Tuesday, June 19, 2018

The Ubiquitous Insidious Tentacles of Abortion

Under the euphemistic banner of "reproductive rights" "reproductive health" and/or "pro-choice", etc, very little is said about the physical, psychological, and spiritual consequences  of the giant octopus that is abortion despite the fact that it has extended its insidious tentacles into each and every one of our lives, either directly or indirectly. Because even if you have not experienced an abortion, it's almost certain you have a relationship --daughter, granddaughter, girlfriend, wife, mother, sister, niece, friend, co-worker, etc.--with someone who has, and just like the ripples that spread from a single pebble cast into a pond, small waves ripple outwardly and incrementally after each and every abortion, affecting every potential relation to that innocent life who never had a chance.

Of course, the negative impact of abortion on the mother's physical, psychological and spiritual health far outweighs the impact on everyone else. The multiple physical and emotional complications of the procedure can be life-changing insofar as the woman may experience:
  • damage to the cervix,  
  • scarring of the uterine lining,  
  • perforation of the uterus,  
  • damage to other organs
  • inability to conceive in the future,  
  • higher rates of miscarriage and premature birth  in subsequent pregnancies,
and in studies across the United States and in other countries, it has been found that women who have had abortions have 

  • increased their risk of getting breast and/or cervical cancer by over 50 percent.  
 Regarding cancer, the same is not true for pregancies terminated naturally--miscarriage--because unlike induced abortion, the mother's hormone levels never reach that of a normally developing pregnancy.

Moreover, it's been found that abortion before the birth of a first child is, in particular, highly carcinogenic, because as most of us know, early first full term pregnancy lowers a woman’s risk of getting breast cancer, so if that pregnancy is terminated unnaturally, that protection not only disappears, the abortion is potentially weaponized to turn against the mother in the future. In other words, women who abort their first pregnancy not only don’t get the protective effects of a first full-term pregnancy and don’t receive the protective effects of breast feeding, they've increased their chances of getting cancer, experiencing infertility, etc. over and above that of never having gotten pregnant in the first place.

Keep in mind that less than 1% of all abortions (60 million since 1973) occur because of rape, incest, birth defects or to save the life of the mother, so the use of this argument is very obviously a smoke screen. Moreover, abortion to save the mother’s life was legal before convenience abortion was legalized and would continue to be if abortion were made illegal again.

Abortion Cancer Link

The first study to find the link between abortion and cancer came out in 1957--over 60-years ago--yet the billion dollar cancer foundations/organizations, the mainstream media, the medical industrial complex, Planned Parenthood, etc. not only stay silent and refuse to warn the public, they actively engage in deceiving the public.

 In fact, the abortion breast cancer link in some of these statistically robust studies confirm abortion is stronger than any other risk factor for breast cancer such as advanced age, having a family history of breast cancer, being childless, etc..
Gill pointed out that the Surgeon General decided to require warning labels on packs of cigarettes highlighting the link between smoking and birth defects when there were only seven studies that showed such a link.

Today, there are more than seventy-eight studies showing a link between abortion and breast cancer and yet most women remain unaware that there is any connection.
In 1989, one study (Holly L. Howe et al., “Early Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk among Women under Age 40,” International Journal of Epidemiology 18, no. 2 (1989): 300-304) relied on New York state medical records reported that abortion increased a woman’s risk of getting breast cancer by 90%.

Then, in 1996, Dr. Joel Brind (J. Brind et al., “Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis,” Journal of Epidemiology  Community Health 50 (1996): 481-496) combined the statistics from 23 different worldwide studies and found a 30% increase of breast cancer risk among women who chose abortion after already giving birth and a 50% increase of breast cancer risk among women who chose abortion before giving birth.

Another study (A.E. Laing et al., “Breast cancer risk factors in African-American women: the Howard University Tumor Registry experience,” Journal of the National Medical Association 85, no. 12 (1993): 931-939) done on African-American women by researchers at Howard University showed that African-American women over 50 were almost five times more likely to get breast cancer if they had abortions compared with women who had not.
Fifty-eight out of 74 worldwide studies dating back to 1957 have shown that abortion increases a woman’s risk of getting breast cancer. Nineteen of the 24 studies done on women from the United States show an increased risk of breast cancer associated with abortion.
and
In 2014 the prestigious Medical Journal Cancer, Causes, Control published a huge systematic review and meta-analysis of 36 studies across China. They found that women who have at least one abortion, have a substantial 44% increased risk for getting breast cancer; compared to women who did not have an abortion.
Yet,
while the media is comfortable telling women not to take hormone replacement therapy because of the increased risk of breast cancer, it refuses to extend the same logic to abortion and its effects on estrogen levels in the body. If both result in increased estrogen levels without a subsequent maturation of breasts’ cells, then logically both can result in increased breast cancer risk."

The Power of Words to Deceive Humanity is Unmistakable.


As George Orwell said, If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought, and as he predicted, language is growing ever more deceitful every day.
Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception. In this regard, the reproach of the Prophet is extremely straightforward: **“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” **(Is 5:20). -Evangelium Vitae “The Gospel of Life”, n. 58
Since the landmark decision issued in 1973--Roe v. Wade, the abortion industry has profited immensely from the approximate 1.4 million lives it takes every single year, of which more than half of those "choosing" abortion are younger than 25 years old. (52% to be exact). It accomplishes this by the subversive use of language, attempting to minimize the reality of abortion, using convenient doublespeak and replacing realistic terminology with euphemisms to assure and assuage the gullible public and to cloak its menacing presence in "liberty," "freedom" and "choice."

For instance, when a woman is pregnant and she wants the baby, she will say "I'm having a baby" no matter where she is in her pregnancy. However, when she doesn't want the baby, they call what they want to destroy “tissue.”

Abortion and Systematic Eugenics

Abortion is one of the most identified liberal causes of modern politics, right up there with equal rights for women, African Americans and other minorities. Yet, the founders of the abortion movement were racists who despised the poor, and who advocated abortion as a means of eliminating the poor and undesired races.

We most associate eugenics with the Nazis, but the term "eugenics" was coined in the mid 1800’s by Francis Galton, the cousin of Charles Darwin, and became a very popular movement to create a society in which those who were considered “superior” would reproduce, while those who were deemed “inferior” would be strongly and sometimes forcibly encouraged not to reproduce. Margaret Sanger, founder of American Birth Control League, which later changed its name to Planned Parenthood, and member of the American Eugenics Society, was a strong suppoter of the eugenics movement. She even met with members of the Klan, and supported the use of sterilization to rid the planet of the “unfit.”

In Margaret Sanger’s “Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” the Planned Parenthood founder links the goals of eugenics with her own goals of promoting birth control:
We who advocate Birth Control, on the other hand, lay all our emphasis upon stopping not only the reproduction of the unfit but upon stopping all reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care for those who are born in health. …While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit… Eugenics without Birth Control seems to us a house builded upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit….
In 1932, Sanger called for the poor and those she considered to be “morons and immoral” to be shipped to colonies where they would live in “Farms and Open Spaces” dedicated to brainwashing these so-called “inferior types” into having what Sanger called better “moral conduct.”

In Sanger's book "Pivot of Civilization", she referred to the urban poor, and their increasing numbers, as "an ever widening margin of biological waste." (p.134.), and one of her mottos was "More [children] from the fit, less from the unfit." (p.104 & 179.) Margaret Sanger wasn't the only founder of the abortion movement with racist and eugenicist ideals. Co-founders and board member Lothrup Stoddard wrote the book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy, which was reviewed favorably in Birth Control Review, and co-founder and board member, C. C. Little, was president of the Third Race Betterment Conference, and he advocated preserving the purity of "Yankee stock" through limiting the births of non-Whites.

It's significant that Planned Parenthood continues to support Sanger with no qualifiers.
But has Planned Parenthood changed? It is significant to note that Planned Parenthood has never distanced itself from the vision and ideology of its founder. Successive presidents of the organization have praised her work, including Faye Wattleton, who said, "As we celebrate the 100th birthday of Margaret Sanger, our courageous leader, we should be very proud of what we are and what our mission is. It is a very grand mission; abortion is only the tip of the iceberg." (Faye Wattleton, president Planned Parenthood Federation of America, speech, February 5, 1979.)

One can only wonder how abortion rights came to be adopted by liberals in the Democratic Party, or any other party. It is difficult to image how it came to be identified with other liberal causes. Through a slick media campaign and effective sloganeering, Planned Parenthood painted abortion as a compassionate and caring alternative to childbirth. Their motivation however may be altogether different. It seems that abortion still today, rather than being seen as a way of helping the poor and minorities, is considered the easiest solution for our economic problems. Don't help the poor, just eliminate them.
Moreover, on par with the eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th century, advances in biotechnology have made the possibility of "desinger babies" almost certain. The technology to choose socially advantageous  characteristics of your child using a process called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis already exists. As it is, pre-screening gives parents the choice to eliminate babies who fail to meet their standards or desires.  As it is, with the pressure to produce "superior" or "trophy" offspring, "helicopter" and "snow plow" parents try to transform their children into "achievement machines." In this kind of consumerist environment where survival of the fittest is fully embraced "mistakes" or "unfits" are and will continue to be aborted as the dehumanizing of socitiey continues to escalate. Iceland has nearly eliminated children with Down syndrome through systematic abortion, and in the U.S., it is estimated that the vast majority of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted.
James Hughes, a bioethicist and director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, says that the right to choose a child’s traits, cosmetic or not, should be part of a parent’s basic reproductive freedoms. Reproductive freedoms shouldn’t apply just to contraception and abortion rights, Hughes tells Big Think. “They also include the freedom to have children, and the kind of children we prefer.”
According to the history books, the Nazis lost the war, yet, eugenics is not only alive and well, it's accelerating beyond the Nazi's wildest dreams, and abortion is one of its most efficacious tools, or dare I say, weapons.

Abortion and Population Control

In what some tout as an overpopulated world, some advocate the right to an abortion in the cases of overpopulation, poverty, and financial burden, so isn't abortion justified for population control and to ease the financial and emotional burden a child may put on a family? On society?

First of all, overpopulation is a Myth It’s been calculated that the entire world population of 7 billion people could be placed in one gigantic city within the borders of the state of Texas. Our problem is not too many people and not enough resources, very simply put, it's a problem of waste, greed, government inefficiency, and distribution of resources.

Secondly, the European and U.S. birthrate are below replacement levels. Consider that zero population growth requires women must bear 2.1 children. Well, since 1972, there have only been two years where the fertility rate has reached at least 2.1 children. In fact, it's gotten so bad that several countries around the world, including Germany, Singapore, Japan, and Russia, even offer prospective parents incentives for having a baby.
Contrary to what you might hear, the most pressing problem in country after country today is not overpopulation, but underpopulation. In a time of fiscal austerity, the last thing that we need to be doing is spending more tax dollars to drive down the birth rate, reducing the amount of human capital available, and making us all poorer in the long run--Steven W. Mosher, President of the Population Research Institute (PRI)
If nothing else, legalized abortion has resulted in over 60 million fewer taxpayers in America to support the elderly.



Many abortion laws lay down a stage of pregnancy after which abortion is unlawful, yet as you can see from the picture above, how early in its life the baby begins to acquire human characteristics. At the moment of conception, the embryo receives its own unique genetic code, distinct from that of its mother or father, from the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg, a new individual of the human species is formed and the innate sacredness of human life is evident, a life that can receive and react to personal care from others, a minimal mark of a human being. The evidence of that uniqueness supports the belief that ensoulment takes place at conception, and even if you are unsure that this is true, isn't it always better to err on the side of life? In other words, as long as the mother's life is not in danger, isn't it always better to err on the side of life?
All the DNA is there from conception and the heart begins to beat four weeks after conception!
Why does the mainstream media not only completely ignore the risks of abortion, but promote flawed studies to counteract the evidence of the abortion cancer link?
Why do the billion dollar Cancer organizations and societies supposedly devoted to stopping cancer not only  remain silent, but actively deny the abortion cancer link?
Why are we fed euphemistic language to encourage support of abortion?
Why do the politically-funded national medical organizations refuse to link abortion with cancer, and refuse to acknowledge the negative reprecussions of abortion, instead advocating abortion as "reproductive health"?
Why does the establishment and culture promote abortion and associate it so strongly with civil rights, with women's rights, with freedom and liberty?
Why is it that anyone who is pro-life, or anti-abortion is immediately designated misoginistic? Anti-women's rights?
Why do the abortion elites proliferate abortion clinics in low-income and minority neighborhoods?  Why are abortion patients disproportinately poor? Why do we celebrate the eugenicist, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and why do we obscure her outspoken support for eugenics?
Why is Margaret Sanger a hero?
Why do we empower women to avoid having babies?
Why do we embrace the disregarding of human life?

The answers to these questions and many more require one to open his or her eyes and see the "profit before people" "efficiency-before-people" "power before people" wealth plundering dehumanizing establishment for what it is.  Because the more abortion is embedded into the laws and practices of society, the more insensitive and dehumanized we become because we have sanctioned the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenseless members.
If we say that a mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill each other?" -- Mother Teresa
The Business of Abortion "Blood Money"



Links:

Tax Forms Show Buffett, Wealthy Elite Fund Planned Parenthood/World Abortion Empire with hundreds of millions of dollars

Abortion Facts

The State of Abortin in the United States January 2018

National Right to Life
Baby Killing Tourism and the Death of a Culture


The Ripple Effect of Abortion

Studies that Confirm the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

Informed Concent or Institutionalized Eugenics? How the Medical Profession Encourages Abortion or Fetuses with Down Syndrome.


Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger Spoke to the Ku Klux Klan and Supported Eugenics. So Why Does the Organization Still Honor Her?Margaret Sanger: More Eugenic Than Fellow Eugenicists

Cruelly Crushed by Abortion

Breast Cancer and the Politics of Abortion in the United States

Abortion - A Liberal Cause?

Researchers Uncover Hidden Risk Factor For Breast Cancer

The Breast Cancer Epidemic: Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion and Other Risk Factors

The Overpopulation Myth and the New MoralityThe Overpopulation Myth

Do laws work to stop abortion?Canada Silent No More

Abortion: Issues and Controversies

Live Action
Abortion


HUSH

Former Satanic ‘high wizard’: We must fight abortion with spiritual weapons

Former Satanist: ‘I performed satanic rituals inside abortion clinics’

1 comments:

Anonymous,  11:12  

If only we could act in good faith to God rather than to institutions, government and media that not only constantly lie to us but promote agendas that directly oppose humanity. Why is it so difficult to accept they're not trustworthy?

Petitions by Change.org|Start a Petition »

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP