14 votes

Eugenicist Melinda Gates: stop the poor from reproducing

New York, NY (CFAM/LifeNews) — Love him or hate him, Stephen Colbert doesn’t waste time getting to the point. In last Thursday’s interviewwith Melinda Gates on the Colbert Report, he asked Melinda about her newest initiative and cut straight to the chase: the new population control movement exists to save lives by erasing lives.

Colbert: “But now you’ve got a new charitable hobby horse you’re on, and it’s not necessarily saving people’s lives, so much as it’s stopping people’s lives from existing. You want to provide family planning to 120 million men and women around the world.”

Melinda Gates: “Right.”

The old population control movement existed for more or less the same reason, to eradicate poverty by eradicating the poor. In fact, the only major difference between the two movements is one of semantics. Today’s newest generation of population control proponents are still billionaires.......


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

If they get rid of the poor,

If they get rid of the poor, who will do the work? LOL

Just goes to show being rich doesn't fix stupid

It always amazes me someone can be a genius in one area or book smart.
And have no common sense.

Freedom to believe differently from you

I just want to jump in here to mention that some women who don't live in third world nations might CHOOSE to have large families. (By the same logic, some women living in third world nations might choose to have large families as well.)

I happen to be the mother of a large family by CHOICE. I was fortunate to grow up in a large family where I learned that my options for life were limited only by my own initiative and willingness to work. My parents couldn't afford to send my siblings to college, but we all went anyway, either on scholarships or working our way through. I have worked, finished a master's degree, and spent time living abroad in Asia and the Middle East. Now I am a full-time mother and it is the most challenging and personally rewarding thing I have ever tackled.

The problems with third world countries and poverty has more to do with corrupt government and international welfare than it does family size. (Just like our welfare system incentivizes continued poverty and corruption.)

Here is a Presidential candidate in Mali who grew up in a large family in poverty who says the same thing: http://samake2012.com/issues/

I respect the right of each of you to make your own decisions about your personal life, knowing that you will be the ones responsible for whatever the outcome might entail. Just remember that those of us who make different choices would like to be respected as well.

I think you are missing the point

The push to promote and fund contraception and abortion is not based on any kind of conern for women. It is based on eugenics, rich muckety mucks who have their vision of what the world should be. Their vision is and has been since the beginning (read about Margaret Sanger) a movement to kill off or reduce poor populations instead of helping them by allowing them equal economic participation under the law.
Women have been indoctrinated to separate sexuality from the natural outcome of the behavior and reduce the sex act to recreation status. This has had devastating consequences for the family, children, and women themselves. Women are not men and humans are not mere animals. Training them to destroy their own progeny is a monstrous practice. Men, and more importantly, fatherhood, have been deemed irrelevant by the social engineers, women paid to reproduce and not marry. Men have also bought into this social engineering via the media to behave like immature, irresponsible animals, abandoning children they may have fathered.

Susie 4 Liberty's picture

I'm 'curious' about the Vaccination Programs they push

Have read that they've been very effective toward the ends these people seek.

Susie 4 Liberty

Susie 4 Liberty's picture

And these Vaccination Programs the Gates Foundation pushes

Polio, for example - have killed thousands and thousands, so I've read.

(They were not intended to sterilize the living...)

Susie 4 Liberty



Women. Not too long ago.

Not too many generations ago women had NO choice except to have a child every year. That may have meant 10 or more children to be looked after and fed, while carrying another child in the womb. Barefoot and pregnant.

Now western women have a choice. Times have changed. I am very proud of having freedom and independence to do whatever I choose. I have two children, and raised them alone, as well as have two professional careers. I am proud of my strength and accomplishments.

I would not want to be a women in a third world country who has no choice except to be continually pregnant, and often watch their children die of starvation. They deserve to have a choice and to be empowered as western women are. I have no idea about the motives of Melinda Gates, or methods, but I would like to see my sisters in the world empowered as I am.

I would like to see my sisters in the world empowered

Good on you!

all women everywhere empowered to make their own choices
about their bodies and their lives!

Educate women everywhere and the world changes for the better!

Educate women and make CONTRACEPTION available and there would be NO need for abortion except in medical emergencies.


Pagans are tolerant by NATURE.

Thank god for birth control

Thank god for birth control and abortion!

I can agree about contraception

or even having male or female tubes tied, but NEVER abortion except in dire circumstances and never after 6 weeks.

I have issues with forcing a

I have issues with forcing a woman to have a baby. For one, I don't even know how to say, "You will have the baby or else, freulein," in German.

I know and understand your point of view,

and I believe in free choice. Surely a woman can use contraception and avoid having to ever make a choice about abortion. If it must be done, let it be before 6 weeks, because another LIFE is involved here, and not just the woman's life. If you have your two children, tubes can be tied for men and for women. That avoids contraception and abortion, and allows you to enjoy sex without worry.

Again, a central theme of

Again, a central theme of this "liberty movement" is that nobody has the right to live at the expense of another.

They say we have no right to free health care, or food stamps, or welfare, or tax subsidies, because it is sustenance forcibly taken from others.

Does it not seem hypocritical to say that nobody has a right to live at the expense of another, even if it means that person will starve to death, yet for some reason we make an exception where a fetus is concerned?

