Christian Post Ironically Compares MLK To Pro-Life Cause

The Christian Post is a respecter of false religions, and one such religion is the Post-War Consensus. One such martyr of the Post-War Consensus is Martin Luther King Jr, who is remembered fondly by Americans for a speech and a letter. But the fuller body of his work and personal vices showcases a Marxist agitator who was a forerunner to the Rodney King Riots and the Black Lives Matter movement of today.

The Christian Post published an unscrupulous column comparing MLK’s cause with the pro-life cause, titled, MLK Day and the March for Life: One cause, one dignity, writing:

We honor the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who called the nation to reckon with injustice and recognize the God-given worth of every person. We also gather for the March for Life, standing for those whose lives are unseen, unheard, and unprotected.

These moments are bound by a shared moral conviction: that human life is sacred — and that dignity is not assigned by power, preference, or circumstance.

Respect for life is not merely a belief to affirm. It is a way of seeing the world, one that shapes how we treat others and how we understand our responsibility to them.

Dr. King understood this. His call for justice was never rooted in convenience or cultural momentum. It was anchored in a moral law higher than any human authority. In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” King wrote that unjust laws degrade human personality rather than uphold it. Such laws, he argued, violate the dignity God has already bestowed.

That conviction shaped both his message and his method. King rejected violence not out of weakness, but out of moral clarity. He believed that dignity must be defended without being destroyed in the process. His courage was restrained. His resolve was steady. His vision of justice flowed directly from his belief in the inherent worth of every human life.

The rest of the article hyperbolically connects abortion to the Revolutionary War, as though the dignity of life was a primary grievance of the colonials.

But the entire article is ironic, as MLK was not actually pro-life. Conversely, MLK was a staunch proponent of birth control and depopulation measures. In 1966, Planned Parenthood Federation of America its Margaret Sanger Award to honor the woman who founded America’s “family planning” movement,  given annually to individuals of distinction in recognition of excellence and leadership in furthering reproductive health and reproductive rights.

His acceptance speech, titled “Family Planning—A Special and Urgent Concern” (delivered by his wife, Coretta Scott King, on his behalf), emphasized the importance of birth control and population control. In it, he drew parallels between the civil rights movement and Margaret Sanger’s work, stating: “There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts.” He argued that family planning was essential to combat poverty and overpopulation, writing, “Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not yet understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we possess.” He further noted that unwanted pregnancies were a “cruel evil” needing control, and that Black Americans had a “special and urgent” interest in family planning for security and a decent life.

So not only is the parallel between MLK and the pro-life cause incorrect, MLK would have been on the side of population control or perhaps even eugenics (a pressing moral concern at the time).