Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour


Submitted on
January 27
Image Size
279 KB


2 (who?)
American Eugenics by katiejo911 American Eugenics by katiejo911
American Eugenics
Add a Comment:

LOL.  Your only mistake is the fact that Obama/Progressives are the politicians who actually idolize and support eugenic programs and policies:

(1) One of Obama's Science Czars actually supports eugenics (John Holdren) and wrote a book on the topic, including forced sterilization, abortions, and other government measures taken to reduce fertility rates to keep the population down (for example:… ). 

(2) Obamacare IPAB Death Panels:  (sections 3403 and 10320 of ACA): A committee of 15 politically appointed directors who decide how to cut costs of medicare (by determining how much the government will pay for certain procedures.  By paying less than the costs associated to perform a procedure, in effect the Death Panel decides what procedures wont be covered, which likely will be  the majority of procedures performed on the elderly near death such as total hips, etc...).

(3) Progressives promote abortions for convenience, over adoption or orphanages, in cases other than those of rape/incest/elevated medical risks for child/mother.     

I think you should check your sources, Fox News being rather shaky with facts.  In the document to which you linked, there is no John Holdren mentioned that I could see, but a Kenneth Boulding, economist who wrote The Meaning of the 20th Century: The Great Transition and died in 1993.  He was unlikely to have served in the Obama administration, as it didn't begin until 2008.  the so-called "Death Panels", an inflammatory misnomer, as proposed are certainly no worse than insurance company claim reviewers who are expected to turn down all or most claims as a matter of course in an effort to avoid payment, no matter the merit of the claim.  They save money by either discouraging people from making an appeal, not informing people they CAN make an appeal or stringing the appeal process on so long that the patient dies.  Abortion is a right that women have been granted lawfully.  Adoption and "orphanages" are not plentiful in this country due to, in the first case, the rigorous application process and the desire for white infants.  "Orphanages" rarely exist, as they have closed due to the high price of liability and been supplanted by the unenviable foster care system.  
It always confuses me to see staunch anti-abortionists cutting funding for SNAP, food stamps and other services.  They want to force a woman to have an unwanted child, then punish her for having a child she didn't want.  If the government wants the child, the government should take care of the child.  Consider it child support from Uncle Sam.

LOL.  Facts?  You presented no factual basis for your claims, so it would by hypocritical to question mine.

Nonetheless, the link was from a page of the book John Holdren authored; most of the time, authors don't cite their own work.  As far Far as Fox news goes, the link is to a direct source, the author's own work, not an opinion of a new organization interpreting the work, the work speaks for itself.  It makes no matter whether Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, BBC, or Al Jarezza TV copies a page from the authors book and place a link to it.....  the book remains about idolizing and supporting eugenics. 

Insurance is by contract though.  If they breach contract you can sue them.  If the patient dies in the meanwhile, the heirs continue the claim against the insurance company, and likely will get huge money (millions and millions) if the jury finds out the insurance company let their client die because it refused to pay claim wrongfully.  While I am sure it happens sometimes, that is not the norm.


An IPAB Death Panel CANNOT be sued.  Even if they could, they would be shielded by sovereign immunity and the most $ you could get would be like $200k (as compared to millions and millions for a grossly negligent breach of contract).  Also, these people are not only monetarily minded, they are also politically minded and likely to be used by the Obama administration to deny sufficient allowances for procedures that typically occur in higher percentages with his political opponents.  IPAB decisions can effect millions of people with each decision they make, while a Bad Acting Insurance company has to make 1 bad decision at a time.... so the scale of damage done rests with IPAB. 


First of all, if the government gives a person nothing, that is not a punishment, that is (should be) the status quo of contention. 

If a woman has unprotected sex and gets pregnant, it is no ones fault, other than her own and her partners, and should be no one else's expense for the baby (excluding rape). 

As you know, anytime you get something of value or it is offered as an effect based on a certain event, it is a subsidy or influence to illicit a certain behavior. So if you reward people with money for each child they have (through whatever program), that encourages people to have more children.  At the same time, the amount of money being rewarded to people in poverty based on their children is not enough to take them out of poverty, so in effect poverty based entitlements just subsidize and grow the poverty class.  Then usually the same people who make the poor decisions to have children while in poverty, usually continue to make other poor decisions and start spending their entitlement child support from uncle sam on things like drugs, alcohol, smokes, gambling, junk food, etc...         





A woman has a legal right to have an abortion if she so chooses.  You can talk in absolutes, but in real life, women get pregnant by men who abandon them, men who cannot be prosecuted for rape, men who are criminals, men who are unfit to raise children, men who are mentally ill, men who die and other men who are just not father material.  Men lie, too.  "I've had a vasectomy," they promise.  "You can't get pregnant the first time," they tell young girls with ignorant parents who think their children will just absorb sex education from the air around them or will be given Divine knowledge from on high.  

Women, too, sometimes are unready to have a child, too young, unhealthy or unable to bear a child, or have their own reasons for not wanting to have a child at the time they become pregnant.  Women who get pregnant are not sluts. They are women who had sex with a man. Married women want abortions sometimes.  Men want women to get abortions as well.  They don't want the responsibility of caring for or paying for a child.  

And let's get something straight here.  I women doesn't "have unprotected sex and get pregnant" in a vacuum.  There is almost always a man involved, unless, of course, she is bearing the close relative of a deity, in which case it may have been a dove or a swan or an angel or some other method of divine delivery.  If you want a woman to carry a baby she doesn't want - I'll say that again - if YOU want a woman to carry a baby she doesn't want, YOU should step up and take on the responsibility of raising that child.  If you don't want to do that, then keep your nose out of the vaginas of American women with clearly defined legal rights.  

I think we are drifting from the topic of eugenics into justification for abortions of convenience....

Anyways, you are proving my point that people who support abortions for all the reasons you mentioned (other than rape/medical risk exceptions) are essentially "culling" their own children/children in poverty who would otherwise apparently be a burden to society.  As such, it seems you are conceding that abortions for convenience are a tool of eugenics when subsidized by the government which is a Democratic Progressive ideal, rather than a Republican Ideal. 

LOL, so testy.... 

Yes woman have a "legal" right to have an abortion as provided by Federal and State laws where they choose to live.  That doesn't make it "morally" right to do so though under a general census of what constitutes morals IMO.  Sure morals don't always matter to some people, so be it, that is between them and their GOD, if any.  

While women may have a legal right to kill their own unborn baby for whatever reason of convenience they choose (not ready/responsible, cost to much money, family dynamics don't condone it, etc...), they don't have a right to force taxpayers to pay for their abortion.  At the very least, if they are going to make lemonade out lemons, then they need to take responsibility for their actions and pay for their own procedure. 

I don't care how irresponsible other people choose to be (that is their right), UNTIL their irresponsibility starts costing the time/money of Responsible People, who then have every right to make changes to the law to try to reign-in the irresponsible behaviors of others who begin to infringe on responsible people's rights to privacy and property (to be left alone and untaxed to pay for other peoples' irresponsible behaviors).   


What I would like to see rather than an abortion, is for the mother to at least carry the baby to term, deliver it, and then put it up for adoption (with abortion justifiable for rape/medical risks of mother/child).  That way the baby isn't killed for convenience; people who want to love a baby can adopt one from the US; the mother has a chance to take responsibility, and after going through the whole ordeal may be she would have a greater appreciation for life, sex, unintended consequences of premarital sex, etc....            

"What I would like to see rather than an abortion, is for the mother to at least carry the baby to term, deliver it, and then put it up for adoption"

You are obviously a man.
Women don't get pregnant because they have sex without protection.  Women get pregnant because men have sex without protection.

Protection is not needed, if there isn't sex happening in the first place.

But if there has to be sex, protection should "always" be used or sex should be denied (there are all those STDs out there including HIV/AIDS, which is worse than an unwanted pregnancy). 

Both MEN and WOMEN have the joint-responsibility to practice safe-sex.  Similarly, MEN also should pay child support and half medical bills for unwanted pregnancies which go up for adoption.  And if the MEN don't pay they should be subject to child endangerment violations requiring them to go to a working-jail which allows them to make money to be collected for the child-support.     


Humans are built to reproduce just like other creatures.  The brain is wired for reproduction.  Hormones kick in at arousal and make changes in brain activity.  Pheromones are released that attract those of the other sex subliminally.  Even God said be fruitful and multiply.  It is a biological imperative to make new little humans.  What is unnatural is for humans to fight these urges.  But of course, our society requires it as we do not have a family-oriented society.  Since the 1960s, the breakup of the extended family has contributed to the selfishness of the individual and the abandonment of familial responsibility.  Grandparents do not live in the same town, area or often even state as their grandchildren.  Brothers and sisters do not raise their children together.  Children do not feel a responsibility to care for their aging parents, nor do parents want to assist their children who are having problems in these difficult financial times.  In the time and place I was growing up, families often lived within 25 miles of one another.  Cousins knew each other and grew up together.  Weekly gatherings were commonplace among families and children born out of wedlock were absorbed into the extended family.  

And so we have birth control.

Now things are different.  Families are looser and so is moral structure.  Families are fluid and varied.  Our children and grandchildren live in a different world with different values.  And they are entitled to them.  And they are more honest and accepting than we were.  As a naturalist, I believe that unnatural social norms are destructive and cause unnecessary amounts of guilt, anger, resentment, hatred, deviant behavior and other mental and physical disturbances.  Humans, short of causing harm to others, should be left to live their lives as they see fit.  Those who seek to control others are the ones who need social adjustment, because they are attempting to force unnatural ethics and behaviors on others for their own satisfaction.  This makes them deviate from what a human should be, which is a being that lives in peaceful integration with all other creatures.  

Basically, what this means is that unless it's about you, you should keep your nose out of it.  

Let me refer you to Matthew 7:5
Unvalanced Jan 28, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Judging by the running delta of living situation in Republican versus Democratic states - that is, the -change- in the situation, as opposed to the situation itself - I find these kinds of arguments deeply amusing.
Add a Comment: