Letting Loose the Dogs of War (on the Unborn)

As expected, Barack Obama lost no time aiding and abetting the abortion industry by signing an executive order, on Friday, once again allowing the USAID to provide funding for abortions overseas. Now granted, he did not issue this order in as nasty or tacky a way as Bill Clinton did, but the net result will be the same, and I can't see it as anything but American imperialism in a different guise. We're perfectly willing to provide funds so that the population of other countries – primarily the “third world” -- does not completely soar out of control. This, in the face of data that indicate that the “carbon footprint” of the average American is many times that of the average third-world citizen. In other words, if Obama is really interested in the total impact on the Earth, he ought to facilitate even more (if that's possible) abortions in the U.S. and not worry about the birth rate overseas. But that would be to forget that America's mission – now, as always – is to save the world from its own follies, whether political, economic, or, in this case, reproductive. Our government, and that of Israel, are already wringing their hands in dismay at how fecund the Palestinians are – and under those conditions, to boot! -- you know, the conditions imposed by us and Israel. But they forget one of the basic parameters of population biology, which is that, under certain types of stressors, a given species will actually accelerate its reproductive efforts rather than suppress them. Skeptical? Compare the reproductive rates in American inner cities, or Latin America, or Eastern Europe under the Soviets, or the Jews under persecution, with the rates found in today's fat-cat, complacent Western Europe, or the U.S. from the lower middle class on up. There is a fancy among social-control advocates that high rates of reproduction lead to poverty. While this may not be entirely untrue, it is more true that poverty leads to higher rates of reproduction, and it's not just because sexual activity is “the only thing they can do that's free”, as many of our liberal elitists have claimed. It's more of an instinctive thing – that when times are hard, your DNA (remember the “selfish gene” theory that all the liberals are enamored of?) still has a better chance of survival with many offspring than with only a few, or – obviously – none. (This argument has also been offered as hope for the decline of liberalism, forgetting that the hotbeds of liberalism are not literal beds but our colleges and universities.)

In any case, Obama did the predictable thing, and the pro-life organizations are dismayed – but certainly not surprised. A bit of irony that no one has pointed out as yet is that American support of abortion on an international level can, with very little difficulty, be seen as a form of genocide – particularly of black people, as practiced by white people. But even this doesn't seem to bother Obama, who is half African – assuming he's even figured it out. It has always escaped me what American blacks find so “liberating” about government support for abortion, which is disproportionately directed at their own kind. Maybe they think that quality is more important than quantity – well, fair enough, but then where's the quality? Surely not in our inner cities, where the bulk of black Americans live. I think they've simply been made the victims of a massive con game. But the “black leadership” has been completely silent on the subject, with the notable exception of – guess who -- “Calypso Louie” Farrakhan, once again proving that no one is wrong about everything.