August 18, 2015appliedfaithorg

Celebrating the Author of the Black Holocaust

1 eugenics 7The Smithsonian Museum, facing strong opposition by African-American pastors, has placed a bust celebrating a genocidal hero of the left as a “Hero of Justice”. In an obvious effort to rewrite history, the Smithsonian has glossed-over the record of a monster. We need to revisit a dark time in American history for the reader to understand this column.

Eugenics Laws were popular
Eugenics Laws were popular
It’s baffling to imagine, in 2015, that well less than a century ago the Eugenics Movement was popular in the United States. For most readers, even the concept of eugenics is hard to fathom. For the uninitiated, eugenics is a blend Darwinist science and social engineering that called for the extermination of so-called “inferior” human beings by means of abortion, sterilization and even mass-murder. In a recent Listverse.org article on eugenics, the Debra Kelly writes,

“The American Eugenics Society was an organization that began in the United States in the early 1900s. Its mission included not just segregation, but a racial cleansing and the establishment of a strong, pure race untainted by the blood of those that were deemed lesser, whether by race or by disability.”*

1 eugenicsThe Eugenics society was once a powerful movement. Alexander Graham Bell was a member, advocating sterilization of deaf people. California actively castrated prisoners and the mentally ill. Across the U.S., the eugenics movement was effective at passing laws, sterilizing minority races and people with disabilities, and forbidding marriage licenses between Caucasians and non-Caucasians. The state Virginia Archives records one of the more famous laws,

“”Color is the most important feature of this form of registration,” according to the directions, and “the local registrar must be sure there is no trace of colored blood in anyone offering to register as a white person.” Headed by Walter A. Plecker, the Bureau of Vital Statistics attempted to patrol the racial borders and enforce the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which deemed anyone with a single drop of non-white blood as being black.”**

Margaret Sanger aka Noal Slee was an AES member
Margaret Sanger aka Noal Slee was an AES member
The American Eugenics Society actively popularized genocide. Of course, after the fall of Nazi Germany and the Civil Rights Movement, the vast majority of the eugenics movement died, was discredited or went underground. Still, one glaringly obvious relic of the eugenics movement remains.

Let’s direct our attention with a quote that should infuriate. The hubris and audacity of its author should relegate him or her to the septic tank of human history. When you discover that this person is being celebrated as a hero of justice, you may just protest, write blogs, and write congress or other expressions of disgust. Here is the quote:

“Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks [people] that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … 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.“***

1 eugenics 10That key figure in the eugenics movement, a movement bent on exterminating non-white human beings, Margaret Sanger did something about her convictions. She founded Planned Parenthood. She created what would become a cleverly-disguised organized network of eugenics clinics, almost 80% of which are located in poor, minority neighborhoods. Whether you are pro-life, or pro-abortion, in terms of achieving the goals of the eugenics movement, Sanger has eclipsed Adolf Hitler many times over.

1 eugenics 15Statistics can gauge the effectiveness of motives and their subsequent actions. Adolf Hitler pursued a “master race” and extolled the virtues of Nietzsche’s “Ubermensch”; the perfect (white) human specimen. While Hitler was struggling through a failed coup attempt and subsequent imprisonment in Germany, Sanger was well on her way to accomplishing monumental change in the name of eugenics. It is worth noting that in an effort to purify Germany and her captured countries during WWII, Hitler was responsible for the extermination 6-million people. Sanger’s Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics have killed approximately 58-million people. Sanger is the most successful eugenicist in history.

