Subsidizing Selfishness, Societal Collapse, and Modern Genocide

The Rwandan Genocide was not prescribed by the government. Now our genocide is.

Following up on Patrick’s post of earlier today, and this is a series of extra thoughts to develop and re-emphasize his point, the Administration has, in effect, declared human life a disease, or at the least has ordered us all to subsidize selfishness and modern genocide.

Think: ​Women’s Health™​​ tells us that contraceptives and abortofacients are essential. Contraceptives are intended to prevent conception and abortofacients to kill the “products of conception,” so that men can use women and women can use men without the threat of a new life blossoming in her womb. Conception must, then, be bad bad bad for Women’s Health™​. Fertility has become a “pre-existing condition,” and sperm cells are an invading army (submariner navy?) set to wreak havoc by having the audacity to follow their nature and fertilize the ovum.

But conception is the means nature set up for us to, ya know, have more people around, so I guess having more people around must not be desirable either.

Odd position to take for a group of people who believe they are entitled perpetually to spend more of other people’s money. If conception is bad bad bad and must be prevented in the name of Women’s Health™​, where will we get more taxpayers to fund it all? Even China will be bankrupt when their population implodes under the weight of the one-child policy (which ends up meaning kill the girls since they can’t make as much money and have those nasty wombs that issue forth more *shudder* children). Europe’s debt crisis is due in no small measure to the lack of workers to pay for the ridiculous social services they’ve legislated for themselves. The lack of workers comes in part from youth being coddled as adolescents way later into their lives at the front end and widespread early retirement and then reliance on the public dole at the back end, but moreso from the shrinking pool of able-bodied people of working age to fill the coffers that pay for all the services. They’re driving over a cliff. We’re not that far behind, and measures like this only push the accelerator further to the floor as we speed toward that cliff.

Is there possibly a more anti-life, anti-future policy than to subsidize entirely the acquisition of contraception and abortion?

I saw a stat on the news yesterday during coverage of some calamity somewhere in the world that has been going on for 9 months. Apparently during those nine months the number of deaths works out to one person killed every 30 minutes for nine months straight.

Child’s play. Since 1973, the number of abortions works out to roughly three persons killed every minute. Three every minute. And that doesn’t even touch on the lives denied because the couple gettin’ their glands satisfied (whether they love each other or not) are not open to life and keep the most important and breathtakingly beautiful part of their sexuality as man and woman cordoned off from the other. Imagine the hundreds of millions unable to enrich our lives and contribute to the betterment of humanity because the parents were selfish!

So really, it’s worse than conventional genocide. Even those who commit genocide as an act of war only do it to rival tribes or ethnic groups while leaving their partners-in-genocide alone. Conventional genocide requires fighting and rounding people up and big messy mass graves. Contraception and abortofacients are simple: a condom. a pill. an IUD. a simple surgery. Contraception and abortofacients know no ethnic or gender or racial lines*: they deny the dignity and worth of every human life across the board. They are the most widespread and insidious form of genocide, attacking not just one people, but all people.

The only ones not party to this modern day genocide are those who steadfastly reject the morality of such practices. And now we are being ordered by our government to assist in the genocide, to subsidize the purchase of the poison gas for the chambers, the machetes for the marauding hordes, the kool-aid for the cultic sacrifice.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that’s how we see it. And given that view, is it any wonder we resist with such furor?

————-

*While the actual techniques of abortion and contraception know no racial lines, the genesis of Planned Parenthood from the mind of the virulently racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger and the statistics of abortion are unmistakable in the racially tinged nature of the genocide. Something like 60% of pregnancies among black women in New York City end in abortion. The numbers are slightly better nationwide for black babies, around *only* 40% of all pregnancies among black women ending in abortion. So the genocide has hit one community harder than others, just as Margaret Sanger wanted. She’s not turning in her grave, she’s cackling and smiling. With Moloch.

1,445 views

Categories:Uncategorized

8 thoughts on “Subsidizing Selfishness, Societal Collapse, and Modern Genocide

  1. Kyle says:

    Now Barbara Boxer is touting the HHS mandate support from Catholic Health Association and Catholic Charities. Time for the Church to stop supporting these organizations. This means YOU, the parishioner. Stop donating to the 2nd collections which fund these organizations. How can we be expected to make a donation in Church for organizations which go against the Church?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-barbara-boxer/republicans-birth-control_b_1270468.html

  2. tz1 says:

    Lesbians don’t need contraceptives, nor gay men so why should they have to pay either? The telos is significant.

    But this is the other point – a lot of contraception is merely to make sex recreational. It is not so much a right to health care, but to have the taxpayer pick up the tab for wreck or rec-sex. Including for baptized protestant couples. What next, BDSM equipment? Also google maafa21 , go to maafa21.org or life dynamics on the black genocide issue.

    1. Marsha says:

      tz 1, just an FYI: contraceptives are not the cause of recreational sex. Sex was recreational long before the invention of contraceptives. (and I don’t believe that anyone should should pay for someone else’s contraceptives.

      1. Logike says:

        Marsha: Huh? Of course contraceptives are part cause of so much recreational sex. Recreational sex is the whole PURPOSE of contraception, namely, to pursue the pleasures of sex without the consequences of a child (or an STD). And if recreational sex was just as common BEFORE as it was AFTER the introduction of “the pill” in the 1960′s, can you please explain to me why divorce, teen pregnancy, single-motherhood, STD’s, and HIV all skyrocketed AFTER the 1960′s? Shouldn’t the data show the exact OPPOSITE if your hypothesis were true?

  3. Hank says:

    Wouldn’t you have to agree, then, that sending taxpayer dollars directly to the pharmaceutical companies like Merck, Pfizer, etc., that produce contraceptives is the same “subsidy?” Not sure how Medicare Part D is any different than this…

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      Hank, IMO, since the money that goes to those companies is a payment for drugs delivered it’s not quite as direct, though you make a good point. If the dollars from Medicare Part D are to purchase those offensive drugs then you are absolutely correct it is a parallel case. If they are not for those drugs then I don’t see the parallel because it is a one-to-one transaction, no? But even at that, I was vociferously opposed to Part D back when it was being rammed through (it is a large reason the GOP lost the Congress for a time), though I was not blogging here at the time. Now that we’re debating all of this again, a real answer is to repeal Obamacare and completely overhaul our entitlement system before it bankrupts us.

      1. Hank says:

        A couple of points: first, why does it matter how direct the money is? Does it make it a lesser evil if it’s indirect? But isn’t it still evil? Second, for some medical conditions, women are prescribed contraception for non-contracepting purposes. As a taxpayer, there is no conscience protection. Third, Medicare Part D has nothing to do with Obamacare, besides that it still exists under Obamacare (but it would exist either way). Fourth, I find it troubling that with so many parallels to the HHS mandate and clearly no conscience protection in Part D, no church leaders spoke out. And don’t forget Rick Santorum voted for Part D.

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          Hank— The directness of the money matters because it mitigates complicity in the immoral activity. If I give a homeless guy $20 to buy food and he does buy food but spends the rest on condoms that is less direct, and therefore less morally liable, than if I told him I’ll take him to the store and spend $20 on him and he includes condoms in the purchase, for which I dutifully hand over the $20. Or, if I buy a product from a company that does not support Planned Parenthood, but one of their suppliers does, how directly am I supporting PP? Am I morally liable? That’s why the directness of the money matters. Second, we are not here talking about the non-contraceptive applications of certain drugs that are primarily contraceptives, but even at that, the pills you’re talking about are readily available for very little money—the non-contraceptive application and the limited demand for those do not justify the government forcing all organizations to pass them out for free—why not pass out aspirin for free? Heartburn medication? What about prenatal care? Why isn’t that simply free? Those are far more directly and obviously health care products than The Pill-even-if-used-for-non-contraceptive-purposes. The fact that the government is insisting on these drugs, with this sort of absolutely free-to-the-consumer access indicates another motive. Third, I didn’t say Med Part D *did* have to do with Obamacare, but that both are problematic laws in many ways and I offered my opinions on what ought to be done to both. Fourth, the indirect complicity I mentioned above explains in part why Med Part D did not generate an uproar, plus the fact that it was not a perfect parallel—the government is providing something rather than the government forcing private organizations to provide something.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.