|
Apr 17, 2005
"Honor Killing" in America
"Honor Killing" in America
Honor killing is the practice of males killing their female relatives or spouses when the female relative or spouse is considered to have damaged the family honor through unwarranted sexual activity. The males involved in the sexual activity, which might have been a rape, are not adversely affected, in general. The execution is considered to be a private matter within the affected family; rarely do non-family members or the courts become involved. Honor killings are now viewed as murder by most people.
The United Nations Population Fund estimates as many as 5000 females are anually killed worldwide as a result of honor killing.
In United States there is also a punishment of female relatives that is very similar to "honor killing" - that punishment is removal of a mother's newborn son or daughter for adoption. One difference is that instead of physically murdering the "moral offender", there is an "attempted murder" of the offender's motherhood through psychological and economic coercion. Adoption may be touted as the punishment for sex without benefit of marriage, however adoption is actually punishment for carrying a pregnancy to term. Woman who have abortions are not punished (unless they consider the abortion the punishment - and some do) and women who have sex but do not become pregnant are usually not punished in a severe way, if at all.
Limiting pregnant women's "choices" to only adoption or abortion benefits males significantly. With these "options" of abortion or adoption the males need not concern themselves with either pregnancy prevention or with taking responsibility for their child.
With honor killing, it is often male relatives that carry out the sentence. In America, often the pregnant woman's mother is very involved in carrying out the "sentencing". "You will NOT return to this house with a baby," was the phrase heard by pregnant woman in the 1960s. This threat may even be made today. Along with the threat, a pregnant woman may be taken to an "adoption professional" - a person who is trained in the art of getting babies away from their own mothers - and selling the babies to clients who pay for this "service". An "adoption professional" may make the mom believe she "chose" adoption when in reality no other options were mentioned. Every avenue of support may be cut off by "professionals" through cleverly worded advice to parents and others. Indeed, almost our entire society now believes that a baby is "better off" with unrelated people than she is with her own family if her mother is single when she is born. And this is despite the objections raised by adoptees, the ones who "professionals" claim benefit from this strange transaction.
There is more than one type of "honor" crime... for a mother, having her son or daughter removed for adoption and then being allowed to live prolongs her suffering. It may be worse than honor killing because of this prolonged grieving and unacknowledged loss. Regardless, many moms whose baby has been adopted-out later commit suicide.
Approximately 10 million moms in the US have been used as the source of a baby for use in adoption.
The solution? At the very least, outlaw adoption solicitation. We don't allow solicitation for a living person's organs and we should not allow solicitation to get a living person's son or daughter, either.
A little temporary help may get a mom past this situation - sometimes a little moral support is needed, sometimes a little help getting her baby's father motivated to do his part. We need no more "honor killings" in America.
Posted at 07:36 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
Apr 16, 2005
Adoption Denies Citizens' "Inalienable" Rights
Adoption Denies Citizens' "Inalienable" Rights
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
The Declaration of Independence speaks if equality for all people. But "liberty" interests must not interfere with another person's liberty.
In infant adoption the inalienable rights of both natural parents and of adopted persons are being denied.
First consider what is meant by an "inalienable right". From Merriam Webster's Dictionary:
Main Entry: in·alien·able 
Pronunciation: (")i-'nAl-y&-n&-b&l, -'nA-lE-&-n&-
Function: adjective
Etymology: probably from French inaliénable, from in- + aliénable alienable
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>
The definition of "inalienable" is very interesting - It appears that some rights are incapable of being surrendered or transferred. If there was a right that was endowed by the Creator and was an inalienable right, what might that right be? The right to breathe? The right of a person to his/her own kidneys and other body parts? The right to bear and raise his/her own offspring?
Yes, the right to parenthood (right to raise one's own offspring) is an inalienable right, a right that may be denied only when the parent is proven to be abusive or seriously neglectful - thereby infringing on the child's rights.
