PDA

View Full Version : They Want To Sterilize American Women: Sterilization Won’t Cost Women A Penny Under Obamac




John F Kennedy III
07-13-2012, 01:17 PM
They Want To Sterilize American Women: Sterilization Won’t Cost Women A Penny Under Obamacare


Michael Snyder
The American Dream
July 13, 2012

Did you know that sterilization will not cost women a penny under Obamacare? A new regulation that goes into effect on August 1st requires that health plans cover sterilization for all women with “reproductive capacity”.


That includes teenage girls. According to the new regulation, women must have access to sterilization “without having to pay a co-payment, co-insurance or a deductible.” So women will not have to pay a single penny out of pocket if they want to get sterilized. Of course this sterilization mandate will make health insurance more expensive for all of us, but the social engineers in Washington D.C. feel that increasing access to sterilization is a very important public policy goal. So why are they doing this? They are doing this because they love death. They truly believe that they are saving the planet by reducing human numbers. That is why “family planning” is always at the very heart of the “green agenda”. They want to sterilize women because that will help keep the population down. And if there are less people running around, there will be less of us to ruin “their planet” with all of our pollution.

The new Obamacare regulation requires health insurance policies to offer 100% coverage for all “approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.”

But to fully understand what is going on, you have to look at this in context with what is being implemented all over the globe.

Have you heard of Agenda 21? It is an international effort coordinated by the United Nations to make the world a more “sustainable” place in the 21st century.

To the social engineers at the forefront of this effort, the number one threat to “sustainable development” is overpopulation. That is why population control is one of the central pillars of Agenda 21.

So all over the globe, family planning programs are being pushed and funded by the United Nations. In many UN-funded family planning facilities all over the planet sterilizations are being offered for free.

The United Nations seems absolutely obsessed with population issues. In particular, they seem quite determined to get women in poorer countries to have less children. For example, the March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief began with the following statement….


What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?

A statement like that should be setting off all kinds of alarm bells in your head.

Questions like that are only a few steps away from all-out genocide.

But the social engineers at the United Nations are so obsessed with “saving the earth” that the fact that human lives are being destroyed in the process does not seem to bother them.

Many in the environmental movement believe that the number one problem facing the earth is climate change, and many of them also believe that carbon emissions being produced by human activity are the number one cause of climate change.

So that makes all of us the number one enemy of the planet.

This disturbing philosophy was clearly reflected in a 2009 report released by the United Nations Population Fund entitled “Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate“. The following are three quotes that were pulled directly out of that report….

1) “Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendants. Hence, the emissions savings from intended or planned births multiply with time.”

2) “No human is genuinely “carbon neutral,” especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation. Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so everyone must be part of the solution in some way.”

3) “Strong family planning programmes are in the interests of all countries for greenhouse-gas concerns as well as for broader welfare concerns.”

So the goal is to reduce the human population by as much as possible in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

That is why those associated with this movement like abortion and absolutely LOVE sterilization.

When a woman has an abortion, she might get pregnant again.

But when a woman is sterilized, her “problem” is gone for good.

And guess what?

Your tax dollars go to pay for abortions and sterilizations all over the planet. The following is an excerpt from an article entitled “The Population Control Holocaust” by Robert Zubrin…..


Of the billions of taxpayer dollars that the U.S. government has expended on population control abroad, a portion has been directly spent by USAID on its own field activities, but the majority has been laundered through a variety of international agencies. As a result of this indirect funding scheme, all attempts to compel the population control empire to conform its activities to accepted medical, ethical, safety, or human rights norms have proven futile. Rather, in direct defiance of laws enacted by Congress to try to correct the situation, what has and continues to be perpetrated at public expense is an atrocity on a scale so vast and varied as to almost defy description. Nevertheless, it is worth attempting to convey to readers some sense of the evil that is being done with their money.

If you have not read the rest of that article yet, you really should. You can find the rest of that article right here.

Developing nations all over the planet are often coerced into participating in these population control schemes through financial aid programs. For example, a recent article by Jurriaan Maessen detailed how the World Bank is actually using “financial assistance” as leverage to get developing nations to implement “family planning programs” in their countries….


According to two subsequent documents put out by the World Bank, its guidelines dictate that in order to qualify for World Bank lending, sovereign nations must implement population reduction objectives as outlined by the World Bank and UN Population Fund. If they refuse, lending will be withdrawn.

Already pre-tested and implemented in Yemen and Niger, these guidelines are destined for global implementation within the next decade, says the World Bank.

In very poor countries, money can be a very powerful motivational tool.

In fact, in some nations money is actually being directly offered to women in an attempt to get them to agree to be sterilized. As I have written about previously, health officials in India are offering motorcycles, televisions and even new cars to women in an attempt to get them sterilized.

In other countries, darker methods of coercion are used.

In Uzbekistan, the government has decreed that “surgical contraception should be provided free of charge” to all Uzbek women who volunteer for the procedure.

That kind of sounds like what the new Obamacare regulation is going to do in the United States.

But what starts off as “voluntary” often becomes “mandatory” eventually.

The following is from an article in the Independent that detailed the horrible forced sterilizations that are going on in many parts of Uzbekistan….


Saodat Rakhimbayeva says she wishes she had died with her newborn baby. The 24-year-old housewife had a cesarean section in March and gave birth to Ibrohim, a premature boy who died three days later.

Then came a further devastating blow: She learned that the surgeon had removed part of her uterus during the operation, making her sterile. The doctor told her the hysterectomy was necessary to remove a potentially cancerous cyst, while she believes he sterilized her as part of a state campaign to reduce birthrates.