1 eugenics 9As if the wholesale slaughter of unborn babies wasn’t horrific enough, the effects of Sanger’s famous eugenic motives are mind-numbingly astounding. In the USA, African Americans make up approximately 13% of the population, yet account for over 35% of abortions. The niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Dr. Alveda King, states:

“Right now in America almost half of our babies are being killed in the womb, and in certain parts of America more of our babies are being aborted than being born. While we were marching in the sixties, a place was being prepared for us at Planned Parenthood. We were trying to get off the back of the bus, and they were going to have a space for us in the front of the abortion mill.”****

1 eugenics 17Politicians and other advocates of abortion are responsible for more than keeping Planned Parenthood alive. They are actively engaged in rewriting history. While trying to reinvent the image of Planned Parenthood, they are fighting with all their might to keep funding the abortion mills with U.S. taxpayer dollars. If you are an American reading this, part of what comes out of your paycheck is going to pay for eugenic extermination. Pro-abortion advocates would cry foul for “emotional rhetoric”, but the numbers prove a eugenic outcome to be a statistical fact.

Bishop E.W. Jackson and S.T.A.N.D. to the Smithsonian
Bishop E.W. Jackson and S.T.A.N.D. to the Smithsonian
The group of black pastors from nine states, calling themselves Ministers Taking a Stand, sent a letter to the Smithsonian demanding that the museum remove the bust of Margaret Sanger. Bishop E.W. Jackson, founder of Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Virginia, led the group in calling for the Smithsonian to recognize Sanger’s attendance at KKK rallies and correspondence with Nazi Party members. Twitter users protested, articles have been written across the journalism landscape. Still, the museum stood by keeping the bust, and celebrating the eugenicist hero of the left.

The Christian take-away from this is that we can still love our enemies and stand up for what is right at the same time. As Christians, we have a duty to serve people, especially the poor, immigrants, the disabled and those who are suffering. Taking up the cause of truth when faced with the evil of rewriting a historical monster into a hero for justice is also our duty.

Psalm 82:3-4 (NLT)
“Give justice to the poor and the orphan; uphold the rights of the oppressed and the destitute. Rescue the poor and helpless; deliver them from the grasp of evil people.”
Proverbs 6:16-19 (NLT)
There are six things the LORD hates— no, seven things he detests: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that kill the innocent, a heart that plots evil, feet that race to do wrong, a false witness who pours out lies, a person who sows discord in a family.

Works Cited

**Humanities, Virginia Foundation for the. “Instructions on Preserving Racial Integrity.” EncyclopediaVirginia.Org. 8 18, 2015. http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/media_player?mets_filename=evm00001754mets.xml (accessed 8 18, 2015).
*Kelly, Debra. “10 Horrifying Facts About American Eugenics.” listverse.com. 2 5, 2014. http://listverse.com/2014/02/05/10-things-youve-never-heard-about-american-eugenics/ (accessed 8 18, 2015).
***Sanger, Margaret. The Pivot of Civilization. Gloucestershire, UK: Dodo Press, 1922.
****Zagorski, Sarah. “Alveda King: While We Marched in the Sixties, Planned Parenthood Was Preparing Us a Place.” lifenews.com. 7 4, 2014. http://www.lifenews.com/2014/07/04/alveda-king-while-we-marched-in-the-sixties-planned-parenthood-was-preparing-us-a-place/ (accessed 8 18, 2015).

1 eugenics4 1 Eugenics2

Author’s Postscript: Planned Parenthood famously claims that abortion is only 3% of their “activities”.  This was recently debunked as untrue by the Washington Post. The following graphic describes how they account for their activities.

  

NOTE TO COMMENTERS

This article is focused on the Sanger bust in the Smithsonian and Eugenics.  If you would like to comment about abortion, please address your comments on my previous posting

“Plan-B” and Other Twisted Words Of Murder

Advertisement

118 comments

  2. FYI, Sanger was against abortion and pro birth control. And your attempt to paint her as a racist via quote-mined text is also a fail.

  4. Thank you for having the courage to speak such bold truth. I noticed in the comments the enemy was really attacking you. Props for standing strong in the way of our Lord! Birth control is God’s business. A woman can be on all the birth control she wants, but if God wants to fearfully and wonderfully form a child in a womb, it will happen! There are too many Christians living the carnal life, sadly. Blessings to you, Deborah

    • I would love to reblog the article you wrote about your experience with your first pregnancy. It’s an important and moving story. God bless you as you share it. God never wastes a hurt.

    • I can only speak for myself, but I was not “attacking” David here, nor an I “an enemy.” I just think that there are some inaccuracies which should be pointed out. That should not make “the enemy.”

      • David, you may not understand the lexicon of Christianity. Awomansaved was not attacking you, personally. Biblically trained, it becomes very obvious when Satan’s influence is behind words, events, etc. As we mature in faith, take in the Word, and learn to walk with Christ, good and evil are easier to discern. She wasn’t calling you evil. She was calling the influence behind your words the “Enemy”. If you don’t claim to be a saved, born-again Christian, it shouldn’t be a big deal… it’s the least of your concerns. If you are a Christian, it should begin to trouble you greatly.

        Hebrews 5
        12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

      • Ah, I see. So, efforts for correct inaccuracies are satanically influenced. Well, I have to admit, that’s a new one for me.

      • David, I know its convenient for you to believe otherwise, but the majority of atheists were once Christians. I was schooled by Carmelite nuns then Augustinian priests. I, as I’m sure is the case with David, know the bible very, very well.

      • Thanks for sharing about your training. Tell me more, John. What is your profession? What training did you have in college? Where is your degree from? Describe your salvific moment. Tell me how you lost your faith. What motivates you to speak out against all religions except yours? If your going there, fantastic… I’d like to know the genuine motives behind your positions. I’m an open book. How ’bout you?

      • Again, David, I understand it is convenient for you to believe the people who scrutinise your posts do not know the bible, or can’t possibly understand your theology.

      • LOL! Yes, David, I’m riddled with fear of your theology 🙂 That does, though, remind me of Thomas Paine’s deeply, deeply accurate observation:

        The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not any thing can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is not the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing.

      • I didn’t ask you about theology. I asked about your background. You’ve attacked mine, attacked my faith, my education, how I think, my intelligence… I’ve been honest with you, just be honest with me. I’d love to know from where in your background that you draw your expertise and your motivation. Mine is out there for all the world to see, yet you call me a liar and dishonest. Let’s see yours.

      • You’re localizing your frame of reference to this one thread. I am responding in context with the entire body of comments since I started blogging… 9 weeks ago or so.

      • Yes, and in that time I imagine you’ve gotten quite a shock that people will contest and counter your oftentimes cartoon representation of reality. I’m thinking you don’t get much rational rebuttal in your part of the world. Where are you at, anyway?

        But again, this is not personal. I’ve never attacked you personally, nor will I. This is the marketplace of ideas.

        But if you need to know, let’s just say I have attended two real universities, have a post graduate in political science, and an incomplete Masters in Constitutional Law and Policy. And I presently work for a major international media company which I’m sure you, a far right-wing religious fundamentalist, would absolutely loathe. In fact, you probably think it “evil.” No formal education, though, that relates to religion. I did take a few undergrad anthropology electives in Canberra, but that’s the beauty of the Age of Information, isn’t it? If one is curious about things one may study them till their hearts content. Biblical archaeology is one of my favourite subjects. Oh, and I wrote a book which proves the existence of The Owner of All Infernal Names. I think that qualifies me as a professional apologist… although you’ll never see just how thoroughly skilled I am in that capacity until you read my book 😉

      • Well, I really have no idea what that even means, but if its something about your private spiritualism then I’ll probably just leave it alone. Like David and Tildeb and Roughseas, I typically only engage where clear errors have been made in facts or history or, as in some recent cases, language. I have no interest in a person’s private matters.

      • Am I another spawn of Satan? There are a lot of us around. Busy, busy Satan. Do I not get any credit for thinking for myself? Or is everything induced by either Satan or your god?

      • Rhetorical. I have no belief in your Satan just as I don’t in your god. If you want to convert someone, try elsewhere. Seriously. I wouldn’t like you to waste your time trying with me. That’s a kind and friendly warning. The next comment won’t be either.

      • FYI, you are commenting on a well disclosed Christian blog-site. You may experience a perception, based on where you are, reading and commenting, that I come down “pro God”. Only the Holy Spirit converts… I have no power to do so and don’t try.

      • You’re not really well-versed in your Christianity. Omniscience – All Knowing. He knew what you would write before you wrote it. Not my idea… That’s biblical.

        Incidentally, mocking me is a waste of time. I’m a Christian. It doesn’t matter what my opinion is, because I accept God at His Word. People have been mocking us for about 2000-years.

        If you want to get inside the head of dealing with that whole “offense of the Gospel” thing, there is a new post coming out Saturday that might interest you.

      • I don’t mind your questioning me for what I say. It may be wise not to dive in the middle of what another Christian might be discussing with me. You need genuine belief, the lexicon, and a greater understanding of spiritual issues to be able to understand what the other commenter was saying. Please just accept that no one was calling you satanic.

        Nothing but love, David. You may have just given me some direction on another article.

      • “Please just accept that no one was calling you satanic.”

        Yes, I understood that. This is why I specifically used the phrase “satanically influenced.”

        You said ” it becomes very obvious when Satan’s influence is behind words, events, etc.”

        Well, that certainly suggests that my efforts to correct inaccuracies are satanically influenced. If “Satan’s influence” if behind my words which attempt to correct inaccuracies, then my efforts are satanically influenced. Right?

        I may not have a “greater understanding of spiritual issues,” but I think I understand when someone is saying that my words are satanically influenced.

      • You’re literally correct, but you miss the spiritual nuance completely. Two Christians discussing that would have no problem. There are only two teams. You are either working for one or the other, whether you know or actively seek it. Again, if you read the Bible, that is certainly not news.

      • Wish Satan would help me avoid typos. Sentence above should read:

        If “Satan’s influence” is behind my words which attempted to correct inaccuracies, then my efforts are satanically influenced. Right?

      • “You are either working for one or the other, whether you know or actively seek it.”

        Yeah, I get what you’re saying, but if pointing out factual errors means you’re working for “Satan’s team,” consciously or otherwise, then I think there’s a problem here.

        “Shall I pray for your keyboarding skills?”

        I can use all of the help I can get.

      • Looks like the keyboarding prayer worked.

        I get where you are coming from when you say “there’s a problem here”. The offense of the Gospel stings, and it is offensive. You aren’t arguing with my logic. You’re arguing with God. I did it for years… know how that feels. What I say doesn’t mean much at all, but what He says means everything, even if it hurts. I’m posting about this very topic tomorrow.

      • “I get where you are coming from when you say “there’s a problem here”. The offense of the Gospel stings, and it is offensive.”

        Um, that’s not what I’m talking about, and I think that you’re aware of this.

        An error is an error. Point it out is just pointing it out. It’s not evidence of “godly influence,” it’s not evidence of “satanic influence.” It’s just pointing out an error. If you’re going to declare that pointing out inaccuracies is evidence of “satanic influence,” then there’s a problem here.

    • Mostly it would happen through a failure in contraception actually.

      And birth control is not your god’s business. Or, why would we have contraception if your god was waving the magic wand, saying, yes, no, yes no …

      By the way, this post is not ‘truth’, it is one biased perspective 🙂

      • Did I use inflammatory language? Present anything out of context? ‘Abortion – history and facts’ is a long way from portraying a birth control activist who saw abortion as the last resort as the author of a black holocaust.

        If neither you nor Wally can tell the difference between a factual summary and a biased piece of propaganda that plays the race/eugenics card, then I can’t help.

      • I am having a hard time understanding how you think what I am writing in this blog is journalism, or should be classified as such. It isn’t. We come from two different worldviews, and naturally you will find what I write has a Christian bias. I have a biblical worldview.

      • I’m not suggesting what you write is journalism. Of course it isn’t. But however you look at it, what you present isn’t a factual account but rather a selective one with a heavy slant on very biased and inaccurate personal opinion.

      • That’s true. However, I think the difference is, that I’m capable of writing something objective because of my training, whereas because of your views, beliefs, and training, everything has a Christian tint to it. It’s a bit like watching Fox News. If you know where the bias lies, you know what to filter out.

  7. Today, in 2015, who, exactly is advocating or deliberating enforcing “eugenic extermination?”

    • David, the advocacy of stopping the poor and minority people from procreating was eugenics, and it is still the practical effect of Planned Parenthood. It has become so inculcated in poor and minority communities that the fake language used by its perpetrators permeates the lexicon. Not a person, but a fetus, not killing but inducing a demise, not an abortion but a procedure. This is not a victimless crime we are talking about. It has killed 58-million people since 1973.

      • “David, the advocacy of stopping the poor and minority people from procreating was eugenics.”

        I don’t understand what you are saying here. I asked who is advocating or deliberating enforcing “eugenic extermination?” I don’t see a “who” here.

        “It has become so inculcated in poor and minority communities that the fake language used by its perpetrators permeates the lexicon.”

        Has it? Does it? Is “fake language” why poor and minority women seek out abortion services? Might there be other reasons for the higher rates of abortion in certain population?

        And is “eugenic extermination” the goal or purpose for the use “fake language?”

        Your claim is that “eugenic extermination” continues today. So, WHO is promoting and enforcing eugenics today?

      • I don’t recall saying anyone was enforcing eugenic extermination. Where are you getting that?”

        Well, “eugenic extermination” doesn’t just happen, right? If it’s happening today, then someone must be causing it to happen.

        We need laws to make it happen, we need explicit government policies to make it happen. Someone must be marching these poor women to the “eugenics clinics” with the specific goal or exterminating a particular racial group to make it happen. This is what I mean by “enforcing?”

        So, who’s doing this?

  8. David, if this is not too personal (and i can certainly appreciate it if you say it is), but do you and your wife use contraceptives?

    Also, you’re vehemently anti-abortion, but I’m wondering what you actually base your opposition to it on. By this I mean, where in your religion does it urge you to hold this stance?

    • I think that’s a fair question John. I’m wondering how many of 1–16 of the PP graphic David has posted, his wife has received. For example, I’ve had, 1, 9, 11, 15, and 16. Yet, I’ve had no abortion. Strange. And two out of those five were nothing to do with reproductive health (broken/sprained limbs).

      But still, let’s employ the famous journalist maxim: Never let the facts get in the way of the story.

      • This graphic speaks to accounting of 1 abortion, not whatever non-abortive services the may offer the general public. Stick to the point. 3% is a fraud… A famous fraud.

    • I get this question a lot. Exodus 21:23-25 calls for a perpetrator who causes involuntary manslaughter again a fetus to be fined, and injury to the mother to be an eye for an eye. Premeditated murder of the unborn child is not addressed in this passage.

      You also have 2 psalms in the article.

      IMPORTANT: The sin of killing is forgivable through the same belief on Jesus, confession and repentance as any other sin.

      • Thanks.

        Exodus 21:23-25: 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

        As you point out, David, there is no reference to a foetus there. In fact, there’s no reference to anything regarding a pregnant woman. What are you exactly drawing my attention to?

        Could you post the Psalm verse you’re referring to?

        Now, I’m asking because if you actually read the Bible the Middle Eastern god you worship is clearly Pro-Abortion.

        In Hosea 9:11-16, the son of Beeri prays for his god to intervene in earthly affairs and wreak havoc on the unborn of an entire population. “Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts… Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” To paraphrase, Hosea pleads that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children, to which the Christian god dutifully obeys and makes all their unborn children miscarry. Now, terminating a pregnancy unnaturally is unmistakably what we today call an abortion.

        In Hosea 13:16 the Christian god is utterly diabolical as he dashes to “pieces” the infants of Samaria and orders “their pregnant women [to be] ripped open by swords.” This, self-evidently, describes mass abortions of such barbarity that it’s hard to even fathom.

        In Numbers 5:11-21 a bizarre and abusive ritual is described which is to be performed by a priest on any woman suspected of adultery; a ritual which results in an abortion. In the text a potion is mixed and the accused woman is brought before the priest who says, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.” As clear as day this is a definitive description of an induced abortion; an act where poison is forcibly given to ruin the foetus and rid a woman of another man’s child.

        In Numbers 31:17 Moses commands “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words, kill all women that are or could be pregnant, which is plainly abortion for the foetus.

        In 2 Kings 15:16 the Christian god again orders pregnant women to be “ripped open,” which is both abortion and homicide on a mass scale. “At that time Menahem destroyed the town of Tappuah and all the surrounding countryside as far as Tirzah, because its citizens refused to surrender. He killed the entire population and ripped open the pregnant women.”

        In total there are in fact twenty-six separate instances where your Middle Eastern god performs abortions on demand, conducts infanticide (the intentional killing of newborns), and murders toddlers en masse; acts recounted from 1 Samuel 15:3 to Isaiah 13:15-18 where this god not only smashes babies to death but also orders the rape of their mothers, and as it turns out Jesus is also no friend of the unborn. In the Gospel of the Egyptians Jesus not only demands total abstinence but preaches for the outright separation of the sexes, stating that “sorrow” and what he repeatedly calls “error” will remain with man for just “As long as women bear children.” The statement is quite explicit: don’t ever get pregnant, and if you do then abortion is better than birth.

        Now, regarding abortion, I think Numbers 5:11-21 is the most important. Here you god actually has a full ritual to be performed before abortion poison is given to destroy the foetus.

        Abortion is formalised and promoted.

        With all this in mind, I’m confused as to why you are anti-abortion when your god is pro-abortion.

        Isn’t the objective to follow the ways of your god?

      • For legitimate Good Soil, I might invest the effort of researching all that Line-for-line. You’ve wasted entirely too much of my time over the past couple of months proving you are, unquestionably, bad soil. Not a chance, goad all you want, and “Peace, out.”

  9. I’ll hand it to you David, you are rather good at spin. Now, where in that article do you say that Sanger preferred contraception to abortion? That she worked as a nurse and was sickened by the number of working class poor women she visited post abortion? That she wanted to prevent them having to resort to abortion?

    Agree she made racist comments and supported eugenics, but don’t forget she did an awful lot of good for women by getting contraception introduced into Anerica. Nor was she opposed to homosexuality. Maybe you don’t like her view of religious people:

    and the “irresponsible and reckless people” whose religious scruples “prevent their exercising control over their numbers.”

    Regarding the quote about exterminating the negro population, wasn’t that in terms of trying to get black pastors on board with a birth control project and she didn’t want the intention to be misinterpreted? Just as you’ve done? That comment by her has widely been used both ways.

    Planned Parenthood is not a network of eugenics clinics, at all. It is a network of clinics that primarily provides contraception to women. The reason they are located in poor areas is because normally, poorer people haven’t had such easy access to health services and specifically contraception, which means the women get pregnant and the families (if the men are around) have even more children they can’t afford to support.

    Criticise her for her racist and eugenic views by all means. Don’t bother acknowledging what she achieved for half the American population, and do write a totally ridiculous headline in the knowledge you can’t libel the dead.

    Unlike John, this is one of the most one-sided unbalanced posts I have read in a while. And that’s saying something.

  10. What a well-written article. If the Smithsonian chooses not to take down the bust, I would be content if a truthful passage of information was placed beside it.

    • Good man.

      The rest of the article is troubling, from an emotional perspective. People’s thinking can be so backwards. Well written, too.

      • Bell’s quote is disturbing.

        Are you sure the other Sanger quotes are real, though? I mean, have you fact checked them and confirmed the original sources? That meme is proof people are simply making things up about her, and the anti-Planned Parenthood crowd have a history of inventiveness… see that recent and thoroughly debunked video for proof of that. Perhaps its the case you’ve been fed a tremendous amount of misinformation, David?

