ROME -- Italy has long been an acknowledged world leader in fashion and food, but rarely in its tri-millennial history has it stood as a beacon of political acumen. Yet last week, the same soil that gave us Machiavelli seemed to take the lead in showing the world how to seriously commit to reducing abortions.
The Italian parliament, perhaps best known for plunking porn stars side-by-side with Mussolini's granddaughter and brawling like soccer hooligans, for once put differences aside earlier this month, and agreed on a resolution to be presented to the UN Assembly condemning abortion as a means of population control.
It was Rocco Buttiglione, a lifelong friend of the late Pope John Paul II, who presented the motion, which "committed the Government to promote, by seeking the necessary consensus, a United Nations resolution condemning the use of abortion as a means of population control and asserting the right of every woman not to be forced to have abortions, and promoting policies that help to remove the economic causes and social consequences of abortion."
The motion passed with only a few abstentions by the center-left parties that had proposed their own versions of the resolution, repeating the condemnation of abortion for demographic control but emphasizing the importance of contraception. Parliament rejected these formulations in favor of Professor Buttiglione's more straightforward statement.
Italy rejoiced in its triumph of dialogue and bipartisan cooperation. Buttilgione pointed out that the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" battle lines have become so entrenched that the two sides seem like the Hatfields and McCoys of social issues -- and offered his motion as a template for an armistice where the opposing views could join forces "to fight together against those in the world who are both against life and against choice."
Abortion as a form of demographic control takes many forms in the world. In countries promoting a one-child policy such as China, an estimated 100 million children have been aborted just for being female. In others, women are promised aid in return for aborting children.
Of course, the land of Michelangelo's David will have some pretty big Goliaths to face in the UN. And in the U.S., a recent statement by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in an interview for the New York Times magazine seemed to many of us to reveal elite sympathy for abortion as a means to cull the population. Discussing the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, Ginsburg said, "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion." Justice Ginsburg made no effort to backtrack or clarify the remark, which seemed to tacitly countenance population control through abortion.
As Politics Daily's Carl Cannon wrote yesterday, Ginsburg could have taken these words from the lips of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, and a strong proponent of the eugenics movement, who wrote, "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control," in her Birth Control Review in May 1919.
Italy has long since ceased to be the home of the stereotypically large raucous family living in joyful poverty; it now has one of the lowest birth rates in world, with a natural population growth of less than 0.1% a year. Yet in this land of contradictions, the Italians continue to love life and children. Would that this recent effort at 'common ground' on reducing the number of abortions might some day rival Prada as Italy's greatest export.
What a blow to George Soros, Barack Obama, and the Progressives of America this must be. With abortion being one of our leading exports under Obama, this resolution will fall on large, deaf ears.
Is this evidence of a further split between Europe and the Obama administration's extremist stance on issues from abortion to economic policy? Does this mean Italy won't be inviting Science Czar, John Holdren, to Italy for his opinion on population control, or the water supply?
What happened to the promise of harmony with our allies in Europe under Obama's "we're wrong, and we admit it, ad nauseam" foreign policy? Or were we wrong only pre-Obama?
Europe is pulling in its Socialist/Progressive horns while Obama is intent on teaching the American Eagle how to fly with the chains it can't be free in. In an era where the Eagle has crash landed, some in Europe are apparently trying to fill the vacancy in moral leadership. What's next, Russia and China conducting an airlift to the red states?
RATE THIS COMMENT: (4)
Paul
2:47PM Jul 23rd 2009
What? Abortion is our biggest export? Grow up. Where is it written that Obama wants to use abortion as a form of population control? The position that the Obama Administration, and several administrations before him going all the way back to Roe v Wade, has is one of Abortion being the women's choice and no one else's. Obama does not go around saying who and who does not have to have an abortion.
The promise of harmony with all of our allies is going to be maintained by Obama. Just because 2 nations may differ on an issue does not mean they will break off all ties and declare war on each other.
This is just more fear mongering rhetoric being spewed by the mouths of the uninformed and illogical speakers.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-3)
Rheinhart Moxon
4:45PM Jul 23rd 2009
Is this evidence of a further split between Europe and the Obama administration's extremist stance on issues from abortion to economic policy? Does this mean Italy won't be inviting Science Czar, John Holdren, to Italy for his opinion on population control, or the water supply?
What happened to the promise of harmony with our allies in Europe under Obama's "we're wrong, and we admit it, ad nauseam" foreign policy? Or were we wrong only pre-Obama? ===================
LOL - just because WADE/Truth is IGNORANT of what goes on the world, doesn't mean that his beliefs have any validity in the real world!
America's reputation has improved dramatically since the days of Dear Leader George "I'ma War President" Bush, thanks to President Obama.
Even the Brits TRUST America again! As do other Europeans! Israel not so much, probably because the get Welfare from us and like any Welfare recipient they hate to lose their benefits (Clinton lost a lot of support from Welfare recipients when he changed the rules back in the 1990's, so why should Israel be any different!
============== Global Views of U.S. Helped by Obama, Survey Says By BRIAN KNOWLTON Published: July 23, 2009
WASHINGTON — A new global survey has found a vast improvement in views of the United States since the election of President Barack Obama. But it also finds broad opposition to one of his key policies — sending more troops to Afghanistan — and confirms a drop in confidence in the United States among Israelis.
Mr. Obama, according to the survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, enjoys greater confidence among Germans than does Chancellor Angela Merkel, and among the French than President Nicolas Sarkozy. His election in itself, pollsters found, helped restore the United States’ image abroad to levels unseen since the Clinton years.
Improved attitudes toward the United States were most marked in Western Europe, but also evident in Asia, Africa and Latin America, as well as some predominantly Muslim countries.
In Indonesia, where Mr. Obama spent part of his youth, no fewer than 73 percent of those polled said that his election had directly improved their opinion of the United States.
But the survey, taken among more than 26,000 people in 24 countries, plus the Palestinian territories, found that anti-American animosity remained high in places like Pakistan, Turkey and among Palestinians.
Europeans, in particular, seemed to be responding positively to Mr. Obama. The number of Britons saying that they trusted the American president to do the “right thing” in world affairs soared to 86 percent this year, under Mr. Obama, compared with just 16 percent last year, under President George W. Bush. The increase was slightly larger in both Germany and France.
The right thing numbers also jumped in all Middle Eastern countries surveyed — except Israel, which saw no statistical change.
Yes, yes, everyone's delicate sensibilities are shocked by such matters. HOWEVER, didja ever notice how these same people rail against "welfare queens" and illegal immigrants coming here to breed etc. when it comes to funding tax cuts, its from the most vulnerable in our society. By the way, pre-Roe, rich gals could always manage to get an abortion from a doctor. It was poor women who were getting butchered.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-2)
lsaidsltdown
3:29AM Jul 24th 2009
Yup...we rail against immigrants and welfare queens breeding, but nowhere no how did we say "kill the kids". See, that's the biggest problem with the baby-killing sect.....the same flippin' hypocrites who protest the execution of convicted serial killers support the execution of innocents under the disgusting guise of "choice".
You people have absolutely no moral ground to stand on, so you step on the Constitution instead. You yank out the second amendment and scream "Our forefathers did not intend for every citizen to have a gun", yet somehow think they were okay with the first amendment being used to justify the wanton killing of 1,000,000 people a year.
Oh, just to reiterate.....it's STILL the privileged girls getting the abortions, because the welfare queens are still spitting them out like grape seeds at a summer picnic.
I won't compliment these queens on their sexual proclivities, but they sure stand head and shoulders above you on the moral pedestal because they would NEVER even think of having an abortion.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (1)
originlcin
9:15AM Jul 23rd 2009
Oh, and this all could be avoided if, in China, like elsewhere, men would take 20 minutes at the urologists' and get a vasectomy.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-1)
lsaidsltdown
3:31AM Jul 24th 2009
Ouch!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (1)
lsaidsltdown
3:35AM Jul 24th 2009
Or if women would keep their legs closed. Since women are the ones who have to bear this burden, common sense should pop into their heads sometime before the act is consummated and think "oops....I can get pregnant and that's going to be inconvenient".
It's really not a testament to the purported intelligence of American women. I mean seriously, if we are performing 1,000,000 abortions a year, then we have more than our fair share of women who are paralyzed from the neck up.....but unfortunately, not from the waist down.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (2)
Willet
10:27AM Jul 23rd 2009
Well, Elizabeth, you look old enough to remember the original arguments concerning abortion in the late 1970's. Back then, abortion was sold as a measure to end a pregnancy cause by rape, incest or if the mother's life was in danger and not a method of birth control. I don't recall any backlash from anyone.
