The macabre celebration of the 100th anniversary of Planned Parenthood and the specter of what such eugenicists have planned for the world in the next 100 years got me thinking about what it means to take a 100 year view.
One hundred years ago, Margaret Sanger envisioned society free of the people she considered a burden to women. She observed that it was women who served as the caregivers for the weak, the frail, and the needy. So, by her reasoning, if society could be free of those people, and women could be free from having to have children if it wasn’t what they wanted at the time, then, in Sanger’s view, utopia would be on the horizon.
That was radical thought a hundred years ago. Then, abortion was not only illegal, it was almost universally condemned. One hundred years ago, the New York Times was ardently pro-life. One hundred years ago the sexual revolution was in the future, but, as we now know, on the horizon.
Today, abortion is the leading cause of death in America. There are 210 induced abortions per every 1000 live births. So, America is currently on pace to terminate the lives of more than 20% of its citizens every year for the foreseeable future. One hundred years from now, if current trends continue and the eugenics agenda of Margaret Sanger progresses unabated, the 200th anniversary of the Planned Parenthood Federation could have seen the premature death of more than 100 million Americans.
Is that the future we want to see? If not, then we need to articulate a Kingdom vision for 2116 and begin prayerfully, strategically and intentionally moving in that direction.
Listen to the show:
Their slogan used to be “Every child a wanted child”.
That you find that ethos “macabre” strikes me as odd.
Re: “women could be free from having to have children”
This strikes me as odder still – that you wish women HAD to “have children”, enforceable by the State, no less!
You will never get abortion “reversed”. You might succeed in re-criminalizing it, but it will still be around, and many more women will die because they had to go to back-alleys again – that is where YOU would ‘push’ them. Because a woman who is pregnant and doesn’t want to be will find a way not to be, despite your not liking that it happens.
I suggest that if it isn’t your uterus, it’s not your decision to make.
To say that a woman has a “right” to abort her unborn child is to say that she has the “right” to put to death a human being with a unique identity and genetic blueprint, created in God’s image. The only “wrong” this child has committed is simply existing; that is, his or her existence is inconvenient to his or her parents. Abortion, except when necessary to preserve the mother’s life, is murder. To defend it as a legal “right” is reprehensible and supremely immoral.
Lots of non sequiturs and a false dilemma, George. I’m surprised that people still bring up the back alley myth. Are you ok that this falls most heavily on the blacks?
Wasn’t the slogan of PP “Every child a wanted child”. Turn that back on the progenitors and it becomes “If you risk making babies, make sure you want them!” Don’t turn to murder to cover up your “mistakes”.
In the last five years Colorado with the help of Planned Parenthood has given away free birth control. And the abortion rate has dropped by 42 percent. Draw your own conclusion.
Perhaps if abortion were illegal in Colorado, the abortion rate would have dropped more significantly than by 42 percent. 42 percent is not enough, and even one abortion performed for any reason other than to save the mother’s life is too high.