Portland Tribune. Nov. 24, 2011.
NEW LAW SCHOOL PROGRAM UNLEASHES ANIMAL RIGHTS (click for full story)
The school is the Lewis & Clark School of Law.
Pro-Life Action of Oregon comments:
It’s a terrible insult to the pro-life movement to refer to animal “personhood.” As long as 4,000 innocent babies in the womb are tortured by abortion instruments every single day, NO ONE ought to be spending their lives protecting animals from pain.
Animal rights in Oregon is a direct assault on human reason, motherhood, and families. Is anyone at Lewis & Clark School of Law fighting for overturning Roe v. Wade, for educating society on the realities of abortion!?
Book: “A RAT IS A PIG IS A DOG IS A BOY: THE HUMAN COST OF THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.” by bioethicist Wesley J. Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.
We photographed the quote below which is at the front of the Oregon Humane Society. Gandhi was a Hindu! Hindus do not eat their cattle. Their cows are sacred and worshiped as gods! We’re not a Hindu nation!
Entrance to Oregon Human Society
The Sacred Cows of India. Running freely everywhere, stinking up the place.
by Stephen Mosher, the Population Research Institute
Now why would aging and dying populations (e.g., the Russians, the
Italians, the Japanese, etc.) suddenly start having exactly
the number of children necessary to replace themselves. The UN
Population Division does not say.
Perhaps — I can only speculate — its demographers assume that
governments will put in place generous child allowances. But many
countries already have such allowances, and these have had only a
modest effect on fertility. Russia’s $13,500 baby bonus, for
example, has only increased the birth rate by 8 percent, too small a
percentage to offset Russia’s population decline.
In all probability, the future of humanity looks more like the UN
Population Division’s “low variant” projection.
UN Population Division Low Variant Projection
This shows population peaking around 2040 at 8 and a half billion
or so, and then beginning to decline. It assumes that birthrates,
which have been steadily falling for a century now, will continue to
fall. What could be more reasonable?