Jacqueline Laing

Opinion

Normalizing pedophilia: Abolishing the age of consent

Jacqueline Laing
Image

November 7, 2013 (MercatorNet) - After certain press criticism and a productive online backlash in the blogosphere, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) is performing a gratifying volte-face in its use of the term sexual "orientation" for paedophilia.

In its fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), the APA has distinguished between paedophilic disorder and paedophilic orientation. Paedophilia-advocacy groups, like B4U-ACT, a grassroots lobby group, have long seen the declassification of paedophilia to the status of an "orientation" for “minor-attracted persons" (MAPs) to be a necessary means to their ends. The North American Man-Boy Love Association (and numerous international affiliates advocating sex between men and boys) see these and other developments as an important step towards their continuing objective of legalising and normalising paedophile activity.

In response to the online critique, the APA has confirmed in the last few days that the DSM will be altered and that "it stands firmly behind efforts to criminally prosecute those who sexually abuse and exploit children and adolescents."

Whatever the recent anxieties that have caused editors of the DSM to have a sudden rethink, efforts to abolish the age of consent have a long, though not so venerable, history. In 1977 around 70 French intellectuals signed a petition seeking the abolition of all age of consent laws. Michel Foucault in his History of Sexuality reports that these included himself and Helene Althusser, Louis Althusser, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir and André Glucksmann, Roland Barthes, Guy Hocquenghem, the jurist Jean Danet, filmmaker Alain Robbe-Grillet, writer Philippe Sollers, pediatrician and child psychoanalyst Françoise Dolto and many others.

Alfred Kinsey and his eponymous institute are hailed respectively as father and foundation of the sexual revolution. He is known for his books, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), also known as the Kinsey Reports, as well as the Kinsey scale. Kinsey's research spawned a new and lucrative field of academic endeavour both propping up and benefiting from the porn industry.

Be that as it may, few realise that Kinsey's highly acclaimed evidence on the normality of child sex was won by timing sexual acts performed on babies and small children. It took Judith Reisman, a lone researcher and concerned mother, to unearth the abhorrent and criminal truth about the evidence on which the pornographic revolution was founded. Much of the Kinsey research purported to show that desires hitherto regarded as morally unacceptable were in fact widespread and thus normal.

Reisman demonstrated that the evidence was gleaned from people imprisoned for sex crimes, a far from random sample. 1,400 criminals and sex offenders were classified as "normal" and the "human male" category therefore included incarcerated pedophiles, pederasts, homosexual males, boy prostitutes and miscellaneous sexual predators. Despite her admirable exposé, Reisman is widely regarded among sexual progressives as a 'narrow-minded bigot', a term used routinely now to terrorise those whose thought and work threaten an increasingly lethal, liberal zeitgeist.

To normalise the abnormal, there should be a ready supply of 'useful idiots'. These are the journalists and quasi-intellectuals that can be relied on to give their blessing to the destruction of innocence perpetrated by decaying predators. That these ever-ready dim-wits exist should be obvious by the complicity of the press and broadcasting media that for decades suppressed complaints about the old pervert Jimmy Savile.

Savile's earthly span passed in a spirit of fearless predatory, necrophilic and paedophilic bliss. Those who challenged his revolting reign were ridiculed as, guess what, narrow-minded bigots. The alleged bigots  were, needless to say, swiftly silenced. Police were fobbed off. Journalists, entertainers and managers lauded his antics as progressive. Giggling alongside the old abuser were police officers, judges, administrators and a catalogue of professionals who would have been on notice about the complaints levelled against him.

That there is a superabundance of willing (if ignorant) colluders should not be doubted. There are so many it is difficult to know where to begin. But one who has recently emerged is journalist Miranda Sawyer. Miranda, it seems, regards age of consent laws as "laughably unrealistic" (so too are laws against contract killing but that does not justify abandoning laws against contract killing).

She argues that the 'Government, by banning all sex for everyone under 16, is turning what's natural and normal into something dirty and wrong'. Er ... yes, Miranda, laws are meant to do that and dirty old men preying on youngsters whether in institutions or online ought to have their collars felt.

As if paedophilia were not enough, bestiality now has cachet in familiar philosophical circles. Peter Singer, the Princeton prima donna whose texts I've elsewhere analysed, aside from promoting a sickening infanticide ethic also recommends bestiality on utilitarian grounds of human preference maximisation. His 2001 review of Midas Dekkers' Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, argues in favour of a new harm principle: only sexual activities between humans and animals that cause injury to the animal should be criminalised.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

But, it is pointed out, "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty". Singer carefully elaborates his view that "mutually satisfying activities" of a sexual nature may well take place between humans and animals. Singer, a recipient of the prestigious Companion in the General Division of the Order of Australia is Australia's most famous gift to the world of philosophy.

Part of the problem with speaking to the sexual revolutionary is that he does not classify harm to a child as any harm to a full person at all. Children barely figure in his ethical universe of persons. He does not understand abuse of power. He sees a child as an opportunity for personal gratification. Family breakdown is not regarded as harmful, whether to the child or the adult he becomes. Vulnerability is prized as an occasion for exploitation.

