Thread by me.
December 3, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In 1957, an aging Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and the international birth control movement, agreed to an interview with CBS News Mike Wallace. In stark contrast with the sympathetic reception Sanger could expect to receive today in a network television interview, Wallace hammered Sanger with difficult questions and caught her in contradictions, while Sanger squirmed, fidgeted, and denied statements she had made only a week earlier in pre-interview discussions with CBS staff.
This fascinating and sometimes chilling interview with Sanger can be found at the website of the Harry Ransom Center, which is located at the University of Texas, and which has published all of the installments of the Mike Wallace Interview from 1957 and 1958. In the interview, Sanger expounds upon her views on a variety of topics, including birth control, eugenics, population growth, homosexuality, marriage, and religion.
Among the more revealing moments is Sangers explanation of the greatest sin of having children who violate her eugenic standards, and have no chance ... to be a human being practically.
Asked if she believes in sin, Sanger tells Wallace: I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world, that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically, delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things, just marked when theyre born. That to me is the greatest sin that a people can commit.
However, pressed by Wallace about her beliefs about sin, Sanger at first refuses to answer, and then balks at recognizing infidelity as such. I dont know about infidelity, it has so many personalities to it, and what a persons own belief is, I couldnt generalize, she says, after Wallace insists that she respond to the question.
Sanger balks even more when Wallace begins to cite statements she has made publicly, even to his own staff, claiming that she has been misquoted. At first Sanger rejects the claim made in the womans magazine Redbook, in reference to contraception, that immunity from parenthood encourages promiscuity particularly when unmarried persons can so easily avail themselves of the [birth control] devices. But Wallace then reads Sangers own words from a Philadelphia Daily News article from 1942, encouraging the use of birth control to avoid illegitimacy.
You were not advocating Christian morality but rather ways for single women to avoid bearing illegitimate children, Wallace tells her. I doubt it, Sanger responds curtly. I dont believe I ever made such a remark. Sanger also denies telling a CBS staff member that it should be made illegal for any religious group to prohibit dissemination of birth control, even among its own members. I dont think I said it quite that way, she protests.
Given Margaret Sangers role in founding Planned Parenthood, one might expect the interview to mention abortion, but the topic is only addressed in passing. When the interview was conducted in 1957, abortion was illegal throughout the United States, and Sanger always claimed to oppose the practice, as did Planned Parenthood at that time. However Planned Parenthood would go on after Sangers death in 1966 to become the biggest abortion provider in the world, focusing mainly on the impoverished groups whom she had once referred to as human waste.
Asked about her belief in God, in a sense of a divine being that rewards or punishes after death, Sanger responds, I have a different attitude about the divine. I feel that we have divinity within us. And the more we express the good part of our lives, the more the divine within us expresses itself. She claimed to be Episcopalian.
See the whole interview here.
Both threads by me.
Belgiums euthanasia law permits people to be killed by doctors because they are disabled. In such a discriminatory setting, is it any wonder that a Belgian court has now approved the odious notion of a wrongful life. From the story (may have to hit translation button):
The Court of Appeal in Brussels responds positively to this extremely sensitive issue. After noting that certainly, the misdiagnosis did not cause the childs disability, which existed before the error and which could not be remedied, the Court considers that, however, the injury must be compensated is not the disability itself, but the fact of being born with such disabilities. Thus, the child, the voice of his parents, may claim compensation for physicians who, through their fault, some were injured and legitimate interest to be a therapeutic abortion, as granted that his mother would have been appeal if it had been duly informed of the condition during pregnancy. In the opinion of the Court, by entering in the Penal Code article 350, paragraph 2, 4, authorizing therapeutic abortion, the legislature must have intended to help avoid giving birth to children with abnormalities serious, having regard not only to the interests of the mother but also to that of the unborn child itself.
This is the first time in Belgium that an appellate court receives such a wrongful life action (wrongful life). Previously, a trial court of first instance of Brussels, released April 21, 2004, had adopted a similar solution, about a child with Down syndrome.
This is life unworthy of life thinking, useless eater invidious discrimination against people with disabilities of the most pronounced kind. It breeds a deadly contempt for our brothers and sisters with disabilities. And the scary part: The Belgians see themselves as the epitome of modern tolerance because they couch their bigotry in oozing words of compa-aaaaa-ssssssion! Vile and disgusting.
Culture of death, Wesley? What culture of death?
______________________________________________________
This is the Dutch in a nutshell: If it is transparent, then it is okay. That opens the door to a lot of wickedness. Take infanticide. Dutch doctors kill babies born with terminal and disabling conditions. But rather than being ashamed, some are apparently proud because it is done according to procedure. From a Radio Netherlands Worldwide report:
Instead of emulation, Dutch euthanasia policies have over the past ten years mainly met with criticism: After euthanasia and infanticide, the next step in the Netherlands will most likely be a suicide pill for people who are tired of life, even though it will probably take a few years before its legal. (Correspondent Greg Burke, Fox News)
Uh, the tired of life proposal was first made by the then Minister of Health the day after euthanasia was formally legalized, and is now to be debated in the Parliament after to a petition signed by more than 100,000 Dutch citizens demanded it:
The Nazi laws and Hitlers ideas have made a comeback in Dutch euthanasia laws and the debate about how sick children are killed. (Italian minister Carlo Giovanardi) The criticisms regarding the killing of children refer to a medical protocol drawn up by neonatologists for the termination of life for newborn babies who are suffering unbearable pain without a prospect of improvement. Professor Van Leeuwen says: You could ask yourself if it was even necessary.
I see: Killing babies is okay because , We have a protocol. How very postmodern Dutch.
And here is a really telling point: As I write this, the Dutch are prosecuting a right wing politician for making nasty comments about the Koran. If convicted, he will face jail for a felony. But doctors openly commit infanticidewhich remains murder under Dutch lawand they are applauded. Free speech, no! Killing, yes!
what an incredible piece of history... how awesome, wagglebee! thanks for the link, and for the ping. best to you — I do hope you have a good Christmas and a wonderful new year. love and hugs...