“He never asked for my approval, never ran any checks, just mutilated me as if I were a mute animal,” the pale and fragile Rakhimbayeva said through tears while sitting at a fly-infested cafe in this central Uzbek city. “I should have just died with Ibrohim.”

According to rights groups, victims and health officials, Rakhimbayeva is one of hundreds of Uzbek women who have been surgically sterilized without their knowledge or consent in a program designed to prevent overpopulation from fueling unrest.

Sadly, Uzbekistan is not an isolated example. The truth is that forced sterilizations (often funded by the UN) have been happening all over the globe. This was detailed in length in a great article by Jurriaan Maessen. If you have not read it yet, I encourage you to go check it out right here.

Of course one of the biggest offenders of all is China. The Chinese have been enforcing their brutal “one child policy” for many years.

In China, if a woman tries to have a second child she is in danger of being arrested and dragged off to a clinic for a forced abortion. Often a sterilization is done on top of the forced abortion.

As the Epoch Times recently noted, enforcement of this one child policy can be absolutely brutal….


“Pregnant women lacking birth permits are hunted down like criminals by population planning police in China and forcibly aborted.”

One recent case of forced abortion in China made headlines all over the globe. The following is from a story that appeared in a New Zealand news source….


The family of a woman forced to undergo an abortion because she ran afoul of China’s one-child policy has accepted a cash settlement, apparently ending a controversy that caused a public uproar and embarrassed the government.

Feng Jianmei’s husband, Deng Jiyuan, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the family accepted the settlement of 70,600 yuan ($11,200) because they wanted to return to a normal life.

Feng was beaten by local officials and forced to abort her baby last month, seven months into her pregnancy, because she did not have 40,000 yuan ($6,300) to pay the fine for having a second child.

Local authorities have often violently imposed abortions and sterilizations in an effort to meet birth quotas set by Beijing, but photos of Feng lying on a hospital bed with the blood-covered baby, reportedly stillborn after a chemical injection, set off a public outpouring of sympathy and outrage after they were posted online.

Will we see scenes like this in the United States someday?

The new Obamacare regulation gets us another step closer.


The sad thing is that overpopulation is a myth. If resources were distributed more efficiently and there was not so much evil and corruption in the world, the earth could easily hold a lot more people than it does today.

Unfortunately, the social engineers that are running things do not see things that way.

In fact, this sick population control philosophy is represented at the very highest levels of the U.S. government.

For example, Barack Obama’s top science adviser, John P. Holdren, actually co-authored a book in 1977 in which he advocated mass sterilization of American women. The following is just one of the incredibly shocking quotes in Holdren’s book….

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

Please keep in mind that Holdren is the number one “science adviser” to Barack Obama.

So what do these social engineers hope to achieve?

Well, the eventual goal is to reduce the population of the earth from 7 billion to about 500 million.

There seems to be a consensus among the “scientists” that write about these things that a global population of 500 million humans would be a “sustainable” level for the planet.

So how are they going to get rid of more than 90 percent of us and get the population down to just 500 million?


article here:
http://www.infowars.com/they-want-to-sterilize-american-women-sterilization-wont-cost-women-a-penny-under-obamacare/

originally here:
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/they-want-to-sterilize-american-women-new-obamacare-regulation-makes-sterilization-100-free

Icymudpuppy
07-13-2012, 01:25 PM
Am I the only person who thinks that the world would be a better place if the stupid sheeple stop breeding? Really. Do you REALLY want more welfare babies?

RickyJ
07-13-2012, 01:31 PM
Am I the only person who thinks that the world would be a better place if the stupid sheeple stop breeding? Really. Do you REALLY want more welfare babies?

It may be voluntary now, in the future it will be mandatory. A young girl being fed lies can easily be misled to think sterilization is a good thing, not realizing that it is permanent.

Noob
07-13-2012, 01:31 PM
Am I the only person who thinks that the world would be a better place if the stupid sheeple stop breeding? Really. Do you REALLY want more welfare babies?
You volunteering to be sterilized your self?

It's not for fetch to think they well secretly sterilize women under obamacare.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17612550

Icymudpuppy
07-13-2012, 01:49 PM
You volunteering to be sterilized your self?

It's not for fetch to think they well secretly sterilize women under obamacare.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17612550

Already am. I have two boys. Don't want any more kids. Got a vasectomy. All the sex I want, no consequences. ;)

John F Kennedy III
07-13-2012, 01:59 PM
Already am. I have two boys. Don't want any more kids. Got a vasectomy. All the sex I want, no consequences. ;)

Except aids.

*shrugs*

:p

Icymudpuppy
07-13-2012, 02:01 PM
Except aids.

*shrugs*

:p

If my wife gives me AIDs, she'll have some 'splaining' to do.

coastie
07-13-2012, 02:13 PM
Except aids.

*shrugs*

:p

< this guy has also been fixed.:cool: But to take your point further, I suppose it's a good thing all the anti-biotics and Valtrex they'll need will be "free",and they'll need it now that they'll think there's no consequences to sex without condoms....

I also have a teenager, and infiltrated his Facebook US Government style about 6 months ago...these girls(and boys) nowadays are straight up little sluts, for real.:eek: They don't care about safety at all, and most are already on birth control by 14 yrs...

While I figured this was happening by the ways they dress and act nowadays-not to mention how their bodies look(holy shit)-it was still a real shocker to see what these 12-14 yr olds were saying in their "private" chats and whatnot.:eek: I'm talking it was like reading Penthouse Forum, with lolz and omg's thrown in there every 5th word or so.:toady:

Mom removed him from Facebook until he moves out of the house after she found that stuff, lol.

