Eugenics, genocide and the abortion industry. The latter employs the middle to effect the former.

Eugenics, Genocide and/or the Abortion Industry:


EUGENICS

Planned Parenthood began as an organization so closely tied with the American eugenics movement as to be "indistinguishable" from it. That is not a prolifer's quote, but is rather from a Planned Parenthood board member from long ago. At least one minority community leader recently put her beliefs where her mouth is regarding this truth.

The founders and original board members of Planned Parenthood started the organization to foster eugenics:

Akua Furlow, an African American who was Director of Research for the Education and Resource Network, Inc. and an author on this subject, wrote in 2003,

"The vision of Planned Parenthood, founded in 1916 by Margaret Sanger, became the working arm toward eugenic goals. The stated vision was 'reproductive freedom' for the wealthy white families and 'birth control' for everyone else....Henry Pratt Fairchild, a leading American eugenicist and Planned Parenthood board member, said, 'The two movements, eugenics and birth control, have now come to such a thorough understanding and have drawn so close as to be almost indistinguishable.'...Charles Darwin's [half-] cousin, Francis Galton...described eugenics as 'The science of improving stock...to give the more suitable races a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable.'...PPFA even had developed a plan, the Negro Project, as a propaganda program to infiltrate the black community posing birth control as 'family planning' which would focus on the 'health benefits' of 'child spacing.'"

Furlow also wrote the book,  "The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: What Really Happened" in 2004.

Sanger once wrote, in an essay entitled Pivot of Civilization,

"We are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all."

Sanger also said that charity was

"...extortion from the wealthy given to those who should never have been born" and called poor families 'human weeds.'"

Yet: note their "charity" to give birth control free to those who are too poor for it.

Sanger publicly favored the practice of eugenics to limit "inferior" populations, and there’s nothing PPFA has said or done yet to refute those quotes, because they cannot.

A black American group's website gives it to you straight, about Planned Parenthood specifically, and about abortion in general.

You'd be amazed if you browse their website. They call it out-and-out genocide.


GENOCIDE

The definition of genocide is "the systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."

Legalized abortion has already started aborting, advocating or warning about aborting fetuses based on race (also discussed here and here), physical deformity, disease, genetics, sexual orientation, sex selection (in India, in China...and here in the U.S. laws banning sex-selection abortions are objected to by Planned Parenthood: "Each year, a number of bills designed to create barriers or limit access to abortion services are introduced…includ[ing]… sex selection…"), and the number of children had in total, especially in multiples.

[this last link newly added, courtesy of Jane Duquette at ex libris reviews]

If one’s religion were genetic, that too would be a criterion by which some could be aborted.

The white, PP-founding eugenicists "sold" abortion and birth control to blacks in this country as if it was a good thing for them, when the ulterior motive was to decrease what the eugenicists called the "human weeds."

The people working in PP's clinics have bought into the rhetoric of “choice.” It is easy to do, when they most likely don't even know—or know but cannot possibly accept as real—the abhorrent foundations of their organization.

Can anyone really think that those in the black neighborhoods where Planned Parenthood set up shop were honestly so "free" in making those choices when there was indeed a "systematic and planned project" for the "extermination of an entire racial group?"

At least Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece isn’t fooled.

Please everyone, understand that we have absolutely no disregard or disrespect for those who suffered and/or died so horribly in the genocide wrought by the Nazis who eliminated about 18 million living human beings, including 6 million Jews. We ache and pray for those families, those survivors, and some of them are even our neighbors. We will never forget that it really happened, whether we are Jewish or not. We acknowledge the suffering of all those who died at the hands of the Nazis, and we agree that the Holocaust rightly is called "genocide."

But neither do we wish anyone to diminish the loss of human life from abortion either. We are not taking anything away from the agony of the Holocaust victims when we also are compelled to remember that U.S. abortions since 1973 alone have eliminated over 40 million human persons, in very painful and torturing ways for the babies and often for the mothers.

I count myself as among those responsible for the loss of at least one of those human persons.


“PERSONHOOD” and INHUMANE TREATMENT OF HUMANS BY HUMANS

We discussed some sociological similarities to the Holocaust in this post and comments about Milgram's Experiment and what makes human beings become inhumane toward one another. Even after the numbers above are explained, some folks still berate anyone who discusses the Holocaust/abortion comparison. I’ve pointed out how at least in part, both genocides came about from the same mechanism of obedience to authority from which Milgram devised his original experiment.

Ignoring the sworn, under-oath testimonies by eight world-renowned scientists that human life begins at “fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm…[and is called] a single-celled zygote”(see slide SIX, here), some still continue to drag out the tired, old Peter Singer "personhood" or "sentient being" canard. Peter Singer thinks infanticide is OK and sometimes monkeys are more of "human persons" than young children are. Don't take my word for it. He said it, not me:

From the article, "Abortion and Rights," in a special edition of the International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, (Vol. 19, No. 3/4, 1999, pp. 96 – 126; (available to registered Harvard users here), the following includes quotes and paraphrases from Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy/Bioethics and career-appointed biochemist at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD:

Imposing philosophical terms such as sentience or personhood on scientific data is illegitimate. The brain--supposed by some theories to be the physiological support for both "rational attributes" and "sentience," isn't completely formed until young adulthood. Quoting [noted embryologist Keith L.] Moore in his well-known medical school textbook The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology: 'Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment. Development does not stop at birth. The brain triples in weight between birth and 16 years; most developmental changes are completed by the age of 25.

"... if a 'person' is defined only in terms of the actual exercising of 'rational attributes' or of 'sentience,' what would this mean for these...adult human beings with diminished 'rational attributes:' the mentally ill, the mentally retarded, the depressed elderly, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's patients, drug addicts, alcoholics - and for those with diminished 'sentience,' the comatose, patients in a 'vegetative state,' paraplegics and other paralyzed and disabled patients, diabetics or other patients with nerve or brain damage, etc.? Would that mean that they would not have the same ethical rights and protections as those adult human beings who are considered as persons?

"This is the position of bioethics writers such as the Australian animal rights philosopher Peter Singer, the recently appointed Director of the Center for Human Values at Princeton University. Singer argues that the higher primates (dogs, pigs, apes, monkeys) are persons - but that some human beings, e.g., even normal human infants, and disabled human adults, are not persons. Fellow bioethicist Norman Fost actually considers 'cognitively impaired' adult human beings as 'brain dead.' Philosopher/bioethicist R.G. Frey has also published that many of the adult human beings on the above list are not 'persons,' and suggests that they be substituted for the higher primates who are 'persons' in purely destructive experimental research. The list goes on." [Emphasis mine]

Does anyone out there reading this who believes the "personhood/ sentience" argument, really want to be in the same camp as people who advocate doing to other human beings exactly what the Nazis did to 18 million people including 6 million Jews, especially when they subjected the "marginal people" listed above to surgical and other physical, scientific experimentation as though they were monkeys or rats?

People have tried to turn the world on its ear with convoluted "personhood logic"--which is all just mental masturbation--but it still doesn't make the truth go away.

Poor Peter Singer. He must really hate his mother for letting him live.

Some argue that the Holocaust wasn’t legal and abortion is. While technically this may be true, it must also be considered that there is no question that the Holocaust legally was sanctioned by the government of Nazi Germany. Whether they had a law on the books “allowing it” or not, no one honestly can argue that it was not sanctioned from the very top of that country’s leadership.

As for the violent, torturous and hideous nature of what the Nazis did, there is no argument we would make or support that would refute that horrible reality. However, there is scientific evidence that abortion is as physically violent and torturous, at least to the unborn fetus and sometimes to the mother.

About 78% of U.S. abortions occur after 6 weeks, and medical experts have written in the NEJM and testified in court that “the fetus develops pain receptors six or seven weeks after conception, and by 20 weeks can feel pain from head to toe” and that “a fetus likely feels pain more intensely than a newborn baby.”

Going further, while the CDC found that 39% of abortions occur at less than 8 weeks, combining all investigators’ findings might indicate that it’s about 51% of all U.S. abortions occurring at less than 8 weeks. So between 49% and 61% of abortions occur after 8 weeks. The actual CDC report source for these facts is found in this post.

With 1.4 million abortions every year in this country, that means that between 854,000 and one million babies in utero past 6-7 weeks experience physical pain, sometimes excruciatingly so. For many of the women, and even more now, with the abortion pill, they’ve experienced the full pain of days-long, unattended labor and delivery of dead fetuses, even painful death themselves.

Still others accuse us of “advocat[ing what] was the actual policy of the Third Reich:” making abortion illegal here as it was in Nazi Germany. There are two flaws in this argument.

Firstly, that abortion was illegal in Nazi Germany has nothing whatsoever to do with its governmental policy to inflict the Holocaust. It had everything to do with its insatiable desire to increase its own Aryan race.

Secondly, the Nazis did in fact allow abortion--as long as you weren't German. They had a policy that forced abortion onto those they wanted to kill off.

It was part of the policy known as Lebensborn. Abortion was illegal--but only for Aryans. For anyone considered less desirable, abortion was not only legal, but often "compulsory:"

Infants born to Polish women deported to Germany as farm and factory laborers were also usually taken from the mothers and subjected to Germanization. (If an examination of the father and mother suggested that a "racially valuable" child might not result from the union, abortion was compulsory.)
~ quote from The Holocaust Education Foundation, Inc. website

So in reality, since abortion advocates often fight for government-funded abortions for the poor, for minority women, and for the handicapped, they often are quite literally doing as the Nazis did in aborting people, just as Margaret Sanger et. al. set out to do.


Eugenics, genocide and/or the abortion industry. The latter employs the middle one to effect the former.

Those who merely support or “don’t personally oppose” the latter on a private, individual, belief basis, usually don’t even know about the real relationship among the three.

And none of that is or will be admitted to, of course, even once they do know, but then neither did the tobacco industry or its supporters admit what it was really doing, until it was brought down by massive lawsuits which forced it to do so.