All the real Saints adore thee.

Eugenics used to be such an ugly word. Television and movie stars seem interested in bringing it back, you know, as a save-the-planet initiative. Really it’s just classism.

From the Daily Mail:

Ricky Gervais may have overstepped the mark this time, with his irreverent comments on the subject of over-population.

The comedian – who does not have children – said ‘irresponsible’ parents should be sterilised.
Gervais, 48, said there were ‘too many unwanted children, too many people who are poor and struggling’.

He added: ‘If they all had a good quality of life, no one would complain. What there is, is too many useless people. Too many people who shouldn’t have children.’

Asked whether there should be a limitation then, he told the Sunday Times: ‘Yes, based on… stupid, fat faces. If there’s a woman in leggings, eating chips with a fag
in her mouth, sterilise her.’

It was suggested that Gervais, who grew up on a council estate in Reading, was calling for ‘chavs’ to be sterilised.

But he insisted his views were not based purely on class.

‘I described an irresponsible parent. Chavs could be included in irresponsible though.’

He says he and his girlfriend of 27 years, Jane Fallon, 48, had discussed having children but decided against starting a family.

‘Too much hassle,’ he said.

Remember. Celebrities are more important than us. When they’re not busy acting, they’re solving the world’s problems while attending release parties and lounging by their infinity pools. They get to judge who’s useless and who isn’t. Who can have kids, and who can’t. And famous people can never be useless. They have to entertain us peons.

What celebrities like Gervais will never tell you is that calamities like Haiti are good things because they keep the world’s population under control. And if Haiti isn’t consuming his television programs and podcasts, well, what good is Haiti for anyway?

“The production of too many useful things results in too many useless people.” — Karl Marx

I am not one of the 400,000-and-growing signers of the Manhattan Declaration. Making abortion as the root cause of the Culture of Death is misleading. The Declaration makes a glaring omission of contraception, something the wise Professor Charlie Rice brings to light in the following commentary from the Notre Dame Observer.

Manhattan Declaration: Right or Wrong?

MD, unfortunately, misreads the origins of the “culture of death.” MD describes “the cheapening of life that began with abortion” and “the license to kill that began with the abandonment of the unborn to abortion.” Legalized abortion, however, and the other evils denounced by MD, are not origins, but rather symptoms of the contraceptive ethic that dominates our secularist, relativist and individualist culture.

The failure of MD, in its catalogue of legalized promotions of the “culture of death,” even to mention the entry by government into the business of subsidizing by contraception the rejection of new life, is inexcusable. Once that role of government was conceded, the other evils denounced by MD were predictable. Perhaps the purpose of MD was to put together a coalition of signers that would include proponents of public funding of contraception. If so, MD politicized and trivialized itself.

MD forthrightly calls attention to evils that transcend the political as a challenge to reason, nature and God himself. MD itself would have transcended the political if it had called on the American people to put their primary reliance on prayer. Without a confrontation of contraception and its promotion by government, and without a serious call to prayer, MD invites dismissal as just another syncretistic manifesto cast in powerful prose that misses the point.

If you don’t condemn contraception as the root of so many of our social ills, aren’t you really just being tolerant of it? Read the entire commentary at The Observer.

Via Gateway Pundit:

Democrat Martha Coakley was on with Ken Pittman from WBSM in Massachusetts today. Martha told Ken that if you object to abortion and are a devout Catholic then…
“You probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.”

From the interview:

Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don’t want to do that.

Coakley: No we have a seperation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.

Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.

Coakley: (……uh, eh…um..) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.

Coakley’s idea would disqualify much of Boston from the medical field. But if Catholics in Massachusetts are learning about Catholicism from conservative talk-show host Ken Pittman who thinks we follow the teachings of “the pope,” I suppose Massachusetts Catholics would have little objection to supplying an abortifacient pill to a rape victim. Their pope was (or still is) Ted Kennedy.

From “In the Know”:

Here’s the real funny. The real ultrasound laws are just as ridiculous as if the Onion’s idea of making moms name their future dead babies.

How can a law allowing abortion after a mother has been merely offered a view of her ultrasound be considered pro-life? Because it might save her baby? If that’s the intent, why not write the law so that the mother is forced to view the ultrasound for, say, 15 seconds?

Remember, when the law permits abortion, it only affirms and entrenches abortion as a just law.