Culling Out the Population, the Enlightened Liberal Way
Progressives exist in a state of constant angst, agonizing over snail darters, incandescent light bulbs, and of course global warming. But the issue that drives liberals to a state of tongue-wagging, eyeball-popping hysteria is population growth — what doomsayer Paul Erlich once termed the “Population Bomb.”
And history shows liberals are willing to take almost any measure to keep the population in check – just so long as the program can be cloaked in mesmerizing happy-talk.
Want to stop the beating hearts of 46 million unborn children each year? Then just call it “promoting choice and empowering women” – doesn’t that sound wonderful!
Desire to kill off 30 million African children from the ravages of malaria? Then ban DDT in the name of saving the bird shells!
Yearn to see the deadly AIDS epidemic continue to rage out of control? Then push the “safe sex” campaigns that tell teenagers to indulge in carefree sex, just so long as you use a condom.
And when all else fails, try forced sterilization. I’ve previously described how progressive-inspired racial purification schemes led to the sterilization of 400,000 undesirables in Nazi Germany: www.renewamerica.com/columns/roberts/090827 .
Sterilization is not merely a hush-hush liberal policy of a by-gone era. Sterilization continues to be topic of debate to the present day. And I’m not just talking about repressive societies like Communist China.
(As First Lady, Hillary Clinton decried China’s one-child policy as a violation of human rights. But as Secretary of State, Clinton completely swept the issue under the rug during her recent trip to China. But I digress.)
And now there’s a whole new chapter to the eugenics saga.
In 1977 Paul and Anne Erlich wrote Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. The book is so replete with Chicken-Little scenarios and mad-scientist nostrums that if I paraphrase, you’ll accuse me of making this up. So allow me to recite a few lines as you hum along to the tune of Three Blind Mice.
Paul and Anne Erlich begin by declaring, “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
That’s what’s called a living, breathing Constitution.
But compulsory abortion alone will not suffice: “A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men,” they urge.
For reasons unknown, these benevolent people say they prefer to target women.
How to bring this about? “The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control.”
Ever heard of Norplant?
If that fails, the Erlichs propose a back-up plan: “Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods.” To meet stringent FDA standards, the sterilant “must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets or livestock.”
At least Fido and Fufu will be safe!
Admitting there are “very difficult political, legal and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems,” the Erlichs still express hope their idea will one day bear fruition.
Oh, I forgot to mention one important detail.
Ecoscience was also co-authored by John P. Holdren, recently named as President Obama’s chief science advisor. Considered an expert on global climate change, Holdren has a wide-ranging mandate to advise the president how science and technology impact domestic and international affairs.
To this day, Holdren has yet to repudiate any of the frightening proposals outlined in his book. So until the Sterilant-in-Chief departs from the Obama administration, my advice to you is this: Keep a close eye on the drinking-water.
| More from Carey Roberts
Stumble It!
September 14th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Apart from America, which seems to have an increasing population, most of the western world is seeing the human tide going out. The ‘Thanatos’ purveyors like Erlich and Holdren can take a day off while Feminism encourages Women-in-General to hate men with such devastating consequences to life. Feminism is bought and paid-for by dead babies, cloaked in ‘Individual, ‘empowered’ choice’ of course.
September 14th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
They always target women with these eugenics schemes.
Always.
September 14th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Actually, it seems like there IS a limit to the measures people concerned about overpopulation will consider to limit population. See what reaction anyone gets when proposing that unmarried people consider abstaining from sexual relations, or at least sexual relations of the sort that leads to pregnancy.
September 15th, 2009 at 12:59 am
Although the idea of forced sterilization and even forced contraception rightly sends up alarm bells — such things being legitimately associated with totalitarianism, racism, eugenics, and genocide — I believe there ARE at least a few cases in which it would be reasonable to consider them.
Several years ago I read about a woman who was facing charges because she had tried to kill her young son. This same woman had previously served years in prison for killing her first child. Psychiatrists who examined her said she had a compulsion to give birth to children and then kill them. The judge worked out a deal with her attorneys that required she undergo a tubal ligation. The judge noted, “She has no further need of children.” Two very unlikely bedfellows — the National Organization for Women and the Roman Catholic Church — opposed this deal. However, it seems to me that the judge made an obviously true observation and that the agreement was reasonable.
