Eugenics in American policy

Although abortion is a hot-button topic due to the debate over whether a human death is involved or not, the ramifications of abortion or the right-to-life are far more reaching than ever discussed in the mainstream media.  As such, this article is not about why abortion is wrong.  If the reader is interested in a concise and easy read about the moral bankruptcy of child-murder, they can read an article I wrote on the subject a short while back. Rather, this article is about the more dangerous consequences of solely granting the right-to-life.

Of course, when approaching the topic of abortion, the intelligent and learned Left is generally (yet unmentionably) aware of one major problem: that repealing the ability of a woman to kill her children would have the effect of nearly exponentially increasing the number of Black–and mostly illegitimate– children in the West, the fear of which prompted the creation of abortion rights groups such as Planned Parenthood (who specifically targeted Black communities with access to “choice”).  Even popular liberal books such as Freakonomics have unabashedly stated that the decline in violence levels in the US were predominantly due to the abortions of the 1970’s and 1980’s, but didn’t care to mention that an overwhelming number of abortions involved Black children.  Actually, the Black abortion rate is ridiculously higher than the White abortion rate, and has always been. 

So is The Left morally correct?  On all reasonable accounts, the response is “no.”  The idea that inconveniently conceived humans should be destroyed to provide the way for a more luxurious and less troublesome society is reflected in only the worst and most highly publicized historical examples of genocide, but this doesn’t necessarily make the theoretical mechanics behind the eugenics movement false. The truth is that prohibiting abortion–combined with a sexually liberal ethos and the current welfare state–will have no effect other than causing unfathered children to multiply in cities across America, all on the bill of those who work hard and create children within the institution of marriage.

In this aspect, liberals and Darwin are correct.  After all, any layman could access abortion statistics, illegitimacy statistics, Black homicide rates, and the link between welfare, crime, and illegitimate child birth to see that solely repealing the right to murder one’s child would have violent effects on our society in a short number of years (and Fox News reports that if abortion had never been legalized, the largely illegitimately-born and poverty-stricken Black population would have been 50% larger).  But banning abortion alone isn’t what conservatives–true and intelligent conservatives, anyway–would suggest we do.

If those on the Right are at all serious about protecting the unborn and also interested in upholding the stability of their society, the protection of the unborn must be accompanied by a return to sexual responsibility and the dismantling of the welfare state.  This means that a policy of mandatory marriage upon childbirth would have to be instated, as well as stiff penalties for adultery and the banning of easy divorces (meaning, those not involving physical abuse and/or adultery).  And although these at first appear draconian, why would anyone consider the “right” of a man to abandon his children to be a moral necessity, important for the upholding of civil liberty?  And what of adultery? Who in their right mind would tell a woman she has to raise a child by herself, against her wishes, and that a man has a right to disregard his promise of fidelity to her? And remember: if paying child support were the answer, then children born out of wedlock wouldn’t be more likely to end up in jail.  As such, Black isn’t the problem.  Familial disintegration is the problem.

Of course, there are many who would decry these laws as oppressive and puritanical.  But although Western nations generally pride themselves on their social liberties, legally permitting most acts which “only” harm the one or two people willingly involved, Roger Scruton stated that the effects of virtually unrestricted sexual license not only involves more than just two people–which would make it regulatable according to most influencing Western moral philosophers such as John Stuart Mill–but ultimately undermine the fabric of our society by promoting poverty, destitution, welfare dependence, and crime.  A look at any cities where illegitimacy is predominant will affirm this fact (Chicago and Detroit).  And furthermore, a woman can choose who to have sex with and whether or not to do it without “protection.”  That is liberty and choice enough.

So as silly as this may sound to the Left, the truth is that Black people are perfectly capable of being productive and beneficial members of society, and that murdering them is unnecessary.  As an alternative to murder, this writer recommends giving all Americans sexual dignity and responsibility.  Doing the inverse–effectively telling people that their lives are expendable, and then paying them money to hold low sexual standards–is going to have exactly the effect one would expect of it: wrongly reinforcing the unfair mentality of being less-than-human as well as the substandard behavior that accompanies it.  

So if you’re going to oppose abortion, do so.  But only if you accompany your stance with a consistent and meaningful policy on sexual license and personal dignity.  Unless of course you want the country’s crime rate to mirror Detroit’s.

This entry was posted on 29. July 2009 at 17:43 and is filed under philosophy, politics, cultural/racial. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

| Print