In infant adoption, a parent who has not been proven abusive or neglectful is solicited and pressured to "give up" or "surrender" their inalienable parental rights. Some naive parents may be led to believe they will be "heros" or "saints" for surrendering this "inalienable" right to raise their own child. There are persons who claim a "right to adopt" and it seems that the "right to adopt" has somehow superceeded the right of a United States citizen to bear and raise their own offspring.
Just imagine for a moment that there is a person who has no arms. But you have two arms. So the person with no arms claim an "equal right" to your arm. Then the population of persons with no arms increases - and they hire professional lobbyists. The two-armed people are less influential and so they become quite vulnerable. The "arm adoption professionals" say the arms will be "better utilized" on the prospective adopters. The "professionals" begin to call the two armed people dehumanizing names that make two-armed persons appear to be nothing more than mechanical producers of arms for use by arm "adopters". The prospective adopters are promoted as "real humans" while the two-armed person is demoted to the status of an "ex-body - even before her arm is removed.
This is how language biased toward adopters works, making people who are strangers to a child appear to be entitled as "real parents" while the status of a child's own family drops to being the status of a baby-producing machine.
Of course, it is not just a parent's inalienable right to raise his/her child that is denied - the child's inalienable right to be raised by OR EVEN TO KNOW THE IDENITY OF her own family is being denied and a fraudulent birth certificate used. The original birth certificate has been amended not so that errors to the original birth certificate may be corrected but rather to make errors purposefully.
It's sad but true Adoption Denies Citizens' "Inalienable" Rights
Posted at 04:10 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
Apr 15, 2005
"I am a volcano of lust."
That's a stupid line from the movie - "Mr Deeds" - a really stupid show about a naive multi-billionaire, Emilio Lopez. Emilio Lopez turns out to be the largest stockholder - millions of jobs are saved. WHO THE HELL CARES ABOUT THE LITTLE GUY? That's my question. Who cares? Power is power. The powerful should conduct the minions like an orchestra.
An orchestra makes beautiful music...but when it is a human orchestra - orchestrated by the powerful - it is often like a horror film. The suffering of the little people - their cries for mercy - are a cause for humor.
No woman - or man - is perfect, unblemished, without flaws. Yet some people - often the most naive, manipulated by religious rhetoric - are oppressed. Using these people as workers in the fast-food industry is one thing. Using them and selling them unnecessary medications is another thing. Perhaps the saddest, most tragic thing is when naive people are used as a source of babies. Babies may be used for various purposes. A "cure" for infertility, or a source of children for child molesters. Either way, they are human beings that are being used.
Changing a person's birth certificate - to indicate false information - is birth certificate fraud. An "amended birth certificate" is allowable by law - but to fix errors on the original, not to change the original birth certificate to falsify it.
Why falsify a birth certificate? A birth certificate is falsified for adoption - when a person or couple purchases a child "as her own" "as if born to her". So, what's the problem with that? Well, would you - if you were the purchased person - appreciate having your family hidden from you? Would you appreciate having your mother used as if she was a cow or sheep, to make babies for sale (adoption) ?
Perhaps, if you have an ocean view, you would be happy to be known as a "lucky bastard" and trade your family for wealth. Yet, your mother may have missed you terribly - or your mother may have even committed suicide. Is it fair to use a person as the source of a baby? It is cruel. Very cruel. What's GREAT is that there are social workers and others to assure the "buyer" of their "services" that the mom "just didn't want her child". The baby buyers are "saviors". It's pretty cool how it all works. People get healthy babies to use. The mothers are easily silenced.
Adoption ROCKS - Just like slavery used to rock for those who benefitted from it.
The message? Stop the solicitation for babies in United States. Abolish falsified birth certificates and payments for "adoption services".
Just for once, stand up for the little guy and do not separate family members to get babies for adoption.
