Population Research Institute: Part I

[sumrandomguy3]

Last thing we need are laws telling couples how much children they want to have. Its pretty much cruel to life to deny someone of it. That is why we should let the women pop till they drop. That way, we won't have the problem of an ageing population

[VictorLepanto]

I often think, what will people 500yrs in the future think of our evil age? This present madness will soon pass. A society that allows such barbarities to be practiced can not long endure. It must either realize the wicked folly of its customs or collapse from such untenable corruption. Either way this present secularist corrupt order in the West will soon end. Then there will be a reckoning. On the other side of the reckoning will be a very different point of view.

[Chefodeath]

@VictorLepanto Oh shit, are we having a dark ages revival!?!?!?!?!?!!? Shit, let me get my bible and my morning star!

[mosquitobight]

These freaking hypocrites are asking for donations to help them fight sterilization laws in other countries. Will they also ask for donations to help fight laws that deny women the right to choose to abort and use contraceptives? I doubt it.

China's one-child policy has worked like a charm, it saved China from famine, it allowed China to educate its people, liberalize its economy, and become the biggest and fastest growing source of wealth and manufacturing in the world today.

[DrCruel]

@mosquitobight Let me get this straight. Are you actually trying to justify the forced sterilization of women? On the basis of feminism? And you say THIS is what led to the prosperity in China - and not, say, the economic liberalization and capitalist reforms of Deng Xiao Ping?

Wow. You suck.

[mosquitobight]

@DrCruel

No, you suck. Read what I wrote. I'm not justifying forced sterilization. I'm saying it's hypocritical and one-sided to raise money to fight sterilization laws, while allowing continuation of laws that deny women access to birth control. With the right to fertility comes the responsibility to use fertility wisely.

[DrCruel]

@mosquitobight I read what you wrote. You said China's forced sterilization program "worked like a charm". Might I also note that an enforced mass famine by Maoists, from 1958-62, similarly "worked like a charm" - removing up to 45 million people from the population lists of that nation. You even implied that forced sterility was a primary reason for China's present levels of prosperity (as opposed to, say, the rejection of Marxist ideas).

What a line of absolute shit. You really do suck.

[cLUTz83]

(2of2) It seems that Mr. Mosher was so distressed (understandably) by the situation in China, that he has decided to try to be a 'hero' to humanity by trying to outlaw abortion in general. He is trying to free people from opression (China) by making rules for them about abortion (USA). People should not be controlled! They should be educated! Period! Control is the evil, not abortion!

[cLUTz83]

"it seemed a violation of the rights of chinese women to control their own bodies..." I agree. Is it not however a violation of other women's rights to choose for them whether their voluntary abortion is legitimate or not? Stephen Mosher speaks in other videos about the "evils of abortion," but it seems to me that abortion is not the evil, as he is purporting, but it is the violation of human rights that is evil, which he is actually ALSO purporting. Get your shit straight! (1of2)

[patlynw]

MR BIG MOUNT HOW MANY CHILDREN ARE YOU CARING FOR ???? BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO PAY THE PRICE OF THIS MADNESS OF HAVING CHILDREN LIKE PIGS ARE THE CHILDREN....

[SAMSIZZLE123]

Soilant green...is..PEOPLE!!!!

[greenmovement11]

population control is neccesary in order to have a world without population flux; which causes terrible disasters when carrying capacity is exceeded. simply look to rwanda or easter island to see the terrible causes of exceeding carryining capacity. forced abortion is immoral and should not be done but is cannabalism any better?

[SAMSIZZLE123]

@greenmovement11 Soilant green...is..PEOPLE!!!!

[LambzAnger]

This visaed of compassion will only work on the most naive people, but when trying to further your religious views they would be they ones that you are after, wouldn't they.

[checkyoursources]

Look up "Population research institute: Misleading" to find out about the religious agenda of the maker of this video.

[dave19941000]

Pro-life propaganda, nothing more. Pro-life is against women's rights. You what to get an abortion, you have the right to.

