Friday, February 18, 2011

Justin Bieber: "I Really Don't Believe In Abortion"

In an interview with Rolling Stone magazine, teen heart throb Justin Bieber says, "I really don't believe in abortion. It's like killing a baby."

Bieber is featured on the cover of today's issue of Rolling Stone.

While Bieber is featured, his comment about abortion is not. However, they did print it. Other comments, more in line with the social positions of Hollywood and the Magazine itself are highlighted and called out in the feature.

I suspect some one will take young Bieber to the proverbial "politically correct" woodshed over the comment.

And speaking of killing babies...

The National Black Pro-Life Coalition
say they have had enough of what they call a, "continued epidemic of abortion in the black community."

"We will not accept the status quo that endangers black children up to 3X more than the majority population," they say.

They also report that in New York City, more black children are aborted than are born alive. They say 53% of all black pregnancies end in abortion.

"This," they say, "is not freedom, it is genocidal oppression."

Their plan is to hold peaceful and prayerful gatherings in cities across the nation on February 28. I have linked their
website, the list of cities is posted.

The gatherings are defined as a time of "Mourning" for the lives of black children and others that are lost to the barbarous ritual of so-called "choice" and "rights".

Their words: "In peaceful and prayerful gatherings we will condemn the continuation of racism and eugenics that specifically target the black community."

The word eugenics brings to mind Planned Parenthood, America's biggest and most aggressive abortion business.

It also brings to mind the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger.

Our black brothers and sisters quote Lamentations 3:48, "Tears stream from our eyes because of the destruction of our people."

But not everyone is shedding tears.

Margaret Sanger, a eugenicist, and founder of Planned Parenthood said in, "An Autobiography," (p.194) her life's work is to promote birth control.

Why?

Because eugenicists believe we should, "prevent the multiplication of bad stocks," (Dr. Ernst Rudin, April 1933, in the "Birth Control Review). Margaret Sanger was the editor.

One of Sanger's greatest influences, sexologist/eugenicist Dr. Havelock Ellis (with whom she had an affair, leading to her divorce from her first husband), urged mandatory sterilization of the poor as a prerequisite to receiving any public aid. "The Problem of Race Regeneration," by Havelock Ellis, p. 65, in "Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society," p. 18. Ellis believed that any sex was acceptable, as long as it hurt no one. "The Sage of Sex, A Life of Havelock Ellis," by Arthur Calder-Marshall, p. 88.

Linda Gordon in, "Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control In America," quotes Margaret Sanger, "We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."

The word is out, MS. Sanger.

How do pro-abortion advocates and supporters of Planned Parenthood malign our white Founding Fathers for slavery on one hand and work 24/7 on the other, advancing the killing of babies who are disproportionately black---advancing the work and mission of Margaret Sanger and other eugenicists, primarily through Planned Parenthood?

When you file your tax returns, think about this: You are funding the mission of Planned Parenthood. And you will continue to do so until we elect a majority of lawmakers who embrace the sanctity of life and are not politically indebted to Planned Parenthood and its allies.

Please join our black brothers and sisters in mourning for those black babies and all babies whose lives have been taken for the lost cause of racial and social manipulation under the guise of "choice."

And the Republican Party, my party, is asking us to take a "Time Out" on the social issues so we can maybe elect a Republican who may or may not be pro-life.

God help us.

I am weeping as write this. "Tears stream from our eyes because of the destruction of our people."

_____________

Gary Randall
President
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

26 comments:

  1. When you file your tax returns, also be aware that what you are helping fund is the 97% of Planned Parenthood activity that is non-abortion. It is health counseling and contraception. Tax dollars do not fund abortion, that is against the law.

    Ask yourself this - without that 97% of Planned Parenthood's non-abortion activity, how many more unplanned pregnancies would there be? How many abortions have been prevented by simply preventing pregnancy? Especially in lower income groups w/o regular medical care (Justin spoke on that topic as well).

    Mark in Tigard

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good for Justin Beiber. Let's hope he can be a real role model for preteens/teens and not go down the same road as Miley Cyrus later on in life.

    ReplyDelete
  3. God can raise up a new generation for he performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be counted. (Job 5:9 NIV)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Justin Bieber is just speaking what many young people his age feel. And good for him for doing so!

    Some questions for everyone to think about:

    1. Why do abortion rates and contraceptive use rates rise together? Shouldn't there be an inverse relationship there?

    2. Why are more than half of the abortions Planned Parenthood performs, performed on the sons and daughters of mothers who were ALREADY USING contraception?

    3. Why can't PP supporters admit that Planned Parenthood's most profitable "service" is charging for abortions?

    ReplyDelete
  5. 6:16pm

    Justin also said that our health care system is "evil". He said "Canada's the best country in the world. We go to the doctor and we don't need to worry about paying him, but here, your whole life, you're broke because of medical bills. My bodyguard's baby was premature, and now he has to pay for it. In Canada, if your baby's premature, he stays in the hospital as long as he needs to, and then you go home."

    Again, speaking what many young people his age feel.

    1 - Are you referring to the Spanish study quoted on many right wing sites? The Spanish study isn't conclusive. There are broader studies involving many nations that show fertility rates are key to the relationship (sorry, can't link to 'em unless they support your side). Unless fertility rates are stable, contraception and abortion grow together. Then, as fertility stabilizes, abortion rates decline relative to contraception growth.

    2 - Is this from the PP report? If so, over half the women reported using the contraceptive inconsistently. Contraception isn't perfect, but the real question is how many pregnancies did it prevent? I can't find stats, but intuitively it's got to be huge.

    3 - What is this based on? PP is non-profit, so any left over monies would go right back into services. I can't find any stats on their percentage of income vs expenses specifically for abortion. Remember, profit is what's left over after expenses and I'm sure abortions are very expensive to perform. If you have some accurate numbers, please share. But, overall, abortion is a very small part of what they do (3%).

    Here's a typical year:
    Contraception: 35%
    STD Testing & Treatment 34%
    Cancer Screening 17%
    Other Womens Health 10%
    Abortion 3%
    Other 1%

    Mark in Tigard

    ReplyDelete
  6. Abortion has roughly doubled in the US since contraception came into widespread use. Your claim that "as fertility stabilizes, abortion rates decline relative to contraception growth" has no real meaning, and even if it were true (?) is obviously wildly different than showing that contraception prevents or reduces abortion, especially in light of the fact that abortion exploded AFTER the introduction of contraception.

    --"Contraception isn't perfect, but the real question is how many pregnancies did it prevent? I can't find stats, but intuitively it's got to be huge."

    Well, it's fine to think hypothetically or intuitively but reality is what matters. Sometimes things are counter-intuitive, like the encouraging effect easy contraceptive access has on people to have sex before marriage. You seem to think contraception prevents abortion. But the only evidence you've given is hypothetical.

    --"I can't find any stats on their percentage of income vs expenses specifically for abortion."

    Then how can you say that for PP, the largest abortion provider in the United States, abortion is a very small part of what they do?

    Joe in Seattle

    ReplyDelete
  7. Joe -

    Abortion has roughly doubled in the US since contraception came into widespread use.

    Yes, it's roughly doubled since abortion became legal, but you show no causal relationship to contraception. I could state that it's roughly doubled since the introduction of the 1973 VW Beetle and make as strong a case.

    My observation that contraception prevents pregnancy also comes from personal experience. When my wife was on the pill, no pregnancy. When we wanted children, she stopped and guess what - 2 children.

    My observation is also supported by research, including Charles F. Westoff, PhD of Princeton in his paper "Recent Trends in Abortion and Contraception in Twelve Countries". He analyzed data from 12 (not just 1) countries and concluded "Abortion rates are declining in most of these countries that experienced increases in the use of modern contraception." I think the key word is most. It appears to be a complicated relationship but doesn't support the generalized claim that 'increased contraception results in increased abortions'.

    how can you say that for PP, the largest abortion provider in the United States, abortion is a very small part of what they do?

    It's in their annual reports. Abortion is about 3% of their total activity, a very small percentage. What I stated was that I couldn't find percentage of income vs expenses for that particular procedure. That is info required for calculating profit. I was challenging 6:16's claim that Planned Parenthood's most profitable "service" is charging for abortions.

    I would say the onus is on the person making the claim about profits to provide some actual hard numbers to back their claim. Let the facts speak for themselves. So far, the only fact brought forward is that abortion accounts for 3% of their total services.

    Mark in Tigard

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mark,

    PP hasn't denied the charge that they get most of their earned money from abortion, have they? It would be a conflict of interest if putting young girls on contraception actually earns them more abortions, wouldn't it?

    You say contraception prevents abortion. The onus is on you. Back that up. If all you've got is your wife's experience, then all you're saying is that contraception prevented abortion FOR YOUR WIFE, meaning you would have aborted your son or daughter otherwise.

    As important as individuals are, what we are talking about here is society in general. How does it all add up in the end? Posting here that contraception prevents abortion is not true. The only way to make it seem true is to try to pretend we're talking about only certain individuals' experience, when we are in fact talking about public policy in general.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Joe,

    I'm not aware that it was a legitimate accusation that they needed to formally address. They publish their annual report that shows abortions as 3% of activity.

    Since we're going to keep debating this without hard numbers, here's my incredibly rough guess - my understanding is that they charge up to about $500 on a sliding scale according to ability to pay. So maybe an average of $300? Now how much do you think it costs for the medical team, facilities, supplies, insurance, etc? I don't think you can get a tooth filled for $300 any more. Up front, it's not a business model that looks very compelling to me if you want big profits. But I'm just guessing. If someone has real numbers, chime in.

    I did back up my claim that contraception prevents abortion via the reference to Charles F. Westoff, PhD of Princeton and his paper "Recent Trends in Abortion and Contraception in Twelve Countries". It's very detailed. I can't link to it so you'd have to look it up.

    Also I never said 'contraception prevented abortion FOR YOUR WIFE'. I said it 'prevented pregnancy'. There's a big difference.

    Regarding public policy, I go with the research that says modern contraception prevents abortion with my own personal observation as a supplement.

    Mark in Tigard

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mark, what does "3% of activity" mean? This statement has no real meaning. Why do you keep repeating it?

    --"I did back up my claim that contraception prevents abortion via the reference to Charles F. Westoff, PhD of Princeton and his paper "Recent Trends in Abortion and Contraception in Twelve Countries". It's very detailed. I can't link to it so you'd have to look it up."

    Let's review: You said contraception prevents abortion. Then I said after abortion was introduced on a wide scale that abortion doubled. Then you referenced a study that I'd have to go to the library to read.

    ReplyDelete
  11. sorry - i meant CONTRACEPTION was introduced on a wide scale

    ReplyDelete
  12. Joe,

    I repeat it because it's the only hard number I'm aware of. 3% of their total services provided is abortion. I think it indicates that abortion is a very, very small part of what they do overall. You are claiming otherwise with no substantiation whatsoever.

    Yes, in review, you did say that 'after abortion was introduced on a wide scale that abortion doubled'. But you offered nothing to show a relationship between the two. Abortions could have increased for a number of reasons: population growth, increased numbers of low income individuals, increased awareness of the option, increased social acceptance of the procedure, increases in numbers of providers, etc, etc.

    Mark in Tigard

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mark,
    But what does "3% of services mean"? Number of pills pushed vs number of abortions? As i said, it has no meaning. Isn't it weird that they don't tell you how much money they are making on abortion? PP commits more than a quarter of all US abortions. Come on Mark.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mark,
    You are the one making the claim that contraceptives prevent abortion. I simply pointed out that abortion doubled after widespread contraception was introduced, thereby blowing a huge hole in your claim. You don't really have any substantiation for your claim, because it is not true.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Joe,

    Back and forth, eh? And I pointed that the correct answer is that abortions doubled after the introduction of the 73 Beetle, blowing an even bigger hole in your theory.

    Mark in Tigard

    ReplyDelete
  16. Joe,

    Hit send to quickly last time, should have included:

    Charles F. Westoff, PhD of Princeton from the executive summary of "Recent Trends in Abortion and Contraception in Twelve Countries". He concluded "Abortion rates are declining in most of these countries that experienced increases in the use of modern contraception."


    Mark in Tigard

    ReplyDelete
  17. But Mark, you didn't say Volkswagons prevented abortion - you said contraception does. So if contraception prevents abortion, why did abortion explode after the introduction of widespread contraception?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mark, does Dr Westoff's work show that there has ever been a country that had less abortion after the introduction of widespread contraception than it did before? That would be the kind of thing that would actually support your claim.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Joe, very clearly, in spite of contraception, the 73 Beetle caused the increase in abortions. There, once again, I proved it with the same amount supporting documentation as you did with your theory.

    "Abortion rates are declining in most of these countries that experienced increases in the use of modern contraception." - Dr. Westoff

    I am the only one that has offered any supporting data of any type in this discussion - period! Unless you can bring anything to support your claims, they are just idle claims. Have a nice evening.

    ReplyDelete
  20. But Mark, I am not the one making the claim - you are. You claim contraception prevents abortion. It doesn't. And nothing you nor anything Dr. Westoff says contradicts the plain fact that no country has ever had less abortion after the introduction of contraception - they have more.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Here's some reading for you Joe -
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    From:
    Relationships between Contraception and Abortion: A Review of the Evidence - Journal article by Cicely Marston, John Cleland; International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Vol. 29, 2003

    RESULTS: In seven countries--Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Uzbekistan, Bulgaria, Turkey, Tunisia and Switzerland-- abortion incidence declined as prevalence of modern contraceptive use rose. In six others--Cuba, Denmark, Netherlands, the United States, Singapore and the Republic of Korea--levels of abortion and contraceptive use rose simultaneously. In all six of these countries, however, overall levels of fertility were falling during the period studied. After fertility levels stabilized in several of the countries that had shown simultaneous rises in contraception and abortion, contraceptive use continued to increase and abortion rates fell. The most clear-cut example of this trend is the Republic of Korea.

    CONCLUSIONS: Rising contraceptive use results in reduced abortion incidence in settings where fertility itself is constant. The parallel rise in abortion and contraception in some countries occurred because increased contraceptive use alone was unable to meet the growing need for fertility regulation in situations where fertility was falling rapidly.
    -------------------------------------------------------
    From:

    Do better family planning services reduce abortion in Bangladesh? The Lancet, Volume 358, Issue 9287, Pages 1051-1056
    M. Rahman, J. DaVanzo, A. Razza

    Findings:

    Abortion rates were significantly lower in the area with better family planning services compared with the comparison area (1984–86, 2·2 vs 5·2; 1996–98, 2·3 vs 6·8). Abortion of unintended pregnancies is similar in both areas, but the higher levels of contraceptive use in the treatment area have led to lower levels of unintended pregnancy and abortion.
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    From
    Studies in Family Planning
    Volume 33, Issue 2, pages 195–202, June 2002

    In many countries, women treated for complications from spontaneous or unsafely induced abortion lack access to contraceptive services. As a result, many of them soon have a subsequent unplanned pregnancy or a repeat abortion, placing their health at increased risk. This report presents the results of a prospective intervention study on postabortion family planning conducted in the two largest public hospitals in Zimbabwe. Women at Harare Central Hospital, in the capital, received a postabortion family planning intervention, and Mpilo Central Hospital, in Bulawayo, served as the control site. The study cohort was 982 women, 527 of whom were followed for a 12-month period. During the follow-up period, significantly more women used highly effective methods of contraception, significantly fewer unplanned pregnancies occurred, and fewer repeat abortions were performed at the intervention site than at the control site. These results offer compelling evidence that ward-based contraceptive services provided to women treated for incomplete abortion can significantly reduce subsequent unplanned pregnancies. The results also suggest that post abortion family planning services can reduce the incidence of repeat abortion.
    --------------------------------------------------------

    Mark in Tigard

    ReplyDelete
  22. Mark, your posts are meaningless, because nowhere does it say that abortion was more rare before contraception was introduced than after. You still just don't get it - and obviously don't really want to listen or understand. You are dogmatically married to your position and refused to interact logically. That's sad, but par for the course for people who believe it is a right to exterminate one's own son or daughter before they can grow large enough to be born. You are disconnected from the value of human life at a most basic level.

    The purpose of research is to relate to the real world. In the real world, results are what matters. Even now, more than half of the abortions in the US kill the sons and daughters of women who are ALREADY USING contraception. The standard come-back, which you have already parrotted, is that the women aren't using the contraception correctly. That will always be the case, Mark, and there will always be a failure rate, and there will always be harmful side effects to hormonal birth control, because it interferes with a natural process of fertility. Where is the plan to teach women better? You think the solution is MORE contraception for teenagers?, some of whom cannot even remember where their phone is half the time? and you expect them to use contraception perfectly, every time? Please get real.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Joe,

    Correction, my statement was that contraception reduces abortion and I provided research to substantiate it.

    Your observation of coincidental increases in contraception and abortions is the meaningless statistic unless you can show a causal relationship - which you have failed to do in all these numerous posts.

    This is my final post in this thread and I close by repeating this:

    I am the only one that has offered any supporting data of any type in this discussion - period! Unless you can bring anything to support your claims, they are just idle claims.

    Good day.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mark, sorry you're leaving disgruntled, and I'm sorry you still don't seem to understand. You are the one claiming contraception prevents abortion. You don't really have any way to back that up. The most obvious evidence contradicts your claim - that abortion basically doubled after contraception was introduced in the US. Your studies which you claim show some change in the abortion rate by increasing contraception at some point along the timeline could just as easily be taking credit for an increase in abstinence. There are too many unquantifiable variables. It's like the Volkswagon complaint you tried to put on me - "correlation does not prove causation" - the favorite phrase among liberals who want to argue topics which contradict common sense.

    The bottom line is that you are repeating a slogan that Planned Parenthood has unfortunately succeeded in indoctinating you with: that contraception prevents abortion. You have no way to prove that. And the biggest evidence out there contradicts your claim.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Joe,

    I am not leaving disgruntled. I just realize that no amount of evidence will sway you. Yet, you provide no evidence at all for your claim. None! This is pointless, I have better things to spend my time on.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Mark,

    Again - and I repeat this because you still pretend not to notice it - YOU are the one making the claim. That is why it is up to you to back it up. You cannot back it up, and that is because your claim is false.

    Planned Parenthood's accountants have learned a thing that you haven't: contraception does not prevent abortion - it perpetuates it.

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.