ProWomanProLife

  • The Story
  • The Women
  • Notable Columns
  • Contact Us
You are here: Home / Archives for All Posts / Ethics

Eugenics, Margaret Sanger, and the sordid history of the pro-abortion movement

January 10, 2019 by Lia Milousis 3 Comments

I am back again with another article about—you guessed it—the unendingly problematic book Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power & A World Without Rape. This time, I bring you a criticism from Tiloma Jayasinghe’s essay “When Pregnancy is Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will be Pregnant.” The essay is really more about pregnancy than it is about abortion. The author’s criticism is that, through various laws and public policies, certain types of women (eg. low-income women, drug-dependant women, etc.) are monitored more closely when they become pregnant, such that the very act of them becoming pregnant borders on criminality.

As I was reading through this essay, I found myself writing “Fair point” in the margins. To be perfectly honest, I suspect that my response was less a reflection of my agreement with the author’s critiques as it was a reflection of my relief that, finally, someone in the book was writing something semi-coherent (which meant that I no longer felt the need to scrawl rant after rant in the margins.)

But then, rather predictably, Jayasinghe wrote something so shockingly hypocritical that it bordered on being amusing:

“Anti-abortion groups are clearly ‘pro-life’ only for certain kinds of life (white and middle to upper class) and are really, in fact, anti-sex” (Friedman & Valenti, 2008, p. 268).

Now, evidently, this statement is made after a long line of “arguments” that are meant to build up to this grand finale. However, regardless of the context, this claim is so blatantly false—and so bloody ironic—that, knowing what I do about the history of the pro-abortion movement, I felt compelled to respond. (The only other alternative was for me to write another rant in the margins of the book, and unfortunately, I had run out of space.)

Now, I could respond to this claim by going on and on about the plethora of ways that pro-life individuals help women from all walks of life, regardless of their racial or socio-economic backgrounds. I could take Jayasinghe’s bait and argue at length about why pro-lifers have the moral high ground.

But if I did this, I would be playing Jayasinghe’s game. I would be conceding the underlying premise: namely, that pro-abortion individuals actually have the moral high ground, and that pro-lifers need to somehow level the playing field. And quite frankly, that is a premise that I will never agree to for many reasons. The pertinent reason in this situation, however, is because the pro-abortion movement was founded on eugenics, and therefore has no right to claim moral superiority.

Jayasinghe’s accusation is essentially that pro-life people are racist, classist, and pro-eugenics, that we prefer certain racial and socio-economic groups to others. The beautiful, hypocritical irony of this claim is that, not only is that objectively untrue about the pro-life movement, but it is also objectively true about the pro-abortion movement.

Eugenics has played a disturbing role in the rise and proliferation of both birth control and abortion. This was largely due to the influence of Margaret Sanger, who was the founder of the organization that we now call Planned Parenthood (which today is the largest abortion provider in North America and a prominent advocate and provider of abortions in developing nations in the Global South).

It was Margaret Sanger who really ushered in eugenics and married it with the movement from reproductive rights.

It was Margaret Sanger who spoke about the need to export birth control to the “biologically less endowed stocks” of humans in India.

It was also Margaret Sanger who made the following statement:

Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous… Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded (Sanger, 1922, The Pivot of Civilization, pg. 101-102).

If that isn’t enough, Margaret Sanger made this statement as well:

Every single case of inherited defect, every malformed child, every congenitally tainted human being brought into this world is of infinite importance to that poor individual; but it is of scarcely less importance to the rest of us and to all of our children who must pay in one way or another for these biological and racial mistakes (Sanger, 1922, The Pivot of Civilization, pg. 273-274).

These are the words of Margaret Sanger, who is considered the founding mother of birth control, Planned Parenthood, and, by extension, the pro-abortion movement in North America.

Everything that Margaret Sanger and her pro-birth control, pro-sterilization, and pro-abortion colleagues did was informed—tainted—by this toxic mentality. It was a mentality that believed only certain individuals with certain characteristics and body types belonged in society. It was also a mentality of entitlement, a mentality that believed that, somehow, we as individuals, as parents, as “normal” members of society, have the right to decide which lives are valued and which lives are not, who gets the ability to live and who does not. This is the pro-eugenics mentality. And, like it or not, this mentality was the foundation of the pro-abortion movement.

And so, ladies and gentlemen, this is why it is so rich to have pro-abortion feminists like Tiloma Jayasinghe accuse pro-life advocates of holding pro-eugenics beliefs. If Jayasinghe and the rest of the diversity-loving, inclusion-promoting, abortion-on-demand-supporting radical feminists want to find the people who hold ideas about reproduction that are tainted by racism, classism, and eugenics, they need only look in the mirror and in the archives of the pro-abortion movement.

