Sanger the devil (part 2)

If you want to be deeply disturbed, read this.

“Woman must have her freedom—the fundamental freedom of choosing whether or not she shall be a mother and how many children she will have.” -Margaret Sanger

The fundamental problem here is the unlearnability that sex is the source of babies. Margaret Sanger’s insists that a woman’s fundamental freedom or right lies in her choosing of whether or not she should be a mom. Okay, great, then don’t have sex if you don’t want to be a mom, or at least don’t have sex when you are ovulating, but no one even knows one that means today because our culture’s championing of birth control has cost us our biological awareness on top of losing our morality. Insisting, “A woman should be able to have sex whenever she wants,” and in the same breathe saying, “…And she should be able to choose whether or not she should be a mom.” Is like saying, “A woman should be able to eat as many hot dogs and she wants…and she should be able to choose whether or not she ends up on the Jenny Craig diet.” Don’t want to be morbidly obese? Don’t overeat. Don’t want to get pregnant? Don’t have sex when you are ovulating. Why is that so difficult to figure out? Sanger’s error is her separation of pregnancy from intercourse. It would be like a football player who tried out for the team, made it, got all dressed up for the game, and then walked on the field and insisted, “Every player should have the right to not be tackled.” Then he would proceed on the field and be shocked to be tackled when he picked up the ball. If he was afraid of being tackled, he shouldn’t be playing. Pregnancy is part of sex, it’s the point of “the game.” Something has to go right for you to get pregnant. If you don’t want this natural result, get out of the game.

So as I began to say last post, I stepped into Satan’s playground (PP) to see what was going on in there. I found their defense of the founder, the Leviathan’s bag runner (Margaret Sanger) who they proudly insisted was an upstanding citizen and was loving, compassionate, and out for the good of everyone. Here is a fun excerpt from their site where they defend the integrity of Sanger from false quotes or quotes taken out of context. In their own words (excerpt begins with “Through the years…”and ends with the chart):

Through the years, a number of alleged Sanger quotations, or allegations about her, have surfaced with regularity in anti-family planning publications:

"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."This statement is taken out of context from Margaret Sanger's Woman and the New Race (Sanger, 1920). Sanger was making an ironic comment — not a prescriptive one — about the horrifying rate of infant mortality among large families of early 20th-century urban America. The statement, as grim as the conditions that prompted Sanger to make it, accompanied this chart, illustrating the infant death rate in 1920:

Deaths During First Year

1st born children 23% 7th born children 31%
2nd born children 20% 8th born children 33%
3rd born children 21% 9th born children 35%
4th born children 23% 10th born children 41%
5th born children 26% 11th born children 51%
6th born children 31% 12th born children 60%

Somehow I don’t foresee any context that could possibly justify this statement. Truly, there cannot be one. But I did want to know the context anyway. In fact, I was quite interested, so I looked around until I actually found the book that this quote came from. Here is some context for you, the title of the chapter is, “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families.” How’s that for putting it in perspective? We will look at the whole chapter a bit more, but first let’s look at this blurb.

I just want to make sure I have this straight, in order to avoid a possible death, you should go ahead a kill that child? That makes sense.
First of all, possible is a key word. The child may die, so hey, why not speed up the process?
Second, even if it was certain death, there is still something wrong with killing an innocent child. Why is it wrong? Because every child has internal value. The mother not wanting the child to live does not take away her baby’s value. Even if all of those stats read 99% or 100% chance of death, it would still be fundamentally wrong and unjust to kill the child. It doesn’t matter what sort of life that baby is entering into –be it poverty or the life of a gangster. (You can see how abortion has lead to racism and elitism, and why Sanger is right behind that smoking gun too). The bottom line is that any life is better than no life at all. Why? Because human life has intrinsic value. Life is better than no life at all because that which has value is better than that which has no value. Therefore, any human life, no matter how short or feeble, is incredibly valuable by merit of it’s very existence. To deny this is to take on the same mindset as Satan’s monkey boy Sanger.

More on this to come.

Margaret Sanger: The Devil's Monkey Boy. "Dance Monkey! Dance!"

So I decided to do it, against my own desire, I entered the belly of the beast. As disturbing as it is, I knew in the name of research I had to go onto planned parenthood’s website to hear it from their own lips. Actually, my journey began with researching Margaret Sanger. I was surprised to see no sign of her on any of the major abortion advocates’ (aka “pro-choice”) websites. But then, of course, I found her where she could not be denied, in the records of her legacy. Yes, she is the founder of the organization that fights for certain “rights” and “choices.” Which rights? Which choices? Well the choice and the right of a mother to murder the life of the baby inside her, the life that she (and another person I might point out-traditionally a man- but someone, pro-abortionists are in denial about this disturbing fact) had created. Planned Parenthood, aka Satan’s happy chair, continues in this wonderful tradition of protecting the “right” of in-utero baby killing. Yet, in the name of safety, health, science, and technology, Satan’s massage chair masks the deaths of these little babies under the cover of a “right.” Hordes of problems are flowing from this perspective, but would you expect any less from the devil’s own legacy? In order to deal with Margaret Sanger’s horrific views, we must first examine some preliminary questions.

The first question is “what is a right?” A right pertains to justice, so justice is where we begin. Justice is what is due to a person, what is owed or deserved. It is just, it is right, fitting, and good for a person to receive a certain type of treatment, award, punishment, if that person has done something that merits such a thing. To give one what is owed to him would be just. Thus, when one speaks of “my right,” he must have done this thing that affords him the right. If being a citizen of a country affords you the right to have a say in the political affairs of that country, that is, voting, then if you are legitimately a citizen, the right to vote belongs to you. Fundamentally, it is just for you to be able to vote and unjust for you to be prevented from voting. It is also important to realize that you can only speak of rights as long as it is objective. If there is no objective, unchangeable good, then there is no point in us having a conversation about so called “rights.” The best we could do is talk about opinions which would probably lead us to utilitarianism, that is, the greatest good (that is, what we decide is good) for the greatest number of people. (That sounds pretty good actually, if your name is Adolf Hitler or Margaret Sanger).

So justice is that which is due to every person. By merit of being conceived, that is, by becoming a human being, each person has the right to life. This is because each person has internal, intrinsic, inherent value. It is this value that is denied, ignored, and obliterated when that innocent person’s life is taken from them. This is injustice because their right to life is violated. My desire or lack of desire for any given baby to continue having life or not having life is irrelevant to that baby’s worth and value. Just as the fact that I want to be rich and famous doesn’t actually turn me into Brad Pitt.

Many claim that by not having access to abortion, they are being denied a certain “right.” What exactly is this right? What is this based on? How is killing the baby in your womb a right? No one ever has the right to take another innocent person’s life. This fundamentally flawed logic has a ripple effect that creates a wave of erring beliefs that "justify" the murdering of millions. People will make various claims such as:

1) Because they are the one that gave life to the child, the child therefore has no rights and the mother somehow absorbs up the child’s rights because she conceived it. This is why we have slogans like, “keep your laws off my body.” The irony is that the “laws” being protested are not threatening the woman’s body, but are concerned with saving the baby’s body. A mother does not have the right to end her child’s life in her womb any more than she has the right to end her child’s life outside the womb. What’s the difference?

2) The extreme response that has become normative today is this view that the baby is not a person! Yes, we have separated human beings from human persons in order to be consistent in defending the precious “right” to abortion. Metaphysically, scientifically, and medically, it is quite obvious, that at conception a new being, that is not “part” of the mother but is a distinct being, begins to exist. The standard is that rights belong to each human being (who is also a person). Against this standard, we now have the view that only persons (because not all human beings are “persons”) have rights. What is a person you ask? Well that is easy. Imagine the pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia folks sitting around a table pondering this question: “How can we define a person so that makes it acceptable for us to kill the babies and elderly when we want to? Hmm…Yes that’s it! If you are conscious, if you can object to the ending of your life, then you are a person. But if you cannot reply, you’re not a person!” I would hate to fall asleep around one of these guys. Why not slice me up for organs? It takes this view of a personhood, one that can be lost and gained throughout one’s life, in order to justify abortion.

Among those who hold to this view, very few follow this logic to its necessary end. One man insane enough to do so is Peter Singer. He finally admitted what pro-lifers had been screaming, “If killing a baby in the womb is wrong, why is killing a baby just outside that womb wrong?” There is no internal change of value all of a sudden. What makes that baby have no right to life minutes before it is born and then suddenly have every right to life after exiting the womb?

All this just to get to Margaret Sanger. I think I will have to take a nap and hope I don't get my head lopped off by any of Sanger's followers between my episodes of "personhood" and "mass of tissue" -so I can finish the rest of this blog...

America, the greatest nation?

It seems like every day you can hear any given politician say, “We live in the greatest nation in the world.” I always wonder what makes us great. Are we proud that 4,000 lives are willfully ended each day via abortion? Are we so impressed by the oratory skills of our world leaders and their ability to drop puzzling metaphysical questions such as, “That depends on what your definition of is is?” Or maybe we just think greatness is measured by the size of our debt. Whatever it is, I can tell you what it is certainly not, and I’m talking about our concern for the family.

The United States is one of four countries in the world that does not provide any sort of paid maternity leave! We rank right behind Lesotho, Papua New Guinea and Swaziland. These countries have been ravished by war, famine, and other terrible atrocities. What is our excuse?

Yes folks, this is true, we could not possibly care less about mothers and children, about the family thriving, about solid values or virtues. Our excuse? We have work to get done! Get that kid into day care so you can come back and make some money!

Don’t get me wrong, I love our country. And I’m not anti-government or some sort of conspiracy theorist. But the morality of our country has certainly plummeted in the last 200 years. We may have progressed with our technology, but our moral values have nearly vanished, and the family is vanishing along with it as abortion, contraception, gay marriage, euthanasia, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research hack away at our country’s moral foundation.

As first time mother Linda Strauss McIlroy said as she prepared to place her two-month old baby into day-care so she could return to work, “It's hard for me to imagine leaving him. Just not being with him all day, leaving him with a virtual stranger. And then that's it till, you know, I retire. It's kind of crazy to think about it.”

I’m not settling for crazy, it’s horrible.

Read more about it:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-07-26-maternity-leave_x.htm
http://www.inc.com/news/articles/200702/family.html

“Pro-life” is not enough

There are three reasons not to use the pill.

1) It causes Abortion, which is murder, which is immoral.
2) It makes God’s creative act impossible by separating his natural way of creating life from
the venue in which he designed it, the marital union. Hence, it is immoral.
3) It is bad for your physical health (which is also immoral, if the person knowingly harms
herself).

Why do we still use the pill?

The answer is metaphysics. What is metaphysics? It is the fundamental realm of being. It is the natural way of life, organizing principles, and laws. Our immorality stems out of a denial of these principles. What the heck am I talking about?

A human is a human. That seems pretty obvious right? As crazy as it sounds, many actually do not believe this. Why don’t they believe this? So they can support abortion. Instead we have the view that a human is only a human when the mother (or, sadly, often the father, or grandparents) says it is a human. What’s that sound like?

Friend of pregnant woman: “Are you pregnant.”
Woman: “Yes. But I’m having an abortion.”
Friend: “You’re going to kill your baby?”
Woman: “It’s not a baby.”
Friend: “Then what are you pregnant with?”

This is a violation of a fundamental law of metaphysics: The Principle of Identity. This states that every being is itself or that every being is identical with itself. Or, in our current situation, an unborn baby human is an unborn baby human.

The third reason alone (physical effects) should be enough to deter anyone (cancer, blood-clots, etc.). The first two (moral) reasons are the most difficult to convince our secular society of, as we truly live in an amoral age of this world. Yet why are these reasons not deterring pill usage?

Let’s take a quick look at the recent history of the pill usage in our country. Let’s go to the 1930’s, yes, we had the pill in the 1930’s, don’t think it to be some invention of last few decades. There has also been abortion and infanticide (as well as contraception) for thousands of years.

My beef here is with pro-lifers. Christians have always defended life against these forms of child-killing. But in the 1930’s the Anglican Church okayed the use of the pill (for married couples only of course). This was received harshly by virtually every Protestant Church at the time (as well as the Catholic Church).

It didn’t take long for folks to figure out, if you can be married and not have children through pill usage, you can use the same pill out of wedlock, and a perfect platform for immorality was given a new glossy finish.

Contraception has always been immoral for reason #2 (preventing God’s creative act). Is it a coincidence that the most intimate act is also the only creative act? Who dares to remove God’s work of creation from its proper setting?

But that is not the only problem here. It also ends the life of a newly conceived soul! Yes, one of the ways the pill works is it ends the life of the already existing human by making an environment hostile to the little life. The very argument (of pro-lifers) against abortion is that it ends the life that was created after conception. So how can one who uses this argument also use the pill that ends a life after conception? We’re stuck in crappy metaphysics again. If you are against abortion you have to be against contraception or you contradict yourself. The pill causes abortions. To truly be pro-life, one must also have an anti-contraceptive mentality.

Abortion: Bad for your brain

Well at least it is according to all those wacky anti-choice advocates who just make stuff up like that because they hate freedom, right? Have you ever wondered what kind of evidence it would take for a pro-choice researcher to admit the connection between abortion and any of its negative effects? (You know, depression, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, anxiety, sleep disorders, and other psychiatric problems, just to name a few). The answer is a lot.

So when David M. Ferugsson, pro-choice professor, noted in a paper on abortion and mental health,

"it is difficult to disregard the real possibility that abortion is associated with increased risks of mental health problems,"

it makes you wonder what he stumbled upon. You can sense his grasp of the definite problematic nature of abortion and simultaneously see his hesitancy to admit the damages of abortion. He comes off strong, "it is difficult to disregard the real possibility..." then he kicks it over into a defensive mode of, "but that is ridiculous and could never happen." His language shows his compensation for hiding the shocking truth. "...that abortion is associated with increased risk..."

Associated? Perhaps they are acquaintances? What he's doing is acknowledging a fact with weak language. The double-effect here is that while he can say he is reporting his findings, he is also saying "there is no conclusive evidence."

Allow me to rephrase his statement, "Only an idiot could ignore the obvious connection between abortion and poor mental health, but it would be a presumptuous long-shot to assume there is a link between abortion and mental health problems. And of course, that depends on what your definition of is is."

read it: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01538.x

Quote on marraige and pregnancy

I intended to relate this quote in my last rant, but it slipped away amidst the angry typing. This is in opposition to they typical attitude of "Marriage and family is for those with an IQ below 61." I saw a husband on some TV show say something to this extent about his wife being pregnant: "There are two times in a woman's life when she is more beautiful then ever, on her wedding day, and when she's pregnant." Amen brother.

Why is she so beautiful then? Because her love for another is physically evident. On her wedding day, by the white dress and through her pregnancy, by her belly. Compare this with one who is frustrated and confused when their friend is having a wedding or gets pregnant. Some just see the beauty of life-giving love, others are blinded and stupified by it.

Marriage is for quitters. Children are for losers.

"Why are you getting married?"

This is a fun question to field from a 30-something year-old disenchanted married man. I got a few of these snide remarks and a few of my buddies shared similar experiences during their engagements. Nothing like an regretfully married man trying to talk some sense into you. Maybe they are right. Why should a youngster get married? I mean, hey, why not wait till you're in your mid-30's, climb the corporate ladder, get established, see the world, figure out who you are (for the record i really hate that phrase), and then settle down. "Settling" seems precisely to be what most the world thinks marriage is.

Yes folks, I have given up. That's it. I just tried my hardest, but I figured marriage is the easy way out. Is that why people really think I would get married before 25? Hey I'm just getting started here! Marriage isn't the end of the road but the beginning.

Our problem today is that we are so incredibly self-absorbed that we have forgotten how to love. We only love ourselves in the sense that we only want what will make us feel good. We live in the United States of Narcissism. This is why Oprah is not my role model. Her credo is "It's time to feel good." Go ahead, eat that whole gallon of ice cream, do your yoga, read "What Color is your parachute." We are so self-centered that we cannot go from self-help to helping others. How can we love others if we cannot take our eyes off of ourselves?

Marriage is not about seeking to make yourself happy. It's about seeking to make your spouse happy. Yes, when you first meet someone, your motives are selfish. She's hot. She's funny. You like the way she makes you feel when you are around her. But as you grow closer together, you get to the point where if you love her, you will act as to please her. This is why marriage is difficult, because it's hard to put another before yourself. And this is why marriage is unthinkable to many today, because they cannot image putting another first. Further, they cannot see how self-sacrifice could actually be more fulfilling then watching Oprah elbow-deep in Sour Cream and Cheddar Lays. If the initial attraction and love never matures to a self-sacrificing true love, then there cannot be happiness, but only a bitter attitude that makes you see a young guy at his bachelor party and gripe at him, "Why you getting married?"

Marital love is meant to be self giving. And this is where children come from. A total gift of self gives new life. It is out of love that a life can come and this is a new opportunity to love. A child is not the answer to loneliness, that's what cat's are for. A child is meant to be nourished by a mother and father. Parents should be excited at the possibility of creating new life. What a great opportunity! What a blessing! Instead, kids today are those little things that prevent you from going out to bars late, from midnight screenings of Star Wars episode 98, from playing video games till 4 am. "He has no life," because he can't stay out late. Why can't his life be raising a new life? Instead of being thrilled to have the chance to raise kids we are disgruntled that we are being taken away from Grey's Anatomy and Halo. What a shame. Get over yourself .