Posted at 09:30 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
Apr 14, 2005
Jesus was not Owned
It's sad, in a way - sad that it did not occur to me sooner that Jesus was not owned by a male - Jesus' mother was not married - Jesus was a bastard. In our modern society, "unowned" bastards are no longer called bastards but they are still removed from naive moms for adoption.
I was reading the book "Leaving Mother Lake - A Girlhood at the Edge of the World" by Yang Erche Namu and Christine Mathieu. ( Yes, it's REALLY a good book. ) And then I was watching the news about gay marriage (or partnership) and thinking - hey - the world could be any way you want it. In the book, "Leaving Mother Lake" women had homes, lovers and lives without any marriage and there was a very peaceful existence.
Kids did know who their Dads were - and enjoyed their company when they visited. But Dads had work as yak herders and chores to do at their maternal residences were not often around. I know fathers are important to a child. So many women from the 70's are saying they should have included their child's father in his life - even if the father resisted it - because the kids when grown still express the desire to be known as (and loved as) the child of their father. It easy to learn from this. People should know.
Yet in the United States we have solicitation to get sperm to make babies. The fathers are excluded - the kids lose out. Polite to their mothers, the kids often say "it's OK" - but I say "it's NOT OK". Creating an orphan on purpose is cruel. Of course now we have people soliciting to get eggs, soliciting for human incubators or moms willing to be inseminated and called a ''surrogate" even though they are the source of the egg, the source of the child, the actual mother of the child.
The desire to buy a child is great. The market for babies is ever-expanding as people wait too long to reproduce and gays also hope to get a child. And the baby-sellers say the child won't know the difference. But many adopted people and others who are denied their family are saying "Yes, it does make a difference".
Please listen!
By now you're asking - Where does Jesus come into this argument? Well, many of the babies used for adoption are taken from mothers who are single (mothers disparagingly referred to as "unwed") or young. Mary was very young and she was very single when she agreed to pregnancy. Today people would say she "made poor choices".
Somehow, in spite of it's begininnings, "Christianity" evolved to subjugate women. A woman was nothing if not married (owned by a man) and her offspring was considered "illegitimate' if she was not "owned. I admit, this all seems bizarre to me. But when you look at how "illegitimate" children have been treated it is obvious that they - and their mothers - were not counted as human beings.
Women's babies were taken for use by "real humans" - people who were infertile but married. And today, people who are gay claim the same rights as married people - thus the "right" to get some single mother's "unowned" child.
Women's status is declining - as the market for babies grows, they are more often used as livestock breeders, a source of babies for adopters. But since many women seek to use another woman as the source of a baby - and "adoption" is sanitized by the media - few people care. And even though they don't care about the moms who are used (and may find the loss of their child so painful that they commit suicide) you might think SOMEONE would care about the child.
Jesus was not owned - and they let him stay with his mother.
Posted at 06:55 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
Apr 13, 2005
Well the shark bites
with his teeth dear
and he shows them
Pearly white
"Mack the Knife" attacked women with a knife...but there are more devious ways to attack.
Women have been controlled by men - and by other women - in a big way in the United States. Perhaps the saddest, most cruel use of women has been the use of human beings to make human babies for someone else to use. Yes, I do mean the women who were raped until pregnant to make more slave babies. But I also mean those women who were pregnant and had their babies taken for adoption, for no reason other than their marital status.
It's almost humorous how people say adoption is a "choice". Lets face it the rich and powerful want babies badly. There is money to be made by finding them babies and lots of people jumping on this opportunity for profit. Just like a televangelist, the adoption industry lulls it's audience into trusting them. The adoption businesses use "God" and "religious faith" as a tool to achieve their own objectives. Unlike the televangelist, the adoption businesses (which often call themselves "charities") have obtained almost complete trust. And when you have such complete trust, you have POWER.
"Open adoption" is especially promoted now. The adoption businesses sometimes gloat over how they are getting more babies and expanding domestic adoption services. These services are
Posted at 10:21 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
Apr 11, 2005
Living in a Material World (Buying Children)
Living in a Material World (Buying Children)
Well, well, well.