Sexual activity with those the powerful refuse to protect is seen as a source of profit. Children and animals are viewed ruthlessly as fair game because autonomy of 'persons' trumps the protection of the vulnerable whose rights are predicated on the work or Lockean shared labour of 'full persons'. Human trafficking is a mere logical extension of these principles licensing abuse.

Just when a child should be engaged in innocent pursuits, supposedly avant-garde thinkers, their intellects and consciences mutilated by widespread error, endemic feeble-mindedness and the drip-drip effects of the sexual revolution, appear with paedophiles in tow. These latter are all too ready to damage the lives of young children, whole families and floundering secular societies.

The normalisation of paedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality and other human perversions threaten the defenceless and corrupt the perpetrator. Any furious back-pedalling by the APA is warmly to be welcomed. Those professionals who would deny the grief and destructive social implications  of psychological disorders are, to be sure, part of the problem.

Jacqueline Laing teaches Jurisprudence, Criminal Law and Law and Religion at London Metropolitan University. This article has been republished with permission from her website, Jurisprudence and Applied Philosophy

USEFUL READING

Reisman, Judith. Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People. Judith Reisman et al.; Huntington House; Lafayette, LA (1990)

Reisman, Judith."Soft Porn" Plays Hardball: Its Tragic Effects on Women, Children and the Family. Huntington House; Lafayette, LA (1991)

Reisman, Judith. Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences: The Red Queen and the Grand Scheme. The Institute for Media Education; Crestwood, KY (1998)

Reisman, Judith. Kinsey's Attic: The Shocking Story of How One Man's Sexual Pathology Changed the World. Cumberland House Publishing (2006)

Reisman, Judith. Sexual Sabotage: How One Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion on America. WND Books (2010)

Reprinted with permission from MercatorNet



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
A photo of Kim Tucci at 25 weeks gestation Erin Elizabeth Photography
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

News,

‘Little miracles’: Mom gives birth to naturally-conceived quintuplets after refusing ‘selective reduction’

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
Image
An ultrasound of the five different compartments, each with its own baby, inside Kim's womb.

AUSTRALIA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A 26-year-old Australian mom has given birth to five healthy babies, all conceived naturally, after refusing the doctor’s advice that she must abort three of them in order to give the remaining two a better chance at life. 

“After my initial ultrasound I was told I could consider the selection method to give 2 babies the best chance in life,” wrote mom Kim Tucci in a Facebook post last September. 

“I watched a YouTube video on the procedure and I cried. I could never do that! Was I selfish for not giving two the chance of 100% survival? All I knew is that I already love them and that every heart beat I heard I connect with them more. For me life starts when a heart starts beating and all I know for sure is that I will do whatever it takes to bring them into this world healthy,” she wrote. 

Last Thursday Kim and her husband Vaughn welcomed the five new members into their family — one boy and four girls —increasing the number of their children from 3 to 8. The babies were born at 30 weeks, 10 weeks early, due to insufficient space in Kim’s womb. They weighed on average about 2.5 pounds. 

The quintuplets’ story began last March, after Kim and Vaughn had been trying for six months to conceive just one more child for their family. Due to health complications, Kim wondered if she would ever become a mother again. 

After what she thought was an extra long cycle, she decided to take a pregnancy test. 

“I was feeling tired and a little nauseated and thought I would take a pregnancy test just to get the ‘what if’ out of my head. To my shock and utter excitement it was positive,” she wrote on a Facebook post.

The parents got the shock of their lives when doctors confirmed in an ultrasound examination that there was not one baby, but five. 

“After a long wait for the ultrasound we finally went in. The sonographer told me there were multiple gestational sacks, but she could only see a heart beat in two. I was so excited! Twins!”

“I was moved to another machine for a clearer view and had the head doctor come in and double check the findings. She started to count, one, two, three, four, five. Did i hear that correctly? Five? My legs start to shake uncontrollably and all i can do is laugh. The sonographer then told me the term for five is ‘quintuplets,’” Kim wrote.

Even though Kim began to feel stretched to the limit with all those human lives growing inside her, she chose to focus on her babies, and not herself, referring to them as “my five little miracles.” 

“It's getting harder as each day passes to push through the pain, every part of my body aches and sleeping is becoming very painful. No amount of pillows are helping support my back and belly. Sometimes I get so upset that I just want to throw my hands up and give in.”

“Sometimes my pelvis becomes so stiff I can barely walk and my hips feel like they are grinding away constantly. I'm finding it hard to eat as I basically have no room left in my stomach, and the way it is positioned it's pushed all the way back with the babies leaning against it.” 

“My skin on my belly is so stretched its painful and hot to touch. It literally feels like I have hives! No amount of cream helps relieve the discomfort. I have a lot of stretch marks now. Dealing with such a huge change in my body is hard.” 

“Is it all worth it? Yes!!!! I will keep pushing through,” she wrote in one Facebook post days before the babies were born. 

The newborns' names are Keith, Ali, Penelope, Tiffany, and Beatrix. They were born at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Subiaco, Western Australia. Mother and babies are reported to be doing well. 



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Jordanian Prince Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al-Hussein, the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights UN Photo/Paulo Filgueiras
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

News

UN rights chief tells Catholic countries to legalize abortion over Zika virus: bishops and cardinal react

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

GENEVA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- The United Nations, following the lead of international abortion activists, is now urging Latin American countries hit by the mosquito-borne Zika virus to lift restrictions on abortion for pregnant women who have contacted the virus and whose pre-born children may be at risk for birth defects, including having smaller than normal heads. 

The UN human rights office said today that it is not enough for South American countries to urge women to postpone pregnancy without also offering them abortion as a final solution. 

“How can they ask these women not to become pregnant, but not offer… the possibility to stop their pregnancies?” UN spokeswoman Cecile Pouilly told reporters. 

UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said that governments should make available contraception and abortion services.

“Laws and policies that restrict (women’s) access to these services must be urgently reviewed in line with human rights obligations in order to ensure the right to health for all in practice,” he said.

But Brazil’s bishops strongly asserted yesterday that efforts should be made to eradicate the virus, not the people who may be infected by it. 

The disease is “no justification whatsoever to promote abortion,” they said in a statement, adding that it is not morally acceptable to promote abortion “in the cases of microcephaly, as, unfortunately, some groups are proposing to the Supreme Federal Court, in a total lack of respect for the gift of life.”

Honduras Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has also come out strongly against the notion of “therapeutic abortions” as a response to the problem. Unlike Brazil where abortion is legal in the case of rape or health of the mother, abortion remains entirely illegal in Honduras.

“We should never talk about ‘therapeutic’ abortion,” the cardinal said in a homily at a February 3 Mass in Suyap. “Therapeutic abortion doesn’t exist. Therapeutic means curing, and abortion cures nothing. It takes innocent lives,” he said. 

While the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an international public health emergency February 1 on account of concerns over the virus, critics have pointed out, however, that not one death as resulted from the virus. Even on WHO’s own website the virus is described in mild terms. 

“It causes mild fever and rash. Other symptoms include muscle pain, joint pain, headache, pain behind the eyes and conjunctivitis. Zika virus disease is usually mild, with symptoms lasting only a few days,” the website states. “To date, there have been no reported deaths associated with Zika virus,” it added. 

Critics suspect that the crisis is being manipulated to advance an anti-human agenda on the pre-born. 

“Is Zika, actually, a hideous virus that threatens to spread uncontrollably across the world creating an army of disabled children with tiny heads and low IQ’s? Or might this be a willful misinterpretation of the scarce data to manipulate public opinion and legislatures?” wrote pro-life critic Mei-Li Garcia earlier this week.

“It becomes very clear that the publicity surrounding this story has a very little to do with medicine and a lot to do with a convenient crisis that is being used by those pushing for the legalization of abortion around the world,” she wrote.



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
JStone / Shutterstock.com
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

News,

Hillary’s litmus test for Supreme Court picks: They must ‘preserve Roe v. Wade’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

DERRY, NH, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - Hillary Clinton has a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees - several, in fact. At a Democratic event on Wednesday, Clinton unveiled her criteria in selecting a judge for the nation's highest court.

“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests," she said.

"We’ve got to make sure to preserve Roe v. Wade, not let it be nibbled away or repealed,” she said.

There have been over 58,000,000 abortions since the 1973 court ruling legalizing abortion in all 50 states, according to National Right to Life.

That echoes her recent call to arms speech before Planned Parenthood last month, when she stated that taxpayers must fund abortion-on-demand in order to uphold the "right" of choice.

“We have to preserve marriage equality,” Clinton said, referring to last summer's Obergefell v. Hodges case, a 5-4 ruling that redefined marriage nationwide. “We have to go further to end discrimination against the LGBT community."

Her views differentiate her from the Republican front runners. Ted Cruz has called the court's marriage ruling "fundamentally illegitimate," and Donald Trump told Fox News Sunday this week that he would "be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things." Marco Rubio has said he won't "concede" the issue to the one-vote majority.

All Republican presidential hopefuls say they are pro-life and will defund Planned Parenthood.

Her husband, Bill Clinton, raised the makeup of the Supreme Court early last month in New Hampshire, saying it receives "almost no attention" as a campaign issue.

On Wednesday, Hillary said "the next president could get as many as three appointments. It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.”

Clinton said her judicial appointees must also reverse the Citizens United ruling on campaign finance and oppose a recent decision striking down a portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In 2013's Shelby County v. Holder, justices struck down Section 4(b) of the act, which said that certain states and jurisdictions had to obtain permission from the federal government before changing their voting laws.

At one time, most politicians frowned upon any "litmus test" for judicial nominees, emphasizing the independence of the third branch of government. "I don't believe in litmus tests," Jeb Bush told Chuck Todd last November.

But with the rise of an activist judiciary in the middle of the 20th century, constitutionalists have sought to rein in the power of the bench.



Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook