I contend that abortion is as abhorrent as slavery and that there are raciual undertones in the abortion movement.


Dr. Alveda King, daughter of slain civil rights activist Rev. A. D. King and niece of civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., led a gathering [of black pro-life leaders] in prayer and song, which gave a moving and rousing tone to the event. During the years of the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. Alveda King’s family home was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama. In recalling this past, she reflected that, “Our home is a protective place, and when it is bombed, we feel violated. It must be like this for the child in the womb when undergoing abortion.”

“Today, [because of legalized abortion] unborn children are treated like slaves in the womb,” Dr. King remarked.

Another black anti-abortion leader is Dr. Mildred Jefferson, the first black woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School.

This article relates to the racist implications in the abortion movement:


Years ago, I was called an extremist when I spoke out about the 1930s-era "Negro Project." Now, a dangerous new study entitled "Legalized Abortion and Crime" has African-Americans in shock because it could threaten the very survival of the race. Who's extreme now?

In the study, economist Steven D. Levitt of the University of Chicago and Stanford Law School Professor John J. Donohue III conclude that legalized abortion might explain why America experienced an overall reduction in crime from 1991 to 1997.

This study is so dangerous it is hard to know where to begin. But let me start with some historical perspective. Earlier in this century, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and her followers advocated a brand of ethnic cleansing called eugenics. Eugenics is defined as a movement dedicated to improving the human species through the control of hereditary factors in mating. Sanger's agenda was to "encourage more children from the fit and less from the unfit."

One of the ways Sanger sought to implement her eugenics policy was to partner with black religious leaders to encourage black women to abort their babies. She called this the "Negro Project." Sanger said, "The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the Minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

While African-Americans survived the Negro Project, "Legalized Abortion and Crime" resurrects Sanger's ideas. It suggests that those who would have been the greatest contributors to criminal activity during the peak crime years of young adulthood - the unwanted offspring of teenagers, the poor and minorities - were aborted at a disproportionately high rate starting more than two decades ago. One could interpret the results of this study to mean that all it takes to predict criminal activity is to look at the color of the skin of the mother. If you can get a black woman to abort her child, the country will be a better place to live.

Being poor and having brown skin seems to be a desperate condition for pre-born children. The study implies children born into poverty will suffer more neglect and abuse. This is an apparent reason to encourage abortion. For the liberal elite in our nation's colleges and universities, however, "poor" could be defined as those not owning a microwave oven or a family without a second car. Depending on their definition of poor, many of us would not stand a chance.

African-American and Hispanics have always been at the lower level of the economic scale in America. If economics had anything to do with the survival of the races, we would have been extinct a long time ago.

Another reason "Legalized Abortion and Crime" is dangerous relates the recent racial and ethnically motivated killings in the country. The results will most certainly gives groups prone to this behavior ammunition to fuel their hatred.

Some of my friends were upset this study got so much media exposure. I am grateful. It proves once again that racism is still alive and well - and dangerous. As long as the liberal elite can get away with making allegedly rational arguments for racial genocide, our society is worse off than we thought.

Good people everywhere must understand the depraved nature of the "Legalized Abortion and Crime" study. In her book Women and the New Race, Margaret Sanger wrote that birth control is the "weeding out of the unfit, or preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives." The abortion industry has quietly carried out her charge, resulting in the deaths of untold numbers of poor and minority children.

But we are truly in trouble if we don't call abortion exactly what it is: another form of ethnic cleansing.



###


(Jackie Cissell serves on the National Advisory Council of Project 21 and is a director of the Indiana Family Institute.)

I think we are truly in trouble if we do.

I believe that the book Freakonomics is the origin of part of this.

Perhaps, William bennet was reading this book too.

We we are resurrecting progresive era eugenics to go along with this thread I don't know.

It seems to me that in the last thirty years the right in this country has also been mourning the loss of the integrity of the family and the rise in unwed mothers.

At the same time the right decried the wlefare system as an incentive for teenagers to have children.

Now I get an additional theory that abortions have been more predominantly associated with people of color.

Being against abortion is one thing and a respect that. Twisting logic to make abortion into a stealth ethnic cleansing issue is pseudo-scientific gobbly gook.

Raymond, that is the view of many black people, including, for instance, Dr. Mildred Jefferson, graduate of Harvard Medical School. People who refuse to recognize fetuses as distinct human beings differ little from those who refused, not too many years ago, to recognize blacks as people. As you know, the people who led the campaigns to end slavery were primarily Christians such as Wilbur Wilberforce.

Dr. King's niece, Dr. Alveda King, argues that her uncle would have been a strong opponent of abortion.

The Rev. Johhny Hunter wrote:

I had to speak at Manhattan College for the African-American Student Association, because I had gotten the Martin Luther King Award. I spoke about the genocide policies of abortion, and why blacks need to start looking out for the next generation. The Civil Rights struggle was about looking out for the next generation.

When I finished talking that day -- and I only spoke for 15 minutes -- everybody was in an uproar. They didn't know Planned Parenthood targeted the African American community. Margaret Saenger (Planned Parenthood founder) founded the American Birth Control League. She believed in pure races, and the black community just didn't fit into her plan. She started the Negro Project, which tried to persuade African Americans to become sterilized, use contraceptives, and also abortion, because she felt that was a way to decrease what she called the unfit.

I explained what abortion was all about. I talked about how they ripped their arms and legs off. How they squashed the baby's head and pulled the baby out. How they put all the parts on the table to make sure they've got everything. A lot of people don't know abortions are legal all nine months. They were ready to go out and burn down an abortion clinic. It took me three hours to calm the crowd down. I mean, those brothers were mad.



Abortion as black genocide:

http://www.blackgenocide.org/abortion.html

From:

http://www.blackgenocide.org/black.html


According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion.

On average, 1,452 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.

This incidence of abortion has resulted in a tremendous loss of life. It has been estimated that since 1973 Black women have had about 10 million abortions. Michael Novak had calculated "Since the number of current living Blacks (in the U.S.) is 31 million, the missing 10 million represents an enormous loss, for without abortion, America's Black community would now number 41 million persons. It would be 35 percent larger than it is. Abortion has swept through the Black community like a scythe, cutting down every fourth member."

Unbelievable statistics! Absent abortions, black U.S. population would be 35% higher!

I will deal with your main argument later, but first let me pick you up on some of the historical background to slavery. It is true that most of the leaders of the campaign against slavery were Christians. This is no surprise as virtually everyone living in the developed world at the time were Christians. It is also true that the main supporters of slavery were also Christians. This includes the leaders of all the established churches and the vast majority of active Christians. Opposition to slavery mainly came from non-conformists churches such as the Society of Friends (Quakers). Quakers had presented a petition against slavery to Parliament in 1783 and had helped form the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade in 1787. Of the twelve members on the committee, nine were Quakers. In percentage terms, a far higher percentage of atheists than Christians were opposed to slavery.

Unfortunately, slavery was mainly an economic rather than a moral issue. Leading churchmen were large beneficiaries of slavery. For example, the Slavery Abolition Act, was passed in 1833. This act gave all slaves in the British Empire their freedom. The British government paid compensation to the slave owners. The amount that the plantation owners received depended on the number of slaves that they had. For example, the Bishop of Exeter's 665 slaves resulted in him receiving £12,700.

It is also misleading to suggest that Wilberforce campaigned against slavery. Wilberforce campaigned against the slave trade. He put forward economic arguments why the slave trade was bad for the British economy (based on his reading of Adam Smith and his theory of labour productivity).

Some members of his group did favour an end to slavery. However, they were prevented by Wilberforce from speaking at meetings. He also disapproved of women playing a leadership role in the movement. These women tended to base their arguments on moral, rather than economic issues. This was one of the reasons that the Society for the Mitigation and Gradual Abolition of Slavery was established in 1823. The formation of Women's Anti-Slavery groups was another consequence of Wilberforce's sexism and his refusual to accept the moral arguments against slavery.

Some people involved in the anti-slave trade campaign such as Thomas Fowell Buxton, argued that the only way to end the suffering of the slaves was to make slavery illegal. Wilberforce disagreed, he believed that at this time slaves were not ready to be granted their freedom. He pointed out in a pamphlet that he wrote in 1807 that: "It would be wrong to emancipate (the slaves). To grant freedom to them immediately, would be to insure not only their masters' ruin, but their own. They must (first) be trained and educated for freedom."

It was only a few years before his death that Wilberforce was converted to the theory that slavery should be abolished. However, by that time he had ceased to be active in the reform movement.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAslavery.htm

Just to add a little information before I get too bogged down into a bizarre American genocide debate.



African Americans and Health

Here is the new spin planned parenthood is putting on Eugenics.



Planned Parenthood Federation of America Mission and Policy Statements


Should we also tell blacks to flee from the Democratic Party because they may be secretly planning a new secession and the reimposition of slavery in America???

It is indeed true that slavery was one of the main moral issues of the 19th century. The problem for Christians was that slavery appeared to satisfy their own economic self-interest. Large numbers of people, including religious leaders, owned slaves. At the time, slaves were seen as cheap labour. Other, non-slave owners, invested heavily in the slave-trade. These investments generally returned healthy profits. Others obtained work from the slave trade (sailors, shipbuilders, etc.). The general public also believed slavery was good for them. For example, it was argued that it resulted in cheaper consumer goods.

A small minority objected to slavery on moral grounds. For example, members of the Society of Friends and the Unitarian Society, argued that their reading of the Bible suggested that God was against slavery. However, supporters of slavery pointed out that even though Jesus lived in a society with slaves, there is no record of him condemning this activity.

Quakers and Unitarians also argued against other “immoral acts”. For example, they were also opposed to child labour and believed that the state should take action to relieve the suffering of the poor. They were also in favour of universal suffrage and trade union rights as they believed it would enable working people to improve their standard of life by group action. Once again, the established church argued that there was no evidence of Jesus speaking out against these things.

Although they referred to the Bible, Christians were making “moral” decisions based on perceived economic self-interest. Slavery, child labour, limited suffrage, etc. kept wage rates low and profits high.

Campaigners against slavery realized that it would only be brought to an end by applying economic, rather than moral arguments (the same was true of the debate over child labour). Therefore they used the arguments of people like Adam Smith to attack slavery. In his book Wealth of Nations (1776), Smith claimed that slavery was inefficient. That people who were paid wages worked much harder than those being threatened with a whip.

This argument became clearer in the 1790s when sugar produced by non-slave labour in India became cheaper than that being produced by slave labour in the West Indies. Smith argued that it was clear that capitalism had reached a stage where paid labour was more efficient than slave labour. This was the same argument that Robert Owen made about child labour. He quoted facts about the extra productivity he achieved by not employing young children. He sent them to school instead. He never used references to the Bible although he did talk about the need to develop a socialist society.

William Wilberforce used Adam Smith’s arguments in his campaign to bring an end to the slave trade. This was not a moral issue. For example, Wilberforce was a strong supporter of child labour. He had been unconvinced by Owen’s economic arguments. He was also against universal suffrage, trade union rights, gender equality, etc. Wilberforce was in fact your typical Tory.

Conservative historians have attempted to portray the struggle against slavery and child labour as a moral issue. In truth, it was primarily an economic issue. Only a small minority of Christians believed that slavery and child labour was morally wrong.

Tim Gratz has tried to argue that the campaign against abortion is similar to the campaign against slavery. That abortion in the 21st century is similar to the 19th century campaign against slavery. This is of course nonsense. There are two major moral issues that people living in the developed world face. One concerns the way we treat the poor. That means the people dying of starvation in the underdeveloped world and the people who live stunted lives in our own countries. Like with slavery, most Christians decide their views based on economic self-interest. Only a minority treat it as a moral issue. As a result, the majority support policies that increase their own personal wealth and income and oppose those policies that would help to reduce inequality.

