"THE REPACKAGING OF MARGARET SANGER"

I was personally offended when Planned Parenthood recently announced plans to give its Margaret Sanger Award to the BBC documentary "The Dying Rooms."

Don't get me wrong: The documentary is a wonderful and courageous piece of work. An undercover camera crew managed to gain entry to China's state-run orphanages and videotape the mistreatment and murder of the girls there. I appeared in the documentary, testifying that this tragedy is a direct consequence of the country's one-child policy.

It was the award, named after Planned Parenthood's founder, to which I objected. For Sanger had little but contempt for the "Asiatic races," as she and her eugenicist friends called them. During her lifetime, she proposed that their numbers be drastically reduced. But Sanger's preferences went beyond race. In her 1922 book "Pivot of Civilization" she unabashedly called for the extirpation of "weeds .... overrunning the humnan garden"; for the segregation of "morons, misfits, and the maladjusted"; and for the sterilization of "genetically inferior races." It was later that she singled out the Chinese, writing in her autobiography about "the incessant fertility of [the Chinese] millions spread like a plague."

There can be no doubt that Sanger would have been wildly enthusiastic over China's one-child policy, for her "Code to Stop Overproduction of Children," published in 1934, decreed that "no woman shall have a legal right to bear a child without a permit ... no permit shall be valid for more than one child." As for China's selective elimination of handicapped and abandoned babies, she would have been delighted that Beijing had heeded her decades-long call for exactly such eugenicist policies.

Indeed, Sanger likely would have turned the award on its head, choosing to praise publicly rather than implicitly criticize China's government for its dying rooms. Even the inhuman operators of Chinese orphanages might have gotten an honorable mention, in order to underline the importance of their front-line work in eliminating what she called the "unfit" and "dysgenic." Sanger was not one for subtlety in such matters. She bluntly defined "birth control," a term she coined, as "the process of weeding out the unfit" aimed at "the creation of a superman." She often opined that "the most merciful thing that the large family does to one its infant members is to kill it,", and that "all our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class."

Sanger frequently featured racists and eugencists in her magazine, the Birth Control Review. Contributor Lothrop Stoddard, who also served on Sanger's board of directors, wrote in "The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy" that "We must resolutely oppose both Asiatic permeation of white race-areas and Asiatic inundation of those non-white, but equally non-Asiatic regions inhabited by the really inferior races." Each issue of the Birth Control Review was packed with such ideas. But Sanger was not content merely to publish racist propaganda; the magazine also made concrete policy proposals, such as the creation of "moron communities," the forced production of children by the "fit," and the compulsory sterilization and even elimination of the "unfit."

Sanger's own racist views were scarcely less opprobrious. In 1939 she and Clarence Gamble made an infamous proposal call "Birth Control and the Negro," which asserted that "the poorer areas, particularly in the South ... are producing alarmingly more than their share of future generations." Her "religion of birth control" would, she wrote, "ease the financial load of caring for with public funds ... children destined to become a burden to themselves, to their family, and ultimately to the nation."

War with Germnay, combined with lurid tales of how the Nazis were putting her theories about "human weeds" and "genetically inferior races" into practice, panicked Sanger into changing her organization's name and rhetoric. "Birth control," with its undertone of coercion, became "family planning." The "unift" and the "dysgenic" became merely "the poor." The American Birth Control League became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Following Sanger's death in 1966, Planned Parenthood felt so confident that it had safely buried her past that it began boasting about "the legacy of Margaret Sanger." And it began handing out cutely named Maggie Awards to innocents who often had no inkling of her real views. The first recipient was Martin Luther King-who clearly had no idea that Sanger had inaugurated a project to set his people free from their progeny. "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," Sanger wrote Gamble. Had Dr. King known why he may have been chosen to receive the award, he would have recoiled in horror.

The good news is that Sanger's-and Planned Parenthood's-patina of respectability has worn thin in recent years. Last year Congress came within a few votes of cutting a huge chunk of the organization's federal funding. The 1995-96 Planned Parenthood annual report notes that it has closed up shop in Mississippi, and that the number of its staff and volunteers has fallen by 4,000 over the previous year.

Perhaps the next time the Maggie Award is offered to someone of character and integrity-and more than a passing knowledge of Sanger's bigotry-he will raise an indignant cry of refusal. He will have ample grounds.

You know, until I read the Sanger Project response to Mosher's article it never occured to me that the article might be slanted or distorted. I accepted it as pretty factual. Why not? Eugenics was quite the rage at the time. Why shouldn't a thoughtful person like Sanger believe in it? And I thought the post was a good one because it's always interesting to understand who the "real" person is, and because the subject is important today.

After reading the response I see Mosher's article is quite slanted and biased (deliberately so since he didn't reveal some very important and relevant things about his background) - although not necessarily entirely wrong.

But it's the Freepers responses that really trouble me. Hitler explicitly cited America's treatment of blacks and Indians as a model for his actions. He also credited Henry Ford for his anti-Semitism. I see no mention of this among Freepers. The South of that time was filled to the brim with people whose attitudes made Sanger's (even Mosher's view of them) look tame. No criticism from Freepers.

The logic seems to go like this: Sanger advocated birth control. Sanger was a racist and a eugenicist. Hitler was a racist and a eugenicist. Therefore birth control is evil.

Hitler explicitly cited America's treatment of blacks and Indians as a model for his actions. He also credited Henry Ford for his anti-Semitism. I see no mention of this among Freepers. The South of that time was filled to the brim with people whose attitudes made Sanger's (even Mosher's view of them) look tame. No criticism from Freepers.
The logic seems to go like this: Sanger advocated birth control. Sanger was a racist and a eugenicist. Hitler was a racist and a eugenicist. Therefore birth control is evil.

I think, perhaps, why you do not see great criticism from Freepers toward our country's past sins (slavery, killing of Indians, etc.) is that our country has obviously taken steps to stop the mistreatment toward blacks, ended slavery (through white people dying in a civil war, decades ago), and condemned that type of behavior. What is outrageous is the practiced genocide ongoing in China, Africa, and other countries. Birth control is not evil. Killing babies is (abortion is killing babies). Therein lies the difference. Hitler's regime, Sanger's desires, and Aristotle's "utopia," are immoral and unethical--murder of all who do not "fit" because they are less than perfect.

"Birth control is not evil. Killing babies is (abortion is killing babies)."

I only brought up the past because I thought it's use against Sanger to try to discredit birth control, abortion, etc. was selective and disengenuous (charitably). In fact the use of Sanger herself can be so characterized. I'll bet most woman of today know hardly anything about her, regardless of their position on the issues. So let's drop the past and consider the issues of today on their own terms.

I know plenty of pro-abortion people. None of them consider an abortion to be a great joy. At least one of my closest friends experienced bloody nightmares for years after undergoing one. I'm not saying there aren't people out there who are casual about it. I'm saying I don't know them and can't speak for them.

The difference between pro-abortion and pro-life is one of different perceptions of reality and different ethical structures (not ethics vs. no ethics). Pro-abortion people believe that it is entirely unrealistic to expect people to give up sexuality outide of marriage, or to be be willing to see off-spring result from such unions. Therefore it is as reasonable to legalize abortion as it is to legalize alcohol. Or - in the contrary - it is as unreasonable to prohibit abortion as it was to prohibit alcohol.

Pro-life people respond by saying there's a great difference between drunkenness and murder. And so there is. Sub-rosa of course there's the religious issue. But there are legitimate questions - probably never resolveable scientifically - about when human life actually begins. And there are questions about who actually holds life to be sacred, regardless of what is said. I was struck by the Freeper response to 911. Nuke 'em! It's not a legal issue! War! Well, we all know what that means; the mass death of innocents including babies, dogs, trees, the old, the weak, flowers. I wonder how many of those expressing such sentiments are pro-life? And of those how many will justify their position by saying that there are considerations which transcend a baby's right to life?

And finally there's the issue of birth control. Far too many pro-lifers are against birth conrtol (except abstinence) and do everything they can to prevent dissemination of information and devices - despite what you say about its morality.

