Monday, February 22, 2010

Prove you love Jesus!

Prove you love Jesus!

“If you love homosexuals, support pro-homosexuality laws”.

By Julio Severo
In the early times of Christianity, Roman Empire forced Christians to deny Jesus, under death threats. But faithful Christians proved to Jesus their love, not renouncing him or denying him. They were not afraid of being martyred for Jesus’ sake.
Yet, do not think that the strategy from darkness does not change. Today, while the State works eagerly to impose capital punishment on the Christian expression and testimony in the society, trendy voices demand another kind of behavior from Christians.
On the homosexual issue, the leftist media and homosexual groups yell, “If you love Jesus, approve anti-discrimination laws” — which sanctify homosexuality making it exempt from criticism. They also aggressively raise “homophobia” charges against Christians, saying, “If you do not approve those laws, thousands of homosexuals will be murdered, and Jesus does not want it. Prove your Christian love!”
If you do not follow their instructions on the “right way of loving Jesus”, you are immediately charged of being intolerant. If you dare to say that “you love homosexuals, but that homosexuality is a sin”, they will say that you are promoting hate and violence.
What to do when the society, or the spiritual forces manipulating it, craftily uses the words in the Bible to push Christians to approve laws that will eventually make sin sacred and produce persecution and death to the Christian testimony in the society?
If you have ever been led to a situation where words in the Bible were used to force you to follow determined direction, know that you are not the first victim of this exploitation,
And Satan said to Jesus, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written: ‘He shall give His angels charge over you,’ and, ‘In their hands they shall bear you up, Lest you dash your foot against a stone’”. (Matthew 4:6)
Answering the devil that was manipulating the words in the Bible, Jesus said, “You shall not tempt the LORD your God.” (Matthew 4:7 NKJV)
Jesus answered with God’s Word because he knew it very well.
The devil twists anything to achieve its intents. This is why certain anti-discrimination laws, which are covertly aimed at promoting homosexuality, are strategically entitled laws of “protection for the homosexual minority”. The plot is evident: to frame all criticism to the gay agenda in those laws as a direct assault against the “protection for the homosexual minority”!
This exploitation is purported to leave Christians and others in an unpleasing defensive situation: If you do not approve those laws, you support violence and murders of homosexuals.
Strange voices insistently demand from Christians,
“Those laws are only to protect homosexuals”.
“If you do not approve them, you are not a Christian”.
“If you do not approve them, you do not love homosexuals”.
“If you do not approve them, you do not love Jesus!”
Have you ever heard those voices?
And the shrewdness of those voices does not end there. Thousands of pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality socialist politicians have been elected in the whole world by millions of Christian voters that have been misled by the fraudulent proposals from socialism. Many of those Christians ask the question, “Is it ok for me to vote for a pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality candidate?” Immediately the voices appease them, “Do not worry about the abortion and homosexuality issue. There are things more important to consider. The most important is that this candidate is in favor of the poor. Wasn’t Jesus in favor of the poor? If you love Jesus and the poor, vote for him”.
The devil is neither in favor of the poor nor of the Bible, but he always manipulate them when convenient. So if you do not know sufficiently God’s Word, the world and the devil himself are going to use the words in the Bible to tell you what you should do to prove your love for God.
To answer these attacks, you should know God’s Word much more that the world and the devil do.