Acala
07-13-2012, 03:24 PM
Government funds shouldn't be used for subsidizing health care. However, I would applaud, and maybe contribute to, private efforts to offer free birth control to drug addicts, the mentally ill, and other folks unlikely to be competent parants.

PaulConventionWV
07-13-2012, 06:51 PM
Am I the only person who thinks that the world would be a better place if the stupid sheeple stop breeding? Really. Do you REALLY want more welfare babies?

So you support this government program? Is that what you're saying?

juleswin
07-13-2012, 06:58 PM
Am I the only person who thinks that the world would be a better place if the stupid sheeple stop breeding? Really. Do you REALLY want more welfare babies?

Hehe, I couldn't agree more with that comment. But then again, why the hell will the govt want to hurt their number 1 supporters? Single mothers are about the biggest supporters of big govt. My guess is that if the govt were trying to sterilize American women, their aim will kill off their own supporters 1st before touching any of the liberty minded women.

To this, I say "good riddance to bad rubbish" bombs away big govt

John F Kennedy III
07-13-2012, 07:08 PM
< this guy has also been fixed.:cool: But to take your point further, I suppose it's a good thing all the anti-biotics and Valtrex they'll need will be "free",and they'll need it now that they'll think there's no consequences to sex without condoms....

I also have a teenager, and infiltrated his Facebook US Government style about 6 months ago...these girls(and boys) nowadays are straight up little sluts, for real.:eek: They don't care about safety at all, and most are already on birth control by 14 yrs...

While I figured this was happening by the ways they dress and act nowadays-not to mention how their bodies look(holy shit)-it was still a real shocker to see what these 12-14 yr olds were saying in their "private" chats and whatnot.:eek: I'm talking it was like reading Penthouse Forum, with lolz and omg's thrown in there every 5th word or so.:toady:

Mom removed him from Facebook until he moves out of the house after she found that stuff, lol.

Yeah it's fucking insane to say the least.

Simple
07-13-2012, 07:23 PM
There is a lot more to population reduction than what has been laid out here. Women's Rights, urban migrations, the increasing role for women in politics and the workplace: these all increase the cost and decrease the benefits of having a large family. Giving us Obamacare with free sterilzation comes at no surprise if you actually take the time to go the the UN webpage and download and read Agenda 21:

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/Agenda21.pdf

KingNothing
07-13-2012, 07:31 PM
"They" who? WHY SAY "THEY" ---- IT MAKES EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE SEEM LIKE NONSENSE

John F Kennedy III
07-13-2012, 07:35 PM
There is a lot more to population reduction than what has been laid out here. Women's Rights, urban migrations, the increasing role for women in politics and the workplace: these all increase the cost and decrease the benefits of having a large family. Giving us Obamacare with free sterilzation comes at no surprise if you actually take the time to go the the UN webpage and download and read Agenda 21:

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/Agenda21.pdf

Bump because you, dear forum reader, need to read UN Agenda 21.

KingNothing
07-13-2012, 07:37 PM
There is a lot more to population reduction than what has been laid out here. Women's Rights, urban migrations, the increasing role for women in politics and the workplace: these all increase the cost and decrease the benefits of having a large family. Giving us Obamacare with free sterilzation comes at no surprise if you actually take the time to go the the UN webpage and download and read Agenda 21:

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/Agenda21.pdf


Pretty much, yeah.

LibForestPaul
07-13-2012, 07:39 PM
Why women? Men's sterilization is much easily reversed?

juleswin
07-13-2012, 07:42 PM
Why women? Men's sterilization is much easily reversed?

My guess is because women are the gate keepers, the final deciders if a baby goes life, the limiting factor. You can repopulate a whole society with 1 potent man and hundreds of fertile women but reverse the numbers and you are staring down the very possibility of human extinction.

Nirvikalpa
07-13-2012, 07:45 PM
Why women? Men's sterilization is much easily reversed?

No. No man should go into a vasectomy expecting to ever have children again.

It's just an easier operation (in and out procedure), shorter operation (local anesthetic, takes ~15-30min)... less costly operation...

jmdrake
07-13-2012, 07:48 PM
There is a lot more to population reduction than what has been laid out here. Women's Rights, urban migrations, the increasing role for women in politics and the workplace: these all increase the cost and decrease the benefits of having a large family. Giving us Obamacare with free sterilzation comes at no surprise if you actually take the time to go the the UN webpage and download and read Agenda 21:

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/Agenda21.pdf

Don't forget child labor laws. Now the Obama administration is saying kids on family farms shouldn't do chores. Next they'll say kids can't clean their rooms. Children have effectively been moved from the asset column to the liability column.

MelissaWV
07-13-2012, 07:48 PM
It's funny, but no one seems that butthurt that most insurance covers maternity... even mine. I get to pay for others' breeding habits in my premiums. What's the "agenda" there? Oh and a bunch of other things are covered, too! There must be a hidden agenda behind all of that!

You do realize that what you and the article are just calling "sterilization" is a painful and dangerous surgery, which right now is done not only for some in-and-out convenience of not having any additional children, but is also done for a variety of valid medical reasons?

No, I don't want to pay for it, but some of you sound really, really stupid.

juleswin
07-13-2012, 07:59 PM
It's funny, but no one seems that butthurt that most insurance covers maternity... even mine. I get to pay for others' breeding habits in my premiums. What's the "agenda" there? Oh and a bunch of other things are covered, too! There must be a hidden agenda behind all of that!

You do realize that what you and the article are just calling "sterilization" is a painful and dangerous surgery, which right now is done not only for some in-and-out convenience of not having any additional children, but is also done for a variety of valid medical reasons?

No, I don't want to pay for it, but some of you sound really, really stupid.

Glad to have a woman's perspective in these kind of discussions. My guess is every comment you thought was stupid came from a man who has a very basic knowledge about the female reproductory system. But then again I don't see any reason why the govt would want to do this, the more dependent citizen they create the more votes they get over the productive class. They maybe incompetent but they ain't stupid

MelissaWV
07-13-2012, 08:06 PM
Glad to have a woman's perspective in these kind of discussions. My guess is every comment you thought was stupid came from a man who has a very basic knowledge about the female reproductory system. But then again I don't see any reason why the govt would want to do this, the more dependent citizen they create the more votes they get over the productive class. They maybe incompetent but they ain't stupid

It's a vote buy. A lot of commercial insurance (not all, but a lot) currently will not cover a woman getting her tubes tied at 100%.

donnay
07-13-2012, 08:09 PM
Hmm...I wonder what the women in North Carolina think of this?

A Bitter Fight Over Forced Sterilization
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-12/a-bitter-fight-over-forced-sterilization

MelissaWV
07-13-2012, 08:14 PM
Hmm...I wonder what the women in North Carolina think of this?

A Bitter Fight Over Forced Sterilization
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-12/a-bitter-fight-over-forced-sterilization

I wonder what the case study's grandmother thinks of having consented to having her pregnant 14-year-old granddaughter sterilized.

juleswin
07-13-2012, 08:23 PM
It's a vote buy. A lot of commercial insurance (not all, but a lot) currently will not cover a woman getting her tubes tied at 100%.

I wonder why? maybe it has something to do with state regulation or cover against a risky procedure that my cause fatal complications in the future. Then again intrusions into the free market will always cause otherwise private institution to behave in a weird way in this case not providing a desired service by their customers

Kylie
07-13-2012, 08:24 PM
Already am. I have two boys. Don't want any more kids. Got a vasectomy. All the sex I want, no consequences. ;)


I got my tubes tied the day after my second child.


But to have forced me to do it goes against everything we are supposed to stand for in this place.

I don't like the idea of welfare babies, but I'd much rather end the "welfare" portion, not force someone to end the "babies" portion of that statement.

KingNothing
07-13-2012, 08:31 PM
I wonder what the case study's grandmother thinks of having consented to having her pregnant 14-year-old granddaughter sterilized.

Exactly. Did the state manipulate these people? Absolutely. Were the people dumb enough to go along with it willingly? Yes.

Kylie
07-13-2012, 08:36 PM
Hmm...I wonder what the women in North Carolina think of this?

A Bitter Fight Over Forced Sterilization
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-12/a-bitter-fight-over-forced-sterilization

Oh.My.God.

I had no idea this had happened in our past.

I know we have done some truly fucked up shit in the history of this country, but this has to be very close to the top. Using the ignorance of the poor and uneducated to do something like this to a child is so hideous that I cannot fathom how those women would not be violent towards the people who did this to them.

Making babies is our job. We are made to do it, and we do it well. You have no fucking right to take that away from a woman. It is the reason we exist. We carry on life. I cannot imagine going to the doctor and finding out that someone had sterilized me. I had a hard enough time after I chose to get my tubes tied. Knowing that I couldn't do what I was born to do(make babies) really messed with my head. I seriously considered getting it reversed, only because I didn't realize at 22 that I might change my mind at twenty eight. But I made the choice to do it, and had to live with that choice. I didn't have it taken from me by my Grandma, or some doctor, or a government bureaurcrat.

I'm afraid I would have went ballistic and hunted down the doctors who did that to me if I were that woman. God bless her, I don't know how she would cope with that kind of heartache.

Icymudpuppy
07-13-2012, 09:16 PM
I got my tubes tied the day after my second child.


But to have forced me to do it goes against everything we are supposed to stand for in this place.

I don't like the idea of welfare babies, but I'd much rather end the "welfare" portion, not force someone to end the "babies" portion of that statement.

Nowhere in the article does it say anything about Forced sterilizations.

Kylie
07-13-2012, 09:42 PM
Nowhere in the article does it say anything about Forced sterilizations.


And I'll bet you that vaccines for children were "voluntary" when first introduced too.


But try sending your kid to any place where other children frequent now without those "voluntary" vaccinations.


Slippery slope, once again.

coastie
07-14-2012, 08:36 AM
No. No man should go into a vasectomy expecting to ever have children again.

It's just an easier operation (in and out procedure), shorter operation (local anesthetic, takes ~15-30min)... less costly operation...


Correct, this is what the doc explained to me-and my wife. He actually talked to her privately before they would even do it. Who's balls are who's?:p


They took so much of my "tubes" that it's impossible to even reverse it. Cool with me.:cool:

PaulConventionWV
07-14-2012, 02:18 PM
Oh.My.God.

I had no idea this had happened in our past.

I know we have done some truly fucked up shit in the history of this country, but this has to be very close to the top. Using the ignorance of the poor and uneducated to do something like this to a child is so hideous that I cannot fathom how those women would not be violent towards the people who did this to them.

Making babies is our job. We are made to do it, and we do it well. You have no fucking right to take that away from a woman. It is the reason we exist. We carry on life. I cannot imagine going to the doctor and finding out that someone had sterilized me. I had a hard enough time after I chose to get my tubes tied. Knowing that I couldn't do what I was born to do(make babies) really messed with my head. I seriously considered getting it reversed, only because I didn't realize at 22 that I might change my mind at twenty eight. But I made the choice to do it, and had to live with that choice. I didn't have it taken from me by my Grandma, or some doctor, or a government bureaurcrat.

I'm afraid I would have went ballistic and hunted down the doctors who did that to me if I were that woman. God bless her, I don't know how she would cope with that kind of heartache.

Wow, a lot of language in there that would evoke fits of rage from a feminazi liberal. Go get 'em!

MelissaWV
07-14-2012, 03:50 PM
Wow, a lot of language in there that would evoke fits of rage from a feminazi liberal. Go get 'em!

I noticed it, but I let it pass. I'm apparently a feminazi liberal because, per that poster, I am jobless and purposeless. Oh well. If someone wants to define themselves as only worthy and "working properly" if they can have babies, that's their business. I'd hate to see someone like that get told they naturally cannot have children. They might jump off a cliff or something.

PierzStyx
07-14-2012, 04:43 PM
Relevant: http://explosivereports.com/2012/07/10/depopulating-the-third-world-un-sterilization-campaigns-in-developing-countries-accelerating/

About UN efforts to sterilize the Third World.

coastie
07-14-2012, 05:56 PM
I noticed it, but I let it pass. I'm apparently a feminazi liberal because, per that poster, I am jobless and purposeless. Oh well. If someone wants to define themselves as only worthy and "working properly" if they can have babies, that's their business. I'd hate to see someone like that get told they naturally cannot have children. They might jump off a cliff or something.


I don't remember the poster he quoted ever referring to you in this thread, you brought yourself into it. She didn't "define herself" as anything but what most would consider a normal human female response to having the procedure done. Defining "worthiness" was entirely your doing here-not hers. There seems to be an axe to grind in your response...:confused:

MelissaWV
07-14-2012, 06:03 PM
I don't remember the poster he quoted ever referring to you in this thread, you brought yourself into it. She didn't "define herself" as anything but what most would consider a normal human female response to having the procedure done. Defining "worthiness" was entirely your doing here-not hers. There seems to be an axe to grind in your response...:confused:


Making babies is our job. We are made to do it, and we do it well. ... I had a hard enough time after I chose to get my tubes tied. Knowing that I couldn't do what I was born to do(make babies) really messed with my head.

Womankind's job is to make babies. Knowing that she couldn't do it really messed with her head. Reread my response. As for the feminazi thing, that was brought in by PauliticsWV; basically if you disagree that women are created to make babies, you're a feminazi. That has a history from other threads as well. It really does seem to me (I'm allowed to have opinions still?) that the poster I just quoted is defining herself --- and other women --- by their ability to have children. If you read it another way, please feel free. I won't tell you that you have some axe to grind for doing so.

donnay
07-14-2012, 08:48 PM
And I'll bet you that vaccines for children were "voluntary" when first introduced too.


But try sending your kid to any place where other children frequent now without those "voluntary" vaccinations.


Slippery slope, once again.


Yes and Social Security tax was once voluntary--now it is forced upon us to pay. Government has a track record of starting things out as a voluntary measure that turns into a forced measure in the end.

Nirvikalpa
07-14-2012, 09:06 PM
So, we're all in agreement that we should be able to push infertile women off of a cliff, or women who have had hysterectomy's, because having babies is their job and well... they're kinda good for nothing leeches if they ain't doing that?

donnay
07-14-2012, 10:33 PM
So, we're all in agreement that we should be able to push infertile women off of a cliff, or women who have had hysterectomy's, because having babies is their job and well... they're kinda good for nothing leeches if they ain't doing that?

Maybe we ought to look in other directions as to why so many women and men are becoming infertile.

The Secret Sterilizing Ingredients of Vaccines
http://suite101.com/article/the-secret-sterilizing-ingredients-of-vaccines-a376233

Rockefeller Sterilizing Foundation – WHO Killer Vaccines
http://www.morningliberty.com/2012/03/30/rockefeller-sterilizing-foundation-who-killer-vaccines/

UNICEF Nigerian Polio Vaccine Contaminated; Sterilizing Agents Discovered In Vaccines Are Harmful And Toxic Says Scientist
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6741

Secret Sterilizing Ingredients In Many Vaccines
http://www.project.nsearch.com/profiles/blogs/secret-sterilizing-ingredients-in-many-vaccines

Vaccinations
http://www.tuberose.com/Vaccinations.html

Kylie
07-14-2012, 11:57 PM
Womankind's job is to make babies. Knowing that she couldn't do it really messed with her head. Reread my response. As for the feminazi thing, that was brought in by PauliticsWV; basically if you disagree that women are created to make babies, you're a feminazi. That has a history from other threads as well. It really does seem to me (I'm allowed to have opinions still?) that the poster I just quoted is defining herself --- and other women --- by their ability to have children. If you read it another way, please feel free. I won't tell you that you have some axe to grind for doing so.


Uh, it's not our primary purpose in life(being free and happy would be, right?), but I'm pretty sure that it's not the man's job to carry and deliver children. That's a womans job, wholly and completely. Until they can put a uterus in a man and have him carry a child to term and deliver a viable life, I'm sticking to my theory.

Did I say that a woman who can't have children naturally is less of a woman? Absolutely not. Because I don't believe that. Everyone is put here with their own unique abilities(or inabilities...damned dna:rolleyes:) and if one cannot have children, that doesn't mean they won't have a completely fulfilled life.

It is my personal opinion that the women who we sterilized all those years ago were robbed of the ability to carry children, and that's a bunch of bullshit. No State should have the right to remove that ability from a person, without that person purposefully expressing they want that. For the state to do what they did to those women, well, I'm very happy I didn't have to be put in that position, and I feel terrible for those that did.

