By Gary DeMar of The American Vision, published November 18, 2020
“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will also be like him. Answer a fool as his folly deserves, so he won’t be wise in his own eyes” (Prov. 26:4–5).
The news is out, and it was expected. “Joe Biden is expected to roll back several of the Trump administration’s changes to sexual and reproductive health programs, undoing a large portion of the president’s executive actions on abortion and women’s health.”
Remember those “Evangelicals for Biden”? Remember those Christian anti-Trumpers? This is the fruit of their scandalous political opportunism. “Trump said mean things, so we must support Biden and the Democrats.”
The Democrat Party’s pro-abortion platform is writ large in the state of New York that passed one of the most liberal abortion laws in the country. Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao Zedong couldn’t be prouder. New York has done without firing a shot what these madmen needed wars and revolutions to accomplish the killing of millions. A Biden-Harris administration will “up the ante” by implementing New York’s abortion policies nationally.
I offer a “Modest Proposal to take the process a step further by supporting abortion on demand for all liberals. Not only would it support their anti-marriage and pro-abortion views, but it would also address their concern for the environment, specifically, the myth of over-population.
Population “experts” tell us that we are heading for critical mass where population growth will soon out-pace food supplies. Water, arable land, and natural resources are in limited supply. Such concerns, we are told, affect us all, regardless of political affiliation. One mouth is just as hungry as another.
What I’m about to say is in the tradition of Jonathan Swift, to make the point that Democrats believe some people are disposable in the name of the greater good. Every genocidal tyrant in history believed the same thing.
It was in 1792 that Swift wrote “A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to their Parents or Country, and for Making them Beneficial to the Public.” And what was the proposal? Swift suggested in a satirical way that the impoverished Irish might ease their economic troubles by selling their children as food for rich gentlemen and ladies. He wrote his Proposal to force the people of Ireland to look at the way they were treating the poor.
Maybe it’s time we get ignorant pro-abortion advocates and Democrat supporters who don’t know their party’s views on abortion to look at the long-term implications of abortion. The black community should take a hard look since there is a disproportionate percentage of black children being aborted, and yet blacks for the most part continue to support government elected officials who are pro-abortion.
Keep in mind that some of what follows is satire to make a point.
Population “experts” tell us that we are heading for critical mass where population growth will soon out-pace food supplies. Water, arable land, and natural resources are in limited supply. Such concerns, we are told, affect us all, regardless of political affiliation. One mouth is just as hungry as another.
One way to avert an over-population calamity is to shrink the population by pro-active means. Some prominent billionaires have devoted their after-tax fortunes to such a task. But wouldn’t it be best to eliminate only those who are true problems, those who lack social utility? I believe “useless eaters” is the appropriate phrase. A bit of discrimination is needed based on a studied statistical analysis. A simple assessment of purpose and need are in order to determine who should breed, all for a better world.
A person’s background and potential for contributing to society should be considered. Only the best people should be exempted from the weeding out process. No doubt we could convince potential parents that their present “sacrifice” would result in a benefit to those who remain, including themselves. What groups commit the most crimes? What groups are a drain on tax dollars? There are other sensitive but necessary questions to be asked.
In keeping with liberal policies, birth control methods of all kinds should be funded by tax dollars. Make them cheap and easy to procure. Now if we can only get the right people to take them. Liberals should be the first to self-limit their progeny since abortion is their religion, and we don’t want to discriminate on their right to exercise it. We should make every inhibitor to reproduction legal to them and those within their circle of influence. Of course, we’ll look the other way if they choose some illegal methods. Anything to support their cause.
The late Associate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she believed the landmark Roe v. Wade decision on abortion was predicated on the Supreme Court majority’s desire to diminish “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Of course, there is nothing new in what Ginsburg said. The American Birth Control League (which eventually became Planned Parenthood) was founded for this very purpose.
In 1939 Margaret Sanger, author of The Pivot of Civilization, started “The Negro Project.” She called on black preachers to support sterilization. In 2009, Hillary Clinton received the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood and said she was in “awe” of Sanger. Biden, Hillary Clinton, and the Democrats are the party of abortion and venerate Sanger.
The following remarks are from Rep. Chris Smith of the 4th District in New Jersey and published in the Congressional Record in December of 2009.
The following is not satire:
Mr. Speaker … Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited the Catholic Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City, presented bouquet of flowers on behalf of the American people—a very nice gesture—and then went on to Houston, Texas, to receive the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood. In her remarks, Secretary Clinton said she was “in awe”—I repeat, “in awe”—of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. To our distinguished Secretary of State, I respectfully ask: Are you kidding? In “awe” of Margaret Sanger, who said in 1921, “Eugenics … is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political, and social problems.” And who also said in 1922, “The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
Later, in 1939, Sanger wrote, “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social service backgrounds and with engaging personalities.” She wrote, “The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she goes on, “and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
Secretary Clinton in her speech said that Margaret Sanger’s “life and leadership” was “one of the most transformational in the entire history of the human race.” Mr. Speaker, transformational, yes. But not for the better if one happens to be poor, disenfranchised, weak, a person of color, vulnerable, or among the many so-called undesirables who Sanger would exclude and exterminate from the human race. [1]
Let me add the following, published in the June 1932 issue of Planned Parenthood’s The Birth Control Review, that was written by W.E.B. DuBois, the founder of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP):
The mass of ignorant Negroes still breed carelessly and disastrously, so that the increase among Negroes, even more than the increase among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their children properly.
Is this the reason nearly 90 percent of black voters vote for Democrats? Do they want to see their race diminished? Republicans are always said to be the party of racism when in fact the Democrat Party is the party of racism. This is called “transference.” The goal is to hide what a political party believes and practices by accusing the other party of that specific belief and practice. It’s a common trick in debates.
The authors of Freakonomics, a book that has sold millions of copies, assert that there might be a link between legalized abortion and the reduction of crime. [2] There are those who dispute their findings on linking abortion to a decline in the crime rate. It doesn’t really matter. It’s what the authors claimed and many people wanted to believe because they are religiously connected to abortion on demand because it’s their blood sacrament. If crimes are committed by people who are alive, and you kill some of them before they can commit crimes, crime will be reduced. Since more crimes are committed by “certain groups” (also see here), it would be best to target those groups for abortions since they commit most of the crimes. It’s logical given the operating assumptions of materialists.
In the end, this will mean fewer liberals in the future. While pro-abortion liberals are doing the environmentally friendly and politically correct thing, conservatives with their large families will dominate the culture in a generation or two. At least one very liberal columnist has noticed the problem:
[F]or the past 30 years or so, conservatives — particularly those of the right-wing red-state Christian strain—have been out-breeding liberals by a margin of at least 20 percent, if not far more.... Libs just aren’t procreating like they could/should be. [3]
Here’s the thing. While Christians and conservatives generally have more children, they still send their children to schools that reject their own worldview. Education is not free. There is a price to be paid and it’s not only in monetary terms. It’s not enough to oppose abortion. The goal must be to raise up multiple generations of Christians who will change every area of life and make the world a better place for everyone.
Rep. Chris Smith (NJ),“‘In Awe’” of a Eugenicist?” Quoted in the Congressional Record (March 31, 2009), No. 54.[↩]
Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (New York: William Morrow, 2005), chap. 4.[↩]
Mark Morford, “When Liberals Rule the World: Stats say the GOP is dying. But red-staters are breeding like drunken ferrets. Who wins?,” SF Gate (March 28, 2007).[↩]