Then you will not need to follow their orders to demonstrate your love. You will demonstrate it to Jesus. And the world will hate you as much as it hated the One that demonstrated maximum love for all the human beings. Jesus said,
“And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end shall be saved.” (Mark 13:13 NKJV)
“If you had anything in common with the world, the world would love you as one of its own. But you don’t have anything in common with the world. I chose you from the world, and that’s why the world hates you.” (John 15:19 GWV)
However, the devil and the world make special promises to those that avoid being hated: ignore God’s commands. Do the world’s will, and its hate against you ends. Approve pro-homosexuality laws, and the world and the devil will praise you. Had not Jesus himself warned about it 2,000 years ago?
“Woe to you when all men speak well of you, For so did their fathers to the false prophets.” (Luke 6:26 NKJV)
“How horrible it will be for you when everyone says nice things about you. That’s the way their ancestors treated the false prophets.” (Luke 6:26 GWV)
In the Roman Empire, the order was,
“Deny Jesus or die!”
The modern order is,
“Love Jesus, but deny his commands. As a reward, everybody will praise you”.
The same devil that persecuted and murdered the first Christians is offering a compromise for the modern Christians, “You do not need to deny your love for Jesus. Just deny God’s commands!”
If you do not comply, they will spill on you infernal hate and have even the brazenness to defame you as hate and violence promoter. Those that are intolerant, threatening and violent against your testimony will have the cynicism to charge you of intolerant, “homophobic” and instigator of crimes, and your free speech will be speedily beheaded.
Yet, Truth will prevail, because the Holy Spirit is active convincing of sin and unrighteousness.
The true love for Jesus always goes together with God’s commands. Jesus said,
“He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.” (John 14:21 NKJV)
About homosexuality, God’s command is clear,
“If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13 NKJV)
“Do ye not know that unrighteous persons shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor abusive persons, nor the rapacious, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Darby)
The counterfeit, worldly and devilish version of “love for Jesus” does not contain God’s commands, and its use is exclusively to induce, press and mislead the emotions of Christians to approve laws that are not according to God’s laws.
Therefore, if you want to prove your love for Jesus, just follow his commands — regardless what the counterfeit versions of “love for Jesus” try to impose on you.
If you want to prove your love for Jesus, tell the truth to homosexuals and the society. Tell that they are in need of Jesus to be saved from hell. And let Jesus use you to deliver men that are captive in the homosexual sin.
If you love homosexuals, let them know that there is a way out from the homosexual sin, even though you are afraid to be morally martyred by anti-“homophobia” lynchers.
The demonstration of this love and the truth implies many risks today, including malicious and criminal charges of hate incitation, intolerance, violence, discrimination, prejudice, “homophobia”, etc.
Many Christians, wanting to avoid problems, answer “Yes” to the voice that says, “If you love Jesus or if you love homosexuals, approve laws favoring homosexuality”. By their silence to the truth that disturbs the world and the devils, they get false security, comfort and many praises.
Yet, those insisting in speaking the truth suffer viciously by the hate sowers. And the time is speedily coming near when innocent men and women may be condemned to prison for telling that “homosexuality is a sin”.
In the presence of the modern haters that use any and every defamation and are ready to throw Christians into the lion’s dens, who will be courageous to prove his love for Jesus by following his commands and speaking the truth?
Portuguese version of this article: Prove que você ama Jesus!
Read more:

