Posted on 12/02/2002 8:54:12 PM PST by Polycarp
MANILA, December 2, 2002 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On Nov. 25, Sen. Aquilino "Nene" Pimentel Jr., told the Philippine Parliament that the promotion of population control in the Third World comes from United States policy spelled out in the 1974 US National Security Study Memorandum 200 entitled "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests". Pimentel explained that the self-serving purpose of the document, developed by Henry Kissinger, was to protect U.S. economic and military interests from growing populations in the developing world.
The Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), backed Pimentel's assertion, noting that NSSM 200 and U.S. policies it spawned are the reasons behind the "huge funding in the millions of dollars of USAID promoting contraceptives and population control." So far, U.S President Bush has not indicated any concerns or even awareness of NSSM 200 and the many anti-third world programs and policies that it has created.
Pimentel also attacked House Bill 4110 and Senate Bill 2325 bill as being unconstitutional since they would legalize abortifacient contraceptives. He stated, "The two bills would make all sorts of contraceptives available to women regardless of whether or not those contraceptives may be suspect as abortifacients. Women would have the power to end unwanted pregnancies. In blunt talk, that means aborting the fetus; safely, perhaps for the mother, but most certainly unsafely for the baby whose life would be terminated with extreme prejudice," he said.
The bills proponents claim that the bills do not promote abortion but only contraception, but Pimentel exposed their duplicity by recalling the origin of the bills. "The original explanatory note [of the bill] advocated the legalization of abortion. It was only because it had drawn a furious outcry from the public that the authors beat a hasty retreat and changed it with a less confrontational one," he said.
The Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), in a statement, agreed with Pimentel's opinion that artificial birth control methods run counter with the Constitution. "I personally express my concurrence with the insights and invaluable thoughts of Senator Pimentel on this issue of population management," said CBCP spokesman Msgr. Hernando Coronel.
For more on NSSM 200 including the actual document see LifeSite at:
http://www.lifesite.net/waronfamily/nssm200/index.html
See coverage from the Filipino news service ABS-CBN:
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/abs_news_body.asp?section=Metro&OID=10052
(c) Copyright: LifeSite Daily News is a production of Interim Publishing. Permission to republish granted but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use lsn.ca or lifesite.net).
NEWS TIPS to lsn@lifesite.net or LifeSite News at (416) 204-1687 ext. 444
|
|
||
|
|
||
On what do you base your claim that Sanger opposed abortion?
The pro-Life side should publicize pro-Choice's heroinne's anti-abortion views along with her racist and classist views, but of course they'll do neither.
Although not a nice person by our standards today, Sanger sought to PREVENT abortion, infanticide, child abandonment, as well as overpopulation of what she considered undesirable classes of people ..... through contraception, not abortion.
" SOCIETY has not yet learned the significance of the age-long effort of the feminine spirit to free itself of the burden of excessive childbearing. It has been singularly blind to the real forces underlying the cause of infanticide, child abandonment and abortion. It has permitted the highest and most powerful thing in woman’s nature to be hindered, diverted, repressed and confused. Society has permitted this inner urge of woman to be rendered violent by repression until it has expressed itself in cruel forms of family limitation , which this same society has promptly labeled “crimes” and sought to punish.
"Being given their choice by society—to continue to be overburdened mothers or to submit to a humiliating, repulsive, painful and too often gravely dangerous operation, those women in whom the feminine urge to freedom is strongest choose the abortionist. One group goes on bringing children to birth, hoping that they will be born dead or die. The women of the other group strive consciously by drastic means to protect themselves and the children already born.
"The question, then, is not whether family limitation should be practiced. It is being practiced; it has been practiced for ages and it will always be practiced. The question that society must answer is this: Shall family limitation be achieved through birth control or abortion? Shall normal, safe, effective contraceptives be employed, or shall we continue to force women to the abnormal, often dangerous surgical operation?
Of course, Margaret Sanger was wrong about a lot of things. But we should not hesitate to point out that the PP's heroinne was right about abortion being cruel, humiliating, repulsive, painful, abnormal, drastic and dangerous, in Ms. Sanger's own words.
http://www.bartleby.com/1013/10.html
"[induced] abortion was the wrong way--no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safe way--it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worthwhile in the long run, because life had not yet begun." (source: Margaret Sanger, an autobiography, 1938, p. 217)
Quotes from "Birth Control Review," Sanger's publication:
| Quotable Quotes from the Birth Control Review | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to Home Page | Student's Page | Table of Contents © 1998 by Population Research Institute of all contents at this Web site. |
|
Sanger looks good by comparison.
The problem is that those later quotes, advocating forced abortions, were printed in a periodical owned and edited by Sanger.
If she had been so very opposed to abortion, why did she repeatedly publish articles calling for its legalization and coercion?
Sanger was only opposed to abortion for medical reasons. She was pragmatic; it hurt women because medical science had not yet advanced (still hasn't) to the point that abortions were safe.
However, there is absolutely no evidence that she had any philosophical opposition to abortion whatsoever.
There are many websites devoted to exposing Planned Parenthood's history and roots in Sanger's eugenics obsession. Sanger's quotes are easily found via internet searches.
I disagree. She repeatedly made statements that abortion was abnormal and in opposition to the natural inclinations of women, throwing them into turmoil (as infanticide did as well). She repeatedly portrayed women who aborted as desperate people with few options and dire consequences for themselves and their existing children. This was her unrelenting theme in promoting contraception.
She may not have opposed abortion for the reasons you would like, but she did oppose it.
As for her newletter, it was in the form of an open forum to which other eugenicists contributed. To say she agreed with all the view would be equivalent to saying that FR agrees with every view posted on its website.
In personal writings of her I have read, Sanger never advocated mandated or forced abortion. But many others did, mostly men, a fact not missed by early feminists contemporaries who also opposed abortion on the grounds that it would be used to unfairly target women for grave abuse. They also recognized in abortion the escalation of the tradition of laying blame for all social ills on women by dent of their unique biological role. As it turns out, they were right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.