Tarry for the Nonce

May 12, 2006

Cleansing the Undesirables

Filed under: Politics — lmwalker @ 2:50 pm

The co-counsel for Roe v. Wade gave the Clinton’s some advice in 1992 (see pages 60-64), which they seem to have embraced:

Dear President-To-Be Clinton . . .

I don’t think you are going to go very far in reforming the country until we have a better educated, healthier, wealthier population. . . .

[Y]ou can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country . . .

[Y]ou will have to provide the means to prevent the extra mouths . . .

Condoms alone won’t do it. Depo-Provera, Norplant, and the new birth control injection being developed in India are not a complete answer . . .

No, government is also going to have to provide vasectomies, tubal ligations and abortions…RU 486 and conventional abortions . . . We lost a lot of ground during the Reagan-Bush religious orgy . . .

Our survival depends upon our developing a population where everyone contributes. We don’t need more cannon fodder. We don’t need more parishioners. We don’t need more cheap labor. We don’t need more poor babies.

And here I was thinking that the almighty attorneys arguing for a Roe were concerned with women’s rights, not a Nietzschian super-society. Additionally, Mr. Weddington would do well to remember that it is the “cannon fodder” who maintain the country’s strategic global position, the “parishioners” who keep poverty in check and the “cheap labor” who keep his grocery stores stocked.

Honestly, the arrogance!

I . . . have sired zero children and one fetus, the abortion of which was recently recounted by my ex-wife in her book, A Question of Choice. (Grosset/Putnam, 1992) I had a vasectomy in 1969 and have never had one moment of regret.

Believe me, Mr. Weddington, neither do we.

Advertisements

8 Comments

  1. The upper and middle-classes have always had access to birth control; this makes it available to the class least able to afford unplanned births.

    No one is forcing them to take it (thus the “choice” in pro-“choice”).

    Are you saying that breeding children with little future other the military, manual labor, or frankly, prison is a good idea?

    And I don’t consider a you need a belief in the supernatural in order to help fight poverty. Allowing women control over their own bodies would go a long way towards helping women lift themselves out of the underclass.

    Comment by Howard R — May 15, 2006 @ 1:22 pm

  2. Allowing women control over their own bodies would go a long way towards helping women lift themselves out of the underclass.

    Or that’s what they want you to believe.

    Comment by Alistair A. — May 15, 2006 @ 3:32 pm

  3. The point of the post was that Mr. Weddington is not promoting the rights of women. He is bluntly advocating a certain level of eugenics, coming from an attitude which I find sneering at best and downright sinister at worst.

    Are you saying that breeding children with little future other the military, manual labor, or frankly, prison is a good idea?

    I suppose I’m coming from a more rosy perspective that sees a world of opportunity and a brighter future made possible. I don’t think that every child born into poverty is doomed to wallow in misery and filth until their miserable existence is terminated.

    And I don’t consider a you need a belief in the supernatural in order to help fight poverty.

    LOL. Nor do I. Nor did I mean any disrespect to the many fine atheists and agnostics of the world who are guided by a spontaneous charitable nature. I was speaking in hyperbole to make a point. A lot of people do contribute to charity through religious organizations and that money is quite effective in the fight against poverty.

    Comment by laura — May 15, 2006 @ 3:48 pm

  4. Well said, Laura!

    Comment by Matt C. Abbott — May 15, 2006 @ 11:28 pm

  5. Are you saying that breeding children with little future other the military, manual labor, or frankly, prison is a good idea?

    I’ll say so. I mean, by definition, some people will end up as manual laborers and members of the military, so that’s their future. We just don’t know which people they are yet. Manual labor and military service are good, honorable, and vital professions, and do not belong in the same list as prison. People in those professions “contribute,” arguably more so than some arrogant, overeducated professional mouthpiece with a taste for eugenics.

    And deciding who deserves to live based on their purported future is not a path down which any “progressive” should want to go.

    Comment by Toly — May 16, 2006 @ 11:12 pm

  6. How about saying that we’d like to do our best to ensure that children that are born will be able to provide for themselves?

    Comment by Howard R — May 18, 2006 @ 10:14 pm

  7. Sure. I’d endorse that sentiment wholeheartedly.

    Comment by laura — May 19, 2006 @ 10:49 am

  8. I’m feeling contrary so I’m not going to agree 😛

    Comment by Alistair A. — May 19, 2006 @ 11:33 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: