Intelligent Design

Our First Duty

Spread the love

Further to “Will Your Conscience be a Casualty in the Progressive’s War on Science?” Please see below and be reminded of Orwell’s famous aphorism:  “we have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”

 

Pediatrician Shuts Down Leftists on Puberty Blockers

Many children with gender dysphoria are being prescribed puberty blockers. Dr. Michelle Cretella, president of the American College of Pediatricians, says it’s “institutionalized child abuse." http://bit.ly/2upgzd0

Posted by The Daily Signal on Sunday, December 10, 2017

 

9 Replies to “Our First Duty

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    BA, is this what our civilisation has come to? God have mercy on us all. KF

  2. 2
    News says:

    Austin Ruse: Post-modern science has hit the streets What holds it all together is that people who have a great deal of social power need no longer be coherent or make sense.

  3. 3
    Barry Arrington says:

    KF and News, the truly astonishing thing is how they insist that binary sexuality is actually contrary to sound science. Yes, God help us

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    BA, Deny the patent truth, cling to absurdity; incite a sustained march of ruinous folly. Slander and use media power to discredit or destroy those who try to object. Add more and more bizarre absurdities. Push, harder and harder using cultural marxist agit prop, now multiplied by increasing institutional domination and the techniques of tyranny. A long train of absurdities, abuses and usurpations pursuing ruin of a civilisation. But if it succeed in seizing and ruthlessly using power none dare call it folly-driven suicidal wickedness and treason. KF

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    Blood will run like water — Levi Eshcol, PM of Israel, May-June 1967.

  6. 6
    kairosfocus says:

    In a time of absurdities and power-backed lies and vicious slanders, it is a brave thing to plainly speak the obvious truth: A is just that, A. Human beings, as normally born, come in two sexes that fulfill crucial roles connected to the continuity of the race. That is central to any sound dealing with society and those few who are not normal, who suffer grave medical and psychological disorders. What the OP exposes is an utter contrast, a soul-dead, demonic horror that points straight down a hellish, sulphur-reeking abyss. I pray God, it is not too late to turn back from the crumbling brink of that abyss, but I frankly fear it is. We are living out a Rom 1 world and are willfully blind to it.

  7. 7
    john_a_designer says:

    I have been thinking about the difference the 21st Century secular progressive movement and the early 20th Century version. At least for 20th Century progressive movement (which was just as secular or atheistic as the current version) there was some kind of foundation in natural law, though it was a naturalistic/ materialistic version of natural law. For example, the justification for the eugenics movement was that civilization and compassionate Christian morality made the human stock inferior by allowing inferior classes of people to breed. The survival of the fittest effect from Darwinian natural selection, their argument went, would have naturally resulted in humans becoming more and more fit by weeding out the weak and undesirables. Eugenics would correct this by scientifically breeding a better human stock.

    Here is how eugenicist, John H. Bell, justified the movement in 1929:

    The idea of eugenics is perhaps as old as the written history of the human race. The word itself being derived from the Greek eugenos, meaning well-born. The Spartans, as you will recall, practiced a form of eugenics scarcely tolerable to-day; and crude and cruel though it was, it seems to have been the thing that enabled them to develop a remarkably heroic race; the weaklings in their young citizenry were eliminated by putting all children through such physical hardships that only the fit survived. The Romans also made attempts at racial improvement by casting their defective infants into the River Tiber or leaving them upon the mountainside to starve. And so the idea of elimination, by one way or another, of those who were expected to be disqualified for a certain standard of physical and mental perfection, has come down to us through a great space of time, and persists as strongly in the minds of people to-day as it did in the minds of the ancient Spartans and Romans.

    Traces of these earlier efforts to preserve a healthy race may be found in the laws of Lycurgus, and in the present age somewhat similar customs are said to have existed among the South-Sea Islanders and also amongst a tribe of North American Indians, who were distinguished for their intelligence, strength, and physical beauty.

    https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Justifying_Eugenics_Excerpts_from_John_Hendren_Bell_sThe_Biological_Relationship_of_Eugenics_to_the_Development_of_the_Human_Race_1930

    Of course this also led to a not so subtle forms of racism, which contemporary progressives rightly eschew. Thus Woodrow Wilson, once an icon of progressivism is now viewed with utter disdain. However, paradoxically Margaret Sanger for some reason is still given a free pass.

    The irony is that the “old” secular progressives would have considered “transgenderism” as abnormal because it was unnatural. They would have forcefully sterilized transgender adults. By contrast, contemporary secular progressives argue transgenderism is normal then castrate and mutilate transgender boys and girls.

    My point is that at least old progressives, however distorted their thinking may have been, at least tried to make an appeal to “natural law” (again, it was a completely Godless form of natural law.) The so called new progressivism make no appeal to natural law at all. Transgenderism appears to be a totally made up and artificial idea. I don’t see that their thinking has any rational basis at all.

  8. 8

    JAD @ 7: Great comment. Thank you.

  9. 9
    john_a_designer says:

    BTW John H. Bell was a litigant in the infamous 1927 Buck v. Bell case the made it to the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled in Bell’s favor and led to Carrie Buck, a young single white female, being sterilized against her will.

    The following is from an Amazon book review about the case nicely summarizes what it was about:

    In 1924 Carrie Buck involuntarily institutionalized by the State of Virginia after she was raped and impregnated challenged the state’s plan to sterilize her. Having already judged her mother and daughter mentally deficient, Virginia wanted to make Buck the first person sterilized under a new law designed to prevent hereditarily “defective” people from reproducing. Lombardo’s more than twenty-five years of research and his own interview with Buck before she died demonstrate conclusively that she was destined to lose the case before it had even begun. Neither Carrie Buck nor her mother and daughter were the “imbeciles” condemned in the Holmes opinion. Her lawyer a founder of the institution where she was held never challenged Virginia’s arguments and called no witnesses on Buck’s behalf. And judges who heard her case, from state courts up to the U.S. Supreme Court, sympathized with the eugenics movement. Virginia had Carrie Buck sterilized shortly after the 1927 decision.

    Though Buck set the stage for more than sixty thousand involuntary sterilizations in the United States and was cited at the Nuremberg trials in defense of Nazi sterilization experiments, it has never been overturned.

    https://www.amazon.com/Three-Generations-No-Imbeciles-Eugenics/dp/0801898242

    Here is a NY Times article about the case:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02.....world.html

    What is that saying about people who fail to learn from or remember history?

Leave a Reply