Obama carries on Marxist tradition with abortion policies
[W]hile conservatives tend to focus on matters of economics and excessive government growth and intervention, they’re missing crucial aspects of Obama’s social policy, vision, and rhetoric which, in fact, are arguably even closer to the Marxist/communist tradition….
The Bolsheviks advocated abortion. It was one of the first things they legalized. By the early 1920s, Bolshevik Russia had the most liberal abortion policies in the world. And what happened? Just like divorce, abortion exploded. In fact, the proliferation in abortions was so bad that it shocked even Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger during a trip to Russia in 1934. By the 1970s, when America was just getting around to legalizing abortion, the Soviet Union was averaging over 7 million abortions per year — dwarfing the very worst rates in America post-Roe v. Wade. The direct effect of this on the Russian population has been staggering.
For the record, Russia’s horrific abortion rates are common in communist countries, which to this day lead the world in abortions….
As to President Obama, he is far and away the most radical supporter of abortion ever to step in the White House… [from] forcing all taxpayers to fund abortion drugs (with no religious exemption), to fund Planned Parenthood, to fund embryonic research, and on and on….
Overall, Barack Obama’s support of gay marriage and abortion constitute an undermining of the historical, fundamental understanding of the human family. And that, too, is quintessentially Marxist/communist.
~ Paul Kengor, American Thinker, May 16
[Image via libertarianrepublican.net]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
When you subsidize something, you get more of it. This is not a path we want to take.
Absolutely agree with the quote and Hans.
Did the Soviet Union have same sex marriage?
Margaret Sanger was shocked by the Russian abortion rates?? Yikes. I’m trying to imagine what that must have looked like.
JDC, after the Soviet’s October (Bolshevik) Revolution in 1917, homosexuality was decriminalized. Stalin, however, re-criminalized homosexuality in the 1930s, and it remained illegal until the fall of the Soviet Union. To the best of my knowledge, homosexual marriage was never legal.
However, there are a large number of communists throughout history who support homosexual relations, including the German communists of the Weimar Republic 1919-1933 (which only helped sway voters toward anti-communist parties, such as the Nazis). The communist style agitators of today, including “Occupy” movements, are excessively pro-homosexual marriage.
On reason there is a perception of a link between homosexuality and communism is that during the 1950s, anti-communist leaders such as Joseph McCarthy, linked the two in order to sway people toward his anti-communist views.
Eric, my question was actually rhetorical in nature. I knew they didn’t have homosexual marriage in the Soviet Union and I was making the point that lumping it in with abortion was not logical, i.e. you can’t claim Obama’s position is the same as the communists in this particular case. Furthermore, it does not seem to be legal in any of the current communist countries. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_and_homosexuality
From wikipedia: “Vietnam‘s state-run media in 2002 referred to homosexuality as a “social evil”; comparing it to prostitution and gambling, and supporting laws against it”
So it sounds like some communist countries are actually more anti-gay than America.
Thanks for the link JDC. You’re right, outside of current Occupy movements, linking the two wouldn’t make sense with Marxist ideology over the years. I think the American Thinker author linked the two together because of the current Occupy movements’ Marxist and anti traditional family tendencies.
It is not illogical to associate same-sex “marriage” with abortion. Both have a destructive effect on the family. Both lead people to separate the procreative function of sex from the pleasure of it; both lead people to treat babies as commodities to purchase and acquire when they want and destroy when they don’t; both lead to a warped understanding of the nature of human sexuality and the sanctity of life.
The family unit as it has been for all of human history is under assault today. Mr. Kengor is right to point out that the end goal of this assault is to completely undermine the foundation of society in order to “reconstruct” it in the godless, socialist, secular image where human life is disposable and human sexuality is unrecognizable.
You might want to look up a Monsieur Kocheve. His view of the new marxist man included, mostly, that women were all to be sex-slaves, basically. the only way they could be considered “subjects” rather than “objects” was by killing something- preferably their own unborn child. He taught most of the french communists, from the 1940’s onward.
pregnant women were considered to be “rotting” from within, as long as they had a bun in the oven.
Mr Obama’s pro-abortion policy really is the worked-out European version of ecstatic marxism.
Jen, maybe I didn’t make clear what I was saying — linking homosexuality and Marxism wouldn’t make sense historically outside current Occupy movements. I do agree linking homosexuality and abortion — as well as no-fault divorce — makes sense, all of which elevate self-serving happiness and pleasure over traditional family integrity.
Courtnay:
From Wikipedia:
Abortion statistics were classified in the Soviet Union until the end of the 1980s. During this period, the USSR had one of the highest abortion rates in the world. The abortion rate in the USSR peaked in 1964, when 5.6 million abortions were performed, the highest number in Russia’s history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Russia
To put that in perspective, this is an old article (from 2003). At that time, there had been a serious decline in the number of abortions, but there were still 13 abortions for every 10 live births.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3093152.stm
Of course, given the amount that the Soviets covered things up, the actual rate could be much higher…
It is fortunate that communists kept heterosexual marriage legal and mostly intact:
It is my understanding that many of the early and zealous communists extolled the “free love” philosophy and that the soviets had at one time tried to make all marriages illegal. I believe they saw marriage as a “religious” act improper for any good atheist. It was only when they reinvented the marriage as a civil godless ceremony that it became tolerable.
FYI, This is only an excerpt from Paul Kengor’s article at American Thinker. Follow the link to get the complete text.
Tommy R,
Great points.
Whether one agrees with “gay marriage” or not, a godless society is not necessarily a better society. When God becomes irrelevant, he easily becomes “the enemy” and we become our own gods. Look at abortion and the “right to choose” farce. It’s time to make abortion unthinkable, starting with our leaders, for the sake of our country, our children and grandchildren.
Premise 1: Alleged Social Evil #1 was common in Communist countries.
Premise 2: American politician supports Alleged Social Evil #1 (and also Alleged Social Evil #2, which has never been common or even permitted in any Communist country ever).
Conclusion: Therefore, that American politician is a Marxist Communist.
Am I understanding this fool’s “argument” correctly? I’m looking forward to his next braindead rant wherein he scientifically proves that by having the middle name “Hussein”, Barack Obama is a Muslim.
Obama a communist? Marxist?
Absolutely laughable ignorance.
You folks don’t need enemies, you’re marginalizing yourselves.
Just keep laughing.
And showing up to comment here…..over and over and over and over……
“So it sounds like some communist countries are actually more anti-gay than America.”
JDC,
You jump to your preferred conclusion and you miss the obvious point.
All communist countries are not as pro-liberty as America.
Even tho they promote their humanistic philosphies to the exclusion of all others, they are more dogmatic in their atheistic zeal than any bible thumper I have ever encountered.
In a humanistic utopia, homosexuality should be as acceptable as shaved heads or painted fingernails.
But humanists are more demanding in whatever their preferred uniformity might be than any puritan.
The problem with ‘humanism’ is it cannot avoid or control ‘human’ nature.
Bottom line: Someone’s world view is going to prevail.
The choices boil down to two: atheistic or theistic.
I don’t know if body count, as in dead victims, is the best standard of measurement to determine which is more user friendly, but the atheistic world view has delilberately killed more humans than all the wars, pandemics, and natural disaseters combined.
Some humanists would count that as evidence of it’s superiority as they believe the world is currently over populated by several billiion.
Joan,
Obviously you neglected to read the original article which has this as its conclusion:
“This is not to say that Obama is sitting in the Oval Office with a copy of the Communist Manifesto on his lap and a list of check items. Nonetheless, his decidedly radical/non-traditional far-left social positions contain some unusually surprising parallels to the farthest extreme of the left. In yet another disturbing similarity, our current president’s position just happens to coincide with the Marxist/communist position.”
The author makes a valid point, no?
mp,
Laughable?
“Laughable?”
Yes, laughable. You might check with Jamie Dimon or Lloyd Blankfein and ask them if they think Obama is a communist.
If you people believe that crap, you need professional help and I mean that seriously.
mp,
What have Dimon or Blankfein said on the subject?
Janet, do I have to get Paladin out here? :)
“The author makes a valid point, no?”
Not any more valid than pointing out that the pro-life movement’s position on abortion “just happens” to coincide with that of Nazi Germany’s (where it was illegal). Do you think that would be a fair and totally reasonable argument to make?
‘the obamateur’ is not a muslim, not a jew, not a christian.
he may or may not be a marxist, but he is most certainly a humanist.
he is not THE anti-christ, but he is an anti-christ.
I remember an observation I read from one of the Führer’s dis-illusioned devotees:
‘In the beginning he [Adolph] was merely human, then he was super-human and in the end he was sub-human.’
Contrary to the delusions of some, ‘the obamateur’ is not super human, but he is devolving towards sub-human.
Joan, the Nazis’ ban on abortion had nothing to do with pro-life values and everything to do with making sure blond, white German women didn’t have abortions, bolstering their numbers. Their mass sterilization campaigns, not to mention, um, the Holocaust…yeah, not pro-life. Pro-lifers want babies of all races to survive the womb.
The Soviets, on the other hand, legalized abortion (and were the first to decriminalize homosexuality, I might point out) based on their beliefs in radical feminism and social liberalism, not unlike the liberals of today.
So, it’s not exactly an even comparison.
Not any more valid than pointing out that the pro-life movement’s position on abortion “just happens” to coincide with that of Nazi Germany’s (where it was illegal). Do you think that would be a fair and totally reasonable argument to make?
Nazi Germany’s position was that certain humans were deemed “undesirable” or “unwanted”. They then used dehumanizing terminology to justify brutally killing them. And contrary to your argument, this was sometimes done by legal abortion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Germany
If you’re going to use Nazi analogies (which, counter-Godwin, I agree do have a time and place), try to at least make sure your opponent’s position actually does coincide with Nazi Germany’s.
Janet, do I have to get Paladin out here?
Hi Bobby,
Good to see you.
I know, I know. My bad. :)
“Joan, the Nazis’ ban on abortion had nothing to do with pro-life values and everything to do with making sure blond, white German women didn’t have abortions, bolstering their numbers.”
So? The portion of the original piece that Janetforlife quoted merely describes a parallel between positions (not underlying intents or purposes motivating those positions) in order to draw its conclusion. That’s an obviously low bar to meet. If that doesn’t satisfy you, take it up with the moron who wrote the article. I’m not endorsing his reasoning, I’m demonstrating how utterly flawed it is.
“Nazi Germany’s position was that certain humans were deemed “undesirable” or “unwanted”.”
The Nazis’ position on abortion was illegality by default with some circumstantial exceptions made. The only difference between that and the usual pro-life position on abortion is the nature of those exceptions.
Right, Joan — for the Nazis, only some unborn life was valuable. For pro-life, all unborn life is valuable.
“only difference”
Good grief.
That’s the only difference that could possibly matter.
Pro-choice — only some unborn life matters.
Mother Teresa said in a speech that we must be free to love. Freedom is a prerequisite to love. Naturally, in communist or nazi regimes there will be a shocking lack of love across the board. The family is where we first experience love. So driving a stake through the heart of the family, however it’s done–abortion, same-sex marriage, rampant divorce–is chess move #1 in the marxist playbook.
…”I’m demonstrating how utterly flawed it is.”
Joanofarcania,
What you are demon-strating is how utterly flawed your world view is.
Nobody’s going to point out that Hitler/the Nazis introduced abortion to Poland? The Nazis were not anti-abortion, they were pro-“Aryan”-babies. This analogy is crap on so many levels, as contrasted with the page quote.
The quote doesn’t say “Obama is a Marxist because he supports abortion.” It says, quite clearly and obviously and unambiguously, “Since we’ve all talked about how Obama’s economic/political policies are Marxist a bunch, let’s talk about how his social policies–on abortion in particular–are also Marxist in cast.” The article is not picking a single data point in a universe void of context as if the one point, on its own, can make the whole case.
Troll harder next time, joan. Perhaps read the quote first? Just a thought.
Alice, you should never ever tell anyone to troll harder. We put up with hard enough trolling already. :)
Cuba has a high abortion rate, too. I wonder why?
Of course Obama is not a communist, he’s just a bad president.