortion – and also the practice (also supported by Mr Obama – and most of the American far left) of killing an unwanted baby AFTER they are born.

    But (so argue the Progressives) what is so important about a new born baby? After all a new born babies can not talk, they can produce any arguments as to why they should not be killed.

    It is not just Prof Krugman (the arch Keynesian) who is at Princeton – it is also the home of Prof Singer (who argues that new born babies have less rights than animals).

    Once one rejects “reactionary” ethics – one may end up back with the pre Christian Romans throwing unwanted babies on rubbish heaps to be eaten (alive) by rats.

    And why (say the Progressives) allow adults to bring “useless” “inferior” beings into the world? Or allow “inferior” adults to survive either?

    “Three generations of imbeciles are enough” declared Oliver Wendell Holmes jr (see a hero to the Progressives to this day) in “Buck V Bell” (which decided that a women, who had committed no crime, should be forcibly sterilised).

    Only the “arch reactionary” Justice Butler opposed this.

    I am reminded of the situation in 1939 where the Progressive international socialists (the Marxists) and the Progressive National Socialists (the Nazis)joined forces. Who stepped forward to defend civilisation against them both?

    As George Orwell ruefully admitted – the only forces who stepped forward to defend civilisation were “Colonel Blimp and the Old School Tie”.

    Political Progressivism and libertarianism are not the same thing – they are actually opposites.

  19. “Jesuitical”? Sheesh.

    Sseman’s argument would of course apply to babies after birth, as they are still entirely dependent and not exercising choice. Indeed, any dependent person presumably loses their right to life. Not very libertarian, that.

    The other point here is that the baby is only present inside the woman due to her own choice to engage in a course of action (sexual intercourse) that put it there. They don’t generate spontaneously, you know. If you forcibly place another person in a position of dependence to yourself, you cannot then complain that you have the responsibility for them.

  20. Julie near Chicago

    In real reality, practical reality, eating-sleeping-picking-nuts-and-berries reality, the only way one can PROVE he is not in any way dependent on any other person or any group of people is to live as a hermit, completely isolated, never coming in contact with anyone else.

    The only way anyone would know he exists at all would be if someone caught sight of him in the forest, dodging behind a tree, or perhaps disappearing into a cave, around a mountain, into a waterfall.

    Sort of like Bigfoot.

  21. Julie near Chicago

    SSiemans writes (in a rather lordly, talking-down-to-the-Unwashed manner, which is never well-calculated to convince people of your argument — but never mind)…. SS writes,

    “Can you understand that CHOICE of caregiver is possible. Got it? Can you understand that CHOICE is both the defining moment of humanity AND the only moral and practical basis for human interaction….”

    Yeah, SS, I get it. I imagine we all get it, because we’ve all heard it about a zillion times by now. The thing is, each of us rejects to one extent or another your definition of “the defining moment of humanity” (and do please note that you are not presenting an argument here, but rather making a definition — or trying, rather badly, to make a definition — of what it means to be human). (There are several candidates for the necessary-and-sufficient conditions that define whether an entity or being is human. Yours is only one of them. Your job is to persuade through rational argument, not to shove down throats.)

    As Ian points out above, whoever the person who makes that “CHOICE of caregiver,” it is NOT the newborn infant, nor yet the 2-year-old toddler.

    In fact, in law in most states of the U.S. at least, it is not any person under late teenage, usually 16 or 18, who makes the choice of his or her caregiver; except in unusual cases that are supposed (at least, given the propensity of Social Services to steal children from their homes) to come before a judge (or empowered government agency) for recognition of a change of caregiver at the young person’s request.

    In my state the parents have legal responsibility for their child under age 18, except as noted above. So he has no CHOICE of caregiver as a practical matter (and pregnancy and birth are certainly practical matters too, may I say). Therefore according to your (sloppy) definition, I assume he is NOT as yet a “human being.”

    This fact, that there is a continuum beginning with the pre-moral development that normally changes slowly into the process of general moral development from conception to death — constitutes one of the bars to acceptance of your definition.

    And note that “development” is not necessarily an increase in capacity. The obvious example is a person suffering from Alzheimer’s, who retains some ability to make what an OUTSIDE OBSERVER would consider rational (moral) choices, but perhaps not so great an ability as he used to have. Another example is a person in coma, who is likely or unlikely to recover from it — but, of course, nothing in this life is guaranteed except death and taxes.

    I say that in the “Ability to make Moral Choices” definition of the basis for categorizing an existent being as human, we find ourselves quickly in the obscene, the anti-moral, the perverse (in the strictest, profoundest sense) territory of the Peter Singers, the Zeke Emanuels, the Mao Tse-Tungs, the others whose respect for a human’s life varies according to some criterion properly determined by the ruminations of Singer, or Emanuel, or Mao.

  22. Julie near Chicago

    So now, begging the forgiveness of the people here who’ve waded through this argument before, I do re-post my four-point argument concerning the morality of abortion.

    I should perhaps add to my introductory remarks posted above the fact that I do NOT consider that the ability to make choices is the single defining characteristic of humanness. (I think this is what SS is trying to say. If he or she intends something narrower than he or she should have said so.) This is largely for the reasons I imply, or hope I imply, in my examples above.

    The argument:

    People generally argue for the permissibility of abortion on one or more of four grounds:

    1. The mother simply doesn’t want the baby.

    2. The child is the result of incest.

    3. The mother was raped.

    4. The mother is seriously at risk of losing her life or a major and possibly defining part of her human capacity.


    I see two salient features here.

    First, all humans have the right to life (unless, usual caveat, they’ve given up that right by demanding the lives of innocent others). Therefore they have the right to defend their lives against unprovoked aggression. Thus, not only the mother but also the very young human in her womb has that right. The fact that the young being is not yet in a position to defend itself–the fact that it lacks a weapon, lacks the power to try, lacks even the mental equipment that would enable it to make moral estimates and choices–is neither here nor there.

    The other factor is the principle that rightful defense of one’s life does not include the right to yank an innocent bystander in front of one as a human shield against a speeding bullet.

    Now let us consider.

    1. The mother doesn’t want the baby. Too bad, Toots. You opened the door and you were aware of the possibilities. The new organism exists only because you opened the door. You have no right to do away with the potential kid, no matter how upsetting it is. Actions have consequences. (But as consolation, if you really don’t want it, it will almost certainly be adoptable.)

    2. Incest. You’re kidding, right? Incest is “taboo” mostly for reasons of not depreciating the gene pool, and partly (presumably) for psychological reasons. But where both parties to it are consenting adults, the gene business is immaterial because, again, it’s not the potential kid’s doing that he exists with his suspect, possibly defective genes; and with that out of the way, the argument for (1) above applies.

    3. Rape. I feel terrible for the mother in this case, I really do. But the fault lies not with the potential baby in her womb, who remains totally innocent and killing whom would accomplish nothing in the way of justice, but rather with the rapist. She doesn’t get to abort just because the rape was, well, rape–against her will, unless she was mentally feeble or so young that she truly didn’t understand. (In a case like that, it’s up to the parents or guardian; and the fact remains that they can look after the mother, but the baby is altogether innocent and has the same right to life as does the mother–and her parents or guardians). So this woman, too, should bear the baby and see that he or she is adopted at birth, if she cannot stand the thought of living with and caring for him or her for eighteen years or so.

    4. The mother’s life or human functionality is at serious risk. This, to me, is the only really hard case. But in this case, I come down on the side of the mother, who also has the right to her life, and to defend it. Here I think that since she is facing giving up, in essence, the whole of her remaining life, exactly as is the baby, she has the right to defend it to the utmost. She has the power; she may rightfully exercise that power.

    —-In all the other cases, at worst the mother is asked to give up not her whole life, but only whatever portion of her time, her attention, her effort–it takes, until the young one can navigate the adult world well enough to survive; by custom, let’s say until he or she is 18. After that the mom can* go back to living her own life on her own terms, without further moral responsibility for the offspring. But an aborted (killed) human has the entire rest of its life taken from it. In the last analysis, that’s the underlying reason why libertarians should oppose abortion in all cases save that of the risk to the life of the mother.

    . . .

    If that analysis is correct–and I think it is–there is still plenty of room for lots of details, where the Devil is famously said to reside. Nevertheless, even the non-religious among us should be thinking along these lines when we consider the morality of abortion.

    *Except in the rare case where the child is literally unable to care for, or to provide for, itself — and by the way, I grew up in just such a family.

  23. Julie near Chicago

    Hugo, “When does the baby’s heartbeat start?”

    I found this excerpt from a comment on the question, by somebody who says she’s a graduate student. (Other sources talk about when you can hear the heartbeat. One does say 3.5-4.5 weeks, for what it’s worth.)

    ” During embryonic development, the heart is one of the few organs that must function almost as soon as it is formed. Indeed, the fact that the heart is one of the earliest organs to develop speaks to its importance.

    “The human heart begins to beat and pump blood through the embryo around day 22 of gestation. The electric stimulus that triggers the muscular portion of the heart, known as the myocardium, to contract is myogenic. This means that the contractions arise spontaneously within the myocardium itself, and propagate from cell to cell. Input from the central nervous system can modify the heart rate (the frequency of heart beats), but it does not initiate beats.

    “… As a functional organ, the heart begins to beat very early, even before it has assumed its final form.”

  24. Well the Jesuit order produced many philosophers and scientists of note – however it does seem to have lost its way in the last century.

    As for abortion – technology may help.

    If a women does not want to carry a child, it may soon be possible to develop the child outside the mother.

    This may seem “unnatural” – but it would be better than killing the child.

    At what age will this be possible?

    That is the key question – hopefully at a young age so that the women will not be upset by having to carry a large baby inside her.

  25. About all that’s left to do is apologize for my admittedly bullying and condescending tone. I was trying to piss you off enough that you’d dig deep and come up with something really good. Didn’t work. You’ve misunderstood (deliberately?) whose choice I’m talking about, and you’ve ignored my challenge question, leaving me still baffled as to why some who consider themselves libertarians are anti-choice other than through faith or faith-based authority.

  26. Julie near Chicago

    The fact is, dear, that your remarks about “choice” are garbled and incoherent in the context of the subject’s (the baby’s) humanness, which you locate both as coming into existence at the instant of his birth, AND in the existence of his capacity for moral choice. (You conflated these two criteria on 3/13 at 1:03.)

    Contrary to your claim, both Ian and I have responded to your “challenges”; please NOTE that both of us are ATHEISTS (in the commonest meaning of the term). Actually, your only coherent argument for considering that “human life begins at birth” consists of one alleged fact, and one only, which is that birth is an event that is definite, distinct, markable.

    Or is it a fact? Birth is not an instantaneous process, and “partial-birth abortion” (when it’s successful, which it isn’t always) takes place DURING the birth process. So where, exactly, during the birth process does humanity commence?

    I suppose you can say that if the infant’s largest toenail has not entirely exited the birth canal and, just to be sure, passed between the outer lips, the baby is not yet “born,” hence not “human.” Tchah.
    . . .

    Speaking to Paul’s point, reiterated below: What about preemies, taken by C-section? If the baby is taken at D-1 day? (D=projected date of normal delivery)? What if it’s D-2 months, as in the cases of Kepler, Churchill, Pavlova, and possibly Newton (see URL below)? For instance, NOTE that babies have been born, survived, and even thriven at as young as 25 weeks after gestation:

    on this. In the same article, we find this statement, part of which I quote in bold typeface:

    When Sarah Capewell gave live birth to her son at 21 weeks 5 days gestation, the baby boy was denied treatment. According to the mother, he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat, and was even moving his arms and legs. If he had been born two days later, they would have treated him. [Note–22 weeks is just over 5 months. –J.] However, untreated, he died within two hours of birth. This took place at James Paget Hospital in Gorleston, Norfolk, in October 2008. [113]

    The question, then, is why the infant of 22 (or 25) weeks old is still inhuman, if in the uterus, but human if not.

    This surely has nothing to do with his capacity for moral choice. If you are trying to capture the point at which the youngling has that capability, I point out that this does not occur at some definite instant; in fact the ability develops over many years. But infanticide, child-murder and young-adult murder are still murder.
    . . .

    Still, perhaps you disagree. Perhaps you meant, literally, that the baby becomes “human” when it is no longer an absolute requirement that to survive the baby must remain within the womb, and you say that it’s then that the “choice of caretakers” becomes available NOT to the baby, but just to SOMEBODY. If so, you have completely divorced the concept of the baby’s humanness from the baby’s physical self, his physical existence. At this point you’re in some metaphysical and moral land so far from the one we inhabit–and which, by the way, is historically and morally a waypoint along the road to the Land of Eugenics and the Land of Disposable Persons–that there can be no agreement between us. (See your opening remark, 3/12 at 7:42, to which Ian, Rocketman, and I all responded directly.)

    –And this, for me, is the overriding reason for declaring that “humanness” begins if not at the moment of conception then within perhaps 24 hours. After that, to be morally safe (see my analysis on abortion, above) we must assume that, indeed, abortion is murder, except in Case 4 (mother’s life at stake also), where it might be classed as manslaughter or some such, with no penalty.
    . . .

    And, of course, Paul has addressed over and over the point of mothers’ not being forever-and-ever consigned to carry their babies to term: Hopefully technology will continue to narrow the gap between conception and extra-uterine viability to the point that “abortion” becomes an obsolete, archaic, barbaric treatment for the condition of unwanted pregnancy–akin to the bleeding of patients.

    I don’t know whether you can’t follow our various arguments because at this time, and for one of several possible reasons, you lack the intellectual capacity to be able to do so; or because you’re so taken with your own theory that you haven’t really read them, and registered them.

    ‘Bye now, it’s been real.

  27. Julie near Chicago

    “…the Land of Eugenics and the Land of Disposable Persons–that there can be no agreement between us. (See your opening remark, 3/12 at 7:42, to which Ian, Rocketman, and I all responded directly.)”

    Of COURSE, Paul and Hugo also responded directly to your remarks of 3/12 at 7:22 about Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. Apologies, guys. :( :)