Skip to comments.The War on Fertility: The left's birth-control fixation is about more than sexual freedom.
Posted on 03/06/2012 2:45:53 PM PST by rhema
If there is one word that captures the Orwellian nature of contemporary feminism, it is "choice." It's not just the word's wide use as a euphemism for abortion. You can understand why people on that side of the abortion issue prefer to frame their position in abstract terms, as a defense of liberty, rather than concretely discussing the specific freedom they are defending. Some of them are no doubt sincere in saying that they favor "the right to choose" in general and have no brief for abortion in particular.
But not all. People who claim to favor "reproductive choice" are often quite judgmental about the reproductive choices of others. This column has occasionally noted anecdotal examples, such as the lady at a party last year, a self-described feminist, who angrily described Sarah Palin as a "moron" for having encouraged her pregnant daughter to carry the child to term and "to marry the sperm donor" (feministspeak for the biological father). Another was the man who encouraged pregnant and unmarried Katie Roiphie, a feminist author, to get an abortion and have a "regular baby" later.
Only a bit less harshly, Washington Post columnist Lisa Miller puts such sentiments into writing:
Between them, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have as many children--12--as the tribes of Israel. Ron Paul has five of his own, and in an early debate, perhaps unwilling to be outdone by Michele Bachmann's fostering of dozens, Paul boasted that when he worked as a physician he delivered "4,000 babies."
There's nothing wrong with big families, of course. But the smug fecundity of the Republican field this primary season has me worried.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Even thirty year ago, my four kids were enough to get peoples attention, was thought to be a large family. In our age, two is the ideal, one is frequent, and zero is the most desirable.
Whenever I meet someone who is loudly and militantly pro-abortion — and especially the dimwitted women who practically brag, “I had an abortion” — I thank them, for in their own small way making the world a better place for my children and grandchildren, by taking themselves out of the gene pool.
Taranto's last paragraph: America has some hope for the future, though. Its fertility rate has not declined as sharply as in other Western nations, in part thanks to families like the Romneys, Santorums, Pauls and Palins. The polarization of American politics gives reason for hope about America's political future, too. As we posited years ago in "The Roe Effect," the left's war on fertility is likely to have its greatest success in reducing the fertility of left-leaning women, thereby ensuring that future generations are more conservative. Now you can see why Lisa Miller is in such a bad mood.
Keep in mind that the Left has anywhere from zero to two children per family and conservatives have around three or four.
If we want to dominate the Left all we have to do is out breed them and teach our children Conservative ways. The more children Conservatives have the better.
Rabid feminists, along with their male homosexual activist friends, have always referred snidely to Republicans in general, and conservatives in particular as 'breeders', which says a lot about the value they place on children.
Of course. They don’t want to have children. They want to steal yours. That’s why they become teachers.
Forced Birth Control
Follow the money.
Obamacare mandates that medical insurers cover any FDA-approved contraceptive, including the newer, higher priced patented systems that you see advertised on TV constantly.
When people are paying the bill themselves, most will opt for the low-cost generic. But if somebody else is paying the bill, they will opt for the one they see on TV at twenty times the price. The patented systems are much more profitable for the insurance companies.
If you are on a Statin for Cholestrol, your insurance company is pushing you toward the generics, as they become available. If you want the more expensie patented drug, you have to pay the difference out-of-pocket. But Obamacare specifically mandates that any FDA-approved birth control be fully covered, regardless of price.
Follow the money.
CHOICE applies only to reproduction, not to child-rearing practices, education, cars, light bulbs, food, business, medicine, property use, (list a few more)....
Sadly true. But the home-schoolers saw 'em coming, and they have the solution. God bless those diligent, kid-loving home schoolers!
Writers have been exposing socialism's tyrannical principles and goals for a century now. Those who have understood it best declared that its policies lead to tyranny and oppression, and the writer quoted below deals with the idea of population control, as it relates to that ideology.
Yet, we have arrogant Americans, born in liberty, and viewing themselves as "intellectuals" and "progressives," who have embraced socialist ideas over the ideas of liberty and are determined to impose its deadly limitations on a once-free people. Note the writer's warning that the "scheme of socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes the power of restraining the increase of population."
From the Liberty Fund Library is "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), originally published in 1891, Chapter 1, excerpted final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classesthe class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal lifeimperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive stridesbroadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
What is the risk that Obamacare starts using the birth control mandates to include “free tube tying after second kid”?
We have 11 kids (see my tagline).
We homeschool them, of course.
If we can outbreed them, we can turn this around in a generation.
The weird thing is how the left loves to throw money at the poor when they have babies they can’t afford.
“If we want to dominate the Left all we have to do is out breed them ...”
The left just imports the voters they need, i.e. illegals.
Unfortunately, it has cast a pall over our whole society.
Female sterilization surgery is already included in the “free” “preventative” “care” mandate.