The Baby Butcher Exposed

Imagine, for a moment with me, that there is a butcher in your town. He receives, kills, strips, cuts, and sells fresh animal meat. He runs a good business. You have been to this particular butcher many times – he sells really good bacon, after all, and he does it at a reasonable price.

Pig in Pen by Kim Newberg

“Pig in Pen” by Kim Newberg

Now imagine you find out this butcher also sells baby meat. Not baby calves, goats, pigs, or chicks, mind you – no, human babies. Sound far-fetched? Gross? Something, if you saw it on a movie screen, you would have to wipe your conscience clean of?

Now imagine it’s happening in your town, around your corner, right now. Because it is; and the butcher is named, in a direct lie, “Planned Parenthood.” It is now documented all … over … the … place.

The butcher is still open in your town, and he never sold good bacon. He just lied to us, and we bought it.

“Planned Parenthood” cares nothing about parenthood, only ending it. Planned Parenthood receives its sick heritage from Margaret Sanger, and continues it to this day. The fact that we as a country let this butcher murder our children, then sell them back to us, is sheer madness.

It is a difficult to even come up with words for this Holocaust. We sit and teach about the horrors of Hitler and concentration camps, then we take taxpayer dollars and fund the very same thing against our own children. We may be the worse society to ever blight the earth.

As a human being, a father, and a Christian, I am begging each and every reader, please fast, pray, speak, and act for the unborn. Here are a few ways:

  1. Fast and pray. Gather a few friends and plead for our repentance, faith, and conversion in our land.
  2. Pray the Scripture. Texts like Psalm 82, Proverbs 1, Matthew 18-19, Ephesians 5, and Revelation 21-22 come to mind.
  3. Stop taking abortion lightly and winking at it. It’s no joke. If you require a visual reminder, go to the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC,  and remind yourself that our country does the same thing to the tiniest of humans.
  4. Petition and vote pro-life. And not because this is a political issue, but because pro-life-ing is neighbor love.

It is wicked how so many false professors quote “the two greatest commandments are loving God and your neighbor,” then ignore the call to love our smallest neighbors. But loving the unborn doesn’t make God convert a man, God converting a man makes him love the unborn.


You Can’t Oppose Sterilization and Support Abortion

But my local independent paper thinks you can. The Independent (Indy) Weekly devoted a recent three-part series to study forced sterilization and eugenics in America after World War II.

On “Eugenics”
Before I examine what was said and how it relates to abortion, let me first note that I am no supporter of eugenics. Note especially this article on how Planned Parenthood is founded upon eugenics and white supremacist lies.

“Eugenics” is always a case of humans trying to storm heaven’s throne (at which God laughs, Psalm 2), and often is racist murder clothed as social conscience. From a God-less point of view, the Indy Weekly focuses on the second sin, and we’ll agree with them there. Eugenics is a genocide as filthy, hateful, and sickening as the Holocaust.

But Wait, Where’s Abortion?
The reason we ought to re-examine the Indy’s point of view and motivations isn’t that they deride eugenics (they should) but that they fail to make the connection to abortion. Eugenic sterilization is to child-bearing before conception what abortion is after conception: cold-blooded killing.

The Indy (and many other papers, we may estimate) would have us believe that they are an upstanding social watchdog, barking at the sterilized flies on the wall while the bloody pro-choice man bulldozes our front door.

Some watchdog.

Time and time again, the Indy and its writers have supported abortionist policies, candidates, procedures, and funding. They even have ads for Planned Parenthood on their site! This is hardly unbiased reporting. The Indy prefers to use a “nevermind that” policy of failing to connect to eugenics, racism, and genocide to abortion (as others have done masterfully and I’ve done in short here).

Abortion is Racist
“But you haven’t actually connected racist eugenics to abortion, yet, either,” you might say. Here goes:

  • In the year 2000, African-American women made up 12.3% of the US population but accounted for 36.4% of our abortions in 2006.
  • The Guttmacher Institute (AGI) reports that Hispanic women made up 25% of all U.S. abortions in 2008, though they made up just 12.5% of the female population in 20007.
  • Non-Hispanic, white women account for 69% of America’s female population, but make up little over half that number (36%) of all U.S. abortions.
  • Finally, the founder of America’s largest abortion provider, Margaret Sanger, said herself that abortion and child control was all about genocide.
  • All these considered, Planned Parenthood situates themselves in inner-city, poorer areas for good reason. Impoverished minorities are their biggest customers.

(Thanks to the excellent site for many of these stats.)

See, the Indy acts like they stand up for the rights of the oppressed, but they care nothing at all for unborn, minority children, who are being murdered by the hundred-thousands every year. So don’t boo-hoo about sterilization when you hate the unborn. Save us the lies, Indy.

One More Time, For the Record

So next time you read a teary-eared account of how someone struggled through racist sterilization or an “unwanted” pregnancy, remember this: abortion isn’t about (grown) women’s rights, personal choice, peace, privacy, dreams, or “saving the future.” Fighting against it is about the strong protecting the weak, the voices speaking for the voiceless, the rich (in life) caring for the poor who are ready to die, the hero saving the day, parents being parents, and fighting for life, love, family, unborn women’s rights, a mother’s honor, and good versus evil. Carrying, bearing, and loving children is about giving ourselves for the good of another, and that’s what were made in God’s image to do.

USA Today Loves Planned Parenthood

Bravo to Indiana, and thank God for states like you, who recently stopped Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. The Hoosier State apparently agreed with my point that when there’s poison in the water of PP’s services, you can’t fund them at all.

Today’s USA Today, however, disagrees. Reporter Douglas Stanglin defends the abortion giant because they also provide contraception services and STD care, but he masterfully evades the one crux of the issue – abortion:

The law effectively strips about 10% of the group’s total budget. It also cut roughly $150,000 in funding to Planned Parenthood for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, The Star says.

The newspaper says 85,000 Hoosiers receive health services at the state’s 28 Planned Parenthood centers. Eight of those will close, including two in Indianapolis and clinics in Terre Haute and Muncie.

Planned Parenthood uses its Medicaid payments to provide services such as birth control, cancer screening and STD tests and uses patient fees and private donations to pay for abortions.

No word yet on whether Planned Parenthood has considered using “patient fees and private donations” to pay for anything other than killing the unborn.

Poison in the Water

In response to my post earlier in the week on how funding Planned Parenthood is apparently the sine qua non of the federal government, a commenter wrote that federal PP support doesn’t necessitate federal support of abortion. I disagreed, and disagree today.

The facts are these: the Democrats say that “the battle over planned parenthood was never about abortion,” and the Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions. The relevance of those points depends on how exactly one defines “money used for abortion.” We could talk about political tactics and doublespeak, but here’s the issue: poison in the water.The water here is Planned Parenthood (a stab-to-the-brain name if I’ve ever heard one). The people drinking the water are you, me, the American populace, and our representatives. The poison is abortion.

  • If there’s poison in the water, we can’t drink it. Period. Why do we want poisoned water?
  • If abortion is performed in PP offices, we can’t fund them. Period.
  • Since abortion is performed in PP, we can’t fund them. End of Story.

Let’s put this another way: Planned Parenthood exists to kill children. Margaret Sanger began the American Birth Control League to kill “unfit” children.

Do the research yourself. Go on Google Books and read Margaret Sanger’s articles. PP is a bastion of eugenics, genocide, discrimination, and death; and we can’t keep drinking their poison.

Letters from Margaret Sanger: the Truth about Planned Parenthood

In the midst of our national discussion on Planned Parenthood, I decided to do some research to clear up the facts about their origins by doing a handy Google Books search on Margaret Sanger. Here’s what I found..

1. From The Case for Birth Control: a Supplementary Brief and Statement of Facts (1917):

When authorities prohibit marriage for the unfit, they have in mind the probable fruits of such marriage. Women suffering from the diseases mentioned in this chapter give birth to children mentally and physically inferior likely to sink into pauperism and certain to be in some way a burden upon society. If physicians were free to instruct parents how to prevent conception, the reproduction of their kind by defective and diseased parents living outside of institutions would be eliminated as a social problem.

In other words, Sanger believed that the “mentally and physically inferior” children of women suffering from insanity, epilepsy, alcoholism, and drug abuse (among other ailments) were better off never being born at all. Sanger and her crew of scientists and doctors wanted to play God, teaching others who ought and ought not to have children.

2. From The Pivot of Civilization (1922):

There is but one practical and feasible program in handling the great problem of the feeble-minded. That is, as the best authorities are agreed, to prevent the birth of those who would transmit imbecility to their descendants.

Here it gets even worse. Now Sanger is saying that not only are the insane and addicted unfit for bearing children, so are the stupid! In her twisted ideology, people of below-average intelligence shouldn’t have children.

She explains later in The Pivot of Civilization:

Modern studies indicate that insanity, epilepsy, criminality, prostitution, pauperism, and mental defect are all organically bound up together and that the least intelligent and the thoroughly degenerate classes in every community are the most prolific [at bearing children]. Feeble-mindedness in one generation becomes pauperism or insanity in the next.

So let’s get this straight: people who don’t know nothin’ just are too good at makin’ babies. So let’s stop ’em. They’ll bring the whole world to tarnation!

To put it another way, Sanger envisioned a world in which those of lowest intelligence would be constantly weeded out by preventing them from reproducing. Her utopia dystopia was one of government control, the strong eating the weak, and the smart dominating the stupid.

3. From Woman and the New Race (1920):

Being the most sacred aspect of woman’s freedom, voluntary motherhood is motherhood in its highest and holiest form. It is motherhood – unchained motherhood ready to obey its own urge to remake the world.

Voluntary motherhood implies a new morality – a vigorous, constructive, liberated morality. That morality will, first of all, prevent the submergence of womanhood into motherhood. It will set its face against the conversion of women into mechanical maternity and toward the creation of a new race.

Here Sanger concludes her book on women’s rights with a call toward her dystopian vision – ” a new . . vigorous, constructive, liberated morality” that keeps women from being baby-making machines and instead creates “a new race.” This new morality casts off the restraints of old morals (like caring for the weak, helping the poor, and raising up the next generation) in favor of something else – “women’s freedom.”

Her vision takes her even into the world of international politics and war, according to her 1917 Birth Control Review article, “Women and War“:

The great horde of the unwanted [unwanted children] has proved to be a spineless mass which did not have the courage to control its own destiny. Had woman had knowledge of birth control and brought into the world only such offspring as she desired and was physically and spiritually prepared to receive, society would have been far too individualistic to tolerate wholesale massacre for the benefit of money kings. Under such an order, the child would have been considered a priceless gift to the community. Manhood would have been too valuable to be sacrificed on battlefields. Motherhood would have been revered, and the mother’s voice raised to forbid the slaughter of her offspring would have been heeded.

So now Sanger blames World War I on unwanted children, arguing that, because children are plentiful (“the great horde of the unwanted”), lives become expendable (“manhood would have been too valuable to be sacrificed on battlefields”).  In essence, killing children before they are born prevents killing adults twenty years after they are born. This is the mass murderer accusing the serial killer. Sanger posits that child-murder saves untold casualties of war.

Then she goes on to say that we should kill unborn children in order to better value them (“Under such an order, the child would have been considered a priceless gift”). Since when does murder=value? Is it not the exact opposite of value? Is it not hatred for the unborn?

Again, Sanger’s argument falls apart at the words.

According to Margaret Sanger, one of the biggest reasons for the American Birth Control League, which would become Planned Parenthood, was eugenics and social engineering. She specifically targeted the hurting, the unstable, and the idiotic as those who ought not have children. She took it even further, desiring that the government empower women to create a new social order through selective childbearing, as if it were up to individuals to choose who ought and ought not to live.

HT: Little Catholic Bubble

%d bloggers like this: