web analytics

Do your part for the economy: have fewer kids, abort if necessary

There are days when I wish I didn’t keep abreast of the news.  I learned today that Nancy Pelosi and the Dems are trying to pass funding for contraception in the stimulus bill that they are trying to get through Congress.  Now, in theory this money would only go towards ‘family planning,’ ie, contraceptions, not abortions.  However, we have to remember that for many people, abortion is a contraception.  The clearest example of this is the belief that just because you wipe out a human embryo in the first couple of days after conception, you haven’t actually aborted the child.

That the Dems are looking to fund Planned Parenthood is no surprise to me.  It shouldn’t surprise anyone.  Actual funding for abortions is obviously imminent.  After all, Obama moved quickly to fund them overseas.

This connection between the economy and children is one that is not often aired in public, however.  The reasoning follows inevitably from the view that humans decide when life begins and when life is valued and when ‘quality of life’ is believed to be one of the chief criteria in the equation.  And when you don’t believe in God and believe that the only important things in life are those already alive, as best managed by the omnipotent and omnipresent and omnibenevolent State, the primary ‘life’ you are worried about is our own.  In other words, having too many people around diminishes your own quality of life.  So if you can get rid of them, you should.  Why not?  You only answer to yourself.  And if the others can’t defend themselves?  All the better.

Today it is uncouth to point out how this reasoning has historically been extended.  The idea that economic well being and family size is connected goes back a long time, well beyond even Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood (under a different name).  Back in the 1920s and 1930s, they were pushing eugenic programs and sterilization programs, and things of that sort, all with the goal of improving the quality of life for everyone else.  This fell out of vogue because of that embarrasing application of the logic in the concentration camps and gulags but the reasoning still holds- and there are still people who believe it today.

Someone put the matter in troubling terms on the news today.  They said, “Well, if it succeeds and the measure improves the economy, I guess we’ll know they were right.”

What the bloody H E double hockey sticks does it matter if the economy improves because of this?  If the economy improves as measured by Planned Parenthood’s bottom line improving and however many more thousands murdered, who cares if it improves?  This is like evaluating Hitler’s programs based on their effectiveness.  Effectiveness doesn’t matter a lick to whether or not its right.

I have nothing against contraception if it doesn’t involve the slaughter of innocents.  I don’t believe that taxpayers should fund it, period, even if it will ‘reduce the costs to the state.’  If you liberals want to hand out condoms, go ahead and spend your own d*mn money to do so.  But we are all plain stupid if we don’t think that this measure will not result in more abortions- albeit indirectly- at taxpayer expense.  And maybe the point is moot, for direct tax payer subsidized abortions is imminent, anyway.

This, of course, is what Obama meant when he talked about reducing abortions, you see.  Isn’t it great to stand on such common ground?

Share

1 ping

  1. […] Do Your Part for the Economy: Have Fewer Kids, Abort If Necessary “Now, in theory this money would only go towards ‘family planning,’ ie, contraceptions, not abortions. However, we have to remember that for many people, abortion is a contraception. The clearest example of this is the belief that just because you wipe out a human embryo in the first couple of days after conception, you haven’t actually aborted the child. … Someone put the matter in troubling terms on the news today. They said, “Well, if it succeeds and the measure improves the economy, I guess we’ll know they were right.” … This is like evaluating Hitler’s programs based on their effectiveness. Effectiveness doesn’t matter a lick to whether or not its right.” […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

10 − three =