Avoiding The “A” Word: DNC Hopes To Secure Democratic Victory With Good-Sounding UN Euphemisms
September 5, 2012
As Politico reported yesterday, the current Democratic platform is carefully avoiding taking a stand on one of the most divisive issues in the United States today: the practice and principle of terminating unborn life. Instead the current Democratic convention hopes to avert the looming spectre of electoral defeat, addressing the issue indirectly, framing the issue in such euphemistic words as “human rights”, “empowering women to make their own decisions”, and last but not least: “reproductive health”.
As national polls indicate, a majority of Americans now favours stricter regulations in regards to abortion. The Democratic National Convention therefore, from its own point of view, is wise to avoid using the “a” word as campaigning history has shown such words can and will be used by the other side to slam the democrats for recklessness at election time. Rather than taking their positions on the subject, the Democrats have included typical UN euphemisms designed to make abortion an issue of “human rights”.
As yesterday’s Politico article puts it:
“(…) don’t expect them to focus on abortion- or even necessarily use the word. Instead, they’ll defend Obama’s record on reproductive health and reproductive rights. And, as they have before, they’ll accuse GOP nominee Mitt Romney and his party of waging a “war on women.””
In their rhetorical manoeuvring, it looks like the democratic party is attempting to play into the feelings of the majority of “pro-choice” party-members, while at the same time avoiding a direct clash with a majority of the American people, not quite as inclined to embrace abortion as a morally viable option. By utilizing good-sounding euphemisms, the convention tries not to step on too many toes, but still defend and promote Obama’s intention of including contraceptive technology, including abortion, in insurance-packages- and what’s more: requiring American businesses to pay for them.
By the admission of many-a-demographer, abortion must be legal and easily accessible because it drives down the fertility rate. In one particular 2006 meeting, attended by the United Nations Population Fund, the International Planned Parenthood Foundation, the European Commission, the World Bank and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, one of the speakers admits to and utterly rejects the use of this “code” language.
“No more shrouding our statements in code. Because code just confuses people.”, the speaker said (page 33 in the document).
“It does this cause no service at all to continue to shroud family planning in the obfuscating phrase “sexual and reproductive health”. People don’t really know what it means. If we mean family planning or contraception, we must say it. If we are worried about population growth, we must say it. We must use proper, straightforward language. I am fed up with the political correctness that daren’t say the name population stabilization, hardly dares to mention family planning or contraception out of fear that somebody is going to get offended. It is pathetic.”
The United Nations Commission on Population and Development recently put out an announcement illustrating how euphemistic this language now emanating from the Democratic convention really is:
“Young people as much as all people share the human right to health, including sexual and reproductive health”, the document explains on page 3. Buried in the footnotes on the same page, the document explains what they mean when they say “young people”:
“young people: 10-24 year olds.”
This means that 10 year old children may be subjected to the UN’s defenition of sexual and reproductive health. We must not forget that by “reproductive health” the UN includes to mean “access to safe abortions”.
This is completely in line with a statement made not too long ago by the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)- also present, by the way, at the convention. According to C-FAM the IPPF sent in their endorsement of the UN’s conference by stating:
“laws that restrict young people’s access to sexual and reproductive health services, including parental or spousal consent laws” must either be removed or be refrained from being implemented. IPAS goes even further and argues that youth should be considered independent actors free of any obstacles that ignore their own “capacity to make informed decisions.”
In a 2007 publication by the UN Population Fund several proposals for pro-abortion propaganda are openly being discussed, among which:
“(…) reproductive health education in the schools; programmes for out-ofschool youths and early married girls, social marketing of condoms; using mass and entertainment media to disseminate messages (…)”.
A 2009 draft report on International Guidelines on Sexuality Education proposes desensitizing children as young as 5 to the concepts of masturbation and incrementally preparing them for the concept of aborting life. Although the report sparked a mild controversy in the beginning of September, the final Conference Ready Version of the report has not removed the proposals.
In the 2009 report authors Nanette Ecker and Douglas Kirby propose five different age ranges and just as many teaching methodologies for ‘sexuality education’ to confront children with. The reason given for all this is ‘HIV prevention’ in order to achieve ‘Universal Access Targets.’ According to the Ecker and Kirby, the first thing to impress upon 5 year old children (under the header “Key Ideas”) is that “many different kinds of families exist around the world (e.g. two-parent, single parent, child-headed, guardian-headed, extended and nuclear families, same-sex couple parents, etc.).”
Proposed as “Key Ideas” to impress the impressionable with are, in the age range of 5 to 8:
1: “People receive messages about sex, gender and sexuality from their cultures and religions”.
2: “How harmful cultural/traditional practices affect health and well-being.”
3: “Difference between consensual sexual activity and forced sex.”
4: “Girls and boys have private body parts that can feel pleasurable when touched by oneself.”
5: “Touching and rubbing one’s genitals is called masturbation.”
6: “Some people masturbate and some do not.”
7: “Bodies can feel good when touched.”
8: “Some people are unable to care for a child.”
The last-mentioned “Key Idea” is obviously meant to prepare the children for the possibility of an abortion- for one of the “Key Ideas” mentioned in a later age range, 9 to 12, includes “definition of abortion” and “legal status of abortion locally and globally”. The learning curve is made complete when the authors propose, in the age range of 15 to 18, “advocacy to promote the right to and access to safe abortion.”
In a section called ‘common concerns about the provision of sexuality education’, the authors try to ‘debunk’ possible concerns about delivering this information to the very young. One of the concerns the authors toss up is “sexuality education deprives children of their ‘innocence’.”
“Parents”, according to the authors, “are often reluctant to engage in discussion of sexual matters with children because of cultural norms, their own ignorance or discomfort.”
To quote co-author Nanette Ecker: “We (…) need to start sexuality education young, such as teaching 5- to 8- year-olds the correct terminology about their bodies and how they work so they have the language to ask questions or report abusive, coercive behaviour or sexual violence.”
The World Health Organization shares this point of view. In the appendix to the above mentioned monstrosity can be read: “The World Health Organization (WHO) concludes it is critical that sexuality education be started early (…).”
“The International Guidelines”, say the authors, “will have immediate relevance for education ministers and their professional staff, including curriculum developers, school principals and teachers. However, anyone involved in the design, delivery and evaluation of sexuality education, in and out of school, may find this document useful.”
The Democratic party and Barack Obama are not only supporting an agenda that has been outlined some time ago by the United Nations, they are- as the record now shows- also using its deceptive vocabulary to sell this agenda to the party and the nation.
Be the first to like this.