Bolsonaro defends birth control and says that “more educated people have fewer children”

By Julio Severo

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro underwent a vasectomy on January 30, 2020, a sterilization surgical procedure for men who wish to have no children or stop having children.

Although during the 2018 presidential campaign Bolsonaro had, in reaction to feminist groups that preach sterilization and abortion, said, in an emotional tone, that he undid a vasectomy so that his third wife, Michelle, could get pregnant, he decided to get sterilized again.

For Bolsonaro, who considers himself a Catholic, sterilization is problematic, as the Catholic Church prohibits this procedure. Maybe that’s why he asked for secrecy about his new vasectomy.

If example is the greatest of all sermons, Bolsonaro only did regarding his personal birth control procedure what he has defended for a long time.

It is not the first time that Bolsonaro’s attitudes clash with Catholic conservatism. In 2019, the Brazilian president defended family planning policies saying that “more educated people have fewer children.”

He said:

“It is not control… Family planning. You see that more educated people have fewer children. I am an exception to the rule, I have five, okay? But this is the rule.”

Bolsonaro has a history of defending birth control, which he calls “family planning,” ignoring that Margaret Sanger, who founded the International Planned Parenthood Federation (the largest family planning, sex education and abortion organization in the world), coined the term “birth control.” There is therefore no difference between family planning and birth control. Both came from the same source.

As a congressman, Bolsonaro is the author of Bill 4322, of 1993, which proposes “the realization of tubal ligation and vasectomy for the purposes of family planning and birth control.” If he hadn’t been serious about it, he wouldn’t have had a vasectomy himself.

At least, even though Bolsonaro is a contraceptive-minded Catholic, he is democratic. He has allowed his administration, amidst the constellation of birth control methods offered in health services and sex education for teenagers, to also present the option of sexual abstinence.

Typical propaganda by population control activists is to show images of wealthy Europeans and Americans with two children compared to poor Africans with ten children. If population control were not so loved by left-wingers, it would not be difficult to see racism in the comparison between rich white Europeans and poor black Africans.

Probably, seeing the propaganda of the population control promoters Bolsonaro came to the conclusion that having many children is synonymous with poverty. But, as he made clear, he is an exception — although his exception was having 5 children with three different wives, which means he practiced a lot of birth control.

However, why use poor Africans as a standard of large families? Are Africans the only example and standard? Of course not. American Christian families historically had an average of 8 children, and were not poor. They read a lot, especially the Bible, and worked hard. Large families in the U.S. helped to preserve their culture and religion, which was predominantly Protestant. The U.S. Republic was founded by a 98 percent Protestant population.

Large families have always been the norm and standard of the U.S. for centuries. The U.S. of the past, with large families who read the Bible and worked hard, created today’s U.S. with its enormous wealth. You don’t create wealth without work. And you cannot have blessings on your work without God and the Bible. All the wealth accumulated today in the U.S. is the result of generations of large families from the past who, in large part, valued the Bible and hard work.

With the growth of the contraceptive mindset and the consequent decrease of families, the U.S. was getting farther and farther from its old big family pattern and became more and more dependent on immigration, with an increasing number of Muslim immigrants taking advantage of the space left by millions of Americans who were prevented from being born by birth control or deliberately killed before being born in abortion clinics.

The obvious consequence of the decline of American families is that the original culture and religion of the U.S. is declining. Today Protestants are less than 50 percent of the U.S. population while Catholics are less than 25 percent.

So, instead of comparing today’s rich small American families with numerous poor African families, you should compare modern American families, who are no longer large enough to preserve their culture and religion, with American families of 100, 200 and 300 years ago who were numerous enough to preserve their culture and religion.

The men and women who built the United States with their best values and wealth had large families. Therefore, it makes no sense to accept population control propaganda that chooses only large poor families from India or Africa when the best example is the millions of large families that built the United States, lifting their nation out from spiritual, cultural and financial poverty and making it great and Christian.

Despite having a lot of wealth, the United States is already facing demographic problems with low birth rates. But Brazil, which has not even reached the level of wealth in the United States, is also already facing similar demographic problems.

NPR said,

“Brazil has undergone a demographic shift so dramatic that it has astonished social scientists. Over the past 50 years, the fertility rate has tumbled from six children per woman on average to fewer than two — and is now lower than in the United States.”

NPR mentioned preference changes, especially of women, as the cause of the Brazilian low birthrate, but it did not explain what caused them.

What happened 50 years ago, according to NPR, that changed Brazil so much demographically that it reduced its population?

In the 1970s the CIA created a document called NSSM 200 for the U.S. government, classifying Brazil as one of the main nations that should be the target of secret population reduction policies. Among these policies were widespread dissemination of birth control and cultural stimuli so that girls and women might spend as much time as possible studying, as a way to avoid marriage and pregnancy.

The CIA plan worked so perfectly that today even a Brazilian president defends and practices birth control without the slightest pain in his conscience. President Jair Bolsonaro does exactly what the CIA planned 50 years ago.

Brazil is already in the process of a demographic crisis, but Bolsonaro and other advocates of birth control do not realize the danger. Sooner or later Brazil will be forced to import millions of immigrants, as the Brazilian population is already suffering demographic aging, and the nations that have these millions of immigrants to send are the Muslim nations.

From the point of view of demography and Catholicism, it is a mistake for Bolsonaro to accept birth control policies for himself and for Brazil.

As a follower of Jesus, what do I think? Those who follow the Bible know that children are blessings. A large family is God’s will. From this perspective, any method of birth control disrupts God’s plans to multiply blessings in Christian families.

However, whoever does not follow Jesus and the Bible seriously is obliged to see children as blessings and have a large family? No. In fact, the Bible says that the offspring of people who do not know God will disappear. From this perspective, birth control in these people’s lives only helps to fulfill God’s will.

Christians should follow the beautiful model of the large families in the Bible and the United States in their past Protestant generations who were hardworking, ethical and had many children.

Those who do not follow Jesus and the Bible should be free to sterilize themselves.

Portuguese version of this article: Bolsonaro defende controle da natalidade e afirma que “pessoas que têm mais cultura têm menos filhos”

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading on Birth Control:

Churches Closing and Mosques Opening in The United States

Muhammad is one of the top 10 baby names for first time in the U.S. history

In Germany, the Catholic Church and Protestant churches lost more than 430,000 members in 2018

Blood in the Rivers: the Contraceptive Culture and Prophecies in Revelation

The folly of man’s planning

Anti-Baby Vegans Preach It’s Morally Wrong for People to Have Babies and Revile Those Who Disagree with Them

John Calvin: Women Will Be Saved by Having Babies

Anthony Comstock: the first pro-life activist in the modern history

Recommended Reading on Population Control:

Ideological Scam: Scientists Use “Climate Change” to Call for Population Control

Exposing the Global Population Control Agenda

Churches Closing and Mosques Opening in The United States

By Julio Severo

More than 70 percent of U.S. citizens claim to be Christian. Even so, 6,000 to 10,000 churches die each year in America — and that number is growing. Most denominations are declining as a result of a declining Christian population. It is so a serious problem that The Atlantic produced the headline “America’s Epidemic of Empty Churches.”

U.S. right-wing Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower dedicates large mosque in Washington DC in 1957

While Christian churches are closing in the largest Protestant nation in the world, mosques are opening increasingly. There were about 100 mosques in the U.S. in 1970, but Islamic immigration has led to hundreds more being built. By 2000, there were 1,209 U.S. mosques, which rose to 2,106 in 2010 — an increase of 74%.

Why are churches closing and mosques opening?

U.S. Census data from 1850, when the U.S. was over 90 percent Protestant, show that families had usually six to nine kids. Today, U.S. families usually have 1 or 2 children, while Muslim immigrants have over 3 children.

How will U.S. churches stop closing if their families are not having enough babies for decades? How will Islamic mosques stop growing if their families are having too many babies?

Some could blame left-wing Democratic President Barack Hussein Obama for the Islamization of America, but the facilitation of Islamization began before. Even though his name is 100 percent Islamic, it did not begin with him. It did not also begin with right-wing Republican President George W. Bush, even though after the 9/11 he treated Islam as a “religion of peace.”

Probably, it began with right-wing Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who attended the dedication ceremony of a mosque in Washington D.C. in 1957. In his speech, Eisenhower spoke about the beauty of Islam and religious freedom in America. Now, Islam is enjoying U.S. religious freedom to expand in America and, in return, Americans are enjoying the “beauty” of Islam: 9/11 and many other Islamic terror attacks.

Eisenhower was the first U.S. president to enter a mosque. He removed his shoes on entering. This is an act of submission, and Islam means exactly this: Submission.

To take off the shoes is a demonstration of deep respect. Only God, not Islam, deserves such respect. God told Moses:

“Take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” (Exodus 3:5 ESV)

A mosque is not a holy ground and God’s presence is not in that place. A mosque is a place of Islam, and Islam is a religious ideology of violence.

You can take off your shoes where God is. But to take off your shoes in a place where God is offended is an insult to God. A Christian should never take off his shoes in a place where Islam is worshipped.

Daniel in Babylon kept a high government post without “taking off his shoes” to other gods. Islam is another god, and if U.S. presidents think that Islam and U.S. evangelicalism are the same, they are doing what Daniel did not do: they are selling their Christianity for the sake of U.S. commercial interests.

Daniel never sold his God for the sake of Babylon’s commercial interests.

In his speech at the mosque, the Islamic Center, Eisenhower said,

It is a privilege to take part in this ceremony of dedication. Meeting with you now, in front of one of the newest and most beautiful buildings in Washington, it is fitting that we re-dedicate ourselves to the peaceful progress of all men under one God.

And I should like to assure you, my Islamic friends, that under the American Constitution, under American tradition, and in American hearts, this Center, this place of worship, is just as welcome as could be a similar edifice of any other religion. Indeed, America would fight with her whole strength for your right to have here your own church and worship according to your own conscience.

This concept is indeed a part of America, and without that concept we would be something else than what we are.

The countries which have sponsored and built this Islamic Center have for centuries contributed to the building of civilization. With their traditions of learning and rich culture, the countries of Islam have added much to the advancement of mankind. Inspired by a sense of brotherhood, common to our innermost beliefs, we can here together reaffirm our determination to secure the foundation of a just and lasting peace.

Civilization owes to the Islamic world some of its most important tools and achievements. From fundamental discoveries in medicine to the highest planes of astronomy, the Muslim genius has added much to the culture of all peoples. That genius has been a wellspring of science, commerce and the arts, and has provided for all of us many lessons in courage and in hospitality.

I consider it a great personal and official honor to open the Islamic Center.

Eisenhower was a deeply anticommunist right-winger. If you want to know what a U.S. right-wing president thinks about Islam, just read Eisenhower’s words. Or you can also read the words of U.S. President George W. Bush, who immediately after the 9/11 terror attack visited the same Islamic Center to deliver a speech to say to the American public and Muslims around the world that the Saudi Islamic terrorists who attacked the U.S. did not represent the true Islam. He said,

The English translation is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote from the Koran itself: “In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil. For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule.”

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.

When we think of Islam, we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world — billions of people find comfort and solace and peace.

If Muslims and their religion represent peace, who does not represent peace? According to Bush in his speech at the Islamic Center, Americans who oppose Islam “don’t represent the best of America. They represent the worst of humankind, and they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior.”

So in this definition, if you oppose Islam, you are anti-American. Would I be labeled “anti-American” for saying that Islam is the greatest persecutor of Christians in the world? Would I be labeled “anti-American” for saying that Islam is behind most terror attacks in the world?

Bush finished his speech by assuring that Muslims “love America just as much as I do.”

After reading how right-wing presidents Eisenhower and Bush praised Islam and Muslims as “peaceful,” why worry about what left-wing president Obama said about Islam? Obama was just the natural result of Eisenhower’s and Bush’s foolishness, which may produce many other prominent Muslims in the U.S. politics, including presidents.

The foundation of the Islamization of America is found in Eisenhower’s right-wing foolishness.

If terror, violence and massive persecution of Christians do not represent Islam, so why did over 100 years ago Winston Churchill describe about Islam the same reality we see today? He said,

“The Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness… How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.”

Who lied? Eisenhower and Bush saw Islam as a source of peace and progress, but Churchill saw Islam as a source of violence and decadence. By Eisenhower’s and Bush’s standards, Churchill would be labeled “anti-American.”

I wonder why Eisenhower, as a right-wing president, “blessed” the dedication of a mosque in the capital of the U.S. government. Presidents of Islamic nations never attend the dedication of Christian churches. They do not even try, often, to hinder the massive persecution of Christians in their nations.

The building of the Islamic Center in Washington D.C. was funded by Turkey and other Islamic nations. I never see Islamic presidents removing their shoes to enter a Christian church to dedicate it. I never see Islamic presidents praising Christianity and blessing the dedication of a Christian church in their own nations just as a just retribution for the pro-Islam praises of Eisenhower and Bush. In fact, I never see the president of Turkeys giving back to Christians Hagia Sophia, the oldest Christian cathedral in the world, and hundreds of Armenian churches taken by Muslims.

While U.S. presidents praise Islam and its growth in the U.S., Islamic presidents do not praise Christianity and make all effort to hinder its growth. So who is truly submissive? While Muslims are making Westerners submissive to Islam, Westerns themselves are accepting to be submissive.

Let us see the math that brought Islamization to America: pro-mosque right-wing Eisenhower + pro-mosque right-wing Bush = pro-mosque left-wing Obama. The pro-mosque right-wing presidents got what they asked: a pro-mosque left-wing president.

So right-wingers cannot complain about Islamization of America. They are the fundamental part of the problem. They, not left-wingers, were pioneers in pro-mosque attitudes.

Evangelicals, who were since the Pilgrims the fundamental force in the birth of America, are the real hope for America in their belief that only Jesus Christ and His powerful Word can help America. Evangelicals, more than right-wingers and left-wingers, can recover the old American standard of the Bible as the center of the culture.

Yet, how can evangelicals help America if they are not taking care of their own future and the future of their churches by having the same number of babies that U.S. evangelical families had 150 years ago?

The same Eisenhower that was the first president to praise Islam within a mosque also asked birth control to everyone around the world. And birth control is the key for Islam to advance in the West. Eisenhower did not perceive that he was implementing the exact measures that are facilitating Islamic expansion in the U.S. and other Western nations.

With U.S. Democratic Harry Truman, Eisenhower served as co-chairman of a Planned Parenthood committee. Planned Parenthood is the largest family planning and abortion organization in the world.

Fortunately, U.S. conservative Republican President Ronald Reagan didn’t share Eisenhower’s love for Planned Parenthood. Reagan defunded the abortion organization around the world. For the Reagan administration, more people meant more ideas, more productivity and more consumers.

Even though Reagan excelled in pro-life and anticommunist stances, there was a big tragedy: under his right-wing administration the U.S. began its importation of Muslims from Somalia.

The “glory” of praising Islam and “blessing” the dedication of the first and largest mosque in the U.S. capital does not belong to left-wing presidents. It belongs to a right-wing president. When Eisenhower praised Islam and “blessed” the dedication of a mosque in Washington D.C., the U.S. welcomed Islam and its murderous spirits.

Jesus gave his disciples the authority to expel demons. As the largest Protestant nation in the world, the U.S. should know how to deal with Islamic spirits. But there are also non-spiritual measures. To ban Islamic immigration, a (non-fulfilled) promise by Trump in 2016, is a good measure.

The problem of immigration rose because U.S. families are not having enough babies. Where the population is not reproducing in sufficient numbers, immigration is necessary.

So by not having 6 to 9 children by Christian family, the U.S. is seeing lesser and lesser Christian babies a year, closing thousands of churches a year, welcoming thousands of Islamic immigrants a year and seeing a non-stop increase of Islamic babies and mosques.

The Islam praised by Eisenhower is opening mosques in America. The birth control praised by him is closing Christian churches by reducing Christian families in America. If you praise foolishness, you reap foolishness.

With information from The Atlantic, White House History, Oldest, WND, New York Times, Marie Claire, Wikipedia and Quartz.

Portuguese version of this article: Igrejas fechando e mesquitas sendo abertas nos Estados Unidos

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Saudi who killed three and wounded eight had condemned US as “nation of evil” in hate-filled manifesto just hours before the attack. Six other Saudis were arrested, including three who filmed the attack. But initially the FBI “did not know” if it was a terror attack

Muhammad is one of the top 10 baby names for first time in the U.S. history

War between Christian Nations and Muslim Nations: A Table Talk between an American Economist and Young Muslims in Indonesia

Patheos Lambasts Julio Severo for Mentioning Islamic Origin of Statue of Liberty

Coming Soon? A More Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu and Less Christian America

In Hollywood’s Blacklist: Allah Is Loving, But Non-Acceptance of Homosexuality Leads to Violence, Sadism and Terror

Immigration: A Weapon of Mass Cultural Destruction in Liberal Hands

Western Leaders, Including Boris Johnson and Mike Pompeo, “Bless” Islamic Holiday

Christians suffered an increase in persecution last year with 245 MILLION facing Islamic violence or oppression around the world — 30 million more than a year ago, while Great Britain rejects persecuted Christians and appoints Muslim as special envoy on freedom of religion

Rivers of Blood: A Brazilian pro-life Evangelical writes about the contraceptive culture and prophecies in Revelation

The folly of man’s planning

Mike Pence praises Indonesia’s Islamic culture saying it should inspire other Muslim countries as he tours mosque with his shoes off

Muhammad is one of the top 10 baby names for first time in the U.S. history

By Julio Severo

For the first time in the history of the United States, Muhammad made in the 2019 list of top 10 baby names, according to the parenting website BabyCenter, which released its annual list of 100 most popular baby names for girls and boys in the United States.

The online parenting and pregnancy website compiled the names of babies born to some 600,000 registered U.S. users in 2019. Its research found a rise in Islamic names, with Muhammad for boys and Aaliyah for girls making incredibly the top 10 for the first time.

Muhammad is considered the most popular name in the world, and UK news site Independent says it is “given to an estimated 150 million men and boys.”

“Muhammad’s been rising on BabyCenter top baby name lists around the world, so we knew it would soon break into the U.S. top 10,” Linda Murray, BabyCenter’s global editor in chief, said in a press statement. “Muslim families often choose Muhammad for firstborn sons to honor the prophet and bring blessings to the child. The name also has multiple spellings, and that helps a name get into the top 10.”

In 2018 and in 2017, Muhammad ranked No. 14 on BabyCenter’s list in the United States. The name Muhammad first entered the top 100 in the United States in 2013 and has been climbing ever since. Now, there is no turning back. Muhammad will advance furiously until it reaches the number 1 in the top ten.

The increased popularity of Muhammad as a baby name in the United States is directly linked to the natural increase of Islamic families and immigrants. While U.S. families have usually two babies, Islamic families and immigrants have many more babies.

Islamic families are less likely to use birth control. Christian families are more likely to use birth control, even though there are specific verses in the Bible about large families and many children as blessings. There is even a specific God’s command to increase and be fruitful.

The consequence of U.S. Christians not increasing enough is that they are letting Muslims increase more than enough.

The increase of Islamic immigrants and Islamic babies brings other consequences. Since 2014 the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey has been showing that Arabic is the fastest growing language in the U.S. among over 60 million residents who do not speak English.

In many U.S. states, Islam ranks as the second most prevalent religion. This is a totally new reality for the U.S. While in the past Protestantism was dominant in the U.S. and Catholicism was often the second most important religion, now increasingly Islam reaches the second place and, if Americans keep rejecting babies and loving contraception and abortion, Muslims will defeat Americans just by the sheer numbers of their babies.

U.S. Christians also do not understand that the Statue of Liberty is a powerful Islamic symbol.

The name Muhammad is increasing not only among babies in the U.S., the largest Protestant nation in the world. It is very popular also among babies in Berlin, Germany’s capital, because German Christians have embraced birth control. And Muhammad nows tops as the most popular baby name in Britain, a traditionally Protestant nation.

Islamic families understand that babies are the future of a nation, civilization and religion. The more, the better. U.S. Christian families just do not understand such reality. For them, the smaller, the better. They just do not see that birth control destroys the future of families, a nation, civilization and religion.

Babies are the future. Birth control destroys the future. Muslims are just taking advantage of this reality. U.S. Christians are foolishly delivering the future of America to those who have more babies.

It is not Islam that threatens the Christian future of America. It is the U.S. rejection of babies through birth control.

If Christian Americans today had so many babies as the Pilgrims and the Americans of the generation of the Founders had — about eight children per family —, the name Muhammad would never be even in the top 100 baby names in the U.S., which would have no longer need to import millions of immigrants, including Muslims, who are defacing America in her own origins, roots and spiritual foundations.

With information from San Francisco Gate and WND.

Portuguese version of this article: Maomé é um dos 10 principais nomes de bebês pela primeira vez na história dos EUA

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Mohammed was the most popular name for boys born in Berlin in 2018

Muhammad tops as the most popular baby name in Britain

In Germany, the Catholic Church and Protestant churches lost more than 430,000 members in 2018

War between Christian Nations and Muslim Nations: A Table Talk between an American Economist and Young Muslims in Indonesia

Patheos Lambasts Julio Severo for Mentioning Islamic Origin of Statue of Liberty

Coming Soon? A More Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu and Less Christian America

Rivers of Blood: A Brazilian pro-life Evangelical writes about the contraceptive culture and prophecies in Revelation

The folly of man’s planning

In Hollywood’s Blacklist: Allah Is Loving, But Non-Acceptance of Homosexuality Leads to Violence, Sadism and Terror

Immigration: A Weapon of Mass Cultural Destruction in Liberal Hands

Anti-Baby Vegans Preach It’s Morally Wrong for People to Have Babies and Revile Those Who Disagree with Them

By Julio Severo

“Being an apologist for non-veganism/breeding or opposing abortion won’t go down well. This goes against the mission of the group, which is ethical vegan and antinatalist.”

“Non-vegans and parents are not allowed in this group.”

These are just a few of the fundamental rules for joining Facebook forums (such as Childfree Vegans and Anti-Natalist Vegion Legion) held by anti-baby or antinatalist vegan individuals who believe that it’s essentially immoral for any human to have children. One of the main proponents of antinatalism is South African academic David Benatar, whose 2006 book Better to Never Have Been argued that “coming into existence is always a serious harm. People should never, under any circumstance, procreate — a position called ‘anti-natalism.’”

If you do not agree with vegan antinatalism and its ethics, you should probably stay far, far away from the forums discussing it. One Facebook user complained that, when other group members realized she was against abortion, she was absolutely vilified and “received so many death [threats], was told to be raped, and they gave VERY vivid and graphic details of how I should kill myself and how I should be gang raped.”

There is definite hostility directed at people who have children — they’re branded, disparagingly, as “breeders” by antinatalist vegans. On the Childfree Vegans Facebook page, among photos and videos that could be considered offensive are: “Breastfeeding, pregnant bellies, babies and kids in general.”

One antinatalist vegan said,

“I find it exceptionally selfish to bring MORE life into this world. I find the entire notion of procreation narcissistic, egomaniacal, and delusional. What makes people think the world needs ANOTHER you? It’s so self-centered to willingly and carelessly replicate your DNA.”

People just are not born hating babies and large families. Much of this mindset is result of sheer propaganda and indoctrination. For example, in 1974 the U.S. government produced a top-secret document, titled NSSM 200, about how to reduce the birth-rates in other nations for the exclusive benefit of economic interests of the United State. Surely, there were many birth control efforts before, but NSSM 200 was the most important population control campaign ever done, effectively hijacking in the shadows governments and the UN and putting them at the service of population control. NSSM 200 was by far the most comprehensive machine of propaganda, indoctrination and actions against babies ever devised.

Its results are seen today with people not giving importance to marriage, babies and families. When people today want to have just two children, this is NSSM 200 in action. NSSM 200’s goal was to program couples to wish just two children or less.

During thousands of years, the only way for people to survive in their old age was by being supported by their own children.

Yet, for about one hundred years the State has taken over the functions of family, including child education, child care and support in the old age.

Now the State supports old people by taking over the gains of new generations and giving a part to old people.

Today, it is very easy for a couple to avoid children, because they trust that the State will support them through the children of other couples. But as children’s numbers are falling because of birth control and abortion and as the numbers of old people are increasing, the State will sooner or later have to decide how to support or eliminate them.

They who live by the State will die by its sword.

They who live by God’s Sword (His Word) will be supported by their own children. God’s Word said about children:

“Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward.” (Psalms 127:3 ESV)

“He gives the barren woman a home, making her the joyous mother of children. Praise the LORD!” (Psalms 113:9 ESV)

“Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.’” (Matthew 19:14 ESV)

Left-wingers and other radicals have their own philosophy on children: They do not want to have their own children to educate, but they demand the children of other couples for indoctrination.

They do not want to have their own children to support them in their old age, but they demand the children of other couples to support them in their old age through a state system that breaks down the family.

With information from the DailyMail.

Portuguese version of this article: Vegetarianos anti-bebês pregam que é moralmente errado pessoas terem bebês e xingam quem discorda deles

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

The folly of man’s planning

Exposing the Global Population Control Agenda

Anthony Comstock: the first pro-life activist in the modern history

Blood in the Rivers: the Contraceptive Culture and Prophecies in Revelation