But, as people began to buy into it, another reason for abortion was put out there. Pregnant teens were either attempting to perform abortions on themselves or going to Mexico for them. In both cases the results were disastrous and the "home" methods were out right barbaric.
Unsucessful abortions were young women who bled to death from attempting an abortion on themselves; a sucessful abortion meant she could no longer have children.
So this was the spin back then. Now we're saying this was all BS? Abortion was always meant to be a method of population control? Fine.
But my question is who decides which segment of the population needs controlling...Ruth Bader Gingsberg, Diane Fienstein, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi? Or maybe Ivy League Scholars? And once they've targeted a segment of the population, who decides how large this segment can get before they consider it to be at an unacceptable level?
RATE THIS COMMENT: (4)
Gina
10:41AM Jul 23rd 2009
I think what Ginsburg meant was that at that time there were people in our society (as in all societies) that wanted some form of population control for people they deemed as undesirables. I don't think she meant she felt that way. I think she was trying to show that people were trying to use Roe v Wade as a means for population control and that the law was not allowed to go that way. While we have all seen people who we privately think should never be allowed to reproduce we cannot allow laws that dictate who is allowed to have children. Who would decide that, what would be the criteria? Only smart people are allowed to have kids? Only people that are good looking? Who decides?
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
Rheinhart Moxon
4:48PM Jul 23rd 2009
Remember the GOP spokesperson Bill Bennett intoning that aborting black babies would lower the crime rate?
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-3)
Jack W. Nealy
11:59AM Jul 23rd 2009
I totally agree with the Italian stance prohibiting abortion as a means of population control. Although I am pro-choice, allowing the government to make any choices about one's body or right to live in the spirit of checking the population is an absolute no no.
OBAMA SAYS WORK HARDER AMERICA! 20 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS NEED MEDICAL BENEFITS. . . (OBAMADECEPTION.NET)
RATE THIS COMMENT: (2)
pgbrooke
6:46PM Jul 23rd 2009
This position is too ironic coming from Catholic Italy. These silly people will not even acknowledge birth control (other than pull and release ... oh yea, that works well). How many lives could be saved if that sick church would hand out condoms at Mass? This is just the Vatican messing in politics, again.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-1)
Rheinhart Moxon
7:46PM Jul 23rd 2009
Wasn't the Pope in the Hitler Youth? Didn't they support population control via post-birth abortion?
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-2)
David S.
11:41PM Jul 23rd 2009
Why didn't the Pope's "friend" also condemn birth control? Or has the church changed its stance on that? Was there a Vatican III and no one told us? Just more hypocrisy from the Catholic church -- abortion is bad, birth control is too, but look the other way on that one (wink, wink).
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-2)
Welcome Mr. Robb
7:29AM Jul 29th 2009
Spare us all puleeez Mr and Mrs Patriotic American! We Americans are no longer a beacon of freedom and justice, as GW Bush pretty much raped that idea out of our Constitution. What the world thinks of us now? They think that we talk the talk but can't walk the walk with our balls dragging on the ground. "America, the beacon of freedom?" Sure! As long as terrorists don't attack us or else all bets are off! We will rendition, torture, and even kill people just because we "suspect" they may be terrorists. Justice? Sure, we will deliver justice in form of MOABs on you, even if YOUR NATION did not attack us -- for good measure we will accuse you of possesing WMDs and even lie to the world that you are about to cut the yellow cake on us. We are just a pathetic empire that wants your oil at all costs!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (1)
Robb
7:33AM Jul 29th 2009
Spare us all puleeez Mr and Mrs Patriotic American! We Americans are no longer a beacon of freedom and justice, as GW Bush pretty much raped that idea out of our Constitution. What the world thinks of us now? They think that we talk the talk but can't walk the walk with our balls dragging on the ground. "America, the beacon of freedom?" Sure! As long as terrorists don't attack us or else all bets are off! We will rendition, torture, and even kill people just because we "suspect" they may be terrorists. Justice? Sure, we will deliver justice in form of MOABs on you, even if YOUR NATION did not attack us -- for good measure we will accuse you of possesing WMDs and even lie to the world that you are about to cut the yellow cake on us. We are just a pathetic empire that wants your oil at all costs!