Tag Archives: Eugenics

A Sad Yet True-To-Life Christmas Song

matthew: Please welcome the newest addition to the I Pandora family of authors: American Texan. American Texan is a student who sometimes just has to write things down, and is rather good at it too. But don’t take my word for it…

As I was getting ready this morning I found the song “Rudolph, the red-nosed reindeer” running through my head. I stopped and focused on the words I had just sung:

And then one foggy Christmas eve,
Santa came to say,
‘Rudolph, with your nose so bright,
Won’t you guide my sleigh tonight?’
Then all the reindeer loved him,
As they shouted out with glee,
‘Rudolph, the red-nosed reindeer,
You’ll go down in history.’

The other reindeer didn’t see the value of Rudolph until someone pointed out that he was useful for something. Until that point his differences made him an outcast.

I think this relates very much to human behavior. Unless, or until, someone’s difference seems to contribute to the well-being or enjoyment of others they are often shunned.

Everyone is worthwhile regardless of their differences. I am worthwhile, not because of myself, but because I am a creation of God. My differences, my similarities, are absolutely nothing if it is just me; they have been given to me by God. Everyone is worthwhile because they are a creation of God. He made them who they are.

I remember the case of Terry Schiavo a few years back. Her husband, and numerous courts, didn’t see her life, her personhood, as worthwhile.

A potato is a potato even if someone, for example, says it is a flower. It will always be a potato no matter one’s viewpoint on it.

A person is a person and has worth no matter what anyone says. A person has worth even if you do not know what they will contribute to the world yet.

Everyone is worthwhile in God’s eyes regardless of how individuals or society as a whole views them. They are valued by God even if they seem to contribute little or nothing to others or to the world.

On Abortion

If morality is the point here, and if it’s right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can’t have 50 different versions of what’s right and what’s wrong” Mike Huckabee

Going to a humanistic but practical definition of the Moral Good outlined by a Philosophy professor I took a class with:

Moral good is a quality of the action or intention of a free and knowing agent, which action/intention adds/preserves the physical i.e.biological, psychological, economic, etc–whatever is “natural”(to the object) good of some natural whole such as humans and other species in some rational subordination to human and with keeping in mind the distinction between essential goods and incidental (trivial) goods.

In the issue of Abortion, are there some benefits which are essential and some which are trivial? In a relative scale, a continuum, are there some benefits which are better than others?

What are the benefits of Abortion as defined by it’s supporters?

  • Health of the mother.
  • Protection of the victim in cases of rape and/or incest.
  • Protection from abuse of the mother and/or an unwanted child.
  • Protection of those who are going to abort anyways by providing safe/legal environment to have it performed.
  • Preventing deformed and handicapped children from having a less worthwhile life.
  • Quality of life of the rest of the family.
  • Happiness.

To these I would add protection of the perpetrators of rape and incest.

What are a few of the problems with Abortion? The anti-goods. This list is very short. I wanted general categories rather than specifics.

  • Abortion kills human life.
  • Abortion causes physical and emotional issues in the mothers.
  • Abortion destroys potential.

Now, compare any other these items in these two lists, the “goods” against the “bads”, and is there a case where the “goods” are morally superior to the “bads”? For the sake of our discussion, how do the list of “goods” and “bads” line up on the continuum from essential to trivial?

In the extreme case, perhaps the strongest, most emotionally charged arguments for Abortion are those involving rape and incest and the life of the mother. How do these cases compare in the essential to trivial continuum with those against Abortion?

I would submit that killing a human to resolve an ugly, evil situation such as rape or incest does not mitigate the evil of the original situation nor the lasting consequences of it. If anything, adding the guilt of murder to an already traumatized victim cannot be a safe course of action.

And what of the child? The child has no say in the circumstances of it’s conception. The child could well be a prodigy, it could be special needs, it could be normal and unique like all other children. With special needs children, any person who can look at such a child and not be struck both the intense love such a child needs and is capable of reciprocating, is sorely lacking in humanity. The point is, to unjustly cut off the potential of any child at any point is a grave mistake and a crime with few equals.

Therefore, comparing the competing cases, we see that on the continuum, any benefit to the mother to be attained by killing her child would be trivial compared to the essential goods to be attained in the potential of that child.

And what of the idea that another child could rob the older children of some of their owed love from their parents? Is love a zero-sum game, where there is a set and finite amount of love contained in this world, that to add to those who need love we subtract from the total available to any other? To believe that is to believe a lie, an obvious and tawdry lie. A child both receives love and gives love, adding to the total love in a family. Love is not, cannot be, selfish. We experience love when we are not even the direct or intended recipients of it. To witness love is to feel love and experience it. As older children observe their parents giving of themselves, selflessly, to a new and dependent child, they can understand true love as it is modeled for them.

Finally, what of happiness? Is a smaller family a happier family? Are children likely to be aborted more likely to experience unhappy lives? It is true that abortion primarily appeals to poor and minority families (Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a documented White Supremacist and supported eugenics and abortion as methods of controlling what she deemed to be unworthy aspects of society), but are these necessarily unhappy families? If even one of the children may experience a happy family, basic decency demands we give that child the chance to experience that life. And not every child who experiences an unhappy child will necessarily experience an unhappy adulthood. We are not automatons completely dependent on our situations and histories. Instead, we have choice in how we respond and react to each of our situations. To deny the chance that child may grow up to use their troubled history as a springboard to launch them into the far reaches of achievement in society and culture. Or do you have so little faith in humanity?

Abortion is wrong, evil, hateful, arrogant, stupid, and blind.

The Bloody Face, Revisited

In response to the run-on sentences of David Klaess (I’m tempted to say he’s writing as though he’s drunk) responding to my previous post on abortion, I found my comments reaching “new article” length, and proceeded to do just that:

your a racest kook and furthermore extreamists like you are the people who cause more war death and distruction around the world thinkabout the fact that all those middle eastern terrorists feel as strongly about their causes as you do about yours dont get me wrong Im not condoning abortion but if your truly a god fearing person you must realize that god gave us our own free will so we eahc have the choice to rize or to fall if a woman wants to take an unborn life thats not up to me or you to decide or to punnish THATS UP TO GOD AND THE MOTHER TO DECIDE. also if everyone would stop worring about who’s racist or not and just worry if they are or not all of the sudden there would be no racism.

Of course it’s not up to me to punish mothers who choose to kill their children. It’s up to me to continue to love them and care for them and help them in any way I can.

Further, I can assure you that based on actions and stated intentions (that’s words), Messrs Jackson and Sharpton and many other their sycophants are indeed very racist, just because you’re not white does not mean you can’t be racist. And past racism against a person does not ever justify their own racism against another.

It is not racist but is instead the epitome of UN-racism to care enough for all people that you warn them of plots against them. There is no disputing the fact of Sanger’s racism and her frequent association with white supremacists and Aryans. So if there is no dispute, how is it racist to try and warn people of her nefarious designs against them?

Instead, I would submit that not only is it racist, but evil, to stand by and claim, as you do, that I ought to turn my head and ignore a struggling woman who might very well be carrying the next Einstein or Mozart in her womb, kill that future with the assistance of the Eugenics clinics.

David, it is indeed between God and the woman what her punishment ought to be, which is why you do not see many pro-life people who argue for the tightened regulation of abortion arguing for the punishment of the women except in cases of very late term abortion, instead arguing for the punishment of the doctors who perform such evil.

Abortions for the health of the mother or the child, even under the most loose definitions which include cases of diagnosed Downs Syndrome and other mental differences in the child, account for about 6 percent of all abortions. Abortions for rape and incest are only about 1 percent. (see data)

In cases of the babies health, which is better, a sick baby or a dead baby? When the babe is diagnosed with Down Syndrome or similar mental differences through amniocentesis, an admittedly unreliable testing method, is it morally ok to kill the child? Does such a child have less of a life to look forward to than a “normal” child?

And even in the cases of rape and incest: is it the child’s fault who their parents are and what the circumstances were of their conception? Why heap upon the mother the additional pain of abortion on top of the shame of rape or incest? It is known and accepted that mothers who go through abortions are significantly more likely to commit suicide, suffer from depression, or experience other emotional harm as a result of the abortion. Why add that to the hurt of incest? Are there not families waiting to adopt, to share their surfeit of love with the child, if the mother is not able or willing to keep it?

No David, following your thoughts and your words, you are either unknowingly (in which case, open your eyes) or willingly (in which case, shame, sir, shame for your evil thoughts) ignorant, racist, and unloving. I pray the God you reference grants you mercy, bringing you conviction and teaching to change your thoughts and your ways.

Hiding A Bloody Face

Abortion mill parent company Planned Parenthood, progeny of the racist white supremacist Margaret Sanger, has encountered an unexpected roadblock in the construction of a new abortion mill (aka. Planned Parenthood Clinic, or reproductive health clinic) in a suburb of my own beautiful Chicago.

The planned clinic in Aurora was being constructed by Weitz Construction when pro-life activists found they’d lied in their permit requests to the city. The structure was bought and paid for by Planned Parenthood, and was to be used exclusively for that purpose. But on the permit filings Gemini Office Development listed the tenants as “unknown”.

In this city, opinion is never very far away, and there are a few telling opinions on this issue.

First, from the pro-abortion side. Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn (the Tribune ran the original article revealing the true nature of the building project) begins his piece on the conflagration this way:

Well of course Planned Parenthood representatives didn’t tell the truth to Aurora city officials while they were building a new clinic in the western suburb.

Why is it such a matter-of-fact thing, Mr. Zorn?

Their goal was straightforward: To open a reproductive-health clinic on land zoned for such purpose.

Indeed, no one denies their goal, but still, why the secrecy?

But they had to use a certain amount of stealth because abortion is one of the services Planned Parenthood offers. And foes of abortion rights, longtime losers in the battle for public opinion, traditionally raise all kinds of rukus when Planned Parenthood comes into a community.

“Longtime losers”? If, as you say, the pro-life ideology is such a loser in the battle for public opinion why the hiding, the subterfuge, the concealment? There have indeed been cases of crazies causing physical harm to abortion doctors, in some cases killing, and destroying clinics. Such actions on the part of individual vigilantes are wrong and the perpetrators have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Those few cases are not a suitable excuse if, as Eric claims, abortion is such a universally accepted procedure. Hey, it’s only a baby.

In his smug pride, assured of the moral superiority of his position, he implies that Planned Parenthood and the services is provides ought to be as amoral as a Best Buy or Walmart. As if the killing of babies and the emotional and physical damaging of mothers, the admitted genocidal aims of abortion as issues are anywhere near the moral level of a big box store selling baubles and gewgaws. It makes me want to scream.

(P)oll after poll shows that, even after all the picketing and haranguing and hurling of moral opprobrium in the last 34 years, roughly 2 out of 3 Americans still support Roe v. Wade — the 1973 decision establishing a woman’s constitutional right to choose to have an early-term abortion.

Reading the other polls on the page, I see, not a losing pro-life ideology, but a closely divided America leaning to the side of further limiting the availability of abortions.

Responding to the news, the Reverend Dr. Johnny M. Hunter, DD. National Director of LEARN Inc., which claims to be the largest evangelical pro-life black organization, compares racial tragedies of true similarity. Unlike the sad Mr. Zorn, Dr. Hunter understands the proper order of morality and compares things which really ought to be compared.

Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 Blacks were lynched in the U.S. That number is surpassed within 3 days by abortion.

Abortionists snuffs out the lives of 1,452 African-American children each day. This is womb-lynching, the implementation of black-genocide.

LEARN has been instrumental in providing an alternative voice in the African American community, speaking the truth when so many of their self-proclaimed moral leaders seem to fall completely for the thinly veiled eugenics plans of Sanger and her confederates.

Do they not have the wisdom, Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson, to know what Kimberly Jane Wilson’s father knew? That “not everyone who smiles in your face is your friend”?

Is their ignorance willful or blissful?

Racism in a white person is bad enough, but when you subscribe to a belief system whose known and stated goal is the control or extermination of your own race, is it racism still?

Back at the clinic building, the sides wait for the court hearings to proceed deciding whether Planned Parenthood broke the law in concealing their intent and what, if any, punishment there ought to be for such duplicity.

Mr. Zorn believes, as a good relativist, that there is no moral condemnation for breaking the law in order to achieve what he believes to be the greater good, the opening of a Eugenics Clinic. Also, as every relativist must, he believes he is right.

UPDATE: A Federal judge has just ruled that Planned Parenthoods rights are not being denied as it is being prevented from using it’s new clinic until the legal battles are over. The clinic will stay closed until all appeals are completed.