I rest my case.

Filed Under: All Posts, Ethics, Featured Posts, Feminism Tagged With: classism, Eugenics, feminism, Jessica Valenti, Margaret Sanger, pro-abortion, pro-choice, racism, Tiloma Jayasinghe, Yes Means Yes

How a little baby can teach us

August 29, 2018 by Andrea Mrozek Leave a Comment

Lucy-Rose Kmiec only lived for 39 days, but in it she changed the lives of those around her. A beautiful article about her and her family.

The day that she died, Max was the one taking care of her and Jolie was using the tube feed. Two months ago, I wouldn’t have trusted them with anything,” added Tom with Evangeline chuckling at the comment.

“They really, really matured so quickly and we didn’t have to teach them anything. They just picked it up,” said Tom.

“And the love that they gave her,” piped in Evangeline. “The amount of kisses that she got and hugs and encouraging words for her to continue fighting. They would tell her, ‘We love you, we’re proud of you, you’re doing so well.’”

Tragic but amazing. No shortage of heartache this side of heaven.

Lucy-Rose Kmiec, July-August 2018

Filed Under: All Posts, Ethics, Featured Posts

Gosnell movie coming this fall

August 26, 2018 by Andrea Mrozek Leave a Comment

Some years ago, we helped raise funds for the Gosnell movie, by promoting their fundraising campaign here on PWPL. It’s now finished and coming soon to a theatre near you this October.

Looks like they did a good job. Remember to support it in theatres!

 

 

Filed Under: All Posts, Ethics, Featured Posts

The special rights of abortion providers

July 16, 2018 by Lia Milousis 2 Comments

I recently finished reading the book Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power & A World Without Rape. It is a collection of short essays written by more than 25 different feminists about rape culture. Being a self-identified pro-life feminist myself, there were many arguments that I agreed with wholeheartedly. However, there were also many, many parts of the book that I found quite problematic. I’ll limit myself to writing about just one. (For now.)

The first essay was by Jill Filipovic, and it was entitled “Offensive Feminism: The Conservative Gender Norms that Perpetuate Rape Culture, and How Feminists Can Fight Back.” I found myself cringing repeatedly throughout Filipovic’s essay, scribbling notes in the margins until eventually I started running out of space. So many claims she made were either ludicrous or blatantly untrue.

For example, when referring to the biblical account of the Fall in Genesis 1-3, Filipovic claims that “[w]omen are simultaneously thought of as living in inherently tempting bodies, and using those bodies to cause men to fall.” For anyone who has even a cursory understanding of the Bible, you will know that Eve’s sexuality neither tempted Adam nor caused the Fall. And of course, while I do not expect every feminist to understand the complicated theological themes in the Bible, the willingness of feminists to twist and distort religious texts to support their own misguided ideological claims is legitimately concerning. But I digress…

The claim that I found most fascinating was when Filipovic stated that “the anti-choice right promotes policies that would give a fetus rights that no born person even has” (Friedman & Valenti, 2008, p. 19).

I’ve heard this argument before. To flesh it out a bit more, it goes something like this:

“No born individual has the right to abduct someone, hook themselves up to the kidnapped individual, and then live off of their body for nine months. So how can you claim that a parasitic fetus should get these rights, rights that ‘no born person even has’?”

(A more complex form of this argument is known as the “Violinist Argument.” For more information about the argument and the subsequent pro-life response, you can start here and here.)

This claim is nothing spectacular. And yet, it is spectacular in that it reveals just how short-sighted and hypocritical radical pro-abortion activists have become. Consider this: In no other area of society do we justify torturing, dismembering, and decapitating human beings. In Canada, these are all crimes when committed against a born human being. When we see these gruesome crimes take place repeatedly, we call it genocide. On the international stage, there are conventions that prohibit these types of violence, such as the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Even in times of war, these actions are not justified.

So I would suggest that we are asking the wrong question. The question is not: Why should we promote policies that give the fetus rights that no born person even has? The real question is: Why are radical pro-abortion advocates promoting policies that would give abortion providers like Planned Parenthood “rights” that no born person has: namely, the ability to torture, dismember, and decapitate other human beings?

Also, as a final side note, I would just like to point out that every born human being has the right to life. So really, pro-lifers aren’t asking for much. We’re just advocating for the oh-so-radical idea that all human beings deserve the right to life, whether 1 minute before birth or 1 minute after birth. Why? Because there’s nothing magical about the birth canal. Just saying.

Filed Under: All Posts, Ethics, Featured Posts, Feminism Tagged With: anti-abortion, birth canal, feminism, human rights, Jaclyn Friedman, Jessica Valenti, pro-abortion, pro-choice, pro-life, violinist argument, Yes Means Yes

New IKEA ad. Creative, yet annoying

January 11, 2018 by Andrea Mrozek Leave a Comment

A new ad has women doing a pregnancy test by peeing on an ad for an IKEA crib. If you’re pregnant the discount code for said crib shows up.

What I like: When you are pregnant, however early, you need a crib because the baby, though you can’t see him or her, is already there. Get a crib, people–whether you parent or someone else does. There’s no “undoing” your pregnancy. (Just waiting for Planned Parenthood in the USA to offer abortion discounts based on this same ad technology.)

What I don’t like: spending so much money and time on advertising that commercializes your family, starting with conception. I hate gimmicks–and that’s what this is. Plus, do you have to show IKEA the ad or do they take your word for it? Who wants to do that?

Creative and yet, annoying.

Clearly, any baby can just sleep in a cute basket lined with something fuzzy. And a comforting arm to reach in, now and again.

Filed Under: All Posts, Ethics, Featured Posts

Ideological purity test to receive funding for interns

January 9, 2018 by Andrea Mrozek 4 Comments

Discussed the government’s requirement of an ideological purity test (I support “reproductive rights”) in order for small business and not-for-profits to receive funding for summer interns with John Oakley on AM 640 yesterday. Very pleased he took the issue on. Less pleased with my meandering replies here but the gist is this: The Charter is intended to protect conscience rights, not transgress them. And while the Liberals want to stick it to anti-abortion groups, they are in effect creating a chill for all charities who will not check that nebulous box saying they support “reproductive rights.” Many a church or NGO hired interns to help with basic stuff for low-income Canadians–things like summer camps for kids who couldn’t otherwise go, etc. Also, just as a side note, “reproductive rights” needs to be very much challenged as a term, something the media rarely does.

Filed Under: All Posts, Ethics, Featured Posts, Political

CPSO Legal Challenge Opportunity to Give

April 19, 2017 by Andrea Mrozek Leave a Comment

Another opportunity to give. I’m just going to cut and paste the Physicians for Life letter in full. I simply cannot begin to think of living in a province that tells physicians they must go against good treatment principles, their conscience and ethical behaviour and provide things like assisted suicide and euthanasia. So let’s not think about that, and remember that even if this is a David and Goliath struggle (and it is), tis David who won! 

 

Dear Supporters,
 
Three organizations and five brave physicians have launched legal proceedings against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in response to its conscience rights-violating policies.
 
The three organizations are Canadian Physicians for Life, the Christian Medical and Dental Society (CMDS), and the Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians’ Societies (CFCPS).
 
CMDS is a Christian association of physicians, dentists, and students who seek to honour God by integrating faith with professional practice. The CFCPS seeks to promote the teaching of the Catholic Church as applied in the provision of health care and to contribute to the development of public policy. Canadian Physicians for Life is a secular organization, gathering physicians from all backgrounds and specialties, to build a culture of life in Canada by equipping pro-life medical students, supporting physicians in their life-affirming practices, and educating Canadians about these issues.
 
While our purposes are different, we share common concerns about the protection of human life. It is because of this shared concern that we are collaborating to address an urgent issue.
 
We found out yesterday that we need to raise $120,000 by June to cover the costs of the legal proceedings against the CPSO.

We are stronger together in this fight. We’re working together in asking our memberships to pool funds for pro-conscience rights initiatives like this one.

The CPSO has been very aggressively defending this case; I saw that firsthand when I was cross-examined on behalf of Canadian Physicians for Life in March. This is a David and Goliath situation. In addition to fighting the CPSO, we are also fighting the Attorney General of Ontario, who has come alongside the CPSO to defend its policies. The CPSO and the Attorney General of Ontario have far greater resources than we do to fight this battle, but it is our doctors and med students who simply cannot afford to lose this case.

The organizations involved in the case will be fundraising over the next week. We appeal to you, our members, to play a vital role in this collaboration. 

Please make a gift to CPL today to support our collaborative work during this urgent time.

Faye Sonier

Executive Director & General Legal Counsel

Support CPL or any of the organizations fighting this challenge. All are good, worthy organizations.

Filed Under: All Posts, Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia, Ethics, Featured Posts

Living the revolution

March 3, 2017 by Andrea Mrozek Leave a Comment

She was just beginning her career as a physician and wasn’t ready to be a parent, she said in her lawsuit. “She wanted to meet a man, fall in love, get married, enjoy his life as wife with her husband and then, when she and her husband thought the time was ‘right,’ to have a baby.”

I have personally, to my own ears, not second hand, heard the above as a reason for getting an abortion. That child is long gone–the woman got it. (She wasn’t a physician, but otherwise the quote stands.)

 This is legit when a woman chooses it.

However, the quote above is actually this: 

He was just beginning his career as a physician and wasn’t ready to be a parent, he said in his lawsuit. “He wanted to meet a woman, fall in love, get married, enjoy his life as husband with his wife and then, when he and his wife thought the time was ‘right,’ to have a baby. The deceptions by DD deprived PP of the benefit of that choice.”

This is actually the story of a man who doesn’t want to be a dad and feels deceived into it. In other words, he would have aborted if he could. The courts are telling him he has to pay support and suck it up. 

Please make no mistake: I think the man is a cad and a fool. But only in the way we all are, these days, as most everyone believes pregnancy and sex are totally unrelated. The courts have to force him into payments and fatherhood because they can’t afford to set any precedent where parents are not responsible for their children–someone must pay. 

But this is a sad statement on our society when it comes to relationships. Viva la Revolucion. 

Living the revolution: Having our cake and eating it, too

Filed Under: All Posts, Ethics, Featured Posts, Feminism

A big picture look at IVF

September 6, 2016 by Andrea Mrozek 1 Comment

It’s hard to write about IVF without sounding sanctimonious. When I say I don’t like IVF, I don’t say it lightly. Perhaps it helps that this isn’t a statement easily made from the comfort of 2.1 children behind a white picket fence.

That said, I’ve always had a hard time articulating why I don’t like IVF. This article gets at some of those reasons, looking at the big picture.

embryo-1514192__180

Filed Under: All Posts, Ethics, Featured Posts

If Robyn Urback isn’t pro-life…

February 7, 2016 by Andrea Mrozek 2 Comments

…she should be.

“Outrage over innocents,” her column in the February 6, 2016 Post, perfectly describes how most people who are pro-life feel not only about animal abuse, but about abortion, too.

Urback describes how terrible it is to see an animal mistreated:

I think the explanation has to do with the way we perceive the victims: as wholly innocent, uncomplicated, blindly trusting. That’s not to suggest adult victims “deserve” their fate, but simply that an abuse against a child, for example, isn’t diluted by details. A child is simple, pure and untarnished, which makes it unconscionable that someone would hurt them.

The problem with abortion is, of course, that we don’t see the unborn child as suffering. We don’t want to. Discussions of when the fetus feels pain remain hotly contested, as all things to do with abortion are.

However, it is good to note with this column that the genesis of the concern, the outrage that a pro-life person feels as regards the taking of life in the womb is ultimately the very same concern the animal lover feels. It is the same picture of an innocent being hurt, for no reason at all.

Animal lovers, picturing the face of a devoted dog, who wants to be with people, who just wants to be in the thick of things… playing games, getting treats, putting a paw on our knees, need to see pro-lifers similarly, as compassionate people, concerned for the fate of innocent life, wherever it may be found.

For more on these thoughts, look up Mary Eberstadt.

A much loved pooch who has since gone on to serve with the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.

A much loved pooch who has since gone on to serve with the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.

Filed Under: All Posts, Ethics, Featured Posts

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Next Page »

Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssby feather

Notable Columns

  • A pro-woman budget wouldn't tell me how to live my life
  • Bad medicine
  • Birth control pills have side effects
  • Canada Summer Jobs debacle–Can Trudeau call abortion a right?
  • Celebrate these Jubilee jailbirds
  • China has laws against sex selection. But not Canada. Why?
  • Family love is not a contract
  • Freedom to discuss the “choice”
  • Gender quotas don't help business or women
  • Ghomeshi case a wake-up call
  • Hidden cost of choice
  • Life at the heart of the matter
  • Life issues and the media
  • Need for rational abortion debate
  • New face of the abortion debate
  • People vs. kidneys
  • PET-P press release
  • Pro-life work is making me sick
  • Prolife doesn't mean anti-woman
  • Settle down or "lean in"
  • Sex education is all about values
  • Thank you, Camille Paglia
  • The new face of feminism
  • Today’s law worth discussing
  • When debate is shut down in Canada’s highest places

Categories

  • All Posts
  • Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia
  • Charitable
  • Ethics
  • Featured Media
  • Featured Posts
  • Feminism
  • Free Expression
  • International
  • Motherhood
  • Other
  • Political
  • Pregnancy Care Centres
  • Reproductive Technologies

All Posts

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2022 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in