Before we start this topic, I must say that this treatise is not taking into account the emotional strain that many women encounter before and after an abortion. This is a political, philosophical, and historical dealing with the founding of Planned Parenthood, specifically, Margaret Sanger. I would be remiss and foolish however not to think once this hits "cyber-space" that a confused or hurting young woman might happen to come across this blog. To her I wish to leave behind some links where she can get information or counseling whether in question to "should I get an abortion," or to look for help for the emotional pain of losing a child to choice. So here are some links to organizations that will help either before or after this "choice" is made:
Through a few conversations and blogs that argued the peripheral of this subject (even the human trafficking aspect of it), I want to finally expand a bit on what I always reference. That is, the original goals of Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger, and the provable continuation of this goal by the statistics of actual abortions and sterilizations. Her saying that "[w]e don't want the word out that we want to exterminate the Negro population" is often times not enough to convince the liberal Democrats that they are truly not for the minority person outside of their political agenda. What was Planned Parenthoods goals? Did they have aims and agendas they wished to complete? Is Planned Parenthood following in those footsteps today? If so, would we be able to tell by looking at their outcomes based on their stated goals?
Many of the current and past presidents of the organization have mentioned that they are following in the footsteps of their founder, following the aims and goals of Margaret Sanger, their liberal heroin and founder. To make this point (and others), I will rely on two well written books, the first is Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change, by Jonah Goldberg. I think - however - before I mention the next book, I should allow the reader a chance to have that seemingly self-refuting term ("liberal fascism") explained and defined. Jonah Goldberg documents that the term was the invention of H.G. Wells:
It will be noted more in-depth later, but I must now point out that Margaret Sanger was the mistress to H.G. Wells. There was no conflict of ideals betwixt these two "enlightened Nazis." The other book is just an expose of Planned Parenthood (unlike Jonah Goldberg's book which deals with a panoply of topics), it is entitled Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood, by George Grant. This book is the best I have found yet on this topic. Each chapter ends with a Biblical critique as well, so if you are non-religious person this book is set up so you can skip entirely any theology if wished. If one cannot consider any "religion" on a topic however, one must ask if they are "theophobic" (a term I like to think I coined in my post entitled, "Defending the Faith Over a Syrah"). These two books (Jonah's chapter entitled, "Liberal Racism: The Eugenbic Ghost in the Fascist Machine," and George Grants book) will give any amateur historian or studier of movements enough fodder to turn the tables on those who profess equality at all costs.
A third book that is worth a mention is by Edwin Black, entitled, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race. A thick history of how the eugenic movement that spurned the Third Reich in their "master race" found its scientific basis in the American Left. The theological roots for it are not the topic here, but they are rooted in the occultism found in Madam Blavatsky's book The Secret Doctrine.
The question remains however, do recent Planned Parenthood (PP from here on out) leaders want what Sanger wanted? Some history and input on this is in order:
George Grant opines in on this as well:
Now that we know these PP leaders are "walking in Margaret's footsteps," let us see where these imprints lead us in history. Edwin Black makes it known that Maragret Sanger was no "saint."
In one passage, she followed the Malthusian party-line advocating the abandonment of all forms of charity and compassion. She wrote:
Again, she wrote:
You may be asking how someone could think in terms like the above? Well, the simple answer is, radicalism. Political, and moral:
This is similar to Hitler saying the following:
George Grant runs down a quick list of whom Margaret "hung" with:
Isn't Sanger a hero of the Left though? How could she truly believe the above... isn't there some kind of mistake? I wish there was. Here we start to go deeper into her relationships (personal and business) and views on race relations. Dinesh D'Souza points out in his wonderful book, The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society, that Sanger coined the term, "More children from the fit, less from the unfit," used by the Third Reich.
Not only did she "widen the appeal" of eugenic thinking, she was in the mix of the whole movement, and even gave page space to Nazi monsters in her news letter. For instance, in the following excerpts, we see some very disturbing relationships. In her autobiography, for instance, she said that "[o]ur living-room, became a gathering place where liberals, anarchists, Socialists and I.W.W.'s [Industrial Workers of the World, a socialist organization] could meet." Jonah Goldberg continues:
I must let Jonah continue (272-273) with his referencing the history and aims of the organization, it is jaw dropping:
The question is this, how can a graduate student make it through a 4-year university and not know about this history. They can denounce, after this four-year indoctrination, how the settlers mistreated the Native-American's, but will lift up a racist Nazi as a hero? The logic with this thinking baffles the mind. Even the history of the Democrats and their continual choice to be on the wrong side of history is seemingly forgot.
- Great Black Patriots From American History (Part 1)
- From Bondage To the Halls of Congress (Part 2)
- The Civil Rights Movement (Part 3)
This radical movement and its continual harming of history, minorities, and women does not fly on blogs like this. Feminism has turned for the worse because of it (at least modern, New Left feminism). The following excerpted from a post/paper I did entitled, "Women & Religion: Feminism, Gnosticism, and Christianity."
George Grant documents this radicalism, where, like Goldberg, he points out some of these connections Sanger had with racists and eugenists. PP's founding aims and its founder's radicalism is all too commonly ignored or swept under the carpet of history's tide. Let us pick up from Grand Illusions (41-42), some of which was already pointed out by Goldberg:
Okay, the proof of the racist goals and ideals of PP from its inception has been shown. Can this early start be shown to still be in operation? Here I want to defer to the site, BlackGenocide.org (see video below), and Abort73.com (attached article below). I think their work shows ample proof of this racist underpinning.
The following is an excerpt from an article entitled "Abortion and Race: For decades, abortion has disproportionately targeted minority babies."
[Martin Luther King, Jr.] once said, “The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety.” How can the “Dream” survive if we murder the children? Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate.
Lest you feel these claims are an exaggeration, consider the numbers. According to the most recent census data, black women make up 12.3% of the female population in America, but account for 35% of all U.S. abortions – that according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The Guttmacher Institute (AGI) puts the percentage of black abortions at 37% of the U.S. total. Similarly, AGI tells us that Hispanic women account for 22% of all U.S. abortions, though they make up just 12.5% of the female population. Compare those numbers to non-Hispanic, white women, who make up 62.6% of America's female population(1), but account for only 34% of all U.S. abortions.
Every day in America, an average of 3,315 human beings lose their lives to abortion. Based on the percentages above, 729 of those babies are Hispanic, 1,127 are white, and 1,227 are black. Not only are black children being killed at a far greater percentage than white children, they're being killed in greater numbers, period. Is that not shocking?! Though the white population in the U.S. outnumbers the black population five to one, abortion kills more black children than white children, every day. John Piper, a white pastor with a heart for racial justice, remarks on the disparity of abortion this way:
The de facto effect (I don’t call it the main cause, but net effect) of putting abortion clinics in the urban centers is that the abortion of Hispanic and Black babies is more than double their percentage of the population. Every day 1,300 black babies are killed in America. Seven hundred Hispanic babies die every day from abortion. Call this what you will—when the slaughter has an ethnic face and the percentages are double that of the white community and the killers are almost all white, something is going on here that ought to make the lovers of racial equality and racial harmony wake up.
Each year, almost a half a million black babies are lost to abortion. The Life Education and Resource Network (LEARN), the largest African-American pro-life group in the country has produced a chart which shows that from 1973-2001, abortion has claimed more than two and a half times as many African-American lives as the next five leading causes combined. In 2005, a total of 292,808 blacks died in the U.S. That same year, almost twice as many blacks (roughly 447,700) were killed by abortion. In 2004, the black population in the U.S. stood at 36 million. Between 1973 and 2004, roughly 15 million blacks were aborted, which means that, as of 2004, nearly 30% of the black population has been lost to abortion! And that doesn't even factor in all the children that would have been born to those aborted a generation ago. Population estimates show that blacks will soon lose their status as the nation's largest minority group. To put it bluntly, abortion has thinned the black community in ways the Ku Klux Klan could have only dreamed of.
I would be remiss if I didn't include the sterilization stats as well... which, with the culmination of what we have see already is a nail in the PP coffin. This comes from pages 117-188 of Grand Illusions. Just a side-note, in just the part below, in the book there are 11-footnotes that one would have to get the book to follow up on themselves to be more methodical.
Some have tried to compare Luther's anti-Semitism to the problem presented here. I have been told that since Luther had racist views doesn't that mean that the Lutheran church is a racists organization (using my logic). Here I will get somewhat technical, however, quickly, there are two worldviews at work here. A secular worldview (Sanger's and PP) versus a Christian-theistic worldview. I will point out some of the failings of the secular view that excludes the Judeo-Christian worldview. The person seems to be saying, "anti-Semitism is most definitely an immoral viewpoint." If they aren't saying this then their position is vacuous. They are attempting to show that by using one moral position, the other is shown to be false, or at least contradictory, if the proposed logic doesn't follow equally in both cases... because we all know that Lutherans are not anti-Semites! (Although the people this usually comes from think all Republicans are generally racists, which I just showed above in this post and links that the evidence weighs heavily on the other-side.) I will post an excerpt from a longer debate I had with a secular history teacher at a winery:
Hang in here with me... here comes the philosophical part of my argument/critique.
So the founder and subsequent directors are doing what? Living out their worldview, the Lutheran's are not living and being corrected by a Lutheran worldview. They are living and being corrected when they get off course by a Judeo-Christian. There is nothing inherent to Sanger's worldview or those that adhere to its founding philosophy that can say anti-Semitism is wrong, morally, it is just currently taboo by our culture's temporary mores -- by the edict of the majority. It likens the abortion and Semitism question to the level of one saying they like vanilla ice-cream over chocolate. If our cultures temporary mores were, by an edict from the majority, to wade into the ice-cream debate. That would be just as moral as the life and racism question... according to the secular worldview followed to its logical end. Here is a question asked by a Harvard student of Ravi Zacharias during the Q&A, he asked it in order to trip up Ravi... which isn't so easy:
Here we go, further down the worldview "hole." Here I would point the reader to my critiques of two atheists, one article is entitled, "Responding to Christopher Hitchens and a Friend: Explaining the Failings of a Worldview," and, "Hugh Hewitt Interviews Evangelical Turned Atheist, William Lobdell, for 2-Hours." From these two topics one can see that Darwinian views make this Mein Kampf quote just as moral as that of Sanger's quotes, or the fact that someone may prefer chocolate over vanilla:
In other words, do Objective Morals truly exist without God?
Let us start this [extended] jolly good time with a most interesting thought from Stephen Hawkings (who holds the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Isaac Newton’s chair) at a lecture given to a university crowd in England entitled “Determinism – Is Man a Slave or the Master of His Fate.” He discussed whether we are the random products of chance, and hence, not free, or whether God had designed these laws within which we are free. In other words, do we have the ability to make choices, or do we simply follow a chemical reaction induced by millions of mutational collisions of free atoms?
Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s maxim rings just as true today as it did in his day, “If there is no God, all things are permissible.” Without an absolute ethical norm, morality is reduced to mere preference and the world is a jungle where might makes right. This same strain of thought caused Mussolini to comment, “Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”
Notice that Mussolini agrees that might makes right. There was another bad boy on the block in those days, his name was Hitler, who agreed when he said, “I freed Germany from the stupid and degrading fallacies of conscience and morality… we will train young people before whom the world will tremble. I want young people capable of violence – imperious, relentless and cruel.” Again, the rejection of moral absolutes creates what? Young people who will scare the bejesus out of the world. (Take note of the rise in youth violence in our school system.)
But what is this “absolute” that Mussolini referred to as “the immortal truth?” What is the “stupid and degrading fallacies of conscience and morality” that Hitler removed in order to created a nation of hate mongers? Heidegger, In Being and Time, discussed the problems facing men living in a post-Enlightenment secular society – a world without God in other words. Heidegger called this situation “the dark night of the world,” a world which the light of God had been eclipsed and in which men were left to grope around as best they could, searching in the darkness for any scraps of meaning that might be found. This man of course, Heidegger, backed the National Socialists (Nazis) for most of the 1930’s.
The third article in the Humanist Manifesto begins:
For the secular person, man himself is the only standard by which his own behavior is to be assessed, “man is the measure of all things.” Man is to be the sole arbiter in all matters of justice and law, right and wrong. In the words of the Encyclopedia Americana, “Since there is no God, man is the creator of his own values.” The British author John Hick bluntly asserts, “There is no God; therefore no absolute values and no absolute laws.” Joseph Lewis in, The Bible Unmasked, say, “There is in reality no absolute standard by which we can judge… In the final analysis our guide in moral affairs should be what gives to the individual the greatest possible happiness.”
Anthony Freeman comes to the same conclusion: “Not only the absolute existing-out-there God has gone. So have the absolute existing-out-there values such as peace, joy, goodness, beauty, love, etc….” Friedrich Nietzsche agreed: “…the advantage of our times, nothing is true, everything is permitted.” The American scholar David Wells says of our nation, “This is the first time that civilization has existed that, to a significant extent, does not believe in objective right and wrong. We are traveling blind, stripped of our own moral compass.” Paul Kurtz believes that, “The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion,” how can anything be commended as being right, or condemned as being wrong?
Bertrand Russell vehemently opposed war, yet denounced restrictions on sexual freedom. In a letter to the Observer in 1957, Bertrand admitted that he could not live as though ethical values were a matter of personal taste, that he therefore found his own views “incredible” (because he espoused moral relativism) and that “I do not know the solution.” C. S. Lewis talked about this “privatized morality” and showed some of its weaknesses, two of which he identified with his usual clarity:
Allan Bloom, in his book, The Closing of the American Mind, said that, “There is one thing a professor can be certain of. Almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.” How did the college student get this way? Let us allow the Father of modern educational philosophy answer that, John Dewey: “There is no God and no soul. Hence, there are no needs for props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable [i.e. unchangeable] truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or permanent moral absolutes.”
In light of all this, I find it funny when an atheist says that he is so because there is evil in this world (innocent children die, and the such). Again, C. S. Lewis makes my point for me when he was an atheist:
Lewis hit the nail on the head. In the absence of transcendent values, we are left floundering about as best we can… or, as Heidegger put it, “searching in the darkness for any scraps of meaning that might be found.” Ravi Zacharius rightly concludes, if atheism is true, “Thinking atoms discussing morality is absurd.” All this leads to what Jean-Paul Sartre called a “baseless base of values.” In other words, the person who takes this route finds himself in a world with particulars but no universals, relatives but no absolutes, valuations but no values.
So from Cristina Odone (Melrose Place) saying in the June 97’ Daily Telegraph that, “What’s right is what you feel,” to Ernest Hemingway’s creed: “What is moral is what you feel good after, and what is immoral is what you feel bad after,” all this does as a philosophy of evolutionary naturalism is create people who will try to enforce their “will and way” above others.
This is why the “Hitlers” and “Stalins” will always exist! When the moral imperatives of God are thrown to the wayside, it creates a power vacuum. This is why the atheist has no real way to say what is good or bad for any individual besides himself – objectively. This, I believe, drove Bertrand Russell to a solemn grave, and Nietzsche insane. In fact, it was Nietzsche who said that the consequences of the death of God would penetrate every avenue of life, and that this, in-and-of-itself, would be unbearable. Nietzsche went on to say, because God had died in the nineteenth century, there would be two direct results in the twentieth century. First, he prognosticated that the twentieth century would become the bloodiest century in history; and second, that a universal madness would break out.
He has been right on both counts. More people have been killed because of ideological differences, and destroyed on the battlefields of geo-political maneuvering in the name of naturalism and might in this century than the previous nineteen centuries before it. Did you catch that; non-God movements have killed more people in one century than religion did in the first nineteen. Unfortunately we see this madness seeping into other areas of our society as well:
Newspapers in 1996-1997 reported two particularly shocking cases of infanticide. In one, a pair of eighteen-year-old college sweethearts delivered their baby in a hotel room, killed him, and left the body in a dumpster. In the other, an eighteen-year-old briefly left her high school prom to deliver her baby in a bathroom stall, left the infant dead in a garbage can and returned to the dance floor. Both events led to convictions for homicide.
Although these crimes were attributed to either a moral failure (personal or social) or to some form of mental pathology, Steven Pinker had a different explanation. Steven Pinker, professor of psychology at the Massachusetts Institute of Psychology and a leading popularizer of evolutionary psychology, says it is a genetic imperative. Writing in the New York Times, Pinker argued that what he termed neonaticide is not attributable to mental illness because “it has been practiced and acceptable in most cultures throughout history.” Rather, he went on to say, a capacity for neonaticide is hard-wired into the maternal genes by our evolutionary history.
AHHhh! Naturalistic morals (relativism) have struck again! And the only individual to strike at the core of these horrors that materialists have inflicted on the twentieth century is the theist (the Jew and Christian). This is why the non-theist will always have the “Hitlers,” “Stalins,” and “Maos” in their worldview as acceptable to their moral theorizing. They cannot assert objectively – beyond themselves – that those persons are wrong, it would only be their personal preference speaking. Sorta’ like chocolate or vanilla ice cream, or, brownies with or without nuts, Hitler… or Mother Teresa. They (the relativist) are neutered in the political and moral spectrum, or, if they do choose to take a value-laden stance, they are doing so in direct violation of their own doctrines and dogmas, thus, self-refuting their own claims.
(to see a response and answer to this post, see: "Objective Morals Without God???")
One last item to point out before I call it quits, and then I will let the reader's enjoy this small book of a post, this is from a debate that I and a graduate student had that went to California State University, San Francisco. If the secular view is the correct one, then the following must be a correct summation of the moral authority of such a view: