Most pro-abortion advocates contend that religion should play no role in the debate. Abortionist Willie Parker, on the other hand, cites Christianity in support of his position that taking the lives of unborn children should remain legal. He kills for Jesus, you see, so take your Bible-thumping somewhere else.
Parker, who is employed at the only abortuary left in Mississippi, was recently interviewed by Rolling Stone magazine, that known paragon of journalism, about his recent book “Life’s Work: A Moral Argument for Choice.”
“…I decided to exercise Christian compassion not by proxy, but with my own capable hands,” writes Parker. And by Christian compassion he means tearing human bodies limb from limb. I’m convinced that abortionists write drivel like this just to get under religious people’s skin. This isn’t honest disagreement, he’s just trolling us.
In addition to Jesus Christ, Parker cites both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr., as his inspirations:
The courage that’s necessary to assert yourself on behalf of human dignity, [Malcolm X and King] modeled that for me, despite risk…. I was well aware what happens when you go against convention and dogma and custom…. They modeled that for me, and I took courage and took note. While if you skim the surface of their writing, you think they were coming from completely different places, but they were complementary pieces of the same quest for justice. I see this work that I do, although in a different context, as no different from the work they did.
Parker’s words reflect a barely concealed desire to legitimize his own sordid work by projecting it upon our society’s most hallowed figure: Martin Luther King, Jr. He’s taken the mantel of MLK as his own and it’s easy to see why — King is so idolized in our society that it’s nearly impossible to take a position opposite him. Nearly everyone wants to claim that he is on their side, just so they can be on his.
One person who certainly wouldn’t be pleased to hear Willie Parker invoke MLK’s name is King’s own niece, Dr. Alveda King. She’s made something of a name for herself as a pro-life activist, taking advantage of the kinship ties that fell upon her by happenstance in an attempt to claim her fair share of Uncle Martin’s (unearned) moral authority. She would like to believe that her famous relative shared her conviction that abortion is an atrocity. She latches on to some of his more abstract quotes about justice to prove her point. None of these quotes explicitly mention abortion, but Alveda King reads into them what she wants to hear. For example, she understands her uncle’s famous words “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” to mean that he opposed abortion which is unjust in her opinion and in mine. According to Alveda King:
I know in my heart that if Uncle Martin were alive today, he would join with me in the greatest civil rights struggle of this generation – the recognition of the unborn child’s basic right to life.
Except he probably wouldn’t. On this point, Alveda King is wrong and Willie Parker is right. MLK was the recipient of the 1966 Margaret Sanger Award, named in honor of Planned Parenthood’s founder, a genocidal racist who wanted at very least to reduce the black population, if not eliminate it entirely. Sanger founded her organization for the express purpose of eliminating undesirables from the general population, which included the handicapped, Italians, Jews, and of course blacks. She even chartered a “Negro Project,” which brought “family planning” services right into black ghettos.
She was quoted in a 1923 New York Times article saying:
[Birth control] means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.
Does anyone really believe that a white woman speaking in 1923 believed that blacks represented “better racial elements?”
Sanger understood that she would require the black community’s active cooperation if she would succeed in reducing their proportion in society. “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, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
A ”colored” minister with a social services background and an engaging personality? That description fits Martin Luther King to a “T.” It seems that Planned Parenthood found precisely the pitch man they were looking for to sell extermination to the black community.
Sadly, his niece Alveda is in deep denial about this. She claims that MLK’s acceptance speech, which his wife Coretta delivered in his absence, was ghost-written. Her only evidence for this assertion is that it doesn’t sound like his style. That wouldn’t prove much of anything, of course, because plenty of his speeches were written with the “assistance” of other people including the Stalinist-holdover Stanley Levison. But so what if he didn’t write it? King certainly gave the speech his seal of approval, thus allowing himself and his moral authority to be placed in the service of evil.
Alveda King’s other defense of her uncle is that Planned Parenthood was not yet an abortion mill when he accepted their award. They may have been the apparatus by which a genocidal racist carried out her plan to reduce or eliminate the black race, but they did it with other, non-lethal forms of birth control.
“In 1966, my uncle Martin Luther King, Jr. received the Margaret Sanger Award … from Planned Parenthood,” she explained in an interview. “He was proclaiming that he supported them and they were non-violent in their fight to advance birth control rights for women. And all of that sounded really good because in 1966 birth control was natural family planning in the eyes of most people.”
Well, no, not if she means the rhythm method. By 1966 Planned Parenthood had been promoting many methods of birth control for almost fifty years, none of which were “natural.” When most people thought of birth control in those days they thought of oral contraception and for good reason — “the pill” had been approved by the FDA in 1960 at the behest of Margaret Sanger.
In any case, Planned Parenthood’s supposed opposition to abortion, which had always been a farce, was by this time wearing very thin. Yet Alveda King still clings to her belief that Uncle Martin’s acceptance of the award did not amount to an endorsement of abortion. “So Martin Luther King, believing that he was adding his voice to a helpful cause, accepted the award. He was assassinated in ’68; all during that time, abortion was illegal in every state in America.”
Nope, wrong again. California legalized abortion in 1967, but MLK did not rush there to protest the killing of children. He cared more about a garbagemen’s strike in Memphis than he did about ending abortion.
Might King have been callous to the plight of the unborn because he was a philandering womanizer? I’ve known a few of those in my life and they’ve all been “pro-choice.” It’s easy to see how King, an ordained minister, would have perceived abortion as an insurance policy against public exposure as a hypocrite. What if he had impregnated one of his casual sex partners? What if she had been white? His whole world could have come crashing down with the birth of a single “love child.” The fact that no such offspring have ever been found despite King’s voracious sexual appetite suggests that he was quite skilled in the use of birth control, whether abortion or another method.
No amount of evidence seems to persuade Alveda King and many pro-life conservatives that MLK was pro-abortion, likely because the idea makes certain unsettling conclusions unavoidable. If it’s true, and I would say it is, King cannot be considered non-violent. He refused to fight with policemen of course, but they have guns and batons. He supported violence as long as it was against the most helpless among us — the unborn — and as long as it facilitated his sex life. Furthermore, he wasn’t really a friend to black people. Martin Luther King was the accomplice of an evil organization founded by a woman who wanted to wipe out the black population. Nor was he a devout Christian. He may have read the Bible on occasion but he certainly didn’t believe any of that stuff about “Thou shalt not kill.”
King’s support for abortion doesn’t make abortion right; it makes King wrong. It’s time we had the courage to say that MLK does not deserve all of the adoration we heap upon him.