Maybe I went a little overboard in my tirade, but I really hit home for me since I know the joy(and pain and heartache) of bringing a child into the world(or losing many) and I feel terrible for those women having that taken away from them by the state. In my eyes, it's just one more reason to say: Fuck the State.

/feminazi rant off :D

tod evans
07-15-2012, 05:23 AM
So, we're all in agreement that we should be able to push infertile women off of a cliff, or women who have had hysterectomy's, because having babies is their job and well... they're kinda good for nothing leeches if they ain't doing that?

Boy this one came from left field?

I didn't read any "ban sterile women" posts...

MelissaWV
07-15-2012, 05:42 AM
Did I say that a woman who can't have children naturally is less of a woman? Absolutely not. Because I don't believe that. Everyone is put here with their own unique abilities(or inabilities...damned dna) and if one cannot have children, that doesn't mean they won't have a completely fulfilled life.

That makes far more sense, and was always a possibility (which is why I didn't respond to your post initially, but Paulitics, who stated that there was a lot in there for a feminazi to hate).

jmdrake
07-15-2012, 05:52 AM
Let's see. There are fertilization clinics in China so those people saying there is a population control agenda in China must be women hating conspiracy theorist. :rolleyes: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-03/30/content_429518.htm

Go back and read Margaret Sanger's writings. The eugenics society openly said they were going on two tracks. One was to get people to socially buy in to population control, the other was to force it. I have no problem with a woman voluntarily getting her tubes tied or a man getting a vasectomy. I do have a problem with the social engineering that's happened in the country that has made large families not only economically non-viable but also taboo. When I took family law the professor one day brought up "octomom" in a sneering fashion. All of a sudden a classroom full of liberals who were ready to fight for the right of any kind of family imaginable were appalled. How dare someone have so many children and use up society's resources! Now of course octomom herself is no one to emulate. But I brought up the hypothetical of someone who was financially responsible and not at all dependent on government handouts. It didn't matter. They'd use up to much electricity. They'd be a drain on the public school system. I brought up people who were homeschooled. That really raised the ire of one student who was a former teacher. "Homeschoolers can sometimes get public school resources!" These hateful people wouldn't have reacted that way towards welfare queens lest they be labeled "racist".


It's funny, but no one seems that butthurt that most insurance covers maternity... even mine. I get to pay for others' breeding habits in my premiums. What's the "agenda" there? Oh and a bunch of other things are covered, too! There must be a hidden agenda behind all of that!

You do realize that what you and the article are just calling "sterilization" is a painful and dangerous surgery, which right now is done not only for some in-and-out convenience of not having any additional children, but is also done for a variety of valid medical reasons?

No, I don't want to pay for it, but some of you sound really, really stupid.

MelissaWV
07-15-2012, 06:01 AM
If I say, jmdrake, that your tee shirt being green is not evidence of gravity... it does not mean I believe there is no gravity.

Tubal ligation is at least partially covered under every health insurance plan (though not available at every hospital). Birth control pills are often covered. IUDs are often covered. Patches, injections, etc.? Also covered.

On the flipside, fertilization treatments are sometimes covered to a certain extent on many policies. Male anti-impotency drugs are covered. Prenatal care, birth, and the baby are covered.

In other words, using "OMG they want to make tubal ligation free!!!" is not a really good piece of evidence, since they also make giving birth not only free/low-cost, but profitable via the ensuing welfare system.

tod evans
07-15-2012, 06:12 AM
From my vantage point the "answer" is to get the damn federal government out of the mix all-together.

The federal government using tax money to fund abortion/sterilization is just as insane as the federal government funding "breeders" and their offspring.

The moral issues aside, eliminating federal tax dollars and letting individual states decide on and fund any social programs they choose to support would keep both the moral and financial responsibility closer to home.

We eschew "central-planning" in other nations but damned if we aren't guilty ourselves..

jmdrake
07-15-2012, 06:48 AM
Poor analogy IMO because there is no connection between the color of a shirt and gravity. There is arguably a connection between making something free and hoping that more of it will happen. But okay, if we're playing analogies let's look at balloons. Say if people didn't understand gravity and I dropped a balloon filled with air and, of course, it fell. Then someone released a balloon filled with helium and it rose. Would that person be justified in saying "Since one balloon fell and the other rose the gravity evidence cancels each other out?" Evidence can't be looked at in isolation but as part of a whole.


If I say, jmdrake, that your tee shirt being green is not evidence of gravity... it does not mean I believe there is no gravity.

Tubal ligation is at least partially covered under every health insurance plan (though not available at every hospital). Birth control pills are often covered. IUDs are often covered. Patches, injections, etc.? Also covered.

On the flipside, fertilization treatments are sometimes covered to a certain extent on many policies. Male anti-impotency drugs are covered. Prenatal care, birth, and the baby are covered.

In other words, using "OMG they want to make tubal ligation free!!!" is not a really good piece of evidence, since they also make giving birth not only free/low-cost, but profitable via the ensuing welfare system.

MelissaWV
07-15-2012, 07:43 AM
So if making something free is the first step towards making it mandatory, why aren't the other things I mentioned as being covered mandatory? Right now if you are on Medicare and you are homebound, you qualify for home health care. Is this evidence of a pending mandatory home health care crisis?

It seems contrary to talk about a population control agenda in a country that rewards the poor for having more children who then become dependent upon the state.

Frankly, there is much more going on in the shrinking middle class, where birthing is covered, but mostly only at hospitals that encourage women to have c-sections, not to breastfeed, and to toss the wee ones into public school as a means of babysitting. People who are responsible get the short end of the stick. People on welfare don't seem to mind as much.

Developed nations are having a birthrate issue. It isn't among their lower, Government-dependent classes.

jmdrake
07-15-2012, 08:31 AM
So if making something free is the first step towards making it mandatory, why aren't the other things I mentioned as being covered mandatory? Right now if you are on Medicare and you are homebound, you qualify for home health care. Is this evidence of a pending mandatory home health care crisis?


Again you can't look at any piece of evidence in isolation. Do you have any other evidence of people pushing towards mandatory home health care? Any evidence of it happening in the past? Any evidence of people advocating for it? If you do, please share it.



It seems contrary to talk about a population control agenda in a country that rewards the poor for having more children who then become dependent upon the state.


As a result large families are further stigmatized. Having lots of kids is seen as what "lazy people do who want to make money off the state". Again look at the anecdote I gave you about discussions regarding octomom. The possibility of someone having a large family might not harm society and might actually be beneficial was totally foreign to my classmates. They couldn't fathom someone having a large family and being responsible.



Frankly, there is much more going on in the shrinking middle class, where birthing is covered, but mostly only at hospitals that encourage women to have c-sections, not to breastfeed, and to toss the wee ones into public school as a means of babysitting. People who are responsible get the short end of the stick. People on welfare don't seem to mind as much.

Developed nations are having a birthrate issue. It isn't among their lower, Government-dependent classes.

Yes! That's exactly it! The social engineering is geared towards government dependency. If you own a family farm or some other small business and if you aren't penalized for having your children work for you, then your large family can help you be independent of government. And I can easily see a movement growing in the country out of a backlash against the "Free - swipe your EBT" culture that could demand sterilization among those dependent on the government. (In fact there was a thread about this hear at RPF just recently). Again, look at all the evidence in concert and not in isolation. Policies are progressing in the very same manner Margaret Sanger and her cohorts wanted it to. That doesn't mean that everyone who supports free sterilization is a "femenazi". It means what's happening does fit the eugenics agenda.

MelissaWV
07-15-2012, 12:44 PM
I think we are just talking across each other to a great extent.

This thread starts off with the premise that sterilization not costing anything under ObamaCare is a push towards population control. It just doesn't fit. The people most impacted are also the ones the State most wants to breed, and it is a "benefit" available really to those on the dole. The fact it's free for those under ObamaCare (which would still exclude those who prefer their commercial insurance, unless I am misunderstanding something) speaks to vote buying more than a population control agenda.

There are numerous other things---many much more alarming than this---that suggest an agenda to subjugate the working class masses. Our own genes are also working against us on that front. It makes you wonder a bit, though, since the extremely upper class are likely to run into a problem finding suitable heirs soon enough. Maybe they will end up donating it all to the Government, like as not.

Anyhow, we are of differing opinions; I just don't think the fact that tubal ligation is free under ObamaCare is meant to further a population control agenda. Most women would not do this. They'd rather take the free birth control, which also can help with other problems at the same time, or get an IUD installed, or do nothing at all. If vasectomies are covered at 100% under ObamaCare, I likewise doubt there will be a sudden lineup of men hoping to get snipped. (Maybe I am wrong; maybe the guys would rather ensure they can't be connected to a woman who's accusing them of being the baby-daddy?)

jmdrake
07-15-2012, 01:03 PM
I think we are just talking across each other to a great extent.

Yes. That's probably true.



This thread starts off with the premise that sterilization not costing anything under ObamaCare is a push towards population control. It just doesn't fit. The people most impacted are also the ones the State most wants to breed, and it is a "benefit" available really to those on the dole. The fact it's free for those under ObamaCare (which would still exclude those who prefer their commercial insurance, unless I am misunderstanding something) speaks to vote buying more than a population control agenda.


A fundamental difference between our two positions is that I don't think the state wants the middle class to breed. I see a full out assault against anyone not dependent on government. Why would those who want to destroy the middle class want more of the middle class? As for those already on the dole, they're already under the state's control. If the state started mandatory sterilization of those on welfare, many people in the middle class would stand up against it. But once the middle class is destroyed, who will stand up for anybody? And as the middle class shrinks due to and increasing tax burden you'll fine less in the middle class willing to stand up against forced sterilization of the dependent class. "If I can't afford to have more than 1 child, why should that welfare queen be rewarded for having 5?"



There are numerous other things---many much more alarming than this---that suggest an agenda to subjugate the working class masses. Our own genes are also working against us on that front. It makes you wonder a bit, though, since the extremely upper class are likely to run into a problem finding suitable heirs soon enough. Maybe they will end up donating it all to the Government, like as not.


I agree that there are many things working together to subjugate the working class. I'm not sure what you're saying about our genes? :confused: I just think the population control agenda works hand in glove with that. I'm most concerned about the economic aspects. Children becoming a liability rather than an asset is largely what drives people towards sterilization in the first place.



Anyhow, we are of differing opinions; I just don't think the fact that tubal ligation is free under ObamaCare is meant to further a population control agenda. Most women would not do this. They'd rather take the free birth control, which also can help with other problems at the same time, or get an IUD installed, or do nothing at all. If vasectomies are covered at 100% under ObamaCare, I likewise doubt there will be a sudden lineup of men hoping to get snipped. (Maybe I am wrong; maybe the guys would rather ensure they can't be connected to a woman who's accusing them of being the baby-daddy?)

