Birth control leader Margaret Sanger: Darwinist, racist and eugenicist

Journal of Creation ^ | Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood, the leading organization advocating abortion in the United States today. Darwinism had a profound influence on her thinking, including her conversion to, and active support of, eugenics. She was specifically concerned with reducing the population of the ‘less fit’, including ‘inferior races’ such as ‘Negroes’. One major result of her lifelong work was to support the sexual revolution that has radically changed our society...

[metmom]

Except in the case of Darwinism, the whole ideology and the ToE has been intertwined with racism, eugenics, abortion, etc from the beginning.

This isn’t a matter of someone taking off with the idea some years after Darwin died. He and his contemporaries took off with this from the very beginning. The ToE is part and parcel of Darwinism.

While his work and observations as a naturalist were revolutionary and contributed to science, as many other’s work did, HE didn’t divorce it from politics, religion, or ideology.

There is no denying the historical record of what Darwin and his contemporaries said and advocated, and did. If people wish to disassociate the ToE from Darwinism as an ideology, they are going to have to make an active effort to do so.

Otherwise, they are going to be seen as condoning his ideology, not just supporting the work he did concerning the ToE itself, as a scientific theory.

[tacticalogic]

There is no denying the historical record of what Darwin and his contemporaries said and advocated, and did. If people wish to disassociate the ToE from Darwinism as an ideology, they are going to have to make an active effort to do so.

That doesn't appear to be possible. As soon as any effort is made to do that, it's attacked as an attempt to ignore or whitewash the ideology.

[wagglebee]

"An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it".

Got it, Stalin and Mao killed well over 100 million people, but Marx gets a pass.

[tacticalogic]

Got it, Stalin and Mao killed well over 100 million people, but Marx gets a pass.

If you want to think that's what it means, and let people base their assement of your opinions on that kind of anaylsis, you can do that.

[wagglebee]

If you want to think that's what it means, and let people base their assement of your opinions on that kind of anaylsis, you can do that.

Let's see:

In post #259, I asked:
As far as, "every dubious historical figure that every made reference to their theories," are you of the opinion that Karl Marx should be held blameless for the death and destruction that resulted from communism?

In post #260, you responded:
I think there is truth in what Don Marquis said:
"An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it".

So, please explain how I possibly reached the wrong conclusion in post #263 when I wrote:
Got it, Stalin and Mao killed well over 100 million people, but Marx gets a pass.

[tacticalogic]

So, please explain how I possibly reached the wrong conclusion in post #263 when I wrote: Got it, Stalin and Mao killed well over 100 million people, but Marx gets a pass.

Because they could just as easily have killed 100 million people over some other idea.

[wagglebee]

Because they could just as easily have killed 100 million people over some other idea.

But, they didn't.

Stalin and Mao carried communism to its logical conclusion, just like Hitler and Sanger carried eugenics to its logical conclusion.

[tacticalogic]

And TV evangeists scam people. You submit that the measure of an idea is what insane people do with it.

[wagglebee]

And TV evangeists scam people. You submit that the measure of an idea is what insane people do with it.

Yet there is a difference. The overwhelming majority of clergymen are honest and adhere to Biblical principles.

ALL communist leaders eventually use oppression and the only logical application to eugenics is to either kill the living or make sure they aren't born in the first place.

[tacticalogic]

Yet there is a difference. The overwhelming majority of clergymen are honest and adhere to Biblical principles.

ALL communist leaders eventually use oppression and the only logical application to eugenics is to either kill the living or make sure they aren't born in the first place.

Yet the vast majority of people who believe the ToE is plausible are not eugenecists or communist leaders, so why make the association?

[wagglebee]

Yet the vast majority of people who believe the ToE is plausible are not eugenecists or communist leaders, so why make the association?

Go back and read the thread. This thread was NEVER about evolution until the Darwin apologists showed up. The FACT is that the Darwin family originated much of the theory that eugenicists use and they were the chief promoters of it for decades.

Communism was never mentioned until Darwinists started saying that the Darwins were not responsible for the results of eugenics.

[Agamemnon]

Darwinism has nothing in common with true conservatism and everything in common with totalitarian socialistic, communistic liberalism.

If one wonders why the sniveling Darwinists and evo-trolls who show up here are as ugly in their conduct and decorum as they all are, it is simply because they are not true conservatives and they intend to infiltrate this forum for the purposes of disrupting FR in general.

As a scientist I am always happy to engage in a polite discussion having to do with points of science. I routinely engage in such pleasant discussions with some here on FR and with some of the most brilliant scientific minds in their therapeutic research fields in the course of my profession. As a biblicist, I welcome a discussion which affirms the authority of Scripture. The founders of our nation did no less.

Sadly, all the evo-trolls want to talk about is their personal paganism as practiced in their Temple of Darwin. No science at all, just "scientism." The high priests of "Peer Review," like the prophets of Baal writhe and scream from the depths of their pained and tortured little egos as the pillars of the OZ they erected tumbles down around them.

"Peer review" corrupted by self-serving politics: as true of Darwinian materialistic evolution as it is of AGW.

Evo-trolls resemble Obama's co-dependent religionists. Obama religionists worship everything Obama, they derive their personal standing, reputation, and reason for existence from Obama. It's all about Obama and Obama's co-dependent religionists inflate their egos with Obama's MSM-blessed ego.

Similarly, evo-trolls worship everything darwinistic and materialistic, derive their personal standing, reputation and reason for existence from their Darwinistic religion of "scientism." It's all about Darwin, "scientism," and "scientism's" co-dependent religionists inflate their egos with MSM-"peer reviewed" and blessed Darwinism.

See a pattern?

To parody a well known Scripture passage: The wages of "scientism" is death... death of freedom, death of liberty, death of the unborn, death of true conservatism, death of society ordered by biblical moral principles.

"Scientism" embodies the Culture of Death

Just mention the name Darwin and those pedestrian intellect evo-trolls leap to its defense. The Darwin family coined the term "eugenics" and promoted the principles of eugenics as did the Huxley spawn, the Paul Popenoes and the Margaret Sangers.

Evo-trolls of late have been defending the likes of the eugenists right here on FR. There is no distance between the modern fundamentals of eugenics as espoused by the Darwin family and today's Sanger-ite abortion promoters at Planned Parenthood.

There's little wonder then why Darwin Central is little more than the butt-ugly step-child of DU and dailyKos. Evo-trolls and Obamanistas are cut from the same cloth, and humanistically speaking worship many of the same kinds of things. Above all, they worship themselves.

By contrast, FR to my knowledge and in my 11 years' residence here has in principle promoted the worship of God over the mere elevation of self, or anyone's "scientism"-laced ego at the expense of God.

One wonders why the pretenders to science show up here at all, but for the routinely demonstated purposes of disrupting threads and key word searches.

The sooner this fact is recognized the sooner the anti-conservative evo-tolls and "re-treads-of-DC-past-and-present" can be called out for what they are and dealt with accordingly.

Celebrate Life, by banning the Culture of Death.

FReegards!

[tacticalogic]

Go back and read the thread. This thread was NEVER about evolution until the Darwin apologists showed up. The FACT is that the Darwin family originated much of the theory that eugenicists use and they were the chief promoters of it for decades.

I see. So it's all about an idea and a movement that been dead and buried for decades.

[metmom]

I see. So it's all about an idea and a movement that been dead and buried for decades.

It's not been dead and buried for decades. It's still alive and well.

It's merely been repackaged in the hopes that nobody is going to recognize it, and its useful idiots fail to do so.

And so they support it, not even knowing that they are being used.

[wagglebee]

I see. So it's all about an idea and a movement that been dead and buried for decades.

You think eugenics has been "dead and buried for decades"?

The eugenics movement is stronger and more dangerous now than at any point in history. Worldwide eugenics is presently responsible for over ONE HUNDRED DEATHS PER MINUTE.

[tacticalogic]

The eugenics movement is stronger and more dangerous now than at any point in history. Worldwide eugenics is presently responsible for over ONE HUNDRED DEATHS PER MINUTE.

"Eugenics" or "birth control"?

[metmom]

wagglebee

How could birth control be responsible for that many deaths?

Every time someone starts about talking about abortion and eugenics, someone is guaranteed to knee jerk by dragging the morality of birth control into it.

Why are you changing the subject anyway?

[tacticalogic]

Every time someone starts about talking about abortion and eugenics, someone is guaranteed to knee jerk by dragging the morality of birth control into it.

Why are you changing the subject anyway?

I thought the subject was supposed to be eugenics. When did it become about abortion?

[wagglebee]

"Eugenics" or "birth control"?

Abortion is a form of eugenics. There are about 143,000 abortions performed each day worldwide.

Or are you one of these types who considers abortion to be a form of birth control?

[YHAOS]

“but when you purposely lie about me . . .”

So you assert. An assertion does not prove the fact. Make your case. State the facts. Present relevant quotes. Outline your logic. Demonstrate that your differences with your antagonist are not primarily differences of viewpoints, interpretations, and understandings. Support your assertions and demand that your antagonist do the same. Be prepared to accept the reality that you may not be able to convince your antagonist to your point of view, even though, in your opinion, you have the better case.

Above all, maintain control of your good manners, lest they desert you when you most stand in need of them. Class is not class if it has to constantly remind us of its superiority.

“you will reap the wrath.”

A snit of towering rage is not an effective tool of argumentation. It seldom impresses, and then only if exercised sparingly.

“Why don’t you go after Waggle for passing on absolute lies about me?”

Your antagonist has requested you support your allegations. To the best of my knowledge, you have not. If you can do that, that will be sufficient rebuke.

“That’s what I thought...”

You thought what?