Population Reduction

“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its
infant members is to kill it.” Margaret Sanger, Women and the New
Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion.
Legislatio­n for abortion is not about a woman’s right or a man’s responsibi­lity
although it has been marketed that way. It is about a policy of long term
government sponsored population reduction for the sole purpose of resource
acquisitio­n and preservation. In other words, from a political viewpoint,
abortion has never been primarily about helping women although it may
incidental­ly help some women and it may hurt others, it most definitely
removes an unwanted “consumer.”  Since 1973, 53 million consumers and their
potential offspring have been “legally” removed while the births of countless
others have been prevented by a public policy (beginning in grade school) of
indoctrina­tion and the promotion of chemicals and devices for birth control.
This has been a most successful policy.  In 1974, within NSSM200,  the following statement was made, “Only nominal attention is [currently­] given to population education or sex education in schools…­Recommenda­tion: That US agencies stress the importance of education of the next generation of parents, starting in elementary schools, toward a two-child family ideal. That AID stimulate specific efforts to develop means of educating children of elementary school age to the ideal of the two-child family.”  In 1975,  the following statement was made by John Knowles, president of the Rockefeller Foundation in his annual report:   “The web of interdependence is tightening. We are one world and there will be one future – for better or for worse – for us all. Central to a new ethic of making less more is controlled economic growth which conserves scarce resources, provides equitable distribution of income and wealth.   It is also necessary to control fertility rates at the replacement level and to achieve zero population growth as rapidly as possible.”  Today, the birthrate of U.S. citizens is at or below replacemen­t level and except for immigratio­n, legal and otherwise, our population has been stabilized for us through policies which have never been truly explained to the public and which may no longer be necessary.  Politician­s who argue that abortion is a triumph for Women’s Rights are either outright liars or misinforme­d to the true intent of abortion.  One of the people who greatly influenced Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood) was Havelock Ellis, who advocated mandatory sterilization of the poor as a prerequisite to receiving any public aid (the Problem of Race Regeneration, page 65).   I don’t believe, that today, any politician would care to associate themselves with such an idea, however distantly.  And yet, so many do.  In actuality, the end result of an abortion is the elimination of another mouth to feed, no matter who it helps or hurts.  Those who wish to have documentation of the purpose of legalized abortion should research the Rockefelle­r Commission Report of 1972, “On Population Growth and the American Future.”  Within that report it specifical­ly stated that America’s population was already too large and needed to be reduced by enacting laws for abortion and by including sex and population education within the curriculum of public school children. It also recommende­d, “That federal, state, and local government­s make funds available to support abortion services in states with liberalize­d statutes. That abortion be specifical­ly included in comprehens­ive health insurance benefits, both public and private.”  Today, there is a debate about whether or not to include Federal funding for abortion within Obamacare, however, it was first proposed as early as 1972.  The  logic of this, is that by having fewer children, all of society benefits, therefore all members of society must contribute, financially, to their destruction.  If we do not, the projected costs of possible entitlements for the care of a child (consumer) would be much too expensive for the government, both in currency and resources.   To combat this idea, in 1976, the Hyde Act was introduced to prevent federal funds from being used for abortion except in extreme cases.  However, some agencies do still receive Federal funding, such as Planned Parenthood.  These funds are used primarily for overhead and health services not directly related to abortion, while private donations are reserved for actual abortions.  However, without the Federal funding it is doubtful that Planned Parenthood, in its current form, could exist.  In short, federal and state funding frees up donated funds for abortions. Finally, here is a statement from 1980 from the State department’s Office of Population Affairs, which clearly indicates our government’s abortion policy both nationally and internationally: “There is a single theme behind all our work – we must reduce population levels. Either they [governments] do it our way, through nice clean methods or they will get the kind of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran, or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it. The professionals aren’t interested in lowering population for humanitarian reasons. That sounds nice. We look at resources and environmental constraints. We look at our strategic needs, and we say that this country must lower its population – or else we will have trouble.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s