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.


Novel Inventions of Abortion Law

[In Part 2 of 7, we’ll look at the next section of Francis J. Beckwith’s paper, “The Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, and Abortion Law.”]

Beckwith’s second large section is titled:

II. How the Court Found a Right to Abortion

The wording here is choice: the Supreme Court of the United States had to prod, dig, and search to produce a “right to abortion” in their Roe decision. Here’s why: the Court had to eliminate two huge impediments to interpreting the “right to privacy” for birth control from from the Griswold case to include abortion (see p.42). Those two impediments were the long-standing, near-omnipresent US laws protecting the unborn and the constitutional rights given the unborn under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Therefore, in order to legalize abortion, the SCOTUS had to prove that such a “right to privacy” does include abortion and that the unborn is not a person under the Fourteenth Amendment. Blackmun started with ideologically misreading the history behind anti-abortion law:

  • Justice Blackmun differed on the purpose of prior anti-abortion laws: “According to Blackmun, the purpose of these laws, almost all of which were passed in the nineteenth century, was not to protect prenatal life, but rather, to protect the pregnant woman from a dangerous medical procedure,” (p.44).
  • Blackmun reframed common law history in his own terms: “Blackmun argues that under the common law’s framework, prior to the enactment of statutory abortion regulations, abortion was permissible prior to quickening and was at most a misdemeanor after quickening. Therefore, Justice Blackmun claims that because abortion is now a relatively safe procedure, there is no longer a reason for its prohibition. Consequently, Justice Blackmun asserts that given the right of privacy, and given the abortion liberty at common law, the Constitution must protect a right to abortion,” (p.44).
  • Blackmun changed the timeline: Though the Roe majority decision outlines historical laws concerning abortion, “Blackmun’s historical chronology is ‘simply wrong,’ because [contrary to his own timeline, ed.] twenty-six of the thirty-six states had already banned abortion by the time the Civil War had ended,” (p.45).
  • Blackmun was later exposed: “Justice Blackmun’s history (excluding his discussion of contemporary professional groups: AMA, APHA, andABA) is so flawed that it has inspired the production of scores of scholarly works, which are nearly unanimous in concluding that Justice Blackmun’s “history” is untrustworthy and essentially worthless,” (p.45).

US Supreme Court convention requires that judges research and consider prior case law, particularly those that set legal precedent, before handing down their own decisions. In this case, Blackmun and the majority judges co-opted a clear history of anti-abortion laws at the state level, as we will see next time.

    The Lies and Fallacies Beneath Roe v. Wade

    [Introductory note: Back in 2003, Dr. Francis J. Beckwith, Professor of Philosophy & Church-State Studies at Baylor University, wrote a full-on expose of the Supreme Court’s supremely flawed reasoning in Roe v. Wade, entitled, “The Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, and Abortion Law.” After reading and notating the paper, I am offering a seven-part series outlining his main arguments with further commentary. I’m no law expert, but a simple course in logic (or understanding the basic logical fallacies) is all we need to see the lies beneath the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade.]

    The Fear of the Lord and the Facts of Abortion

    Long ago, the fear of the Lord and good sense told me that US abortion law was on shaky ground at best. Even middle schoolers – yes, twelve-year-olds – know it’s wrong to kill an unborn child. How is it that the grown-ups are so much smarter and get it wrong? Because we as a country no longer fear the Lord.

    To prove the shaky ground is actually no ground at all (and illustrate the fact that our country no longer fears the Lord), Francis Beckwith has done us all a service. His 2003 paper, “The Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, and Abortion Law” is a logical expose of the Supreme Court’s fallacious, misleading logic and outright lies in interpreting constitutional law.

    That alone is enough to read the entire 36-page essay, but here’s a taste of Beckwith’s darkness-exposing analysis:

    The current law in the United States, except for in a few states, does not restrict a woman from procuring an abortion for practically any reason she deems fit during the entire nine months of pregnancy. That may come as quite a shock to many readers, but that is in fact the state of the current law (p.38).

    Beckwith uses the same command of current and past abortion law to untangle several gnarled issues, outlined below:

    I. What the Court Actually Concluded in Roe

    In this section, Beckwith quotes the Roe decision extensively and exposes Justice Harry Blackmun’s argument piece by piece:

    • “Therefore, Roe does nothing to prevent a state from allowing unrestricted abortions for the entire nine months of pregnancy,” (p.39).
    • “Thus, reproductive liberty, according to this reading of Roe, should be seen as a limited freedom established within the nexus of three parties: the pregnant woman, the unborn, and the state. The woman’s liberty trumps both the value of the unborn and the interests of the state except when the unborn reaches viability,” (p.39).
    • “[Justice Blackmun’s] framework has resulted in abortion on demand,” (p.39).
    • “Blackmun’s choice of viability as the point at which the state has a compelling interest in protecting prenatal life is based on a fallacious argument,” (p.40).
    • “The Supreme Court so broadly defined health in  Roe’s companion decision, Doe v. Bolton (1973), that
      for all intents and purposes, Roe allows for abortion on demand. In Bolton, the Court ruled that health must be taken in its broadest possible medical context and must be defined ‘in light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial,  and  the  woman’s  age—relevant  to  the  well  being  of  the  patient’ because ‘[a]ll these factors relate to health,’ ” (p.40).
    • The 1983 U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee concluded the same, stating that that “no significant legal barriers of any kind whatsoever exist today in the  United States for a woman to obtain an abortion for any reason during any stage of her pregnancy,” (p.40).
    • Furthermore, the Court (as Gosnell and Planned Parenthood events have proven) left the interpretation of the viability of the fetus open to mean whatever “meaningful life” may mean, determined “exclusively by the pregnant woman,” (p.42).

    In other words, because Blackmun did little to protect the rights of the unborn over against the rights of an abortion-hungry mother, his regime has (rather logically) resulted in abortion-on-demand as the modern status quo.

    Next time, we’ll dive into part 2, “How the Court Found a Right to Abortion,” and it’s really more like they invented it.

    Worse than All Recent Genocides Combined

    Michael Stokes Paulsen explains why Roe v. Wade is a radical, legally untenable, immoral decision. Here’s his crushing introduction:

    After nearly four decades, Roe’s human death toll stands at nearly sixty million human lives, a total exceeding the Nazi Holocaust, Stalin’s purges, Pol Pot’s killing fields, and the Rwandan genocide combined. Over the past forty years, one-sixth of the American population has been killed by abortion. One in four African-Americans is killed before birth. Abortion is the leading cause of (unnatural) death in America.

    It is almost too much to contemplate: the prospect that we are living in the midst of, and accepting (to various degrees) one of the greatest human holocausts in history. And so we don’t contemplate it. Instead, we look for ways to deny this grim reality, minimize it, or explain away our complacency—or complicity.

    Paulsen proceeds to explain each claim (radicalism, legal untenability, and immorality) in succession and make observations on how Roe, with its companion decision Doe, have decimated life and morality in America and the world.

    More quote-gems:

    • “One need not presume that the human fetus has a right not to be killed in order to recognize that, as a descriptive matter, Roe creates a right for one class of human beings to kill other human beings.”
    • “In terms of fair principles of constitutional interpretation, Roe is perhaps the least defensible major constitutional decision in the Supreme Court’s history.”
    • “Abortion restrictions do not restrict acts of women because they are women; they restrict acts committed by men or women because they kill human fetuses.”
    • Casey’s reaffirmation of Roe, in the name of stare decisis, was a sham—perhaps the most transparently dishonest major judicial decision since Dred Scott.”
    • “My concluding point concerns the lengths to which we will go to deny the reality of this holocaust, because it is almost unbearable to contemplate and still go on living life as if nothing is terribly wrong. The cognitive dissonance is simply too great. And so we have become, in effect, a nation of holocaust deniers.”

    And his conclusion contains a particularly stinging indictment to our American, top-tier-of-evolved-humanity pride:

    All of this should tell us a few more sobering things. It should tell us that, much as we would like to believe that human beings have become more morally conscious, more sensitive to injustice and intolerant of clear evil, it remains the case that we often either fail to recognize it in our midst, or refuse to respond to it decisively, out of self-interest or cowardice. It should tell us that, much as we would like to think that we surely would have stood bravely against slavery, even if embedded in a nineteenth-century society that tolerated and accepted it as a legal right, we might have acquiesced or been tepid in our condemnation. It should tell us that, much as we would like to think we would never have put up with what transpired in Nazi Germany in the 1930s and the 1940s, the evidence of our lives in twenty-first century America is that we might have put up with quite a lot…

    . . . The docility of the American people with respect to Roe and
    abortion rivals the pliancy of the most cowardly, servile peoples
    toward ruinous, brutal, anti-democratic regimes throughout world

    Then, after calling out the Supreme Court as “a lawless, rogue institution capable of the most monstrous of injustices in the name of law,” Paulsen closes with the truest call to pro-life action I’ve ever read:

    The Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade should not be accepted as law, in any sense. It should be resisted by legislatures and it should be refused enforcement by executive officials because it is not the law. It should be resisted by all citizens, with all the resources at their disposal, and perhaps even with resources not (yet) at their disposal. Anything less is holocaust denial.

    Speak Up: The Truth Always Wins

    Mother, writer, and former Communist refugee Lea Singh writes at MercatorNet, asking, “Are We Sleepwalking through the Great Infanticide?“:

    Speaking up for the truth might make us look like fools. And that is just the beginning. Today, it is a sad fact that opposing abortion can cost a person their job and even their career. You might also lose your friends, your standing in a social circle, your invitations to events. One day, your position on abortion could even cost you your freedom.

    To me, as a former political refugee from Communist Czechoslovakia, all this sounds eerily familiar. Back then, most people in our country were also silent, and many feared the repercussions that would follow if they openly opposed the regime. But we had a few dissidents, and they made a world of difference. One of them, Vaclav Havel, eventually became the first president of a free Czechoslovakia.

    The truth is a powerful thing; over time, throughout history, it has always won the moral battles, and I have no doubt that one day, abortion will be rejected and recognized as an unspeakable evil. Until that day comes the journey continues to require courage and sacrifice on the part of those who carry the responsibility of knowing the truth. It is up to us to awaken the conscience of our society, one person at a time.

    As Martin Luther lived and taught, our courage isn’t measured where the battles are easy, but where the are the most fierce. Fifty years from now, our grandchildren will look back at our days and ask how we could let the Infant Holocaust happen before our closed eyes.

    Yes, calling evil “evil” may well cost us our jobs, our friends, even our lives. It cost Jesus the same, His disciples the same, and now our children the same. So open your eyes, and speak up.

    The Government Doesn’t Legislate Anything But Morality

    Over the years, I’ve heard the phrase, “The government can’t legislate morality,” far too many times. Most often, this statement belies an attitude of nonchalant, postmodern hedonism that fears man more than it fears God. But lest we turn this into an ad hominem affair, we ought first prove the point:

    The Government Doesn’t Legislate Anything But Morality

    1. The government makes laws.
    From Scripture, plain reason, and experience, we know that governments must make laws. That, in the first principle, is why they exist. If people could govern, i.e., reign over, themselves, governments would in no way be needed. But because of sin, miscommunication, and mistakes (mostly sin), governments must needs exist.

    2. The government decides what is moral. To make a “moral” decision is to decide between right and wrong, to make a mark between the right and the wrong, to outline the body of what is right and what is wrong. This is the essence of law-making: people must decide what is right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable, fair and unfair, just and unjust in a given society. We ought not be uncomfortable with this; we make sense of life by making moral decisions. We say this is right and that is wrong; it is why we have fully-functioning, ever-active consciences.

    3. Every law is a statement on what is moral, i.e., what is right and what is wrong. So go gun safety bills, veterans’ benefits bills, even national budget bills. Health care bills, economic stimulus packages, and constitutional amendments all make statements as to what is considered right and wrong in our country. This is the essence of lawmaking. “Laws” are statements about right and wrong.

    4. Your sin doesn’t falsify or profane the government’s job. You may be disagreeing with me on the first two points, but that would only be because you have a vested interest in protecting one of your pet sins. Maybe you like to smoke pot on the side, or carry a same-sex attraction, or want to wink at your friend’s recent abortion. Maybe you love being well-liked by the people around you. Whatever the case, your disagreement with the moral legislation of the government is more a function of your own self-deception than of the verity of these claims.

    5. The government must punish wrong-doing. Again, your own self-deception may trouble you here, so let us turn to an illustration outside of our self-defensive cocoons. Suppose a madman murders your dearest loved one, and you are an eyewitness. At his trial, you are called to testify. What do you say? Do you ask the judge to let him go free, or punish him? Unless your conscience is irreparably broken, you scream, “Justice!”

    As 1 Peter 2:13-14 says, “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.” The government doesn’t bear the sword (or the court system, or the jail system, or capital punishment) in vain. It’s sent by God to punish wrongdoers.

    Don’t Hide
    In the end, it’s clear that the government legislates nothing but morality. So don’t hide behind your saying that “it’s not their job to tell me who I can marry” or “it’s not their job to tell me what I can do with the child inside my body” (the two most common personal reasons for objecting to moral legislation). And please don’t be a coward and hide behind your fear of what others will think.

    Just say that you believe same-sex marriage and abortion are completely moral, just, right acts, and be prepared to back those claims up logically. Don’t ask the government to give you a free pass because you like your favorite depraved act, or because you don’t have the courage to stand up against those who do. As a citizen of earth, it’s your job.

    NC House Stands Up for Voters, Women, Children

    Overriding Gov. Bev Perdue’s veto, the N.C. House voted today to pass House Bill 854, “Women’s Right to Know Act,” which requires more detailed informed consent, an ultrasound of the live child, and a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion. This is a victory for all in North Carolina and in the United States of America who love life, children, men, and women.

    Predictably, our local, leftist paper forgets to mention that the majority of NC voters are in support of the bill. I’m talking to you, News and Observer.

    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.

    Goodness Doesn’t Depend on Wanted-ness

    The goodness of a child does not depend on whether or not his or her parent(s) want him or her. A parent’s estimation of a child’s value doesn’t actually determine that child’s value. Children aren’t worth only what we think.

    They’re worth much more.

    The problem with the whole pro-choice worldview (and, yes, they have a worldview – a system of beliefs as solid and rigid as any religion’s) is that one of its bases is the subjectivity of truth. And make no mistake, it’s a rather large base.

    If a born child’s worth depends on the parent’s appraisal, said child could be rightly killed whenever he or she disappointed the parent. But when a parent determines an unborn child’s worth, this parent can commit a quiet murder and the pro-choice community applauds.

    Remember, there are other manifestations of wantedness-as-worth:

    • eugenics
    • racism
    • child abuse
    • domestic abuse
    • genocide

    This is why we must remind each other that a child’s worth is objective, fixed, and inherent in his or her humanity, not in his or her desirability or even usability. People are worth more than our thoughts or feelings about them precisely because they are people. Being human means being made in the image of something much bigger than ourselves.

    But sin always tries to turn a human’s worth into a barometer of other’s feelings about them. The gospel, in which Jesus Christ became an unborn child, grew to an adult, lived a sinless life, died a criminal’s death, and rose from the dead, tells us that we are made to know and enjoy God. A human soul in this way has infinite value, because it is linked to its Creator.

    A child’s goodness doesn’t depend on his or her wanted-ness. Jesus has already blessed the little children.

    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.

    Children Are a Blessing, Not a Curse

    In my experience, people that support (or even permit – permitting is supporting here) the willy-nilly slaughter of children we call “abortion” tend to place children squarely into one category, call it what you will:

    • burden
    • liability
    • trouble
    • problem
    • curse

    Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion provider, dresses up their child-cursing like this:

    Planned Parenthood believes in the fundamental right of each individual, throughout the world, to manage his or her fertility, regardless of the individual’s income, marital status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or residence. We believe that respect and value for diversity in all aspects of our organization are essential to our well-being. We believe that reproductive self-determination must be voluntary and preserve the individual’s right to privacy. We further believe that such self-determination will contribute to an enhancement of the quality of life and strong family relationships.

    Let us note:

    • Unwanted children don’t deserve the same “fundamental right of each individual, throughout the world, to manage his or her fertility.”
    • “Fertility” is here a euphemism for “bearing children.”
    • “Reproductive self-determination” is a euphemism for killing the unborn.
    • “Right to privacy” means that cursed children can be killed quietly.
    • Their logic says that unwanted children would harm the “quality of life and strong family relationships.”

    In other words, Planned Parenthood believes that unwanted children are a curse because their parents don’t want them. So they help false-parents kill them. PP, you see, is just following their leader.

    Contra self-serving ideologies, the Bible gives a different, happier picture of children. According to Psalm 127, for instance, they’re a blessing:

    Children are a blessing from the Lord,
    the fruit of the womb a reward.
    How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them!

    They’re not a burden; they’re a boon. They’re not a liability; they’re a lovability. They’re not trouble; they’re joy. They’re not a curse; they’re a blessing.

    Twelve Analogies for the Unborn

    Following up on my post from two years ago in which I gave “Ten Non-Analogies for the Unborn,” I’ll try to offer the other side of the coin.

    Fighting for the rights of our unborn children is like:

    1. The strong protecting the weak. We know intuitively that the reason some people are strong in some areas and others weak is so that the strong will use their strength to help the weak. These children need our protection, and we can offer it.
    2. The loud speaking for the voiceless. Living adults have the loudest voice in America – the voice to vote and be heard across the nation. The unborn have no audible voice, and they need ours to save theirs.
    3. The rich helping the poor. We Americans like to think that we use our domestic advantages to help the less advantaged. So why not here? Living adults are rich in voice, in resources, in life while the unborn are comparatively poor.
    4. The hero saving the day. These little ones need saving, and they need millions of heroes to stand up for them.
    5. Parents doing what they’re supposed to do. Parents are created to care for children, not kill them. When a mother drives her children into a lake, we get up in an outrage. When a mother goes to Planned Parenthood, we say she’s courageous?
    6. The family taking a stand. As a country, we can’t say that we care about families while we slay our own children. Every person on earth was born into some sort of family, so we all have the same interest here.
    7. Loving others the way we love ourselves. No one wants to go through the pain of death, plus we were all once children. We have a connection with the unborn that is deeper than knowledge; it runs in blood and flesh and reality.
    8. Fighting for life over death. In the movies, in literature, and in life, we as a country applaud those who lay down their own rights and privileges in order to help others. Why not for the unborn?
    9. Fighting for women’s rights. The rights of unborn women, that is.
    10. Fighting for mothers’ honor. The honor of bearing children has lately been demeaned into pseudo-slavery (see Sanger’s quotes from earlier this week), but, as true mothers well know, it belongs in a place of high esteem.
    11. Good fighting evil. If the murder of the voiceless (Holocaust, racist injustice, abortion) isn’t evil, what is?
    12. Giving our own lives for another’s. Yes, fighting for life will be hard. But giving your life for another’s is worth far more than your time, attention, and resources. It’s worth your life.

    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

    Killing the Unborn is Sine Qua Non of the US Government?

    Sine qua non – Latin, “essential element”

    In the midst of a giganto-huge federal deficit, an ongoing war in the Middle East, and a domestic depression that is costing an untold number of jobs, the President and the Democratic-majority Senate want to shut down the US government over . . . abortion.

    Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) notes that, “The vast majority of Americans, whether they’re pro-life or not, don’t want their tax dollars to be used to take the lives of unborn children.” Apparently, President Obama and our Democratic Senators don’t care, and prefer to rather shut down the government than listen to the majority of their constituents. The President in particular has promises like these to keep.

    Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser responds in this MSNBC article:

    The President has singled out Planned Parenthood, a significant financial and political supporter for special attention and protection. It is extraordinary that the President sees federal funding for the nation’s number one abortion provider as more important than paychecks for federal workers and funding for our military. When is the question going to be asked of President Obama and Senator [Democratic Majority Leader] Harry Reid, ‘Why is it reasonable to shut down the government in order to protect Planned Parenthood?’ 

    That’s such an excellent question, I’ll just reword it: Since when did killing unborn children become the sine qua non of the US government? Our President and Senators are willing to let their own workers to unpaid so that abortive mothers can kill their own children?

    Of course, if you’ve followed the President’s and the Democratic Senators’ respective positions on these issues, none of this is a surprise.

    %d bloggers like this: