A Doctor’s House of Horrors and Social Darwinism


A Doctor’s House of Horrors and Social Darwinism

One of the things I enjoy about World Magazine are the reviews. Movies, music and books are reviewed in each issue and while I cannot possibly read all the books reviewed the reviews do give me an idea of what’s new and what might I want to read.

Sometimes the reviews just provoke thought. Such was the case with Marvin Olasky’s (World’s Editor in Chief) Darwin and Beyond a review of Paul Johnson’s; A Portrait of Genius, a biography.

Olasky writes; [Darwin was a man] who brilliantly observed micro evolution within species of plants and animals, but reached too far by theorizing macro-evolution that he had not witnessed. And then parenthetically, (Darwin then went too far in theorizing about man-and by doing so provided fodder for racists and anti-Semites.)

Darwin observes micro evolution and makes a significant contribution to science. (changes within a “kind” to use the words of Genesis)

Darwin extrapolates micro evolution to macro evolution. (changes where one kind evolves into another kind such as monkeys to man)

Fans of Darwin extrapolate survival of the fittest to argue for the elimination of certain types of people. (Hitler and the Nazis but certainly not limited to them.)

The result of social Darwinism.

The result of social Darwinism and the Final Solution The Online Free Dictionary defines Social Darwinism like this:

What is social Darwinism? Definitions differ and some would say that social Darwinism has been discredited usually because of its connection to the Nazi’s but ironically not because of its connection to Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood. Here is an online definition of social Darwinism that gives the reader that basic idea.

Social Darwinism: The application of Darwinism to the study of human society, specifically a theory in sociology that individuals or groups achieve advantage over others as the result of genetic or biological superiority.
Sanger is a heroine to pro-abortion people. They either ignore or brush under the rug her fondness for eugenics and the elimination of the "unfit." Here's a quote from one of her writings: It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.

Sanger is a heroine to pro-abortion people. They either ignore or brush under the rug her fondness for eugenics and the elimination of the “unfit.” Here’s a quote from one of her writings: It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.

The application of this definition to the Nazi’s is apparent. They sought to eliminate people groups they believed to be inferior. They made decisions of life and death based on the assumption that certain people groups had no right to life.  The ages or gender of their victims mattered not.
Pro-abortion people, whether they intend or not make decisions of life or death. The media’s lack of coverage for Kermit Gosnell is an example of their reluctance to deal with the obvious and that is, a fetus is a baby and it is life. The fact that a late-term abortion looks like life is the inconvenient truth that causes pro-abortion people to avert their eyes.
Gosnell is the house of horrors abortion doctor responsible for killing living infants. At the time of this writing he has been acquitted of three murders. Perhaps the judge was swayed by one defense lawyer’s argument that one movement from an aborted baby does not mean it’s alive. I don’t know. What I do know is that a statement like that is worthy of a Margaret Sanger or a Nazi eugenicist.
The Gosnell solution

The Gosnell solution

Gosnell apparently botched more than a few late-term abortions. His victims were primarily minorities and ironically he gave white women a little better care. Some would call that racist. Gosnell had no problem at all making a decision of death, deciding who was unfit to live. Whatever his reasons that is eugenics and social Darwinism applied to the most helpless.

Some pro-abortion activists have been rightly horrified by Gosnell. Why they are horrified  can be a variable and have nothing to do with understanding that a fetus is life, regardless of term.

Pro-abortion people do not like being compared to Nazis and I don’t blame them. What I would hope however is that they come to realize by being “for” abortion and the so-called right to choose is akin to granting someone the right to choose who is fit to live and who is not.

We should not be surprised to find other Gosnell’s.

You might be an Extremist if…

Leave a comment

You might be an extremist if the people who train US Army Reserves have anything to say about it. Check out the poster.



At the top of the list are evangelical Christians. That would be me but the most extreme thing I’ve done lately is pay my taxes to the Federal Government with a frown on my face since I was pretty sure a lot of that money would be wasted.

I guess that makes me guilty of anti-government thoughts but extreme, gee whiz.

If you look carefully you’ll see that Catholics made the list, all of them I guess. Evangelicals are a sub-set of Protestants and apparently were singled out as a sub-set. Not so with Catholics and all of them are labeled as extremists. To be fair the author of this poster probably meant that only Catholics who do not like Obama are extremists. Still, he should have been a bit more careful since the Catholics who did vote for Obama might misinterpret the word “extremist” for one who DID vote for Obama. I would.