It's the economic factors that drive the decisions at least at this point. The "free" services facilitate the economic factors. And your "baby daddy" scenario fits right in. Problem-reaction-solution. Problem "Having kids is now a burden". Reaction "I need to make absolutely sure that I can't have children." Solution "Get your free sterilization today". Nobody's looking at what government has done to turn children into a liability instead of an asset and what could be done to turn that around.

donnay
07-15-2012, 01:04 PM
This thread starts off with the premise that sterilization not costing anything under ObamaCare is a push towards population control. It just doesn't fit.

It fits if you are aware of their evil agenda. Most everything that has taken our liberty from us started out incrementally. It is our job, it is our duty to make people aware of population reduction agendas. Obama's Science Czar John Holdren helped write a book called, Eco Science. You should read it sometime (you can read it online).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ0fwlWsx_E

Obama Science Czar holds radical views on population control?
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-science-czar-holds-radical-views-on-population-control

MelissaWV
07-15-2012, 01:17 PM
A fundamental difference between our two positions is that I don't think the state wants the middle class to breed.

I'm saying the same thing. That's the class most likely to be employing multiple instances of birth control, and already seeking tubal ligation or vasectomies after they're "all done" having the number of children they want. It's already in place, without ObamaCare.


I'm not sure what you're saying about our genes?

Middle and upper class ladies have been engaging in fertility treatments for quite some time in order to have that first (or second) child to form the "perfect" family (mommy + daddy + 2 kids + house, etc.). This is not particularly related to an agenda, really; I just think it's an unintended consequence. My grandmother miscarried a variety of times. Modern medicine got her to a point where she did finally give birth to a few live kiddos. My mother, being one of those, had some genetic problems that turned out to be a mixture of PCOS and some minor uterine cancer. My sister's appearance on the ultrasound actually halted plans to engage in a new round of treatment, which had to be postponed. It took mom and dad years of trying before I came along. My sister has two children, but the pregnancies were life-threatening. I am utterly unable to have kids. I'm sure I could undergo extensive treatments and carry a baby to term if I really wanted to spend the next decade creating and killing off the ones that did not take. From there, if I have a daughter, it's only going to be more difficult for her to conceive. My niece is already showing signs of likely developing PCOS over time.

What I mean by our genes is that, over time, our society has made it possible for women to pass on their genes that otherwise, for genetic reasons of their own, would not have been able to, and it only becomes a bit harder from there. Those in serial poverty don't have this issue; if they are barren, then they are barren, because there really isn't a big push to make impoverished women who can't have kids, able to do so.


I'm most concerned about the economic aspects. Children becoming a liability rather than an asset is largely what drives people towards sterilization in the first place.

Same, which is why this really won't factor in with the poor. Why go through a life-threatening and hugely uncomfortable surgery to not have children, when you could just have more kids and get more money for them?


And your "baby daddy" scenario fits right in. Problem-reaction-solution. Problem "Having kids is now a burden". Reaction "I need to make absolutely sure that I can't have children." Solution "Get your free sterilization today".

I waffle back and forth on this one. If ever there was a male birth control pill that could just be taken as a one-shot (take in the morning and it renders your swimmers dormant, for instance, for a day or so), there would be a stampede for it. We are, though, talking about vasectomies... and they aren't 100%. There is still the "deadbeat dad" route, and if the men are also on welfare, etc., then they haven't got a lot to lose. "Free cut yer nuts day" does not sound like it'll go over well :p
Again, neither here nor there, but it's an interesting simultaneous thing going on.

jmdrake
07-15-2012, 02:03 PM
Okay. I see what you're saying about the genes thing. As for the women on welfare, I agree that right now there is no economic incentive for them to get sterilized. But for those trying to lift themselves out of poverty (the "working poor") it's a whole different situation. I think if there was a move too soon towards forced sterilization of those already dependent on the government, all of a sudden many of them would choose to get off. It's like if you're hunting and you shoot too soon.

Now I disagree with your assertion that Obamcare doesn't change the economic equation. I personally know working class women not on welfare who were thrilled at the prospect of free birth control under Obamacare. So clearly there are people being covered under this that weren't covered before. (Remember the law student that Rush called a "whore" because she said she needed Obamacare for her birth control? Not saying I agree with Rush. But that shows that, unless she was lying, there are people who aren't on welfare that see this new government money as a "benefit".)

Oh, and LOL at "free cut yer nuts day". Yeah, pushed that way that wouldn't go over well.

MelissaWV
07-15-2012, 02:13 PM
I am fairly sure that, on a Federal level, the gap closure was struck down. I might be wrong. There was originally a thought that the "poverty line" at which you would begin qualifying for "free" healthcare would be raised and include millions more people, and so there was a lot more discussion about Medicaid and poor students and such. There are also folks getting the pills from Planned Parenthood (don't get me started on them) and the like, and also covered under their parents' plans (because of ObamaCare).

In other words, this is a clusterfuck. I just know the money's coming out of my pocket, and that the big picture is it's all to increase the number of grinning idiots who feel entitled to dip into my paycheck to ensure their own comfort :>

Bosco Warden
07-15-2012, 06:53 PM
More indoctrination of the youth to welcome Agenda 21 through Global population control.


.
The focus should be in how the educational system is outright lying to students.

donnay
07-16-2012, 07:20 AM
http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/images/banner.jpg

THE BEST BOOK ON EUGENICS. Edwin Black has written what may well be the best book ever published about the American eugenics movement and the horrific events it spawned. Combining exhaustive research, a very readable style, and just the right touch of moral outrage, Black splendidly conveys the evil depth and breadth of eugenics philosophy, the pseudo-science and social theory that unleashed a half-century of war against society's most vulnerable citizens.

http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFqxeeMGIRk&feature=related



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaH0Ws8RtSc&feature=related



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjNm_D7MhV8&feature=related