Genocide, Eugenics, and Abortion

We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the mained, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. (138-9)

At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla. (1874, p. 178)

The quotations above are from Darwin's The Descent of Man. Darwin believed that man was foolish to help the weak in society and believed that certain people groups such as black Africans and their descendants were lower on the evolutionary scale than the white man. Up until very recently, his views were accepted by most evolutionists. Darwin's scientific theory was used to explain the social and technological advancements of various peoples and cultures.

Darwin's theories were influential upon (and he was also influenced by) eugenics. Eugenics is defined by modern proponents as the "self-direction of human evolution." It has been embraced in various forms throughout history but I will focus on the modern era and in America. Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt both supported eugenics in the form of forced sterilization of people who were deemed unfit to reproduce. Eugenics has been promoted in greater and lesser degrees by most of our recent presidents from both parties. In recent years, the debate between Republican and Democrat has centered around the controversy of whether or not abortion should be part of the eugenics program--neither of the major parties opposes eugenics entirely (Bush Jr. might).

Nazi Germany gave the world a horrific picture of what full-scale open eugenics looks like. The horror did not stop the eugenics movement as a whole it just changed the language of the conversation. Open and obvious pro-eugenics speech was not accepted in mainstream media but it continued to exist in subtler forms.

Perhaps the single most influential person on the modern eugenics movement in the United States is Margaret Higgins Sanger--the founder of Planned Parenthood. Sanger opened the very first American birth control clinic in 1916. Birth control was illegal based upon the Comstock Act of 1873. Sanger faced numerous legal battles but Planned Parenthood prevailed due to donations by the Rockefeller family. Sanger shared in the Darwinian racism. On page 47 of What Every Girl Should Know Sanger writes:

It is said that a fish as large as a man has a brain no larger than the kernel of an almond. In all fish and reptiles where there is no great brain development, there is also no conscious sexual control. The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.

On page 106 of A Plan for Peace Sanger writes:

A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

In 1939, Sanger created the "Negro Project." On December 10th of that year she wrote a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble (of Proctor and Gamble) and said:

[We propose to] hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

Sanger's ideas were dangerous because she worked closely with the African-American community. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. even praised her work with the black community. There is no way of proving whether or not Dr. King was familiar with Sanger's racist writings but he probably wasn't. Dr. King was certainly shortsighted. He was being exploited by Sanger to accomplish Sanger's own goals. Dr. King saw birth-control as a means for black families to become wealthier--Sanger knew that birth-control would diminish the black population. She specifically targeted African-American communities to set up shop.

The genocidal drive of Planned Parenthood has not gone unnoticed by all in the black community.

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama, August 24, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Dr. Alveda King, the niece of legendary human rights campaigner, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., told a meeting of Priests for Life, that the killing of a quarter of the black population of the US has not been from the lynch mobs of her childhood days, but from abortionists, “who plant their killing centers in minority neighborhoods and prey upon women who think they have no hope. “The great irony,” she said, “is that abortion has done what the Klan only dreamed of.”

The sad fact is that, Alveda King's figures are substantially lower than figures I've seen which state that between 50 to 60% of African-American babies are killed by abortion. When you add to that number all the births that were prevented by Planned Parenthood pushing birth-control on African-Americans, its pretty clear that Planned Parenthood has led to a gigantic decrease in what the African American population would look like if Planned Parenthood did not exist. Sanger's vision continues to be carried out.

Planned Parenthood also finds a friend in those groups that are gravely concerned about overpopulation. I can walk into any grocery store and there doesn't appear to be a shortage of food. We're actually paying farmers to destroy crops to keep food prices from being too low. Most of the world is uninhabited. People simply choose to live close to one another for economic reasons. You could fit everyone in the world side by side in Jacksonville, FL. You could take everyone in the world, divide them up into families of four, and give them a three bedroom house with a 50 x 100 ft lot and fit them all in the state of Texas with room to spare.

The greatest supporter of Sanger's eugenics program ever to run for president has just been elected. My guess is that Obama has been duped just as MLK Jr. was. It's hard for to believe that he is fully aware of the agenda and goals of the Planned Parenthood agency. We need to pray for our President-elect. I don't expect any President that we elect to completely end the government funding of eugenics programs but there is a great danger that the accelerator will be pushed to the floor. Obama does not believe that a baby even outside of the womb has human rights. Obama has promised that the first thing he will do as President is sign the "Freedom of Choice Act" which would remove all state restrictions on abortion and accelerate the genocide of the African-American people. Obama has said "the first thing he will do" about other things too, so we can hope that he won't really do it but he has a pretty consistent record on supporting Planned Parenthood. The advantage of pushing the accelerator down all the way is that people will see the real problems with Planned Parenthood the same way many saw the problems with eugenics after Nazi Germany.

Polls showed that most African-Americans did not agree with Obama's policies--but they voted for him anyway. The same African-Americans who voted for Obama also voted for proposals in their states that promoted so-called conservative ideals. The election of Obama is not the story of racial equality. The election of Obama is the story of a man who is being duped by white men into destroying his own race. It is the story of other African-Americans who were duped into voting for him and so duped into destroying their own race. If Planned Parenthood didn't exist, there would be enough African-Americans to elect an African-American president that actually represented them. Or if the real goal is racial equality then it shouldn't matter what the color of the candidate's skin is at all.

Where does the Lamb on the Altar fit into all this?

The Lamb shed his blood for people of every nation, tribe, and tongue. The Lamb says "Be fruitful and multiply!" The Lamb on the Altar calls children a blessing and a gift from God. The Lamb does not pander to racial groups. The Lamb gives Himself for you.

Politics and the Lamb on the Altar

I'm generally critical of Rick Warren but he asked some very good questions at the Saddleback Presidential Forum. A full transcript can be found here. One of the questions that he asked both candidates was "At what point does a baby get human rights?" Warren could have asked "At what point does life begin?" or some other related question but instead he asked the right question. The question as asked fits right within the scope of the vocation of the presidency. The President is called to uphold the Constitution and must make sure that all who have constitutional rights receive them. So the question asks at what point a baby has those Constitutional rights. Obama responded by saying "Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade." If the question of who has constitutional rights is above Obama's pay grade then perhaps Obama should seek other employment. It is also the job of a senator to uphold the Constitution. He is completely unqualified to be president if he doesn't even know who the people are for whom he is promoting Constitutional rights.

Obama believes that abortion is a Constitutional right. Obama has borrowed the line from Bill Clinton that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare." Are there any other Constitutional rights that anybody would say should be rare? If there is nothing morally wrong with abortion why should it be rare? Obama has never passed any legislation that would make abortion "rare." Obama's position on abortion as shown by his voting record is at the extreme end of the hyper-pro choice spectrum. Obama has been critical of any bans on partial-birth abortions. Despite the mantras in the pro-abortion camp, a partial birth abortion has never been necessary to save the life of the mother. The baby is almost all the way out. Why would you need to stab him in the back of the skull to save the mother?

Obama was the only verbal opponent of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act on the IL senate floor in 2001. The bill protected the lives of babies who survived an abortion. These were babies completely detached from their mothers, posing absolutely no health risk to their mothers at all. Hillary Clinton actually voted in favor of a similar bill which makes her more pro-life than Obama. When National Right to Life made Obama's voting record known, Obama said they were lying but the records are public and easily obtained. Eventually the Obama camp admitted to National Right to Life that National Right to Life was telling the truth but the Obama camp has not issued any public apology. The question still remains. Being born obviously doesn't guarantee any rights in the mind of Obama. So at what point does a baby have rights? There are professors at prominent universities who claim that a baby has no rights until several months or even years after birth. So the question is a real and important one. More people die each year from abortion than have died in any war so its hard to think of a matter that is more important.

McCain said that a baby has rights at the moment of conception. His position on stem-cell research is in conflict with his answer but at least he gave an actual answer and his voting record is pretty consistent with his position. I'm not endorsing him, I think Chuck Baldwin is a better choice, but I do see good reasons why someone might vote for McCain. Obama is right that we need to think about the "least of these." But the "least of these" clearly includes babies.

The fact that abortion is a moral issue does not mean that you cannot legislate in regards to it. Moral issues are the only issues that you can legislate on. Anyone who says "You can't legislate morality" is either an anarchist or a liar. The feeding of the poor, national health care, speed limits, and anything you can think of are all promoted based upon the idea that there is some moral necessity. There was a time at which slaves were not regarded as people, but property. The issue over whether or not slaves are people or only property was a morally divisive issue. If we went the route of Obama, America would have decided that Slave-masters are the ones who must make the decision over whether or not slaves are people or property and that such a decision is above a president's pay grade.

As a citizen, the Christian votes for different reasons than everyone else does (or at least he should). Everyone else votes for his own self-interest. The Christian follows the example of the Lamb on the Altar and lays aside his own self-interest. The Christian votes for the good of his neighbor. His neighbor includes babies.