[oceanwave20]

@dave19941000 what about the child, does he/she get a right to live?

[dave19941000]

@oceanwave20 At 2 months pregnent can it feal, breath, eat, or think? Abortion was illegal in Romania for 30 years, and it didn't end well.

[oceanwave20]

@dave19941000 That is so ignorant, even if it cant feel, or breathe, that doesnt make it biological waste.

[dave19941000]

@oceanwave20 It dosn't make it alive either. Look into Romanian history and you will see what happened after abortion was made illegal, and you may become pro-choice yourself (or you will be ok with what happened there happening here).

[rich02468]

@dave19941000 It's pretty clear you're killing *something* in there. It might be human. It might not be. Why not err on the side of caution?

[dave19941000]

@rich02468 Why let my sister die?

[d2eux]

Overpopulation is an elitist concept, the idea that the rest of the population are "useless eaters" consuming the earth's resources. The real issues are dense populations and the proper distribution of resoures, eg, most of the world's resources are in the hands of a few.

[sharkblubber]

The PRI wants to ban all forms of contraception. In doing so they will increase the number of unintended births.

[Exult]

Wait this channel is against Obama's health care plan and doesn't believe in overpopulation. Oh, Population Research Institute is a "pro-life" lobby...makes so much sense and it was a genius move to talk about the one-child policy to push forward their own christian fundamentalist agenda

[Tarsan97]

It is not interessting weather you believe it is a myth or not. With the increasing rate of people we have now, overpopluation is a fact tomorrow ,even if it is not today

[renfist]

idiocracy > PRI videos

[sharkblubber]

Stephen Mosher was expelled from Stanford University due to "illegal and unethical conduct."

The one child policy: a confidential 2008 survey undertaken by the Pew Research Center showed that over 76% of the Chinese population supports the policy.

[DiscipleOfChrist96]

@sharkblubber And China has allowed its people the freedom to dissent from its policies. If one doesn't mind dissenting with a tank facing one... Mosher was given the cold shoulder at Stanford for speaking an unwelcome truth. How can you defend the Chinese government and their appalling human rights abuses, of which their one child policy and forced abortions are prime examples?

[sharkblubber]

You are calling mosher a human rights supporter when he considers contraception and homosexuality as evil?

He is nothing but a religious fanatic and the PRI is a about as scientific as the bronze age book written by desert nomads it obsesses about. Mosher considers chinese abuses as being in the same category as allowing voluntary contraception for all, a logical fallacy.

[DiscipleOfChrist96]

Being a Christian does not make one a fanatic any more than being a Buddhist or being a follower of any other religion. (And yes, Buddhism is a religion. I was Buddhist for man years before embracing Catholicism.) It would be illogical to be a Christian and yet eschew the teachings of Christ. Your comment lacks logic.

But then I suspect that it wasn't a serious comment but just an attempt at writing something inflammatory.

[DiscipleOfChrist96]

That should be "many years" not "man" years. I wish we could edit comments for typos. Argh.

[sharkblubber]

Are you saying that mosher is correct and that contraception and homosexuality are evil?!

That is sick.

[DiscipleOfChrist96]

To my knowledge Mosher is not a Mosherite but a follower of Christ, a Christian. A Catholic. As a Catholic he would be expected to regard the Bible as the written word of God. Sex is a blessing and a beautiful gift given by God to be enjoyed between husband and wife who have entered into a covenant with each other and with God. Contraception is the closing off of one party to the other or of both parties to each other. Marital love is total self-giving to each other. Contraception negates that.

[sharkblubber]

At no point in the bible does it say contraception is wrong! You have just interpreted it to suit your needs because of its vague nature. Contraception was already in existence during the time jesus was alledged to have lived. Do you think your god would have wanted the extermination of ecosystem services and otehr species leading to poverty?

[DiscipleOfChrist96]

Nope. I made several statements that you have decided to connect. Here's the proper interpretation of my statements. Homosexuality is covered in the Bible pretty well and Mosher would be expected to accept the Bible's words on that. Now as far as my own interpretation of what the Bible says, I have no interpretation other than that of the Catholic Church. Want to know what she teaches about these issues? The catechism costs about $9 at most any bookstore.

[sharkblubber]

@DiscipleOfChrist96 If you accept the bible literally they you support stoning of adulterers? Where are your talking snakes?

I am shocked that you base your life on a collection of opinions and fables written in the bronze age.

[DiscipleOfChrist96]

I don't base my life on anyone's opinions nor on fables. Some things in the Bible are meant to be taken literally, some are not, the same as in any other communication, including our everyday communications with each other. Perhaps your preconceived notions are preventing you from comprehending what Christianity really is. Perhaps I shared some of them at one time. I searched for many a long year before embracing Catholicism. Opinions and fables are precisely what I rejected by accepting Christ.

[sharkblubber]

@DiscipleOfChrist96 Sounds like you cherry pick the bible to me. How do you know which are meant to be taken literally if no-one in the church can agree on it and are even willing to kill over it too. Catholicism has always promoted a lack of contraception and has regularly tried to lower womens rights back to the dark ages. The problem with religion is that it cannot adapt, luckily for us, evolution of society can.

[Greginda11]

@sharkblubber

isn't abortion against the flow of evolution? Isn't the idea of having a large, varied population the traits needed to survive long term? I would like to point out that the UNFPA was only able to get funding under President Obama who voted against a bill that even the most esteemed pro-choice people vomited over. Not saying anything else about him but he is clearly extremtly pro abortion so I think that played a role in his desion to fund UNFPA.

[sharkblubber]

@Greginda11 Overpopulation is against the "flow of evolution" much more so than having a small population. As stated UNFPA do not support or fund forced abortion. They do fund a small numer of voluntary abortion clinics but these remove the need for backstreet abortions. the majority of their funding goes into voluntary contraception and improving womens rights in anti-contraception and frankly backward countries.

[somecrazy2]

and abortion is a bad thing how. Abortion shouldn't be constantly shown to be a bad think. Forced abortion definitely. But not abortion itself. so lets use your own logic of isn't something against evolution. what about computers, and hospitals and antibiotics. If evolution wanted us to cure certain diseases, it would have made us immune to them, so lets tear down hospitals because they are against evolution. go figure. anywayz PRI is now using the same fear coercion china is, just differently.

[Greginda11]

@somecrazy2

How can you use the argument of technology saving lives to support the use of technology in the killing of lives? And there is nothing unnatural about having large varied pop. Lets take potatoes for the example the Irish had only one type and a bacteria came along and killed all the potatoes while varieid potatoes in france surivied. If a virus like the black plague came humanitiies ability to survive would depend on having a large varietiy so that some would survive.

[Greginda11]

@somecrazy2

Abortion on the other and is the selective killing of people groups (namely the poor), but what the rich don't have the genes to survive? You might say chances are unlikely but they said the same thing about a bacteria striking down the potato crops. This could very easily become an issue of specices survival and it is ignorant to support the killing of certian groups of our species for convience when there are threats that could wipe us out. It is very short sighted.

[somecrazy2]

@Greginda11 Easily. Abortion in the early stages isn't killing. The fetus has no properly developed brain, and while it might have a human form, human form does not denote humanity. (eg humanoid robots and apes) But ok how did we get to potatoes. Regardless, varied population good, large population not so great, at least not in our numbers. Every mammal usually finds an equilibrium with their environment, but humans don't. We just populate and populate until we run out of resources. Very Bad

[somecrazy2]

@Greginda11 And how does abortion apply to selective killing (namely the poor). It is usually the poor who have the bigger families. The poor who want the abortion (but don't get it). d2eux is right, it is an elitist concepts, only wealthy should have it. I think the only place that what u said occurs is in china, under the one child act. Abortion isn't killing certain certain groups. It is about responsible control of a population that threatens our planet.

[Greginda11]

@somecrazy2

I'm talking about the chinese government forcing abortions on it's population. Even if your pro choice these people have chosen to keep their baby but the government is the one that kills it. That is why I have a problem with that. In order to stop "over population" the government will attack those who can't defend themselves. China is doing it, so is Vietnam. parts of Africa. THe poor are having the children killed by their governments. WHy don't you see a probelemt with this

[Greginda11]

@sharkblubber

UNFPA has done nothing to stop the forced abortions. nothing, So best case is that they sit on their hand doing voluntary abortions while in the next room there are forced abortions and you don't find anything wrong with that? and that is the best case. UNFPA has never brought anything up to the UN showing the murders happening next door to them in China. Best case they sit on their hands and watch others rip unborn children from women, that is why I don't like the UNFPA.

[sharkblubber]

@Greginda11 How do you suppose UNFPA can do anything against the largest nation on Earth? All they can do is try to convince the chinese govt that the policy is not working and try and provide voluntary contraception instead. You need to blame the chinese govt, not the UNFPA.

[Greginda11]

What is suppose the UNFPA can do is inform the rest of the world through the UN the atrocities against human rights. They have people on the ground who could be used to protect women from forced abortion. They could provide bring forward to the UN for money to support women who are face unbearable fines because of their children. the Chinese government is to blame but UNFPA are nothing but spineless cowards for not standing for women's rights.

[sharkblubber]

@Greginda11 The PRI has exaggerated the levels of forced abortions for political and religious motives. I lived in China for 2 years, I witnessed no forced abortions or even talk of such. Moshers team were there for 4 days, just 4 days! Thats not a survey, thats a dirt digging mission on the UNFPA. The UNFPA is not to blame.

[somecrazy2]

I don't know. Because of the veto rule, the UN has no real power on the world stage. Influence, yes, the UN has great influence, but no real forcive power. If a veto country don't like an idea, it has no power, it just becomes a strongly worded letter. i agree with shark on this one. China is, or at least on the verge of becoming, a super power. and they have veto. SO the un can't do anything really.

[GaryPansey]

Well, population control in a crowded country sounds reasonable, it's the EVIL TOTALITARIAN way that the CCP implements it, without any democratic input...Plus, the American academy shunned Mosher and Stnanford wouldn't give him a PhD, merely to placate Communist killers.

Mosher, a Courageous American!!

[vickykin1234]

This video makes no sense. I understand that bad things happened. But world doesn't need any more people. Thanks to chinese who implemented this policy. And those people who don't agree the day is not far when you or your coming generations will not have food clean water to drink.

[turningtide1]

the problem is not too many people. it's greed & ignorance. there is more than enough for everybody

[zeppelingitis]

Totally agree. In fact, I have been using the same two words in various other comments.

[Aleowiciuos]

Tell that to someone in Caracas, Lagos, Bangladesh,.......

[DiscipleOfChrist96]

Then the serious response to these problems would be to steward the resources more wisely and with less greed and avarice, not to kill people so we won't have to share so much with them. Really, this is so simple. Share, don't kill.

[sharkblubber]

I didn't say kill anyone, I said we should use contraception to keep family size small and therefore limit human impacts on the ecosystem services that keep us alive. Contraception is not killing.

[DiscipleOfChrist96]

I don't believe I was replying to your comment but to the one who said that he/she applauded China's one child policy which involves forced abortions, which is killing. That's what I was responding to.

[sharkblubber]

@DiscipleOfChrist96 "If the resources were split equally we would all be living at the same level of consumption, as an average guatemalan, i.e. on the poverty line source: global footprint network. . The fact is that we all have to choose to have smaller families to reach a sustainable level of living where everyone can escape poverty.

[turningtide1]

one of the most powerful videos i've seen on youtube

[machallmachall]

Pick up the latest copy of National Geographic and you'll see what humans have done to damage the earth and environment. It also shows how to repair the soil so we can grow way more food than what we now grow. We don't need to eliminate women from society. We need to be better stewards of the earth and our soil and our water. A society with a ration of too many men to women is destined to failure.

[gregducati999]

you can say that it goes against human rights but what are human rights worth, if we all end up with such a low level of living standard due to over population, that goes against another human right to have sufficient food, as there just isnt enogh to go around for every one, dont be gredy have just two or less children as it effects the living standards of every one

[Molliepet]

My heart breaks for the woman of China who have lost their only child in the devastating quakes...you'd think that would inspire their leaders to reevaluate the one child policy..it's not with nature..I don't agree we will 'population out' on this earth..the earth has been around for a long time and natural events evlove and evens everything out..

[BigRedpg51]

You folks are doing a holy work, and although ignorant and selfish people will tell you that abortion is preferable to overpopulation -- you know the truth: there is plenty of room on this planet for everyone, if only we would be willing to share what we have with each other.

May God and the Blessed Virgin Mary bless you for caring so much for those who cannot speak for themselves -- our brothers and sisters in the womb!

[Tarsan97]

Overpopulation are the biggest problem ahead.

It is not a human right to have children.

At some point the world are full. No clean water or food anymore,wars bust out...

[elfiso1]

There are other problems too... the big comet, the new killing viruses and the alien invantion.... come on!!!

[sumlatinkid]

and another one more devastating than all of them....

..

..

JEWS!

lol

[robertrcassman]

What are you talking about? Not a human right to have... more humans? Huh?

[DiscipleOfChrist96]

Overpopulation is a myth. What we have is an unwillingness to oust governments who enslave their people, who rob their people of food and other necessities, and who do all in their power to hang on to power no matter what it does to the people under their thumbs.

[sharkblubber]

Can you provide some evidence that overpopulation is a myth?

The current world population is unsustainable because of a combination of high consumption per capita and beyond replacement family sizes.

I have evidence that suggests very very strongly that we are already consuming resources faster than the ecosystem services can replace them.The evidence can be found in the four volumes of peer reviewed science that makes up the millennium ecosystem assessment.

[DiscipleOfChrist96]

Have you heard of PRI, Population Research Institute? They've got lots of really good research there. It's amazing how many people ask for proof but neglect to visit PRI to read the research that they have made readily available for all to read. There's a link to it on their front page.

There is a lot of "science" and "research" out there to prove all sorts of things. I think you have to consider the source and you have to look at vested interests. Politics in science ruins science.

[sharkblubber]

@DiscipleOfChrist96 PRI is not a scientific institute they are a religious "think-tank", i.e. they are political. Please look into their background, how many peer reviewed reports have they published in reputable journals? How many scientific organisations recognise them as a research body? none. Science is not about "proof", its about disproof, evidence and who is most likely to be correct. Einstein:"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

[DiscipleOfChrist96]

It's difficult to get published in journals that refuse to look at your research if it isn't politically correct. We do science by consensus in the world now and we do not follow the trail wherever it leads. We don't do real science very much at all. So the fact that certain organizations don't accept PRI does not prove anything about PRI but may speak volumes about those organizations. Just sayin'.

[sharkblubber]

@DiscipleOfChrist96 As PRI isn't scientific, of course it doesn't get published in a science journal. It's shocking the levels that PRI is willing to go to to try and get a womens right like voluntary contraception banned. disgusting behaviour.

[DiscipleOfChrist96]

@sharkblubber So let me understand: you find the objection to contraception to be disgusting behavior, but you don't find forcing women to have abortions to be objectionable? What happened to their choice? What happened to their freedom? What is happening to our freedom when research is rejected because someone dislikes the conclusion the research points to? Let's not call politics "science". Let's distinguish between the two.

[sharkblubber]

@DiscipleOfChrist96 I find coercive measures as objectionable as a lack of voluntary contraception. Hope that clears things up:) In other words i find moshers attempts to ban voluntary contraception by placing it in the same box as coercive contraception disgusting. H places his personal religious beliefs above the rights of women to have contraceptive if they wish. by the way the UNFPA funded was granted again in 2009 after it was found that they weren't helping china with coercive measures.

[DiscipleOfChrist96]

This gets a negative mark? Is it because I don't agree with someone else? It certainly cannot be because of what I said or how I said it. So do I really get a negative mark for disagreeing with someone? Fascinating. I should see more negative marks then.

[Darkfrog24]

The true test of pro-choice vs. pro-abortion is that a pro-choice person and organization will defend with equal vehemence a woman's right to have an abortion and her right to not have one. Organizations like Planned Parenthood are pro-choice. Organizations like the current Chinese government are pro-abortion.

[irkone]

Meanwhile, the US was sterilizing unknowing Native American women throughout the 70s. US law as well as international law means nothing to the US.

[ASimpleSinner]

Just as wrong.

[DiscipleOfChrist96]

That is horrible! I hadn't heard that. I'm constantly amazed at how inhumane people can be to fellow humans, anywhere on the globe.

[DiscipleOfChrist96]

I am somewhat surprised that someone gave me a negative mark for saying that the clandestine sterilization of Native Americans or anyone else is awful. Boggles the mind.

[Stngraybch]

Excellent! "Thou Shalt Not Kill"

[roevswade]

This is one the most powerful video that I have seen on forced abortion!

thank you!

thank You!

for posting this

[jodydessi]

Hurray for Dr. Mosher and the PRI!!!

[sunnyc4u]

Great! We need more like this.

[ijamsville97]

NO ONE has the "right" to kill any one else! Not by abortion, not by war, not by "euthanasia," not by

"capital punishment." Life comes from God, through Nature. NO ONE has the "right" to extinguish it for ANY reason. Universal human dignity is our birthright! Stop the violence. CHOOSE LIFE!

-a Pro-Life Non-Violence RADICAL

[73mike06]

ijamsville97... I respect your passion for life and also see euthanasia and abortion as an affront to God. But I encourage you to look a little further into the death penalty: Scripture clearly states that since life is so precious to God, if a person commits a capital crime s/he loses their life. Man doesn't get to decide this, God does, since He created life. For more details take a look at "The Death Penalty" at biblicalblueprints-dot-org.

Blessings,

[ijamsville97]

I beg to differ. The God I answer to does not permit killing of any kind, no exceptions. We are all God's Creation; when we kill a person, for whatever human-invented excuse, it is a desecration, plain and simple.. my God is consistently Pro-Life and calls upon all of us to choose Life every time.

[73mike06]

Did you take a look at the booklet on the website I mentioned? Especially the answers to objections 2, 4, 8, and 11. To sum up the response to "it is consistently prolife to oppose capital punishment": it is prolife to deter/prevent criminals from future life-threatening criminal activity.

[73mike06]

It may cost the criminal his life, but for sure they wont kill anyone else. Romans12.19 says to righteous individuals "do not avenge yourselves" while Rom.13.4 says to lawbreaking individuals "be afraid for he (the ruler, v3) does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." (see Gen. 9.6) Thus individuals cannot form lynch mobs but the civil gov, with proper judicial procedures is duty-bound to punish evil.

[mommy984]

Yes, the OT talks about the death penalty. But don't forget the NT. While Christ didn't abolish the laws of the OT, He did fulfill them. He didn't advocate an eye for an eye (OT limit of just an eye and not more than an eye); rather, He said to turn the other cheek. He didn't stone the adulteress, even though that was the Law. He forgave her and told her to sin no more.He raised the bar past the OT and asks more from us. It seems Christ would be in favor of a life sentence over a death sentence.

[73mike06]

The context of Matt 5: Christ "did not come to destroy [the law] but to fulfill"; it continues to say (v18) "not one jot or tittle of the law will pass away" and "whoever breaks these commandments.. is least in the kingdom of heaven." Clearly "fulfilling the law" is not opposite of the continuance of the law. The law continues and Christ fulfilled it. Also see Romans 7.12-the "law is holy, just, and good." and Hebrews 2.2 "every transgression and disobedience received a just reward."

[73mike06]

So note that I am not "forgetting the NT". All my quotes were from the NT. Also, under OT law civil authorities carried out temporal punishment. Jesus could not prosecute the case, he was not a civil ruler. If he did, he would have been exacting vigilante justice.

[73mike06]

Last comment: your logic is flawed: you say "it seems [to you] that Jesus would be in favor of a life sentence." Did, in fact, Jesus give her a life sentence?? No. She got off 'scot free!' There is no such thing as a life sentence in the Bible, that is an invention of fallen man who substitutes human concepts of justice for God's concept of justice.

Is there a forum for discussing the death penalty, I don't want to sidetrack this from the murder of infants.

[mommy984]

"Life sentence" is a play on words. And when Christ fulfilled the Law, he called us to a higher standard, a greater respect for life. The OT people were like children. In the NT we're asked to grow up. Christ gave us all kinds of higher standards, regardless of the fact that he was not a civil authority. If you insist that the OT laws are all in play, then I assume you wear tassels and kill a Passover lamb? Not interested in a long discussion, just posted a comment.

[73mike06]

It would be helpful for you to quote Scripture that I can interact with. It's true that Christ called us all to a high standard (note: not higher, but high. the standard has always been high, infinitely high.),but don't forget that he was a tough guy. It is he who said we should hang millstones around the necks of those who deceive children.

[73mike06]

I think Heb 2.2 is critical--OT penalties were just; also Rom 7.12--the law is (present tense) holy and just; also Matt 5.18--the law will not pass away. All aspects of the law are valid--they were saved by the future atoning blood of Christ figured in the Paschal lamb, we are saved by the past atoning blood figured in the Lord's Supper. They circumcized, we baptize. Unless the NT clearly abrogates or changes an OT law, it s valid. Nowhere in the NT is the death penalty abrogated.

[ubermom]

Dr. Mosher (He earned the title, even though Stanford was too chickenshit to give it to him.) is doing work that he never imagined he'd end up doing. He saw something, was appalled, and was moved to act.

You have to question your own motives if you can condemn him for that.

[JolyHoe]

Good stuff, keep it up. To paraphrase Khrushchev, 'History is on our side',(and to the child killers)'We will bury you.'

[Clone019]

Mosher was denied his PHD for the reason that he went against the Stanford beauracratic and politically correct beliefs and views. At Stanford, they believed that scholarly exchange was more important than Human Rights. There is no doubt that some women would contracept, but forcing them is a Human Rights violation. And where is ACLU and all those organizations dedicated to Women's Rights and Human Rights?

[tislit72]

Mosher was expelled from Stanford's doctoral program in 1983, on grounds of illegal and unethical conduct in a research project in China. PRI lobbies the U.S. to stop funding to UNFPA based on the erroneous information that UNFPA is engaged in "population control." No doubt-forcing women not to have children is a denial of human rights but so is denying women's right to contraception and control over their bodies and fertility- two denials that Mosher strongly advocates for.

[dumberox]

Where do you get these "rights"? Rights to life, liberty and property can be founded on the objective world and the needs of our human nature. "Rights" as you and the rest of the Liberal world would like to invent to abort fetuses and "marry" whatever might well as extend to "rights" to steal, to lie, to kill -- which no doubt you would admit under the right circumstances too.

[ubermom]

The "unethical conduct" was that he published findings that the Chinese governmend did not want him to publish. This led the Chinese government to close their doors to Stanford students. So it was about getting what Stanford wanted -- access to China -- and not about anything that a normal human being would consider "unethical."

[geocentre]

Thank-you Mr. Mosher, Fr. Marx and PRI for showing the evilness of population control. People are the the world's greatest resource and the solution to its problems! GEORGE WOOLEY

SAVE THE BABY HUMANS FOUNDATION

[kencornelius]

Good description of this organization's background and purpose. They are doing good and important work and deserve support!

[grammybetbet]

This video is so disturbing and so powerful that anyone who views it must join Steven Mosher in trying to stop the murders of these innocent babies.

[midwestmuse]

It is shocking that so many people do not know what is being done to women in China and other countries. We must spread the word. Thank you for all your work.

[bcrane1917]

This is a video all should watch -- and then act to spread the word and help women.