A few quotes from Planned Parenthood’s Founder, Margaret Sanger

“We are failing to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying . . . a dead weight of human waste . . .an ever-increasing spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.” -Margaret Sanger

“Every feeble-minded girl or woman of this hereditary type should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children … we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble minded.” -Margaret Sanger

“Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents…….to breed out of the race the scourges of transmissible disease, mental defect, poverty, lawlessness, crime … since these classes would be decreasing in number instead of breeding like weeds….such a plan would … reduce the birthrate among the diseased, the sickly, the poverty stricken and anti-social classes, elements unable to provide for themselves, and the burden of which we are all forced to carry.” -Margaret Sanger

“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” -Margaret Sanger

“Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child.” -Margaret Sanger

“The purpose in promoting birth control was to create a race of thoroughbreds.” -Margaret Sanger

“More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” -Margaret Sanger

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” -Margaret Sanger

“When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become the foundation of a new race.” -Margaret Sanger

“The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.” -Margaret Sanger

Homosexuality, birth control, academia, Catholicism … and the natural law.


It all started this past May with an email composed by an undergraduate student in “Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought,” a course offered in the Religious Studies department at the University of Illinois. The student forwarded to the department chair an email the class had received from the instructor, Catholic theologian Kenneth Howell, discussing the relative merits of utilitarianism and Natural Law in assessing the morality of homosexuality.

Howell’s letter, reprinted here, explained why Catholic Natural Law doctrine maintained that sexuality must not be separated from procreation, and did bleed into some preachiness. Howell argued that because anatomical differences between men and women were part of the “real” world, sexual morality ought not be governed by utilitarian ethics but by the “inherent meaning” of the act.

Read more

Editor’s note: This is a pretty comprehensive report of what happened at the University of Illinois, and of the various philosophies that have come into play there, regarding the Howell affair.

It appears that Professor Howell accurately explained Catholic doctrine, in response to an email request from a student. Taken within the context of the course work, there should have been no problem with that.

When Professor Howell’s email was (deliberately) taken out of context (by a third party … or parties) he quickly ran afoul of today’s overwhelmingly liberal academic establishment, along with the homosexual subculture, both of which are typically, unalterably opposed to anything (particularly the Catholic Church) that might stand in their way.

The age-old argument against homosexuality… based on the natural law … which … interpreted in light of Catholic tradition … serves as the logical basis for human morality … as well as most western concepts of law and justice … is simply unacceptable to those who wish to create a new order of things … in their own seriously disordered image … and so, in their eyes … it (and Howell) must be strongly opposed and hopefully, destroyed.

Margaret Sanger and the eventual wide-spread acceptance of artificial forms of birth control set the precedent for cultural paradigm shifts of this type, and the homosexuals (and their liberal supporters) hope to achieve nothing less.

What these radicals do not understand is that should they actually succeed, they will be attempting to legitimize their perverted and destructive behavior at the expense of the unalterable truth. Professor Howell pointed this out, and now he is suffering the consequences.

Should that sad day actually arrive, it would mark the end of civilization, as we presently know it … since the natural law is (and always has been) as fundamental to the smooth workings of society … as is gravity (and all the other various physical laws) to the smooth and proper functioning of the universe.

Ironically, Margaret Sanger’s perverted view of things, along with her explicit rejection of the natural law, proves this … since nothing that Sanger ever did, said, or promoted  … even when coupled with huge sums of money, provided through widespread government and private subsidies … ever served to accomplish anything other than making it legal for desperate, misguided people to (cheaply and efficiently) kill huge numbers of innocent human beings (mostly babies).

In short … ANYTHING that runs counter to the natural law MUST (by nature) be a lie or a falsehood … so it should be rejected.

Thanks to the widespread ignorance and/or rejection of the natural law in today’s society, the ideological linkage between the pro-death, pro-homosexual, anti-family and anti-church movements continues to become stronger and stronger. And that, my friends … is the type of CHANGE that Barack Obama (along with liberal Democrats, Republicans, academics and clergy) have been peddling, for lo, these many years!

Abortion Kills More Black Americans Than the Seven Leading Causes of Death Combined – CDC Data

abortionpres

When asked to comment on this report, Dr. Freda Bush, a pro-life obstetrician and gynecologist in private practice in Jackson, Miss., told CNSNews.com that she found the explanation for the high rate of black abortions “disingenuous.”

“I would just like for them to explain why there’s such a significant proportion of their (Planned Parenthood) clinics that are located in minority communities,” said Bush, who is black. “So if you’ll notice, I did not mention that as a factor when I talked to you [earlier], so I was not accusing them of anything.

“I was just pointing out the fact that we have more, but since they brought it up, I would like for them to explain where their clinics are located, and why their clinics are located in that area,” she added.

“I would also like for an explanation of why their founder, Margaret Sanger, who was a known eugenist, also had a Negro project, and an explanation if that was not directed at the ‘undesirables,’” said Bush. “So, I’m not accusing them of anything. I would just like an explanation for the practices that they have continued.”

Dr. Alveda King, niece of slain civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., is a pro-life activist. In August 2007 she told a meeting of Priests for Life that abortionists “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.”

Read the article

Black Genocide

bkabortgraph

Submitted by Doria2

Follow Up Submitted by Nancy W.

Another Scandal! Jesuit University To Honor Pro Abortion Broadcaster Katie Couric.

Another scandal to go along with Notre Dame, Catholic-In-Name-Only politicians,  and the Teddy Kennedy funeral!

Read the news release from the Jesuit University

LifeNews article on Couric’s views

Ethnic Purity, Race Cleansing from the High Bench – Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Ethnic Purity, Race Cleansing from the High Bench.

Yesterday’s New York Times Magazine…abstemiously politically correct as it always has… features a full-dress syphocantic interview brimming with servile flattery with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg by one Emily Bazelon, listed as “a founding editor of Double X, Slate’s new Web site for women and the Truman Capote fellow at Yale Law School.”

Yes, that’s right: the Truman Capote fellow at Yale Law School! It’s rather confounding when you wonder what possible legacy left by the deceased flaming gay libertine writer Capote would ever appertain to a law fellowship at Yale except that it might be what he willed as a postmortem put-on. Anyone holding the Truman Capote fellowship would have to live down the name of the legendarily bizarre perpetrator of the outrageous Masked Black and White Ball who died an inconsolable alcoholic and drug addict after his patron Babe Paley cut him adrift from New York’s east side society because he had been caught lisping outrageous lies about her sexual habits and those of ex-friends Jacqueline Kennedy and her sister Lee Radziwell. How about the Perez Hilton Chair for the Truman Capote Fellowship? Oh well, that’s decadent Ivy League education for you.

Reading the interview with Ginsburg you are almost droned to sleep with run-of-the-mill liberal pablum…quite unremarkable stuff…until you come to the question concerning Roe v. Wade and bewailing the clichéd tragedy of “the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women.” Ginsburg purred an entirely liberally palatable answer citing the ruling Harris v. McRae the 1980 ruling where the court upheld the Hyde amendment which forbade use of Medicaid for abortions…. but then stumbled into this horrifying Buchenwald-like palaver:

“Frankly I had thought at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in population that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.”

At least Sanger feared the consequences of her Hitlerian approach. It never occurs to Ginsburg nor to Bazelon nor to the editor of The New York Times magazine. Or The New York Times itself.

Read more from Tom Roeser

Abortion … a common sense approach

The dirty little secret is that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an arch racist who promoted abortion with the intent to reduce the number of minority births. She referred to blacks as, “…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”

I never understood why African Americans and other minorities didn’t rise up against abortion. As for a patriot’s viewpoint, our nation’s Declaration of Independence states that all of our rights come from our Creator. Among these are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Because the creative process begins with the act of conception, every unborn child has the right to develop in the womb into the fullness of life, to enjoy liberty after birth, and to pursue happiness and fulfillment until their last day on earth.

Read the article

Seen on the web

wow

Years ago (about 30 years ago!), while in college, I attended a pro-abortion meeting on campus.  It was instructional about the use of semantics.  We were instructed not to call the unborn a baby (use “mass of cells”, “fetus”). 

I was a nursing student.  I knew what was growing.  I asked if it would not be better to just acknowledge that the rights of the woman should take place over the right of the child.  I was taught young “Never play dumb for anyone, especially a man, there will be enough things you really won’t know.  Don’t hide your intelligence.” 

So here I was as a young and independent college woman, balking at the idea of pretending I didn’t know what the womb contained, trying to tell the campus choice leaders that we should use the right terminology but stick to our position.  A fellow student commented that if we used the word “baby” people would think we were monsters.  Others agreed.  The leader of the meeting again reiterated the importance of using the proper terminology.  Also, don’t say pro-life, say anti-abortion.  Don’t say pro-abortion (it sounds bad), say pro-choice. 

I was silent the rest of the meeting having been properly shut down by everyone agreeing with the leader to not, under any circumstances, call the unborn a baby. 

I left changed.  I started thinking more and after lots of months of struggle (I wanted to be liberated!) realized…we don’t call it a baby because that would be monstrous.

 It was a heart, soul, eye-opening time for me.  No matter what the “prochoice” group feels about this, killing babies is monstrous. 

If you call it a mass of cells it’s much easier.  However, we are all a mass of cells. 

Ms. Howard gives herself away promptly when she says anti-abortion.  “Anti” anything sounds negative because “anti” means against.  I have some more semantics for you.  Pro choice or Pro life?  Anti-abortion or anti-life? 

Remember that Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) did not start that program to help the poor and minorities.  She started it because she felt the poor and minorities weakened the white race gene pool.  She wanted to help reduce their numbers by reducing the number of babies they had.  Look her up.  She was a known eugenist. 

I was emancipated at 16, got my high school degree, served in the military, got my bachelor’s degree and am a nurse.

If you are pro choice (or anti-life) then woman-up or man-up and acknowledge that you at least know what grows inside a pregnant mother.  Don’t use semantics to make your stance seem more logical.

I took all kinds of sciences to get my degree.  Not one science course suggested the unborn was anything but human.

I have some respect for the position of the Catholic students not wanting Obama honored.  Why would he be honored?  Speak, yes but what’s the deal with a Catholic University honoring such a pro-abortion person? 

It’s a Catholic University.  Good for them for not being willing to go down quietly!

There’s hope for America’s youth yet!

By Anne McDaniel on 05/13/2009 2:44 am