I've had the stupid, stupid Madonna song in my head and can't quite get rid of it. But, it underscores a problem in our society - that problem is all the people who are bound and determined to get themselves a baby - and feel entitled because they can afford to buy a baby (disguised as "adoption services" of course) .
Some have waited too long to reproduce, others (males) held their laptop computer in their lap too long and killed off their sperm from the heat. Some are sterile after having STDs or abortions. Some just don't want to ruin their figures or take time out of their career for a pregnancy.
So the solution is to buy a baby. Find a naive Christian mom or poor family and use them as a source of a baby. Ensure the mom is screened for drugs, eats right, and rejects alcohol during pregancy so you can have a Grade A infant.
YES! This can work! Promise the mom all kinds of things - pictures, letters and if necessary even on-going contact with her child. Don't worry - you won't have to follow through on these promises. It's known as "open adoption" - you won't be the only one using these devious tactics. If you are lucky, the mom will be so stupid she'll never think to use the shotgun on you later - she'll be crying too much - or the "stupid birth bitch" will commit suicide - hey! What a great way to get rid of her.
Ha, ha , HA! YOU are better than she is, you have money, you DESERVE to have her son or daughter to use as your own. Dear Birthmother, Birth thing, birth bitch, birth material, birth genetic material, birth"mother". Ha, we'll show HER what a "real mother" is - we'll steal her baby and get away with it!
Later she'll honor herself on "Birthmothers Day". So pathetic! The minions. Meanwhile, us rich and powerful people will be celebrating adoption.
Living in a Material World - Buying Children.
Posted at 07:15 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
Apr 10, 2005
Birthmother's Day
True, it's a few weeks early to think about Birthmothers Day. But still, it's a fascinating concept. What is a birthmother, you ask? What is this thing called "Birthmother's Day"?
Weeeeellll, just to fill you in there are people in our society who have been used as machines to pump out babies for people to adopt. These machines are called "birthmothers". The cool thing is that unlike real mothers, these machines have no feelings and they willingly shoot their babies straight from the womb into the arms of waiting "couples" just like a vending machine or some automated, robotic manufacturing equipment. It's a miracle of human engineering - an advancement in psychology - that makes "birth objects" such as these possible.
Yet, just to allow adopters to appear friendly - and for "one day only" - the "birth things" are honored for their "sacrifice".
Never mind that people who build homes in flood zones or on the coast where hurricanes are expected get federal money to make up for their "errors" in judgement. Never mind that most employers are increasing adopters benefits while decreasing natural families benefits. Never mind that a child can be designated "special needs" because he does not love his adopter - and then the adopter can collect all kinds of government benefits. In spite of all the government waste, a single mother is considered the worst kind of parasite, meant to be squashed like a cruel boy stepping on one end of a caterpillar until her guts spill out yellow-green upon the pavement.
Must we use women in this way? Some naive moms claim the are glad someone "helped" them. Who's kidding whom? If the adopters have hard times, or if one of them dies, will they "do the right thing" and re-allocate the child to someone who has more money or a "stable" environemnt?
A lot of adopters probably DO die - they are getting pretty old before they decide they have missed out on what "really matters" - a family. To make up for this, they simply use a naive mom to get a baby to use as their own.
Well. the turth hurts: These people who are "loving" will not love the mom whose baby they take. Birth Bitch or Birth Nigger or Birth Thing - whatever. A mom's status drops like a rock when she gives up hope of finding real pregnancy help and surrenders her child for adoption. The adopters immediately gain in status: They are such noble people, taking a child whose mother "just didn't want" her.
The adoption industry operates by creating a cultural expectation of adoption for the sons and daughters of non-traditional mothers and then exploits that expectation for personal and financial gain. It's not pretty, it's not loving, it's not kind. It's cruelty.
"Birthmothers" Day? It's time to go back to honoring all mothers on Mother's Day.
Posted at 08:29 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
Apr 7, 2005
Is adoption a reproductive "choice"?
Is adoption a reproductive "choice"?
Some people say adoption is a reproductive choice a woman must have - that a woman's choice to delay reproduction includes abortion or adoption. In the United States, a baby's father usually gets no say in the matter if he is not married to the child's mother. And that is true even after his child is already born - if he wants to take responsibility for his own son or daughter he may be out of luck. Promoters of adoption will claim he is trying to block an adoption as if he was not his child's father at all.
Is adoption a real "choice"? There is clearly the involvement of United States government in influencing the numbers of mothers who opt to legally surrender their sons and daughters. We now have federal government-funded Infant Adoption Awareness Training aimed at getting more babies away from naive mothers and father for use in adoption. We have Safe Haven laws that provide one option to a frightened, pressured mother - the abandonment of her baby. We have Choose Life license plates from which the proceeds go toward getting moms to surrender their children but never to help those who want to keep their family together. The government has not outlawed solicitation to get babies (eg, Dear Birthmother letters) , nor has it outlawed the profit made by adoption lawyers and adoption agencies who sell babies to adopters under the guise of "adoption services". Adoption agencies are expanding their business by offering "Open adoption" to naive and pressured moms in order to get more babies for their paying customers. The customers are merely unrelated people hoping to get a healthy infant to use, yet those who sell babies call them "parents" well in advance of the sale. We now have gvernment funded Embryo Adoption Awareness Training as well. Meanwhile real families get less and less benefits from the government and from employers as well.
Church groups like to claim that providing women the "option of adoption" (really the option to legally abandon their child) they are lowering the number of abortions. Yet their unwillingness to help single people into their role as moms and dads surely pressures a great many women to opt for abortion. Oddly, on Mother's Day, a sermon may include a mention of many kinds of mothers - step-mothers, grandmothers - even women who have obtained abortions may be referred to as "mothers". Yet those mothers who have been forced to surrender a baby to adoption are not referred to as "mothers" or even mentioned. A woman who has been used in this horrendous way is considered a "birthmother" (aka "birth thing") She is not seen as human being but is considered to be like a placenta, meant to be disposed of when her child is born.
Some mothers have allowed themselves to be "honored" as "birth objects" on "Birthmothers Day". That is sad. A mother is a mother - and even the women who have had abortions are honored on Mother's Day.
Now the United States government promotes the celebration of adoption. What about celebrating families that remain intact - and helping them?
Is adoption a reproductive "choice"? If women really wanted to make such a "choice" they would not have to be solicited to get their babies for adoption.
Posted at 10:03 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
Apr 6, 2005
Adoption vs. Abortion?
A lady in Australia sent me this in my email:
"In 1982 a governement circular was issued to all the Australian hospitals warning them to stop their illicit practice of taking babies at birth from their unmarried mothers. I was lucky wasn't I ...because my daughter was born in that year."
In the United States, adoption is still practiced, with children having their mothers removed from them at birth so other people can adopt.
It is said that adoption is better than abortion ... but the babies who are adopted are already born and in no danger of being aborted. The only danger most of them are in is the danger of being taken home and loved by their own family.
See Adoption vs. Abortion Myths Debunked. So the real question is, are unrelated caregivers better than a child's real family that loves her?
Of course, it is harder to get babies now that families are more willing to pitch in and help a mom, even if she is not married. This is a problem for people whose business is adoption. Their most sought-after product - healthy human infants - has become scarce. To fix this problem of scarcity, new means of getting babies are being developed all the time. Perhaps the most cruel is the promise of open adoption - continuing contact with their child - used to rope moms and dads (and grandparents and siblings) into surrendering parental rights so some stranger can have a baby.
Mothers are called "birthmothers" (aka "birth things") making it seem like they are incubators, not human beings.
Adoption vs. Abortion? What about barren and childfree vs. taking some naive or vulnerable family's healthy baby?
Posted at 02:40 pm by warriorwoman
Permalink
Apr 4, 2005
Infertility Cures - that don't hurt other people.
In the news today is a new infertility cure. The "cure" is not to take some vulnerable mother's baby for adoption or to "use" a woman as a surrogate-incubator or to purchase the raw materials (human sperm and eggs obtained from naive college students) to create an unrelated child.
Happily, the infertility cure is one that results in people having their own children, the way God intended.
GAINESVILLE, Fla., April 4 /PRNewswire/ -- More than 75 women, once infertile, will be celebrating this Mother's Day with their very own miracle babies after receiving a new "fertility massage" that helped them become pregnant.
Three friends, Sarah, Nicole, and Stephanie * attribute their children to a patent-protected massage therapy called the Wurn Technique(R). The therapy, which uses no drugs or surgery, appears to decrease the adhesions and scar tissue that cause half of all female infertility, according to Dr. Richard King, Research Director at Florida Medical and Research Institute and co-
author of several studies on this therapy.
"We use our hands to find adhered areas in and around a woman's reproductive organs," said Belinda Wurn, PT, co-developer of the technique (see http://www.clearpassage.com ). "We then apply a sophisticated 'massage' to free the reproductive tissues from adhesions that can cause infertility."
Sarah was the first of the three friends to discover the therapy's success. With one blocked fallopian tube, and the other tube scarred and adhered from a C-section, her physician told her it was unlikely she would
ever conceive again. She has had three children since therapy. "This was such a blessing for us that I recommended the therapy to my friend Nicole who had
also been struggling with infertility for years," Sarah said.
Nicole was infertile for five years, with a history of endometriosis, miscarriages and seven failed intrauterine inseminations (IUI). After receiving this therapy, Nicole also conceived naturally, and gave birth to a beautiful baby girl. "I know that this therapy is what my body needed to be successful," Nicole said.
Nicole's friend Stephanie had never had a single pregnancy. Stephanie's tubes were scarred and her fimbriae were clubbed with adhesions. After five
years of infertility, and four IVF attempts, she was crushed. "Nicole bugged me to try the therapy so I finally went. A few months after therapy, to my
utter amazement, I was pregnant," Stephanie said. She also gave birth to a little girl.
"We are very excited about the results we have seen with our therapy and look forward to helping more couples reach their goals of parenthood," said Larry Wurn, LMT, co-developer of the Wurn Technique(R) and Director of Clinical Studies at Clear Passage Therapies, Inc.
Studies on the therapy's effectiveness were recently published in Medscape General Medicine. One study in the peer-reviewed journal indicated that 71% of
infertile women conceived within one year of treatment without any further medical or surgical intervention. A second study reported that women who received therapy prior to IVF transfer increased their pregnancy rates by 63% over IVF without therapy.
This therapy gives women another reason to smile. According to a third study published by Medscape, 56% of the women who participated in the study reported an increase in orgasm intensity and duration and 96% reported a reduction in intercourse pain.
Clear Passage currently has locations in Florida, the metropolitan DC area, and Ohio. Additional clinics are planned for New York City, California, Chicago, Iowa, and Arizona.
* Pseudonyms used for privacy
Regarding infertility cures, when will our government in the United States work to educate people not to wait too long to have children? When will they issue warnings on laptops that males may become infertile if they hold the laptop on their lap, because it will increase scrotal temperature?
Well, it's unlikely they will prevent the suffering of infertility when so many entities profit from finding babies for adoption and reproductive technologies.
How many people in United States today are searching for family members lost to adoption?
How rare is it for anyone to warn families of the adoption industry lies and provide pregnant women ideas for real help?
The honorable term "Mother" has been replaced by the job title "birthmother" - thus a mother's humanity is denied completely when her child is desirable for adoption.
Posted at 09:23 am by warriorwoman
Permalink
|
|