Friday, February 05, 2010

Lula Has No One But Himself to Blame for Falling Out of Grace with Foreign Press

Lula Has No One But Himself to Blame for Falling Out of Grace with Foreign Press

Written by Augusto Zimmermann
The supporters of president Lula in Brazil constantly remind us that he is very appreciated by foreign journalists. Well, I bring some bad news to these people: Lula is definitively not as "loved" as he once was.
In a certain way, everything started to change when Brazil decided to support the request from Cuba and Libya to suspend the consultative status of the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) within the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.
In joining with Libya and several other undemocratic nations with an extensive record of human-rights violations such as China, Cuba, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, Brazil voted for the suspension of one of the few organizations representing freedom of the press to have consultative status within that important branch of the U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
Another conflict of interest took place in 2004, during the controversial attempt that was made by the Lula administration to expel the American journalist Larry Rohter, a correspondent from the New York Times. His visa had been cancelled because he dared to write an article airing widespread public concerns over the President's drinking habits.
As everybody knows, as a result of receiving widespread criticism from the international media, President Lula, stubbornly sticking to his guns, saw it fit to end the imbroglio with a farce. Unable to retreat from his own radical stance without losing face, he decided to interpret as a 'retraction' a letter in which the journalist actually confirms what he wrote in the article. Thus, the whole matter was solved not as a result of respect to legality, but rather out of the apparent magnanimity of Lula.
The President's kind-hearted generosity notwithstanding, he found himself once again criticised in the international media when Brazil abstained on United Nations resolutions condemning numerous human-rights abuses in the Congo, Sri Lanka and North Korea.
In this respect, a recent article in Newsweek accuses the Brazilian government of being completely silent on the genocidal policies of the Islamic government of Sudan. It even refrained from voting to grant human rights monitors a wider brief in that troubled country, and only reversed course in June last year after a public outcry by human-rights organisations.
Newsweek also informs its millions of readers that the "Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez has no better friend than Lula, even as the former has muzzled the media, bullied rivals, and smothered trade unions," even though Human Rights Watch accuses his political regime of widespread human-rights violations, including the restriction of free speech, the killing of political opponents, police torture and politicisation of the judiciary. Even so, Lula has told Newsweek that Venezuela is a democracy and that "each country establishes the democratic regime that suits its people."
That Lula is also developing excellent ties of friendship with the Iranian President Ahmadinejad has also not been ignored. According to Newsweek, such reality can be evidenced by the fact that Lula has "stoutly defended Iran's nuclear program and even invited Ahmadinejad to visit Brazil."
In addition, the United Press International (UPI) published an article commenting that Lula has even questioned the right of the Iranian people to protest against those fraudulent elections, pointing out: " "In Brazil we also have people who do not accept electoral defeats."
Brazil's apparent support for Iran, when even China and Russia condemned its nuclear program, has been interpreted as a disastrous move.
According to a recent editorial from The Washington Post, the Brazilian support shows that the West was actually right in not offering the country a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. To have a more positive influence in the world, the editorial says, Brazil should immediately stop embracing pariahs such as Ahmadinejad.
With regard to its dabbling in Central American politics, The Wall Street Journal has published an article contending that the Brazilian intervention in Honduras was a major obstacle to the peaceful (and democratic) solution of the crisis in that country.
Written by Dr Susan Kaufman Purcell, the director of the Center for Hemispheric Policy at the University of Miami, the article says that during the crisis in Honduras Lula stood behind the ousted President Manuel Zelaya, who attempted to follow in the steps of his Venezuelan ally Hugo Chavez, particularly in regard to his desire to change the Honduran constitution to scrap presidential term limits, which was the reason for his being ousted.
When Zelaya took refuge in the Brazilian embassy, the cable news network CNN reported in its website that Brazil's Foreign Minister Celso Amorim declared that the ousted Honduran president had been popularly elected, and that Brazil would not tolerate any actions against the embassy.
The position was considered extremely hypocritical, because Brazil had just voted in the Organization of American States (OAS) to lift the membership ban on Cuba - a country that has not held a democratic election in 50 years. This Brazilian vote contradicts the organization's democratic charter.
So it is no wonder that many foreign journalists are now getting quite suspicious of president Lula. The fact that he values so much the friendship of dictators and mass-murderers can be interpreted as sign that he is neither a true democrat nor particularly interested in the protection of basic human rights.
Hence, if Lula completely falls out of grace with the foreign press he has only himself (and his disastrous' foreign policies) to blame.
Portuguese version of this article: “Romance” com Lula está no fim
Dr Augusto Zimmermann teaches law at Murdoch University, Australia.
Source: Brazzil            
Read more:
The cost of the high popularity of Lula

Thursday, February 04, 2010

Homeschooling PEC in the Brazilian House of Representatives

Homeschooling PEC in the Brazilian House of Representatives

If approved, will Brazil have state homeschooling? 

By Julio Severo 
The Brazilian House of Representatives will examine PEC 444/09 (Proposal of Amendment to the Constitution 444/09), by Rep. Wilson Picler (PDT-PR), which authorizes homeschooling for students between the ages of 4 and 17. If approved in all the levels and committees, the same controls, oversight and bureaucracy of the public education will be imposed in the new educational modality. 
Right in the style of communist governments, the Lula administration quickly approved in the end of the last year his own PEC, which lowers the age of compulsory education to 4, that is, the Brazilian Constitution was modified by Lula to force parents to deliver their 4 year-old children to the school. There was no opposition and obstacle for the approval of Lula’s educational PEC. 
However, the homeschooling PEC faces severe challenges and dangers. The House committees that will examine it are dominated by socialists ready to approve educational dictatorship and equally ready to obstruct educational freedom. If they cannot obstruct, they are able to turn freedom into dictatorship. 
Different from the past Brazilian Constitutions, which allowed homeschooling, the current Constitution, elaborated by many socialists, has been interpreted by courts and by the Department of Education as giving the State the supreme power to force parents to send their children to school — the only institution considered as perfect, by the Department of Education and by statists, for the learning and socialization of children and adolescents. 
According to researches and media reports, the learning and socialization prevailing at the Brazilian public schools is Marxist education, drugs, violence and sex.  
Some parents try to protect their children of that state “learning and socialization” by choosing homeschooling, but they are persecuted by Children Protective Services and other government agencies, being accused by the crime of intellectual abandonment, involving prison and fines. 
According to Rep. Wilson Picler, it is necessary for the State “to regulate the right to homeschooling in such a way that parents or guardians may obtain from the competent authorities the authorization to homeschool and that their children and teens may be regularly examined by educational officials”. 
If the homeschooling PEC is approved with the same controls that there is today in the public education, the result will be: 
Educational deficiency. By the force of stupid bureaucracies, the public school system of Brazil is producing stupid students. What will happen if the same bureaucracy is imposed on homeschooling? 
The disfigurement of homeschooling. A homeschooling strictly controlled by state education authorities strongly engaged in the Marxist ideology will serve the government’s interests, guaranteeing its own freedom of action within families, but it will remove the parents’ freedom, and freedom is the essential element of democracy. 
However it may be, different from Lula’s educational PEC that was approved with a lot of easiness, the homeschooling PEC will be analyzed by the House Committee on Constitution, Justice and Citizenship, whose members are mostly socialists. If approved, it may suffer modifications in order to serve the government’s tastes. 
Picler is a member of PDT, the socialist party founded by Socialist International vice-president Leonel Brizola, the man that was saved by Jimmy Carter in the 1970s and created the infamous CIEPS of state education in Rio de Janeiro. The vast damages the ideology of Brizola caused in Rio were so large that even today Rio has not been able to recover.
The Picler PEC is receiving support from Cleber Nunes and Cláudio Oliver, a Protestant minister that became known in Curitiba for his pro-Lula engagement and militancy. 
To read more on the amendment in Portuguese, click here.
Portuguese version of this article: PEC da educação em casa na Câmara dos Deputados
With information from Agência Câmara 
Read more:

Monday, February 01, 2010

The “unwanted” and the untruthfulness propaganda

The “unwanted” and the untruthfulness propaganda 

Answering pro-abortion arguments of Brazilian newspaper Folha de S. Paulo 

By Julio Severo 
Everything begins in the mass propaganda, and the big media, which has a virtual monopoly of that propaganda, can provoke immense alterations in the mindset of the population. The Nazi propaganda czar used to say that a lie repeated a thousand times eventually becomes truth. Such repetition in the big media may turn in the popular mind hate into love and vice-versa, and death into life, and vice-versa. 
However, the debate now no longer is about the life of the “unwanted” Jews in the media of Nazi Germany. The debate now deals with the “unwanted” unborn babies in the modern media of Brazil. 
In his article “Abortando o problema” (Aborting the problem), Hélio Schwartsman, columnist and editorialist of Folha de S. Paulo, advocated abortion with the following argument: 
“Let us suppose for a brief instant that laws and institutions worked properly in Brazil and that all of the women that induce or try to induce in themselves an abortion outside of the hypotheses allowed in law (life risk for the mother or pregnancy resulting from rape) were identified, prosecuted and jailed. In this case, we would need to build 5,5 new feminine prisons (facilities of 500 vacancies) a day just to shelter about 1 million former would-be mothers that interrupt their pregnancies illegally every year”. 
I don’t know from which top hat Schwartsman got that rabbit of 1 million to base his calculations, since it is an old habit of the pro-abortion propaganda in Brazil to swell numbers. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a Jewish doctor that became the director of the largest abortion clinic in the Western world and oversaw 60,000 abortion procedures, has admitted concerning the propaganda before the legalization of abortion in the US: 
“How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL, we generally emphasized the frame of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always ‘5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.’ I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the ‘morality’ of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?”. — Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America, Doubleday, 1979, p. 193.*   
When the goal is to exterminate the “problem”, for the Nazi the ends justified the means —- and the propaganda and the inflated statistics. Today, when the goal is to abort the “problem”, equally the ends justify the means — and the propaganda and the inflated statistics. 
But even if the number of 1 million employed by Schwartsman were correct, what to do? The “cultural” indoctrination controlled by Nazi in Germany reached such point that a major part of the population agreed in exterminating Jews — and probably a significant number of Germans participated actively in such extermination. What to do? Does the high number of participants in a crime justify its acceptance and legalization? 
The good thing, in the case of Dr. Nathanson, is that he eventually abandoned his multimillionaire dirty business of doing abortions and manipulating statistics. 

The wonders of the legal abortion? 

The argument of Schwartsman continues, “Equally bulky resources would have to be assigned to the construction of orphanages, to shelter the thousands of children that would go unassisted during the prison term of their mothers”. 
So with the legalization of abortion, would there be fewer expenses for the government? Welcome to “Alice in the Wonderland of Abortion”! And what about the bulkiest resources, Mr. Schwartsman, that would have to be assigned to cope with the enormous system that would have to be created in order to assist hundreds of thousands of women that, seduced by the announcements of the state abortion industry, would make two, three or four abortions? Who will pay that huge bill, Mr. Schwartsman? And who will pay the bill of the abortion traumas and sequels in the women and their families? 
Try, Mr. Schwartsman, with your wife to homeschool your small children, and the Brazilian government will condemn you to prison or in the minimum to the loss of your custody over your children, little caring if your small children will lose their father and mother. In Brazil, homeschooling is a crime. While you propose that women that murder are to be spared, families that don’t murder nor rape are not being spared by the Brazilian State that wants control on everything and on everybody. 
The government is also actively working to criminalize corporal discipline of children by loving parents. How much money, Mr. Should Schwartsman, will be spent for the construction of orphanages for children whose parents will be arrested by the “crime” of homeschooling or corporal discipline? 
If even innocent parents are being condemned, why cannot criminals be condemned? 
If a mother kills a six-year-old child, or kills another adult, should the State spare her just because she has other children to raise? 
In the case where a mother willfully murdered her unborn baby, what chances will that woman’s other children have to have a psychologically healthy and non-traumatic upbringing? 

Where does abortion put a woman? 

Intentional abortion also puts a woman in a category different from a loving mother’s role. While, in order to achieve conquests, the pro-abortion feminist movement portrays all of the women as eternal oppressed and victims, the murder of unborn babies puts indeed a woman in the category of oppressor. 
With intentional abortion, woman joins to man in the capacity and inhumanity of attacking, violating rights and murdering an innocent life. 
Schwartsman continues, “It is worth to observe too that my calculation does not take in account a significant number of physicians, midwives or friends that in some way helped these women to get rid of unwanted fetuses and, according to the law, should also get jailed”. 
What to do with the thousands of concentration camp guards, sadistic physicians and all the other Germans that collaborated to exterminate the “unwanted”? That would be a good question to the Folha de S. Paulo editorialist. 

Public health issue? 

Anyway, Schwartsman insists that “the abortion problem is not an issue to be solved in the courts”. What is it issue of, then?  
Was it to exterminate Jews a public health issue? Probably, the Nazi-culture-loving German population would say “yes”, answering that it is much healthier not to have the undesirable Jews near. Today, those in the category of unwanted are the unborn, whose extermination is not treated as serious ethical and criminal problem, but simply as a “public health issue”. 

Does contraception reduce abortions? 

Schwartsman says, “The important, in practical terms, is to create conditions so that women don’t need to abort, and it is basically achieved through the offer of contraceptive methods free of charge or at least very cheap to the population (but the Catholic Church doesn’t agree) and sex education. Demographic studies are unanimous in pointing a very strong correlation between the level of the woman’s education and the decrease of fecundity and, consequently, of clandestine abortions”. 
Does broad access to contraceptives reduce the number abortions? Schwartsman should explain that to the US and Europe, which are champions in contraception and legal abortion! Only the US has today more than 1 million legal abortions a year. Since the legalization of abortion in the USA in 1973, more than 50 million unborn babies were murdered. Contraception reduces the number of abortions, Mr. Schwartsman, only in magic shows with top hats and rabbits. 
But I agree with him that there is a “very strong correlation between the level of the woman’s education and the decrease of fecundity”. In spite of that, there is no correlation between the level of the woman’s education and the decrease of legal abortions. None. It is enough to see American and European women: graduate and careerist moved by abundant contraception and abundant abortions. 

Graduate, careerist and aborting 

What is quite documented is that government and non-government groups in the US, with international institutions like the UN, have been for decades imposing the women’s systematic education, not because of a concern for their well-being, but exclusively to achieve their bigger objective of reducing the world population — including through legal abortion. 
According to them, the woman that spends more time at the school and university will have as central concern of life her own professional ambitions, postponing marriage, if she marries. When she gets married — often near to the age of 30, when 90% ova are gone —, she has one or two children, and she is prone to abort as a way to protect her career. The modern professional woman is mass production model idealized by the population-control elite. She is the image and likeness of the planning by pro-abortion and anti-family social engineers. 
The woman’s most prolonged education reduces her marriage and family chances, but it never reduces her sexual activity, which begins well early and without any commitment. Mr. Schwartsman then could present a more ethical and fair proposal: women that don’t want to have babies should avoid sexual relationships, which usually lead to pregnancy. If he doesn’t understand that so basic, so primordial principle, what may he understand on life, children and family? 
That rational and practical proposal would solve vast social and individual problems, including abortion and children traumatized conceived in relationships of individuals whose only commitment is the hedonism. 
Mr. Schwartsman gives his reason for not considering life as sacred: “It estimated that 2/3 to 3/4 of the fecundated ova never get attached in the uterus, resulting in miscarriages”. It is like saying that, just because thousands of men and women die from accidents everyday, you can equally forget that life is sacred and approve the murderous pretensions from the heartless heads of editorialists and legislators.  

Uncertainties on the right to life: the soap opera gets reprised 

The remaining text of Mr. Schwartsman is busy obfuscating issues regarding the beginning of human life, trying to oppose science with religion, and religion with religion, as if science, law, philosophy and religion could not be put at the service of the predominant ideological “ethics”. Science and religion were not problems for the secular State of Nazi Germany and Soviet Union. In fact, for pure chance abortion was the ethics of the secular State in Nazi Germany and Soviet Union that, even alleging pro-family intentions, murdered babies and families. Both systems murdered inside and out of the uterus. 
If Mr. Schwartsman had lived under such systems, his mother and the State would have had the final word on his unborn life, and outside of the uterus only the State would have been exclusively entitled to life and death decisions on him, leaving him little chance to survive to become a formulator of chic, false and twisted theories in Folha de S. Paulo, assuming the pose of a philosopher that knows how to think on ethical issues. 
There will always be uncertainties about life, but nothing should hinder us from reaching a genuine ethics that sees “all of the human beings as creation of God”. There were for centuries uncertainties about the humanity of Jews. Some believed that they were half human beings. Others, not even that. The motivation behind each uncertainty or certainty was a lot of times hate. And it is not different in the abortion debate. When the talk is on “aborting the problem”, the undeniable motivation is hate, because hate leads to the destruction of innocent lives. 

The ideological vision on the “unwanted” 

Today, the Islamic world — which counts on at least 1 billion adherents — has in lesser or larger degree many uncertainties on the right to the existence of Jews and the most radicals among them have the opinion that Jews are simply disposable pigs and animals, and certainly with an official legalization of the extermination of Jews, many other haters would come out of the closet. 
Is not hate that is motivating the president of Iran to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel? Little he cares if Jews are human beings or not. In the same way, abortion advocates care little if the unborn are human beings or not. Hate, for them, is everything. 
Nazis wanted to solve their “problem”. The president of Iran wants to solve his “problem”. Abortion advocates want to solve their “problem”. The propaganda is different, but the result is the same. 
In Nazi Germany, government and big media walked hand in hand with the idea that the “unwanted” Jews were the problem. In modern Brazil, government and big media walk hand in hand with the idea that the “unwanted” unborn are the problem.   
As a follower of Jesus Christ and his ethics, in Nazi Germany I would defend the “unwanted” Jews in the same way that I defend the “unwanted” unborn babies today. And even before the extreme hate and irrationality of a lot of nations against Israel, I dare to defend the right of the “unwanted” Israel to its existence, because of the promises of God to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 
In spite of the uncertainties that Mr. Schwartsman tried to introduce in the abortion debate, the only certainty left in his text is that the “problem” should be aborted. 
Mr. Schwartsman, the “problem” is not the Jew, nor the unborn. The problem is the lack of true ethics — the same ethics that led Christians to shelter and hide Jews from Nazis, the same ethics that today leads them to defend the right to life of the unborn babies against the propagandas defending the abortion Auschwitz. 

Would the world be better with their legal destruction? 

Schwartsman concludes by saying, “The world is not exactly a beautiful place. But we don’t need to worsen it still more by turning it in a huge prison”. Essentially, he meant, “The world would be less ugly if nobody were punished for killing unborn babies”. 
In the countries where the State controls everything and everybody, nobody is sent to jail for killing unborn babies. Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, pioneering nations in modern pro-abortion legislation, didn’t need to build additional prisons to arrest women that killed their unborn babies. For Schwartsman, just that was already a big saving! 
However, there was no saving to persecute the innocent. Both Soviet Union and Nazi Germany needed to build many more concentration camps, to arrest, torture and kill people disagreeing the system and its “ethics”. When criminals and their crimes receive legal protection, the innocent eventually lose theirs. 
Risking being repetitive against the repetitive arguments by Schwartsman, the legalization of abortion will provoke the dark need to establish thousands of state clinics and abortion services throughout Brazil — at a high cost that, as usual, will be imposed on the Brazilian taxpayer’s shoulders. What a wretched destiny! To work to pay the blood bill of others! 
In the countries where abortion is free, a citizen refusing to pay the abortion tax is arrested. A citizen daring to pray or to protest peacefully in front of a state baby slaughterhouse may be arrested as if he were a criminal — while physicians and women inside of the clinic kill under the protection of the law. And woe to those calling murderers of murderers, because police will come to beat — those antagonizing the “sacred” right of killing. 
Today, as the Brazilian State increasingly controls the citizens’ life and it is walking to decriminalize abortion, the right to free speech of criticizing that murderous march has increasingly been cut, bringing the spectrum of one day where the upcoming pro-abortion State will feel need to build thousands and thousands of prisons to shelter the millions of Brazilian citizens disagreeing the imperious and sacrosanct state and media vision of abortion.
Mr. Schwartsman has his reasons to sanitize legal abortion: His name is connected to the Brazilian pro-abortion group Comissão de Cidadania e Reprodução (Citizenship and Reproduction Committee). Such credentials allow him to use his journalistic skills in an “impartial” and “objective way in the abortion debate.
In fact, the world is not a beautiful place, but it would be less ugly without Nazi and Soviet ideas of abortion. 
For those that did not have their vision affected by the propaganda of untruthfulness, babies are one of the only beautiful things still left in this world. How can it become more beautiful with the legalization of their mass destruction?
Portuguese version of this article: Os “indesejáveis” e a propaganda da inverdade