With his usual wit, Ronald Reagan once said, “I have noticed that all who are for abortion are already born.”
Bill Gates is already born. And prosperous. And he uses his wealth to deny the joy of being born to millions of others who haven’t been as fortunate as he is.
Last November, Bill Gates delivered the keynote address to the mHealth Summit. In it, he called for a world universal health registry to help control the population. He wants to use such registry to be able to administer vaccinations to every single child in the world. His rationale? The healthier the society is, the less children people have, and therefore saving 5-year-olds through vaccinations will help convince mothers to abort those that are still in the wombs. Of course, his talk is in the context of the millions of dollars donated by Bill Gates to Planned Parenthood worldwide, to fight population growth. Bill Gates fights population growth by subsidizing massive slaughter of unborn. And why not? He is already born. Why would he care?
He has a reason for it. In his address, he said:
As the world grows from 6 billion to 9 billion, all of that population growth is in urban slums. Slums is a growing business. It’s a very interesting problem.
As a matter of fact, it isn’t. Britain’s population doubled in the 19th century; the living standard tripled for the same period. The population of the world quintupled in the 20th century; the average wealth per family increased by a factor of 10, at least. The poorest regions in the world can afford much more than some rich nations back in the 1600s. (In fact, there were no rich countries in the 1600s, by our modern standards; the average Norwegian and the average Bangladeshi family had a comparable standard of living at that time, $3 a day in our modern Walmart prices.) What Gates calls “slums,” is now opened to the world and the knowledge of the world in a way never dreamed of before. Where the population growth has been the strongest – India – boys from the poorest families have opportunities few people even in Europe had before. The poorest 1 billion people today live better, and have better prospects (on the average) than the whole population of the planet in 1600.
But even if we assume that things haven’t changed, and that Bill Gates is right about the constant poverty of the new children making the population growth in the world, does that mean they do not deserve to live? Why? Is it because only rich people deserve to live? Where do we draw the line under such ethical principle? Do we draw it between us Americans and the slums in India or Africa? Or do we draw it between Bill Gates and those of us who can not afford buying a Lamborghini every year? Or maybe between the rich white neighborhoods and the black slums in America? Oh, wait, isn’t that what Planned Parenthood is all about, killing off the “Negroes,” according to the legacy left by its founder, Margaret Sanger, and lavishly sponsored by Gates?
But what if among those children that we kill today, there is another Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs, or someone else who would make the life of these children in the slums worth living? We in America and Europe were lucky to have had several centuries of Christian heritage when children were not exterminated before they were born, and now poverty has been almost exterminated because the gifted individuals were allowed to live. But Bill Gates proposes that we eliminate those gifted individuals for the rest of the world so that they never have the same chance to get out of poverty? How many Einsteins and Gateses and Edisons have we killed among the 54 million dead unborn babies in America? And how many are there among the billion or so killed in the world outside America? Don’t these people count? Is there no possibility whatsoever that more people will mean more opportunities to deal with the social problems of the world?
But why should Bill Gates care? He is already born, and had the opportunity to apply his skills to practice, and get rich. He now can prevent millions from achieving their destiny, by simply paying to slaughter them.
That’s what’s called a “liberal’s compassion.”