        As Benjamin Franklin once so famously said, “Don’t trust everything you read on the internet”

      • From everything I’ve seen, the makers of the video did everything they could to make it dishonest. If someone has to resort to lying, it doesn’t reflect very well on the strength of their argument.

        I found this interesting. It’s the New England Journal of Medicine’s statement on the video. It sums up the truth of the matter (as a historical thing in the US) very well.

        http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1510279#t=article

      • If you call well written being one sided and totally misleading, then yes, John. Have you been getting too much Brazilian sun? Do you really think clinics that provide contraception services should truthfully, honestly and accurately be described as eugenics clinics or abortion mills? Really?

      • 🙂 Just a comment on the sentence structure, not the content.

        Before you arrived I had to pick David up on a “quote” he had attributed to Sanger which was, of course, fake. He’s removed it from the article now, although I figured the other quotes were either also fakes, or taken completely out of context… which you have shown one (at least) to be.

        Honestly, I look at all anti Planned Parenthood noise as deceptive nonsense. That recent video is proof of that, and the shameless depths these people will stoop to try and create the “narrative” they want to create. Lying doesn’t seem to bother them, false and inaccurate language doesn’t move them in the slightest… they’ll just keep blowing air and creating substanceless noise.

      • Oddly enough, I was in the midst of a factual post about abortion when I distracted myself with this. Abortions in the UK, which are basically regarded as on demand, are analysed by ethnicity, and the highest percentage is black. So who is forcing these women to have abortions? Not white supremacists at any rate.

      • I was referring to context, David. Context matters, as Roughsea’s has demonstrated. Being the imaginative type that i am, I can take a Gandhi quote and in a matter of mere seconds turn it into a full-blown defense of Nazi Germany… If I was so inclined to do so 😉

      • Almost 60% of Planned Parenthood’s activities are the taking of innocent life. Those who defend them are on the wrong side of history. Hitler, Sanger, Mengele… They deserve nothing but disgust. They killed millions.

      • Can you please explain how an HPV vaccine equals an abortion? Do you understand anything about women’s bodies? I joke not. HPV vaccine is related to cervical screening and cervical cancer. A vast percentage of PPs work is in preventative areas of which this is one. HPV vaccine is not related to pregnancy or abortion.
        If you wish to discuss cervical cancer please do so. I’m happy to contribute. I’m even more curious as to its role in abortion?

      • Red herring, Roughseas. It is one of many bundled services that they roll into the accounting of an abortion. This is about accounting, not the importance of HPV vaccines. They unbundle everything to fraudulently arrive at their 3%.

      • Red herring my foot. Just answer the question. What is the relationship between an HPV vaccination and an abortion? The two are not the same.

        If you can’t work that out, I’ll leave you and John to get on with it. My patience with misogyny is exhausted.

      • David, where do you get your “facts” from?

        It’s 3%.

        This is like the figure you threw out the other day saying 60% of the US population are pro-life, when in fact the number is 44%, as I demonstrated from the most recent Gallup poll.

        You can’t just make things up David. People will catch you out all the time.

      • Interesting read, and quite confounding. i don’t see your 60% figure anywhere. This section, however, seems to nail it:

        Another way to calculate is by the number of total patients. Recall Planned Parenthood health centers saw 2.7 million patients (men and women) in 2013. If the 327,653 abortion procedures were given to individual patients, patients who received abortions would account for 12 percent of total patients.

        There were 4.6 million clinical visits in 2013. If each woman who received an abortion visited the clinic only once for the procedure, abortions comprised 7 percent of visits that year. If each woman visited twice (a Q&A on the Web site says women need to schedule a follow-up appointment after an abortion), abortions comprised 14 percent of visits. But there is no way of knowing an accurate figure beyond the 7 percent.

        So, 7-14% appears to be the most accurate number.

Comments are closed.