September 15th, 2009 at 1:42 am
Interesting Denise. And how are you, m’dear?
I think that tubal litigation for the woman in question is like Muslims cutting hands off thieves, or the usual cruel call to castrate rapists.. It isn’t her tubes or uterus that were a problem, it was her use of them to make kiddies to kill ! That’s a ‘will’ issue. Why not cut her head off instead? I tend to agree with the NOW harpies (wow, a first !!) and the Church.
September 15th, 2009 at 1:59 am
Whoops, a pun, or was it a freudian slip.
September 15th, 2009 at 7:55 am
Managing population or population control is too complicated.
Too many determining factors or attributes unrelated directly to fertility.
If you think of the family courts, then you begin to grasp how impossible the task is.
September 16th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Amfortas Says:
September 15th, 2009 at 1:42 am
Interesting Denise. And how are you, m’dear?
(Denise) Deeply in debt and working hard. In good health and counting my blessings — of which there are many.
<<I think that tubal litigation for the woman in question is like Muslims cutting hands off thieves, or the usual cruel call to castrate rapists.. It isn’t her tubes or uterus that were a problem, it was her use of them to make kiddies to kill ! That’s a ‘will’ issue. Why not cut her head off instead? I tend to agree with the NOW harpies (wow, a first !!) and the Church.
(Denise) The "NOW harpies" probably objected to the tubal ligation as part of a plea deal because they feared the establishment of a precedent making a woman's sterlization a part of a legal agreement. However, their fear was misplaced. The reason they could have had such a mistaken fear was — that like all too many people — they may have reflexively thought of hers a "an extreme case." It was not an extreme case. It was a BIZARRE and ECCENTRIC case. The compulsion she had to deliberately conceive and give birth only to kill children is the result of a mental perversity. The judge came up with a way to ensure that no baby would ever suffer the horror of being born to this singularly odd and destructive woman. I support his actions in the case 100%.
There is no "slippery slope" to be feared here. One does not go from this agreement to trying to get women to be sterilized because of their religion (or lack of one), race, ethnicity, social beliefs, etc.
September 16th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Amfortas Says:
September 15th, 2009 at 1:42 am
Interesting Denise. And how are you, m’dear?>>
(Denise) In extreme debt and very busy — but also counting the blessings I do have and grateful for them.
Amfortas: I think that tubal litigation for the woman in question is like Muslims cutting hands off thieves, or the usual cruel call to castrate rapists.. It isn’t her tubes or uterus that were a problem, it was her use of them to make kiddies to kill ! That’s a ‘will’ issue. Why not cut her head off instead? I tend to agree with the NOW harpies (wow, a first !!) and the Church.
(Denise) The “NOW harpies” probably opposed making a tubal ligation part of a legal deal because they feared the precedent it might set. Their fear was misguided. Many people would probably reflexively and unthinkingly refer to this as an “extreme case.” It’s not. It’s a BIZARRE and ECCENTRIC case. The judge made exactly the call that I would have made because no child deserves to be born to a woman as strangely perverse as this destructive oddball.
There is no “slippery slope” between this deal and pressuring women to be sterilized because of their race, ethnicity, religion, political views, job status, etc.
The tubal ligation wasn’t a punishment. The woman’s punishment was imprisonment for attempting to kill this child just as it had been imprisonment for actually killing the previous child. Sterilization ensured that no baby would suffer the injustice of being born to this creature.
Cutting off her head doesn’t strike me as a bad idea but the judge worked within the modern American system that doesn’t allow for that.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
I agree, Denise, that it is a very odd case. But if this woman is in prison, one can only wonder about her getting pregnant at all and if she did then removing the baby at birth is a sounder and more humane option.
I see no immediately clear case for maiming a person simply because they are ’strange’ or dangerous to babies.
Birth is not ‘deserved’ in any case. The baby’s safety may well be a consideration but that is only if it it conceived in the first place. Babies are born to strangely perverse people every day.
(By the way, The Swayze chap who died the other day played the part of a Doctor in a flim a while back -City of God, or something like that – in which he was confronted with this very issue of the ‘deserving’ of life. Life does not care a whit about ‘deserve’ It is simply insistent and babies force their way into the most appalling conditions. )
On a personal note – I am sorry to hear that you are struggling and the debt is mounting up, my dear. I would be right there bailing you out like a good friend were it not for me being in the next small and leaky boat bailing like crazy for myself. I fear that sinking is an event I am about to experience. I hope your blessings float.
October 12th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Vasectomies.
Let the liberals have at it.
October 20th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
I’m of a mixed mind when it comes to this.
On the one hand, this world has entirely too many idiots and could do with a good culling.
On the other hand, many of those idiots reside in our goverment, and they would be the ones making the decison. Heh.
I think the choice is a clear one eh? Get a political science degree and you get a free vasectomy/tubal ligation!
The one part about this sort of discussion I always find amusing is just how often so called proponents of ‘population control’ usually have children themselves.
October 20th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
It’s all of little consequence when you factor in the imminent arrival of the male birth control pill / patch / injection in the next few years.
I imagine when western men get these new technologies they will look at the odds of finding a fairminded and loyal woman for a partner who won’t use misandric feminist social systems to harm them. They’ll review the growing anecdotal and statistical evidence that they’ll most likely be dumped from the relationship, losing their partners, kids, homes and future incomes in the process.
They’ll then decide rationally that the odds are stacked against them and they’ll keep taking their oral / patched / injectable contraception and avoid producing kids with women there.
The massed effect of western men doing this will mean that in countries where men percieve themselves to be marginalised by women and the powers that be, viewed as second class and expendable parents – they’ll vote with their reproductive systems and say en masse “No thanks, not at this time. I deserve a MUCH better chance at fatherhood and husbandry than is available right now in history!’
Many women will be thrown into despair as they will not be able to find a man who will procreate with them because so many men will be unwittingly part of this ‘marriage and fertility strike’.
It will be the second part of the sexual revolution where men finally join women in having rock solid control over their own fertility.
Notice that despite being aired for public discussion by MRAs feminists have maintained a massive SILENCE about this for years.
They know these things are true , but choose to remain silent because it’s in their interests to stay silent about the topic.
Conversely, it’s in our interest as MRAs to encourage men far and wide to press for the earliest SAFE release of these empowering new technolgies for men
October 21st, 2009 at 11:31 am
I agree Skeptik, that’s always been part of the problem in the end scheme. Women have ALL the reproductive rights.
Let’s sum up:
Men have, in terms of reproductive controls:
– Abstinence
– Condoms
– Vasectomy
– Abortions (very very arguably as it is in fact ‘her’ choice)
Until these new technologies arrive, that’s pretty much it, yes?
Women have, in terms of reproductive controls:
-Abstinence, condoms, diaphragms, IUD’s, birth control pills, birth control patches, birth control shots, abortions, hormone treatments, hysterectomies, and probably more that I can’t think of off the top of my head.
A significant difference in degree, and yet what do we always hear? It wasn’t her FAULT that she got pregnant.
As soon as these technologies hit the floor and men have a choice in the matter, a true choice, the tables are going to turn significantly I think.
When a woman has a child, there is never any doubt about the fact that she is the mother. Ever. There is ALWAYS some small measure of doubt about the fact of paternity. With technologies like this, some of that problem can hopefully be addressed.
Either that or enough men are going to vote with their reproductive rights that eventually we will fall well below replacement births and get invaded and destroyed, or women will have to cave and begin to treat men more decently if they ever want to have children.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:36 am
For those of you who have ever had any doubts about paternity being FAR from an assured thing, I encourage you to visit this site:
http://www.paternityfraud.com
If you are relatively unaware of the huge issue this is, please get more educated.
You can read many horrific accounts of men being forced by the courts to pay for men that DNA tests and women have admitted are not the father’s, etc etc. Chilling stuff.
300,000 men become victims of paternity fraud on average every year.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:39 am
The above should have been ‘accounts of men being forced to pay for *children*..” sorry