Decades before Margaret Sanger uttered her first Malthusian diatribe regarding the necessary and proper culling of the human herd for the improvement of the species, the world's imagination had already been infused with hubristic obsession regarding evolutionary ethics. Ernst Haeckel, a well-known 19th century Social Darwinist and a real fun guy by all accounts was one on the first scientists to use the sacred scriptures within Darwinian Theory to support his inclinations regarding the eugenics movement's predilection for better living through sterilization, euthanasia and infanticide.
Perhaps he was one of the first modern advocates for a master race, but he most certainly wasn't the last, and it didn't take long for theories in evolutionary inevitability to prove themselves true through their own stunning mutations in coarseness and violence against the unborn, the infirmed and the elderly.
When we read the descriptions of brutality as detailed by Illinois Review contributor, Jill Stanek as she explains the aftermath of unsuccessful abortions, when we gasp in witness to the debate over the State-approved homicide of innocent newborns at the hands of medical professionals because the child had such ill-breeding as to survive its prescribed abortive treatment, when we read in disbelief the opposition that President Obama had to the legislation known as the Born Alive Act during his tenure in the Illinois Senate, pro-life individuals often shudder against the malevolence that we are witnessing with sickened dismay. Some perhaps ask, "How did a woman's right to contraception develop into a dispute over the right to murder a fully delivered, breathing on his own, crying for his mother infant? When did an innocent citizen's right to life come into question? How did we get to a point in our nation's history where that seems like a good idea?"
How? Oh, I'm so glad you asked. It was evolution, my dear. You see, Barack Obama didn't invent eugenics. He's just part of the world-wide movement to perfect it. The mealy-mouthed (and some argue principled) idea held by eugenicists that helping natural selection along by limiting certain kinds of "worthless," "ignoble," or "inferior" reproduction came from the grandpappy of all political movements – Progressivism. 1800's styled Progressivism (don't-cha know) which certainly never hindered itself by denying its master-race proclivities. No. They just let it hang out there for everyone to see. No shyness. No reserve whatsoever. They were particularly proud of the intellectual superiority baked into their reproductive ethics:
"…between the most highly developed animal soul and the least developed human soul there exists only a small quantitative, but no qualitative difference, and that this difference is much less than the difference between the lowest and the highest human souls or as in the difference between the highest and lowest animal souls."
If you believe that sounds like a decree coming out of the Department of Health and Human Services or the Department of Fish and Wildlife for that matter, you are only marginally mistaken. It is in fact a quote from The Natural History of Man (1868) by Ernst Haeckel. (I warned you that he was a party animal.) Frankly, had not certain brutal dictators become impatient and had they not taken steps to push their cause along more quickly than was first prescribed, I daresay that the Eugenics movement would never have shifted its propagandist discourse by limiting the language of abortion to something so modest as a women's health issue. Not to worry mein liebling. Methinks they've found their stride now. Who could deny a poor, beleaguered woman the right to reproductive control…the right to say, "I don't want any children right now." It's simply…un-American…that a woman's potential should be limited by misfortunes caused by the genetic accident that is her biology.
Problem solved. Behold Progressivism's cultural and legislative offspring…Northern Illinois is the proud momma of the largest abortion mill in the country, and isn't it simply heartwarming to watch her precious prodigy grow.
Hey! What's your problem anyway? If you don't want to use contraception then no one's making you. What right have you got to limit someone else's access to it by restricting them to your medieval moral code? Zealot.
Voila! And that's how the bait and switch is done. Just a few short years after Planned Parenthood opened its Aurora clinic to the protests of every pro-life organization in the state, we now have federal mandates which will require citizens to fund PPs abortive and sterilization efforts – citizens up to and including the conscientious objectors who find abhorrent the mass murder of 30 million unborn children since Roe v Wade was made the law of the land. Internalize that number. We've killed the equivalent of the State of California at this point…but why stop there? The sky's the limit!
So if federally funded abortion is Margaret Sanger's eugenicist brainchild coming into its own then what might the next generation look like? What is in store for us in Social Darwinism 2.0?
There will be a next generation, guys. You have come to realize that by now, I'm hoping. This isn't the end. It's just the beginning. The beat goes on after all. Have you yet begun to imagine what characteristics the next generation of barbarism inherits? How will things change? Evolve? What will the family tree of Aurora's Planned Parenthood mean to the growing disconnect between couples and the creation that they contribute to at the moment of conception?
I don't know. Let me think. Certainly, millions of couples have been helped in fertility clinics. Infertility? That's got some potential if it could be harnessed properly. What could the eugenicists do with that goldmine of genetic possibility, I wonder?
Because how can one reject the life-affirming moment when a woman holds her much wanted, medically concocted newborn for the first time. What kind of cold hearted witch would deny a woman such a moment as that?
That's right. Listen up, Naperville. I'm talking to you. As you go about the business of approving the newly proposed Naperville Fertility Center, we're already beginning to see quotes such as this being hurled at people who oppose its construction (this comes from the comment section of Naperville's Trib Local):
"Shame on you Naperville and the people who are speaking out against this clinic. Why must people be so ignorant about infertility and IVF??? No one is forcing YOU to do it, so don't if you don't want to, but for me, the DISEASE of infertility did not allow me to conceive on my own, and I will forever be GRATEFUL and PROUD of my journey with IVF and the two amazing children it produced. Shame on those ignorant few making Naperville look close minded and fearful of a FERTILITY clinic."
Ah, yes. Ignorant. Were truer words ever spoken? No one does force you or me to partake in the reproductive health care of another human being. Am I right? Those are private medical decisions that are made between a woman and her fertility clinic, so stay out of her womb…
…that is until it becomes a legislative mandate from the Department of Health and Human Services because she wants it done for free thereby placing us in the insufferable role of sugar daddy for her private medical decisions.
Sorry, ladies. Fool me once.
But we're just talking about unblocking a few fallopian tubes and where's the harm in that? Are you saying that you pro-lifers are advocating for the blockage of fallopian tubes? Not very Christian of you, now is it? Who could deny a poor, beleaguered woman the right to reproductive control…the right to say, "I want children right now." It's simply un-American that a woman's potential should be limited by misfortunes caused by the genetic accident that is her biology.…
They will (by the way) be doing genetic screening at this clinic. I wonder what that's all about. Let's see here. Eggs will be harvested and fertilized. Then they will be screened. The worthy embryos will be implanted. Those less worthy will be…
…what? What will they be?
There's nothing more compelling to the advocacy of eugenics than a sorrowful woman who is trapped by her biology. That is why women are used to further the cause in the first place, and it is absolutely true. I without question cannot stop a woman from partaking of her fertility options by selecting the most genetically desirable embryos for implantation. That is still another right in her unfathomable list of biological rights. A virtually bottomless pit of reproductive privileges as it were.
But since President Obama and the Department of Health and Human Services has cut funding of the Embryo Adoption Program starting in the year 2013…those are the "Snow Flake babies" for those of you who are left scratching your head wondering why anyone would be inclined to adopt an embryo, that means there will be no other option available to fertility clinics than to destroy left over frozen embryos or leave them in a state of suspended animation.
And since they're going to destroy them anyway, why not put the obliteration of human potential toward a greater purpose? Go ahead. Raise your hand if you know what that greater purpose might be? Come on. Don't be shy. You all know what we're getting at here. Who's that in the back of the room? Michael J Fox? Mr. Fox? What time is it, Mr. Fox?
Time to increase supply and demand? Because there's nothing more compelling to the advocacy of eugenics than a sorrowful woman who is trapped by her biology – unless you are talking about a sorrowful man who is trapped by his.