Also on the list are “Fundamentalist Mormons.” I’m not sure what a Fundamentalist Mormon is but the author probably means Glen Beck because he thinks bad thoughts about Marxism, Communism and Socialism and says bad things about the government and the government’s collectivist agenda.

Ultra-orthodox Jews also made the list. I’m not an expert on modern Judaism but I’m guessing ultra-orthodox roughly translates to Jews who are not American liberals.

What’s fascinating about this list is the company these groups keep on the list.  There are quite a few genuinely scary groups on that list, terrorists, racists, murderers, Islamic fascists and the like.

To be fair the Army withdrew the poster from the training saying that whoever made it was not an expert. No kidding. Kind of raises the issue on how the person got the job in the first place.


Trust, but Verify

Leave a comment

Recently I saw a headline for an article that read, “Disability, the New Welfare.”

The headline called to mind an experience my wife had with what we’ll call “the system.”


My wife has cancer. She is in the treatment process and the prognosis is good. Her employer has been exemplary and the insurance they provide good by contemporary standards. My wife carries the insurance for both of us and the co-payments and deductibles, while substantial, are fair, given the high cost of insurance. We do not have any complaints regarding her employer but do have observations regarding the system.

My wife has been on sick leave for a number of months while she has been in treatment. At first, her benefits fell under what is called “short-term disability” where the recipient receives partial pay. After a period of time and the person does not return to work they fall under “long-term disability” that works in a similar manner to short-term disability. While short-term disability is handled by the employer and their insurance company, long-term disability is handled by a third-party insurance company.

The third-party company requires the recipient to apply for SSI benefits. The obvious goal is move the recipient from long-term disability to the SSI tax-payer supported system.

The way this is done is interesting. To stay qualified for long-term disability my wife had to apply for SSI. She had to list the top five reasons she could not return to work. The third-party company provided her with an extensive list to pick the top five reasons. She told them she intended to return to work ASAP but they told her she still had to apply for SSI.

To be fair to them this is understandable. Cancer can be unpredictable and good intentions do not always turn out to be reality. Far better to have applied and not need SSI than to procrastinate and then need it only to find that it can be a long and painful process to get it.

So, my wife dutifully applied and was turned down which we understand as not being uncommon.

Case closed right? Not so fast. The third-party company is having her reapply again even though it appears she will return to work with 1-2 weeks. I am sure that the third-party’s reasoning is the same. It’s better to get the process moving and not need it than it is to assume a person will be back to work.

Here’s what bugs us though. It would be remarkably easy for my wife to game the system. With her type of cancer and the prescribed treatment one could delay a decision to return to work almost indefinitely or at least long enough to apply and reapply to SSI until one got it.

The third-party actually encourages people in this direction and asks if there is anyone else the person knows who might benefit from the third-party helping them achieve SSI benefits.

This is where the article’s headline comes into focus. “Disability the New Welfare” seems to walk a fine line between meeting a genuine need and helping people with lesser character than my wife to game the system at the expense of the tax-payer.

Here’s an excerpt from the article that seems to sum up the dilemma:

It’s almost impossible, Eberstadt writes, “for a medical professional to disprove a patient’s claim that he or she is suffering from sad feelings or back pain.” And that’s assuming a doctor wants to disprove the claim.

In an illuminating and predictably controversial exposé for “This American Life,” NPR’s “Planet Money” team tried to figure out why, since 2009, nearly 250,000 people have been applying for disabilities every month (while we’ve averaged only 150,000 new jobs every month).

The answers fall on both sides of the gray middle.

One factor has to do with what correspondent Chana Joffe-Walt calls the “Vast Disability Industrial Complex.” These are the sometimes shady, sometimes well-intentioned lawyers who fight to fatten the rolls of disability recipients. These lawyers get a cut of every winning claimant’s “back pay.” The more clients, the bigger the take. That’s why they run ads on TV shouting, “Disabled? Get the money you deserve!” Goldberg: Is Disability the New Welfare

A social welfare system that’s basic premise seems to be people’s honesty is a recipe for scamming the system.

Ronald Reagan famously said in regard to the Soviets and arms reductions that it is wise to trust but verify. The same should apply to welfare systems.

Proverbs 24:26 states:

Whoever gives an honest answer kisses the lips. (ESV)

The basic meaning is that a person who chooses to be honest respects the other party or in this case the system that does try to meet legitimate needs. The problem is people who do not fear and respect the Lord (Pro. 1:7) may have little respect for their neighbor or the system when the temptation to get something for nothing is too strong.

%d bloggers like this: