8mm
Posted on 07/06/2007 2:23:04 PM PDT by Diago
|
Dear Friends I have enclosed some materials I researched, and I am appending a footnote. I have copies of much of the original materials. And as hard as it is to believe, it is true. One of the main reasons I am so strongly opposed to abortion is because it is built on racial hatred. When talking to many whites in rural areas, the reason they most often say they are for it has nothing to do with women's rights. It is because they say, " I would rather pay for an abortion than for welfare." Their misconception is that there are more city blacks on welfare than rural whites, which is untrue. Their attitude betrays their racist motivations. Please feel free to make copies of enclosed articles and distribute them freely to any and all concerned. It is not copyrighted.
Abortion - A Liberal Cause?
Abortion has been numbered among the liberal causes of modern politics. Abortion is identified with women's rights just as the Civil Rights Movement was identified with equal rights for African Americans and other minorities. But is abortion really a liberal cause? A careful examination of the history of the abortion rights movement would shock even the most ardent defender of a woman's right to choose. The founders of the movement were in fact racists who despised the poor and who were searching for a way to prevent colored races from reproducing. Rather than defending the rights of the poorest of the poor, which is the tradition of liberalism, the founders advocated abortion as a means of eliminating the poor; especially Blacks, Jews, Slavs, and Italians. And rather than desiring to help the poor through welfare programs, they wanted to eliminate all charities and government aid. Today, most liberals would be shocked to know of this racist heritage. Not only is the founding of the abortion rights movement anti-liberal, but it may have been an attempt to promote racial genocide. The modern day abortion rights movement began as the American Birth Control League in 1921. Among its founding board members were Margaret Sanger, Lothrup Stoddard, and C. C. Little. The latter two people were known for their racist views, but Margaret Sanger continually shows up in the company of other racists. In fact, she was the guest speaker at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Silverlake, N. J. in 1926.1 Not only did she not disassociate herself from these racist views, her own writings leave little doubt as to her sympathies. In implementing a plan called the "Negro Project," that was designed to sterilize Blacks and reduce the number of Black children being born in the south, Sanger wrote: "(we propose to) hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And we do not want 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." 2 Sanger also viewed welfare as a detriment to society because it increased the number of poor blacks and foreigners. "Organized charity (modern welfare) is the symptom of a malignant social disease… increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents, and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the 'failure' of philanthropy, but rather at its success."3 The urban poor, and their increasing numbers, she called, "an ever widening margin of biological waste."4 Welfare, she believed, encouraged the breeding of the poor, or "human waste," as she called them. She feared that welfare would encourage the urban poor to give birth to those "stocks that are the most detrimental to the future of the race…"5 Therefore, she believed the government should actively encourage the sterilization of those who are unfit to propagate the race, using as her motto: "More (children) from the fit, less from the unfit."6 No modern day liberal would dare question the need for some form of government aid to the poor. But Margaret Sanger wanted more for the privileged and less for the poor. How did someone who was so obviously biased and lacking in compassion become the heroine of today's liberals? It is a strange reversal of political direction. It is as if the Democratic Party suddenly turned around and supported David Duke for Supreme Court Justice. Margaret Sanger also continued to advocate for her racial prejudices in her magazine, Birth Control Review. In six successive issues of that magazine, she advocated limiting the racial quotas of immigration of "Slavs, Hebrews, and Latins,"7 because of their lower intelligence! Although Ms. Sanger was the editor of the magazine, she shared its pages with the racist co-founders of the American Birth Control League. Board member Lothrup Stoddard wrote the racist book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World- Supremacy 8, which was reviewed favorably in Birth Control Review.9 Co- founder and board member, C. C. Little, was president of the Third Race Betterment Conference. He advocated preserving the purity of "Yankee stock" through limiting the births of non-Whites.10 Margaret Sanger was also strongly anti-Semitic. She started a similar birth control organization with a man named Henry Pratt Fairchild, who wrote The Melting Pot Mistake, in which he accused "the Jews" of diluting the true American stock.11 In his book, Race and Nationality, (1947), Fairchild blamed anti-Semitism and the holocaust in part on "the Jews."12 Finally, Margaret Sanger and her organization began to be primary sponsors of eugenics during her lifetime. But because she had associated herself with Adolph Hitler, praising him for his racial politics of eugenics, she changed the name of American Birth Control League to Planned Parenthood during WWII in order to disguise her racist past.13 Today, her organization, Planned Parenthood, is still in the forefront of advocating abortion as a means of eliminating the unwanted and "unfit." Not only does the organization perform thousands abortions each year, it also receives 100's of millions of tax dollars each year through Federal and State Governments.14 And rather than being in the forefront of a woman's right to choose, International Planned Parenthood is a primary advocate for the Chinese Government's policy of forcing women to have abortions against their will, and it also advocates for the sterilization of Third World non-Whites across the globe.15 It seems that PP is "pro-choice" when trying to impress the U.S. media, but anti-choice in the actual implementation of its world-wide agenda. But has Planned Parenthood changed? It is significant to note that Planned Parenthood has never distanced itself from the vision and ideology of its founder. Successive presidents of the organization have praised her work, including Faye Wattleton, who said, "As we celebrate the 100th birthday of Margaret Sanger, our courageous leader… we should be very proud of what we are and what our mission is. It is a very grand mission… abortion is only the tip of the iceberg."16 One can only wonder how abortion rights came to be adopted by liberals in the Democratic Party, or any other party. It is difficult to image how it came to be identified with other liberal causes. Through a slick media campaign and effective sloganeering, Planned Parenthood painted abortion as a compassionate and caring alternative to childbirth. Their motivation however may be altogether different. It seems that abortion still today, rather than being seen as a way of helping the poor and minorities, is considered the easiest solution for our economic problems: Don't help the poor - just eliminate them.
|
|
.
The evildoers who want abortion would have done it with or without Sanger
>>>>>But Margaret Sanger wanted more for the privileged and less for the poor. How did someone who was so obviously biased and lacking in compassion become the heroine of today’s liberals? It is a strange reversal of political direction. It is as if the Democratic Party suddenly turned around and supported David Duke for Supreme Court Justice.
OPINION
The political elite love the welfare programs because it gives them more federal monies to line their pockets. Not all the monies are spent on the ‘poor’. It has nothing to do with compassion. it is just a useful piggy bank.
I find many Democrats don't seem to put gun control as an effort to disarm THEM and deny them the right to hunt or defend themselves. They don't seem to associate the Dem party with being anti God until you ask which Dems want to bring back prayer in school or which party wants to take phrases off of our money, etc. They don't seem to realize it isn't Republicans that burn flags until you ask them to name a Republican that has burned a flag. Then you name off about 20 well known Dems that have.
These are subjects that should be discussed in public school, or tax money should be withheld until they do. Margret Sanger is just the tip of the iceberg of liberalism that threatens our country.
BTW, that's another thing,....NAZI's are socialists. It's the left wingers that specialize in murder. Ask a Dem and they will swear NAZI's are "right wingers". You have to hold their hand and walk them through Hitler nationalizing all the industries and other socialist dogma to even get them to wonder about it. Volkswagon= The People's car. This is why they wear Che's T shirts because He was so kind and gentile.
She is advocating infanticide isn't she?
So what is your point?
All of this stems from the evolution philosophy.
No. If you read her comment in context she is projecting how poor and desperate families justify infantacide. She advocated birth control to pre-empt their having to make that choice.
There is no point in making Sanger out to be more evil than she was. Many in her day were eugenicists, including leading politicians ... it was sort of a fad among the intelligensia at the time. They felt they were being humane. Even so, they did not hide their classism and racism as the ‘elite’ do today because PC hadn’t been invented yet. The eugenicists advocated sterilization and birth control on humanitarian grounds, much as the Humane Society does today to forego suffering in animals who overbreed. They were very matter-of-fact about it.
But Sanger never advocated abortion. In at least two places in her writing she spoke against abortion (and infanticide) ... not out of concern for the unborn or infants, but on behalf of women. In her day abortion was a very dangerous procedure which she called “barbaric”.
She also implied it was inefficient to handle overpopulation among the underclass in an after-the-fact fashion. She was convinced sterilization and contraception were the way to go to achieve eugenicist goals.
Finally, if Sanger had advocated abortion Planned Parenthood would proudly quote her in their literature. They don’t because she didn’t, a fact they don’t want people to know.
Yes, and today, with improvements in Abortion techniques, I am sure she would not hesitate to support it.
I do not regard Abortion any more terrible then infanticide, just another way of doing it.
I think Planned Parenthood avoids Sanger because of her racist and eugenic background and they do not want to be exposed for what they are-baby killers.
I agree, she probably would. But that is speculation, not fact.
I agree that no self respecting conservative would hold such views.
All I can tell you that on a many a summer night as a child at Lake Tahoe,I sat around as adults sipped gin and tonics and warned of racially”inferior”people taking over.Almost all of these folks were good Republicans.
I agree with you these views are repugnant.But they were commonplace in my upbringing.
Best example is probably the reference to the book Tom Buchanan is reading in The Great Gatzby about the dark race population explosion. It is very subtle - but true.
Actually, on their website, they defend her and try to refute most of the claims in the original post by saying that they are fake, that ABC was meant to lift blacks from poverty, and they point out a lot of awards she got from Black groups. I’m not really aware of the accuracy on either side on the quotes of who said what - but the EFFECTS of abortion are clearly a eugenicist dream come true, and it is the EFFECTS that matter.
Would the Justice Brothers suffice for ol' Maggie?
Right. That is the important nad necessarydistinction. I could see this coming from country-club Republicans, Rockefeller Republicans, that type. But it's absoultely contrary to conservative principles.
Riverman, see the post below yours. That makes the necessary distinction. As you yourself said, these people were true-blue Republicans. That doesn’t mean they were conservatives. They are different animals — increasingly so everyday, I’m afraid.
Sounds to me like the 'arguments' of Holocaust deniers.
Very true but I think the liquor flow also had something to do with the extreme nature of their comments.
I have noticed that sometimes”conservatives” who have had a little too much sauce can get pretty nasty in race related matters.
Same with liberals who when sober are Roosevelt old school Democrats but sound like Marx and Mao after a few glasses of Chardonnay.
Alcohol releases the Id,thats for sure.
A recent scientific study has disproved your anecdote - so you should not use your anecdote as an example in discussion as a type of 'Conservatives are / but liberals are' argument.
Dems racist? Can't be true ... Robert KKK Byrd told me so.
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.