The most important life here, again, is the life of the woman. The fetus survives by her choice and consent. Without her consent, that fetus is a parasite, even a criminal by their logic. The only just remedy is that without her consent, the pregnancy must be terminated.

The only point to be argued within this context is whether the fetus should be removed in a manner that does not damage it, allowing it to die merely by lack of support, or whether physically destroying it to remove it is or should be allowed. Even that is pointless to argue, as the result is always the same; the fetus dies.

Within this community, people generally agree that if someone breaks into your house and steals from you, you should be allowed to use force against him to protect what is yours. What makes a fetus any different?

Not sure if you believe in God, but you like playing one,

Don't you?

"nobody has the right to live at the expense of another"

I feel like you're putting words in our mouths. EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT RIGHT TO LIVE and no one has ANY right to decide who will live and who will die.

If you were wrongfully sentenced to death by electrocution, I am sure you'd be singing a different song, but it is easier to be a keyboard cowboy spewing hatred against unborn children who were never given the chance to speak in their defense.. But of course...

The difference between an armed intruder in your house and the unborn child is that one makes a conscious adult choice (given that he/she wasn't aborted) to invade your property and to harm you. In this case you have the natural right to defend yourself, your family and your property. Whereas the unborn child is the result of a natural intercourse. Most children who are given the chance to be born do not become armed intruders. The armed intruders are the exception.

Please do not switch the topic into children who are conceived during rape and sexual assault, as there are many many options for that unborn child to be allowed to exercise his or her natural right to life and to develop his or her human potential. The unborn child is guiltless regardless of the circumstances. Think!

Man has a moral imperative to

Man has a moral imperative to be god.

reedr3v's picture

I expect you also would not want to be

a woman in a modern country with the power to control your reproductive decisions. Take China as one example, which performs forcible late-term abortions if a couple exceeds their "quota" without paying the fine imposed for "extra" children.

Absolutely against that happenning.

Let women have the same choices WE have; education, contraception, careers, freedom to do as they choose.

We can't have that! If women

We can't have that! If women are able to lead interesting and fulfilling lives, who's going to make Cletus a damn sammich?

Indeed. Most of the world is still ruthlessly

ruled by the patriarchy (men). Unlike our sweet sensitive men in the west, who allow women their freedom and strength. ;)

It takes more strength to allow others their freedom than it does to rule and control them authoritatively, as happens in third world nations and some religions in the Middle East.

I haven't come across one that allowed me freedom and



You may have to

fight for it! I have! :)

And for all the BS from this

And for all the BS from this "liberty movement", there seems to be a serious mental block in their central theme, that of the importance of the individual, when it comes to women. It's almost as if it does not compute for them.

I would like to know from them why a man has an absolute right to privacy and freedom to do with his body what he chooses, but a woman does not.

If the woman is pregnant, it's a matter of privacy; society has no right to know if she is pregnant. Even if she goes so far as to broadcast it on a billboard, they have no right to verify it in a manner required by any court of law necessary to hold her responsible for a pretend crime.

What is their insecurity with regards to a woman's right to choose? Is it because she might not choose life, or because she might not choose them?


"I would like to know from them why a man has an absolute right to privacy and freedom to do with his body what he chooses, but a woman does not."

Females should have the same rights as males, even when that female is still living in the womb. That means a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When there is a dilemma where one persons right to life conflicts with anothers right to the pursuit of happiness, involving doing things to their own body or property, then the rights in question need to be weighed. What is more important, ones right to life, or ones right to do things to their body which would happen to result in taking away someones right to life? What about property rights, should a company be allowed to start storing toxic waste improperly and do whatever they want on their land with it even if it affects other properties located in the center of them? What if they started storing toxic waste improperly on purpose specifically to kill off the people in the adjacent property? That's what abortion sounds like to me, a lot of liberal women are just like the toxic waste company that wants to kill off their neighbors because they feel inconvenienced by them somehow.

If you're going to use a

If you're going to use a fallacious analogy, at least acknowledge that the neighbor is trespassing on the toxic waste dump.

equivocation on your part

The property line is analogous of the right to life. Its a bit of equivocation on your part to transfer location (of the womb) in one scenario to location (of the property) in the other. In this example, the only infraction the neighbor is inflicting is on the toxic waste dumps pursuit of happiness. The right to life of the mother, and thus the property line of the dump are not violated. Only the pursuit of happiness and the right to life are being pitted against each other in both facets of the example. You miss the analogy by confusing the right to life in one scenario with the pursuit of happiness in the other.

this is not about 'empowerment of women'

that's just the PR pitch

this is about sterilisation and one-child policies. just research what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been doing in these 3rd world countries and you'll see what a dangerous fraud this is.

You are no doubt correct.

Whatever it took to make the western woman, I would like to see happen to the poor underprivileged always pregnant women of the world.

If women (and men) are given

If women (and men) are given proper sex education and a knowledge of contraception, as well as access to higher education and a better job market, birth rates decline and so do abortions.

Educating and empowering women results in a win-win for privacy advocates, those concerned with overpopulation, and pro-lifers.

Indeed, who has less abortions than women who never get pregnant in the first place?

Agree with what you have said.

"If women (and men) are given proper sex education and a knowledge of contraception, as well as access to higher education and a better job market, birth rates decline and so do abortions.

Educating and empowering women results in a win-win for privacy advocates, those concerned with overpopulation, and pro-lifers."

So why is it so difficult?