January 24, 2013
-
Compromise Between Pro-Life and Pro-Abortion
The other day I was reading another article about abortion on the news. I believe it was in Kansas somewhere but I cannot remember for certain. In any case, some abortion advocates were trying to open up an abortion clinic, and the local people were protesting and trying everything legally possible to prevent it. When I read that article I had an epiphany, which I will reveal shortly, but first some background:
I have heard all of the arguments for abortion, and most of them fail to hold water. I disagree that abortion is about choice, or a woman’s rights. Your rights end where another person’s body begins, and the baby at any stage of development is another person. The choice was laying on your back, unzipping your pants, and letting your shag buddy fail to use a condem. Another choice was engaging in frequent sex without taking birth control. So it’s not an issue of choice, it’s an issue of bucking responsibility and making other people pay for the indescretion.
But that being said, regardless of which side of abortion the law decides to come down on, it’s still a lose-lose scenario. Even if the government decides to go completely pro-life and ban all abortion, and if they contrive a way to succesfully enforce that law, then society as a whole still loses out. Or at least, the productive members of society lose out.
I will break it down:
When an abortion occurs, then an unborn baby is murdered, and usually not in a quick and painless fashion. On the other hand, if there is no abortion then a baby is born into an incomplete household, is left to the care of negligent people, and is probably going to grow up to be on welfare. One way we have murder, and the other way the underclass of people dependent on the government (a solid Democrat voting bloc) is going to grow. It’s just not good for the economy. Responsible people end up having to take care of irresponsible people’s children, and that means that our own standard of living has to suffer because of someone else’s negligence.
So here is my solution, let’s have state sponsored sterilization clinics. That way these people won’t have children, and they won’t have abortions. Let’s face it, nothing in the world is going to make these people become responsible all of a sudden.
Sterilization would be free, but if they ever decide that they want to reverse it later on then they have to pay out of pocket. No government aid for reversals. Once they are sterilized they can engage in as much sex as they want without any risk of pregnancy or impregnation, and the sterilization clinics will also service men free of charge. No more baby daddies or baby mommas. We could further improve things by making receipt of welfare money contingent upon sterilization. This would improve things massively for our country and society over the long term.
If the population decline increases, we are not going to try to compensate for it with immigration. You can’t compensate for a dwindling population with immigration, all that does is replace one population with another. People on the left need to understand there is a difference between replenishing and replacing. Let the population fall, and if it falls too much then maybe the government could incentivise reproduction by productive citizens with tax breaks. Maybe a population drop without immigration would be a good thing since there would be less competition for jobs in the next generation. I myself have had a terrible time. I wouldn’t mind less competition (although it wouldn’t affect me personally, just my kids).
So that is my solution, and I for one think it is brilliant in it’s simplicity and workability. I think if this were implemented then most people on both sides would be happy, but I doubt it will be because the left is so dependent on those kinds of people for votes.
Comments (22)
unfortunately, it would require them to be responsible enough to go get sterilized. they cant put a damn condom on or pop a pill once a day.
@grim_truth - Well, we could at least start with requiring all the welfare people to get sterilized if they want to have the welfare continue.
I’m surprised that you think states could incentivize population growth. Every time it’s been tried, it’s failed. A little nugget I picked up from my rightist economics history professor last semester who has spent months pouring over population data.
Also, even sterilization is not 100% effective.The only 100% effective technique is not to have sex, which as hormone-driven humans is not going to work.
I would also suggest that “welfare” is too broad a term to use. There are some who through no fault of their own require government assistance to get by – for example, unemployment pay during a medium-term unemployment period.
My suggestion would be sterilization after a specific time period – something like 3-6 months.Even then, it’s still a rather Nazi-fascist concept to enact.
Not all pregnancies are willfully contracted.
I’ve been saying this forever! Quite frankly, I’d willingly contribute to a charity for sterilizing people who should not or do not want children. You’d think birth control would have solved the issue, especially considering it’s free or almost via medical assistance to the poor, but welfare has still enabled bastard children to increase in frequency. I think eliminating the welfare state would in itself largely solve the problem of a devolving population (in terms of morality and intelligence).
You should see these kids in schools. Singing the “sexy lady” song in KINDERGARTEN. My dad wouldn’t even let me watch “Friends” (the tv show) until 8th grade! This generation is going to be scary to watch as they approach adulthood, coddled and sheltered, undisciplined and uneducated.
@cmdr_keen - Not quite every time. It worked in Maoist China. Obviously we wouldn’t depend only on the state in order to spark population growth. We would also allow the natural economic pressures of a shrinking economy to play a role, and education. As you know India has the opposite problem of the US, but what they have done there is launch educational programs to mitigate the tendency to have lots of kids. There is a state in India (I THINK Tamil-Nadu) which actually has a shrinking population. I’m thinking that if they can make theirs shrink then we can make ours grow.
I would support sterilzation after a specific time period, or after having a kid in that situation. People who can’t even support themselves should not have kids under any circumstance.
@DrummingMediocrity - I would too, and I certainly would find that a much less objectionable use of tax money than welfare, which subsidizes their reproduction. The problem with welfare is that it provides them with an incentive to have more children, because for each kid they get more money. We need to reverse that.
I agree that the population is getting dumber, lazier, and more evil. There was a famous geneticist (I forget his name) who was heavily concerned about the average world IQ, because people with higher IQ’s are not having kids, but people with low IQ are breeding voraciously. If I could remember his name I would quote him and write a blog entry on it.
Yea I don’t see a lot of hope for the younger generation. Of course, if you’re in a ghetto area things will be much worse. Those kids will probably be bums because that’s all that their parents are. If you were in a suburban area things might not be as bad.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - Was it James Watson?
@DrummingMediocrity - Quite possible, but I’m not sure. Trying to find that quote but I can’t, so it may have been someone else. But you know I forgot about that Africa contraversy. It seems like people really came down on him for suggesting a link between intelligence and race, or intelligence and IQ, but no one bothered to disprove what he said. It’s like some things cannot be investigated if they may lead to politically incorrect conclusions, but if it’s true then aren’t we better off knowing?
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - It’s a very contentious conclusion. I do believe that intelligence isn’t completely inherited, either, though. A lot of it has to do with a person’s character (how they use what they’ve got). Then again, character is in large part inherited as well. Volition is individual effort.
do you really think everyone living in this country would get voluntarily sterilized? what would be in it for them? they won’t make free clinics for a small portion of the population. do you think they would MAKE people get them done? and if so, at what age would people be sterilized? a girl can become pregnant as soon as she begins her period. so you think a 9, 10, 11 year old girl is going to get sterilized? and in the same sense, a boy can impregnate a girl as soon as he reaches puberty and has sex with a girl who has already reached puberty. so, again, are you saying you’re going to sterilize children? do you really think all the health insurance, pharmaceutical and birth control companies, and gynecologists would get on board with this? how are they going to make their profits?
I don’t think you’ve quite thought this all through.
@Love_in_102 - Where did I say I wanted everyone to get sterilized? Did you seriously think I was reccomending that or is this an attempt at bait and switch? I really want to know because I always try my best to be as clear and deliberate as possible. Obviously I don’t want everyone to get sterilized. I myself have every intention of reproducing. I want the irresonsible people to be sterilized. Lots of irresponsible people would agree to be sterilized if they knew their next welfare check depended on it, and those welfare people who did not would find their welfare money cut off. Either way the problem of generational dependency on the state would be solved.
There are lots of people on the left who want state funded abortions and contraceptions. My idea of state funded sterilzation is a compromise with the left. Not only is it more cost effective than state funded abortion and birth control, but it is more cost effective over the long term, and it frees all those people up to have as much sex as they want without facing pregnancy. One way they can’t complain about being forced to comply with a set of values they don’t share, and those of us on the right don’t have to have our money going to fund infanticide. It’s a win win scenario all around.
@DrummingMediocrity - I think a lot of stuff factors into intelligence. Part of it is certainly genetic, but there is also proper nutrition, education, and upbringing. I think it would be a mistake to completely dismiss any of those factors, especially if the only reason for doing so is because you might not like the results. Even if it is true what Watson said, it’s just a generalization, and there are exceptions to every generalization. So black people need not feel demoralized and we need not assume that all of them are either dumb or lacking in potential. One thing that’s interesting to think about is that technically Europeans, Russians, and Iranians are all the same race, but Eurpeans are on average smarter than Russians and Iranians respectively. I think in that case culture has a lot to do with it.
I definitely believe that Islam has stunted the intellectual development of the Middle East and North Africa. Those people used to be leaders in civilization when my ancestors were running around in the woods with animal skins, but you won’t see anything from them today, and we haven’t seen anything from them for over 1000 years. i don’t know if Islam stunts their mental growth, or if over a thousand years of Islam has created a dysgenic effect due to a practice of killing intelligent people.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - you’re right, you didn’t say everybody. so, let me get this straight. a woman has 3 kids, is single, is not working, and is on welfare. that money is meant to be used to to help take care of her kids. she is told she has to be sterilized if she wants to stay on welfare, but she refuses to get the procedure done, and she loses her benefits. what happens to those kids?
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - Perhaps there is some level of inbreeding among Islamofascists. Although Jews are pretty racially segregated (you know because Ashkenazi Jews still are more genetically similar to Arabs than fellow Europeans/Whites) and they are generally considered to have the highest IQs of all races.
@Love_in_102 - I’d say if their mother is so selfish as to make that decision, those kids are probably already in a bad situation.
@Love_in_102 - Having people dependent upon the state is never what the founding fathers intended. This whole concept of welfare is a Marxist concept which should never have been allowed to take foot here. That being said, why shoudl my tax money be taken to subsidize other people’s kids. I want to have my own kids, and in order to do that I need to have my own money. The government scrapes about 350 from me every month, and the state government about 100. I would rather keep that money and put it towards my own family than have it go to pay for someone else’s indescretions. That being said, I will answer your question in a more direct manner. No one should want to stay on welfare. That is despicable, however, that woman would have to decide what is more important, keeping her ability to reproduce intact, or having the welfare checks (which she didn’t earn in the first place) keep coming. If she ever becomes successful then she can always pay to have her tubes untied later on. If not then she doesn’t need to be having any more kids.
@DrummingMediocrity - Yea that’s another good example. Jews and Arabs are technically the same race, but Jews are generally smart and Arabs are generally dumb. In situations like that it looks like the difference is culture, although Jews are by far less likely to kill their own people for questioning or going against the grain.
I wonder about incest as well. Cousin marriage is practiced in Islamic countries, but it also used to be practiced in Europe and the US, but maybe not to the same level. I know it’s still practiced in India.
I thought north Asians had the highest IQ of all races?
@DrummingMediocrity - I would question her sanity.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - I certainly don’t like the government taking money from me, either. the point I’m getting at is that while you’re solving problems in one scenario, you’re creating problems in other areas. those kids may get even more neglected without the welfare checks. they either a) get taken away from the mother due to neglect, which just thrusts them into the system, and your money STILL goes towards taking care of those kids, or b) those kids end up out on the streets, getting into trouble. they get arrested they go to jail or prison, so now your money’s going towards the support of convicts. it’s just one big circle, y’know?
@DrummingMediocrity - oh, without a doubt they are. no argument about that, for sure.
@Love_in_102 - Charity can only be done by the private sector. Maybe such charitees will be religious in nature, or they may be conducted by philanthropists, but those are the only morally acceptable ways of helping people like that. The government cannot function as a charity because the government does not generate wealth. The government can only appropriate money from the citizens to pay for anything it does. So one way perhaps it feeds some children, but at the same time it is robbing someone else, at gunpoint if necessary. A thief with a cause is still a thief. That being said, you are correct in pointing out that the way things are now is a circle, which is why I suggested sterilization, because generational cycles can be broken by a lack of reproduction. I don’t want to subsidize other people laying on their backs and spreading their legs. I also don’t want to subsidize other people’s kids. I’m actually a poor guy myself. I made it to 31 without having sex with anyone, and i have been in some long relationships in the meantime. It’s not hard to not have sex, and if you do have sex it’s not hard to use contraception. If I’m going to subsidize any sexual activities they are going to be my own, and that’s not selfish for me to say, because I don’t expect anyone else to subsidize my activities either.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - the government shouldn’t act as a charity, but it does, and I don’t think it will ever stop. that’s the great old US of A for ya. so why did you wait until you were 31? that’s such a long time.
@Love_in_102 - Well eventually it’s going to stop one way or another. The problem with redistributing wealth is that eventually you run out of wealth to redistribute, and at that point, whether anyone likes it or not, all the welfare is going to be cut off. But, before that happens inflation is going to be off the chain and people’s retirement savings are going to be devalued. That’s the hard truth of it. That is one of the reasons why (in case any liberals are reading this) so many conservatives want to have guns. We want to have our guns because we know that once all that welfare money is cut off, all of those people are going to go out maurading looking for food. They will break into houses, steal, kill, and rape. We need to have guns to defend ourselves. That is where a semi-automatic or fully automatic weapon would come in real useful. When there is just a few of you and lots of them, then you need something to even the odds. Someone could camp out on the second floor and just take them out as they come. Another way to go is buckshot, but I believe that the opponents have to be closer in order for that to be effective.
Welfare and immigration policies need to be changed in order to avert this future. That’s why so many of us on the right are so emphatic about this. It’s not because we are mean and hateful and want people to starve, it’s because we have put 2 and 2 together and can see where things are going.
The main reason I waited until I turned 31 is because I don’t believe it is right to have sex before marriage. I therefore never had sex. I didn’t get married earlier because finances were too low and I don’t want to be a burden on others, or accept money from the government. That’s pretty much the size of it. Hopefully I will be getting married soon.