You Can't Spin This.

A Miscarriage Of Justice: Forced C-section
posted by M Caulfield December 5, 2013

Accusations have been increasing over the years regarding the questionable intentions of social service workers, and those who confiscate children from their families. The increase in child kidnappings at the hands of the state complements the growing adoption trend, and market for newborn and young children. Social services have even been accused of receiving bonuses for taking children away from their families. Although there are many instances when the natural parents are not good for the child, separating a child from their family is a serious thing and can damage their ability to form attachments if done wrong.

__________________________

This issue needs serious discussion, but it is not welfare workers who are the problem. As this article is entirely based on the premise that mothers are caregivers, I intend to shatter that myth.

Welfare workers are handicapped by the global delusion that wants to believe mothers have their children's interests in mind. In reference to any other mammal species, that would be quite clearly be accurate. In this species, however, we do things in reverse to what is natural / biological / sane. Humans are the only mammal species that is inhumane and mothers don't want to accept the blame for anything negative their children are responsible for but they'll obsessively take ownership of their children's achievements.



It's not that mothers are merely failing in their primary role as caregivers who - if every other mammal species can be used as a guide - should want to lay down their lives to protect their defenceless young; it's not that human mothers are merely failing to protect children from predators but rather that they are the predators. Humans have no Natural threats. It's absurd that the premise could even be controversial. The truth is not remotely subtle nor disputable; human mothers do not have their children's best interests in mind.

UNICEF: Child Mortality

Child survival lies at the heart of everything UNICEF does. About 29,000 children under the age of five die every day, mainly from preventable causes. 

More than 70 per cent of almost 11 million child deaths are preventable. Research and experience show that six million of the almost 11 million children who die each year could be saved by low-tech, evidence-based, cost-effective measures such as vaccines, antibiotics, micronutrient supplementation, insecticide-treated bed nets and improved family care and breastfeeding practices.

UNICEF has to use politically correct language but I am not restricted by the need to be incorrect. It is correct to point out that UNICEF are reporting six of the 11 million toddlers dying annually are being killed by something getting in between the intent and capacity to save their lives and their lives being saved. Low-tech, cost-effective = not a funding issue. Evidence-based = not a medical issue. But you cannot give vaccines, antibiotics, supplements, mosquito nets and care to a children when mothers won't cooperate. It is correct to point out that UNICEF is placing the blame for the deaths of six million children per annum on malicious mothers.

Motive? UNICEF can't reveal gender %. You'll find the vast majority of the 11 million are girls and an even higher % of the six million would be female. Is it Society that doesn't value girls or is it women who have a problem with competition? Men have no problem with girls, misogyny is marital hatred of competition that wives and mothers cannot compete with.

This horrific genocide of girls should make every human livid. I don't consider the desire of mothers to preserve the illegitimate over-valuation of their corrupted brand to be valid when they would rather everyone "think positive" than address the global abuse of girls at the hands of women. The issue is far greater than the mind-numbing horror of 6,000,000 needless deaths or 11,000,000 unnecessary deaths of toddlers every year; mothers failing to act in the interests of their children is traumatic abuse and perfidious betrayal of biological trust that affects every child in the world. For the 6 million, it's cold-blooded murder. Their lives could and would be saved but for the mothers who won't let UNICEF save them.

Children are needed instead of wanted, made dependent instead of independent, made to endure contrived suffering instead of being allowed to enjoy Natural happiness, made selfless (self-defeating, self-sacrificial, needy, inhumane) instead of selfish (self-reliant, self-sufficient, need-free, humane).

No child needs a mother that needs children to suffer. This world to snap out of their filthy denial and aversion to reliving repressed maternal trauma at the hands of mother who cannot even tender their motives for needing to bring Their Own life to a world that kills 29,000 human toddlers every single day. I've asked hundreds of mothers to explain their need to give life when so much life was being taken for want of a mother's love, only to be given the answer indirectly when they launched vitriolic and violent attacks in lieu of answering a simple, inherently valid question. Only Evil has a problem with answering questions. There is no conjecture in reality; mothers breed life explicitly for betrayal.

Below you'll find a smoking gun that reveals the truth about the motives of women who need to be mothers. Children's suffering becomes a question of relevance and if the suffering threatens to interrupt the narrative, even torture is no longer relevant.

nb. Fragile X syndrome is the leading cause of mental retardation. Advanced prenatal carrier testing can ensure no child ever needs to be born with this tragic mutation. It's a (shortened) life sentence of miserable dependency, guaranteed suffering and agony, prevented from gaining independence. Humanitarian medical researchers have developed the science to ensure no child ever needs to be born with this syndrome. There's just one small problem. It's a big problem, the biggest problem, perhaps the only problem that has ever existed; the suffering of children is not relevant to mothers who need dependants. 

Attitudes toward fragile X mutation carrier testing from women identified in a general population survey.

The most salient finding of this work is the apparent lack of relevance of carrier status to these women. Many expressed that although the information could be relevant in the future, it is not relevant at this stage of their lives in terms of family planning (either with respect to having unaffected offspring or to premature ovarian failure) and personal relationships. Although issues of abortion seemed prominent in the focus groups, we found that carrier status did not have an apparent effect on women's attitudes about termination.

You can't spin that.