The second major moral issue today concerns the future. Should we be pressurizing our politicians to be making decisions that are good for our children, grandchildren and those not yet born. In other words, policies that will save the planet from destruction. This is exclusively a moral argument. It is very difficult to argue that this measures would achieve short-term economic gain. It is why environmentalists are having so little impact on the consciousness of the population.

Why then does Tim want to argue that it is abortion that is the major moral issue. He is not alone, it is a common cry of the Christian Far Right. These are of course people who are opposed to any attempt to reduce inequality. Nor are their believers of global warming. Instead they demand cheaper fuel do that they can drive around in their cars. They are even willing to send troops to invade other countries to ensure their supplies of oil.

People like Tim therefore concentrate their moral concerns on the unborn rather than the living. Helping the living poor costs money. Stopping abortions has no personal economic implications for the Christian Right.

To support their case, they have to argue that abortion is murder. In fact, according to Tim’s description of abortion, it is torture followed by death. This of course has nothing to do with reality. It is just an attempt to disguise the fact that the Christian Right is made up of immoral people who are completely unconcerned by the plight of the poor and the dispossessed. They are on the side of the strong over the weak. What is more, they are hypocrites of the worse kind, because they try to pretend to be followers of Jesus Christ, that well-known supporter of the rich and powerful.

Isaac Asimov once made a similar point in the preface to one of his collections of science-fiction short stories, when he was commenting on the fact that most people don't know the names of the scientists who have been responsible for the incredible increase in the quality of life since ancient times. His point about slavery was that it was the invention of the horse-collar which ended slavery in the Roman world … but that we need to be on our guard, since the moment the economics flips the other way, something like serfdom often gets reintroduced.

One of my heroes is Dr John Snow, the man who removed the handle of the Broad Street Pump (you can read more about this at http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/broadstreetpump.html, and more about the man himself at http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow.html). Cholera was also seen as a 'moral' issue, before it was investigated scientifically by people like Dr Snow.

In general, I think that Dr Snow had the right idea - look at the facts first before rushing to judgement … and eliminate as many of the other explanations first before you start attributing things to 'evil' human nature. You just have to look at Scandinavia and Holland to see that the most effective way we seem to have devised to reduce abortions so far is to have freely-available, confidential and low-cost advice about contraceptives, coupled with a more equal distribution of wealth in society and the provision of financial help to people who need it.

John wrote:

People like Tim therefore concentrate their moral concerns on the unborn rather than the living. Helping the living poor costs money. Stopping abortions has no personal economic implications for the Christian Right.

John (respectfully) should apologize for judging me (and all Christians) as hypocrites without knowing whereof he speaks.

From the Florida Keys "Keynoter", November 23, 2005:

Glad Tidings and HigherLove expand families

At a time when there is so much loss within the Florida Keys, Thanksgiving is a day to stop and remember our blessings. It's about grateful hearts expressed outwardly, said Ernie DeLoach, pastor of the Glad Tidings Tabernacle in Key West.

Please read the full article here (about Glad Tidings feeding 400 plus poor families tomorrow):

http://www.keynoter.com/articles/2005/11/23/living/liv01.txt

Helping the homeless costs not only money but time. I do not donate as much of either as I should but many members of Glad Tidings contribute many hours per week and very substantial contributions of cash, clothing and food to the Glad Tidings' homeless outreach. And it is all done without any governmental assistance.

I will spend most of day tomorrow at Glad Tidings assisting in feeding the homeless. (After working all night, so I will be giving up most of my sleeping time to do so.)

Pastor DeLoach and his wife are the most unselfish, caring people I have ever met. They are always ready to help those in need.

And re abortion, throughout the country in almost every community there are Christian organizations that assist unwed mothers with free medical care, housing, etc., which requires substantial cash contributions. In addition there is also substantial time donated to these services. A female friend of mine works (for free, of course) with such a program in Key West.

How can John write that I spend no time or money helping the living poor? Never once did he ask me about this before making that post. But I am much more concerned with the broad brush with which he slurred all Christians.

I am sure, like all of us, you give money to the poor. However, what you do not do, is show any passion against the inequality that causes this problem. In fact, you are always keen to defend those policies of Bush that have increased the gap in the US between the rich and the poor. You are not short of passion when it comes to attacking abortion. Your Victorian views towards women are breathtaking. It is also a lost cause. Women will not be denied the right to make their own decisions on this issue. To compare abortion in the 21st century with slavery in the 19th century is ridiculous. Once again, you will struggle to find one person on this forum to agree with you.

John wrote:

To compare abortion in the 21st century with slavery in the 19th century is ridiculous.

Proving, of course, that the many black leaders who do so, including the niece of Martin Luther King., Jr. are ridiculous.

Just because you happen to be Martin Luther King's niece does not mean you cannot be "ridiculous". If Martin Luther King himself made such a statement I would spend more time considering the idea, but my final judgement would still be the same.

For the first half of the nineteenth century slaves were considered chattel not people. Therefore, they were not entitled to the protections afforded all other citizens of the United States. I assume a slaveholder had the right to even kill his slave.

It is now recognized that slavery was a great injustice, one of the greatest injustices in human history.

Under Roe v. Wade an unborn fetus is not considered a person and therefore is not entitled to constitutional rights, including the right to life. In fact, under Roe v. Wade, millions of unborn fetuses have been killed.

You yourself John admitted that if life begins at conception, then abortion is murder.

If unborn fetuses are indeed persons because life begins at conception, then abortion ranks with slavery as one of the greatest injustices ever perpetrated on a group of citizens.

You should be willing to admit, therefore, just as you admitted that under one perspective abortion is murder if one applies that same perspective then the abortion movement is as great an injustice as slavery and the crusade to end abortion is as moral a crusade as the abolitionist movement was.

The slavery issue also demonstrates that what is considered a tolerable institution in one century can be considered as a reprehensible evil when society has become more enlightened.

The whole point is that from an anti-abortion perspective there are indeed many parallels between the anti-slavery crusade and the anti-abortion movement.

That ought not be a difficult concept to understand.

So it is certainly possible that with the passage of time and greater understanding of the science of life those who advocated abortion will be considered as repugnant as the slaveholders of the nineteenth century.


And by the way Dr. Almeda King has wriiten that she is certain her uncle would have shared her views on abortion.

I have never said this. It is of course the view of extremists like yourself that abortionists are murderers. Most people take the view that in terms of moral judgements, life starts at birth and not conception. You have accused all women who have had abortions (or for that matter all those who have taken the morning after pill) as murderers. Just think of the fuss you caused when someone accused you of playing a minor role in the attempted murder of George Wallace.

As a matter of interest, what is your opinion of politicians like George Bush whose decisions result in the deaths of millions of people in the underdeveloped world. Are they murderers?




Maybe he would have done but will never know that. What we do know that when he was alive he spent his time campaigning against poverty, war, injustice and racism. He did not seem concerned about the issue of abortion. That is understandable. Most of us who were involved in these campaigns during the 1960s were also not concerned as much with abortion. Although we did have an opinion on the subject. Our main view was that the law had to be updated to bring an end to illegal backstreet abortions. The point is that women will always have abortions. In the 1960s we argued that the best way of dealing with this problem was to improve the quality of sex education, the provision of free contraception and at the last resort, legal abortions in hospitals.

John wrote:

Most people take the view that in terms of moral judgements, life starts at birth and not conception.

Clearly, from a scientific and medical perspective, a separate life starts at conception.

It would seem the burden ought to be on persons wanting to make a distinction between when life actually starts with when it starts for purposes of making "moral [and I would add legal] judgements" to explain the justification for such a distinction. Clearly, mere convenience is an insufficient explanation.