In increasingly larger parts of the world people are allowed to be who they are. And that's a good thing. The number of people who wish others would act like they do is declining. A good example is the LGBTQ-movement: in more and more countries people are allowed to marry someone of the same sex. However, it will be a long time ahead in the future before non-white, not straight, not handicapped people are seen as 'normal' people. But a start towards that goal had been made. https://www.indy100.com/article/pride-in-london-best-images-lgbt-2017-march-7832206
Did you know only about 9 percent of the world population has a light complexion?
So, according to logic, being white is not normal.
Who decides who's to live and who's to die? Doctors? Politicians? God?
Some countries urge women to have their child aborted when it's discovered the unborn fruit has Down Syndrome. As if that's a bad thing. People with Down Syndrome have a chromosome more than 'normal' people. But what's 'normal'? If 'normal' is defined as 'like most people', according to certain governments and thousands of people, YOU don't have the right the live.
As a matter of fact: by far most people in the world do not have light skin. So, according to the logic used by some people, people with light skin do not have the right to live because they are not as 'normal' as most people.
But Charlotte Helene Fien can say it better than I can:
'In Iceland, Denmark and China not a single baby with Down syndrome has been born in several years'. They have been eradicated. That's Newsspeak for 'killed'.
If people with Down Syndrome would not be alive, this beautiful videoclip would not exist:
Here's Svefn-g-englar by Sigur Ros
In short: no, people with Down Syndrome are not perfect. But tell me: what would society look like should we eradicate every person who is not perfect?
The official purpose of military intervention is 'to protect civilian lives at any cost'. Does that mean literally thousands of civilians should perish as 'collateral damage' when bombing a handful of enemy combatants who plan to kill a few dozen civilians?
Of course not.
But if the cure is worse than the plague? Much, much worse?
Shouldn't the attacks be reconsidered?
The families of those casualties...will they be pleased with the 'help' they receive or will they turn into really, really angry people who themselves will turn hostile towards their 'liberators'?
