Why ‘New Puritans’ is a Misnomer

Newborn baby

Some ‘experts’ want it made legal for babies to be murdered.

Time and again, I read the ‘ban it’ control freaks of today termed ‘New Puritans’. Simon Cooke has just encouraged me to put the record straight on this.

The ‘New Puritans’ differ, I think, from the old type in very important ways. Religious puritanism was probably for honest reasons, whereas the new and not improved version comes to us mainly via the UN and is probably related to control and eugenics.

Rather than caring about our souls, the New Puritans have been brainwashed into elevating physical health and the environment above everything else, even the Almighty and salvation, which the puritans of old put first.

In fact the New Puritans aren’t puritans at all; they’re control freaks for some grand Malthusian Agenda 21 depopulation and neo-feudal future.

Take, for example, sex ‘education’. Malthus recommended abstinence and putting off marriage until suitable finances were available.

Contrast this with the so-called New Puritans, who aim to achieve the same result through very evil social re-engineering. They have been using sex education, television and what passes for music to encourage youngsters to have sex earlier and with more partners, BUT that “teenage pregnancy” is some great evil which must be reduced through ‘free’ contraception and abortions. Ed Balls has been campaigning for sex education to start at age five. Some even more twisted individuals think it should start pre-school.

Early exposure to these messages has the effect of many youngsters experimenting more and earlier than would otherwise be the case; the opposite of what Malthus proposed.

These dysfunctional people nowadays have had the sex act removed from love and marriage, so that when older, they find it difficult to settle down to family life, stay faithful and raise children.

This is one way the New Puritans, or let’s call a spade a spade: these are people with Obsessive Depopulation and Control Disorder (ODCD), are planning the future of mankind (the relatively few who will remain).

The only thing they have in common with genuine puritans is their religious zeal; there is fight in them to reduce the population for a greener, cleaner planet and to produce a healthier, fitter human race: a master race, as it were, so there is no drain on the others.

Now that abortion is well and truly part of our culture and unborn babies with disabilities can ‘legally’ be butchered right up to the time of birth, it won’t take too much of a leap to what some ‘experts’ are calling for: “post-birth abortions” or “after-birth abortions”. These are more acceptable terms for infanticide or child murder.

One such advocate is a Dr Francesca Minerva, from the University of Melbourne, who has a piece on the BMJ’s website.

She bemoans that,

An examination of 18 European registries reveals that between 2005 and 2009 only the 64% of Down’s syndrome cases were diagnosed through prenatal testing. This percentage indicates that… about 1700 infants were born with Down’s syndrome without parents being aware of it before birth. Once these children are born, there is no choice for the parents but to keep the child, which sometimes is exactly what they would not have done if the disease had been diagnosed before birth.

Yet concedes,

It might be maintained that ‘even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of Down’s syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child’. But, in fact, people with Down’s syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy.

But regardless of having actually been born and with the potential of leading a happy life, she still thinks Downs syndrome babies ought to be murdered.

Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

See how she uses the “burden” on the “state” as an excuse? Socialised healthcare is a boon for eugenicists, as it is yet another reason they can spew out as an excuse to go on a killing spree.

In fact, because she considers newborns as “non-persons” she thinks that killing healthy babies is also morally acceptable,

Actual people’s well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of. Sometimes this situation can be prevented through an abortion, but in some other cases this is not possible. In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions.

Bizarrely, she is against adoption and thinks murder is fairer. On ‘humanitarian’ grounds, of course,

For example, ‘those who grieve a death must accept the irreversibility of the loss, but natural mothers often dream that their child will return to them. This makes it difficult to accept the reality of the loss because they can never be quite sure whether or not it is irreversible’

If this were to become law it would open up a whole can of worms as to who else could be considered a “non-person” and killed off. Likewise, who can be said to be a drain on their family or be costing too much money to keep alive or whose quality of life is considered (by others) to be low?

That could include the very elderly, people with Alzheimer’s or other forms of dementia, people with severe depression and the severely physically handicapped.

Marie Stopes, the mad feminist who sent Hitler adoring poetry, called for the “compulsory sterilisation of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character.” She concentrated her abortion clinics in poor areas to help reduce the birth rate of the lower classes.

The clinics bearing her name are now popular and their chief executive gets to ‘help’ the government to formulate strategies to reduce teenage pregnancies, i.e. more sex ‘education’ to produce more dysfunctionality to provide yet more clients to make use of the contraception and abortion ‘services’ provided by the Marie Stopes’ clinics.

These New Puritans (ODCD sufferers) just seem to hate people. They crave a small global population as physically healthy as can be bred and the way we are heading, all other people will be deemed suitable for “after-birth abortions” or sterilisation.

With the country’s finances on life support, these evil ideas could become reality sooner rather than later.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Why ‘New Puritans’ is a Misnomer

  1. Leg-iron says:

    After-birth abortion… let her test it on Westminster’s occupants first.

    These moves to legalise murder at both the start and end of life can only lead to the medics deciding to kill whoever they like whenever they like. Smokers. Drinkers. The overweight. Those who put salt on their chips – even those who eat chips.

    Anyone who des not fit the British Standard Human mould can be simply eliminated to save the NHS money. No trial, no warning, the doctors decide and the next ‘flu vaccine’ will be your last. You just know the drones will support this enthusiastically because they will never imagine it will apply to them.

    It seems Harold Shipman was not an anomaly. He was the shape of things to come.

  2. Stewart Cowan says:

    Every new human from conception has the potential to be a great person; someone who can be loved, regardless of their physical or mental state.

    Then there’s MPs. Most of them have proven they were better candidates for abortion than the millions they voted could be killed. But they’ll be exempt from the evil… until they are voted out of their positions as ‘useful idiots’ then they’ll wonder why they’re no longer treated like the chosen ones. But that’s just how thick they are – like the Soviet lackeys for whom the term was invented.

    I agree that it’s not just going to be the Down’s syndrome babies who’ll be for the chop, but babies with many other conditions and babies with ‘unsuitable’ parents and probably the parents themselves: special family burial/cremation deals to help ‘save the planet’ by producing a smaller, leaner, fitter ‘master race’ of people without two brain cells to collide in case they catch on to what’s happening.

    Harold Shipman’s mistake was that a) he got caught and b) he was ahead of his time.

  3. Radical Rodent says:

    The lady doctor shows her medical understanding by referring to Down’s Syndrome as a disease – however, like black skin, blonde hair or blue eyes, it is not a disease, it is a condition.

    There was a time when people like her could quite safely be ignored, as they could have little effect upon daily life. For some reason, though, these people have now gained access to the reins of power, and seem to hell-bent on using it. What to do? No idea, other than to keep my head down, and hope they end up blowing themselves away.

  4. Stewart Cowan says:

    They won’t go away. The UN’s Agenda 21 means that ‘sustainability’ will lead to more ‘undesirables’ being done in.

    I assume people don’t make more of a fuss over things because we’re at the stage where they believe that by keeping their head down they’ll survive, otherwise they’re in for a tough time. It isn’t necessarily so. It’s better to be tough before it’s too late.

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>