The difference between pro-abortion and pro-life is one of different perceptions of reality and different ethical structures

But this can be said of most anything. The Bible addresses this:

Romans 14:(10) You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. (11) It is written: "`As surely as I live,' says the Lord, `every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'" (12) So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. (13) Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. (14) As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. (15) If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. (16) Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. (17) For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, (18) because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. (19) Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. (20) Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.

Obviously, food is only one example of what may cause someone else to stumble. Our behavior should be one which does not cause another to have problems. Things that are offensive to another, but not to ourselves, well, don't do it or discuss it with that person. That is not being a hypocrit. That is being sensitive to another. An example: if I am around someone who has a problem with my drinking alcohol (i.e., an alcoholic), then I should be sensitive and not serve alcoholic beverages if I have invited him/her to my home for dinner. If, however, it is a celebration and alcohol is expected (such as, perhaps, a New Year's party), then I should be sensitive to my friend's possible discomfort and let him/her know that alcohol will be served. They can then make an informed decision of whether or not they would want to come. (And I'm not suggesting that a New Year's celebration with alcohol would entail a wild drunken party.)

The men of the Torah and the Mishnah (and their Christian equivalents) are rightly famed for their wisdom. I am not one of them.

I would disagree with your assessment. One is not born with wisdom, it is acquired:

Proverbs 23:23 Buy truth, and do not sell it, Get wisdom and instruction and understanding.
Proverbs 4:5 Acquire wisdom! Acquire understanding! . . . (7) The beginning of wisdom is: Acquire wisdom; And with all your acquiring, get understanding. (8) Prize her, and she will exalt you; She will honor you if you embrace her.
Luke 2:52 And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

I would say, questioning leads to the acquiring of wisdom. By your questioning you are seeking wisdom and understanding.

Why exactly does Mosher's background matter? Everyone has a bias, the question is whether what he says is true or not?

Nobody is defending the mistreatment of the Indians and nobody is defending the real evils of the Old South. (I certainly don't) However, Sanger's twisted views are being perpetuated by the population controllers every day, and the folks at Planned Parenthood and IPPF are her chief defenders.

The logic seems to go like this: Sanger advocated birth control. Sanger was a racist and a eugenicist. Hitler was a racist and a eugenicist. Therefore birth control is evil.

Not exactly, what Mosher is referring to is not just birth control, but coercive population control measures which are being carried out throughout the world in the name of 'reproductive freedom.' In reality, it is just the eugenic movement repackaged.

So let's drop the past and consider the issues of today on their own terms.

Those who ignore the past are condemned to repeat it. To ignore the racist eugenic roots of population control is to ignore what it really is. I will not do so.

No they don't consider a great joy, they are victims of the abortion industry and the culture of death as well. We all suffer from it, not just the babies who are murdered.

I agree it is not a matter of ethics vs. no-ethics. Rather it is a question of an ethics which recognizes abortion as the irredemably evil act that it is and a faulty ethics which seeks to rationalize abortion as a means to end.

But there are legitimate questions - probably never resolveable scientifically - about when human life actually begins.

There are not questions about when life begins. Any biologist with half a brain knows that a fetus is life and is human. The question is whether it is a person, and this cannot demonstrated scientifically- nor does it need to be.

I was struck by the Freeper response to 911. Nuke 'em! It's not a legal issue! War! Well, we all know what that means; the mass death of innocents including babies, dogs, trees, the old, the weak, flowers. I wonder how many of those expressing such sentiments are pro-life? And of those how many will justify their position by saying that there are considerations which transcend a baby's right to life?

It's easy to argue against a straw man called a 'Freeper.' Don't generalize there are people on this forum who hold vastly different views. I think you are right in that one cannot claim to be pro-life when seeking to indiscriminately attack life in other respect. I personally believe the description of which conflicts constitute a 'just war' is very narrow.

I am personally against birth control, but the more important issue here is the coercive population control which seeks to force birth control and abortion upon 3rd world women. There have been many deaths and injuries due to the actions of those spreading the gospel of infertility.

"Everyone has a bias, the question is whether what he says is true or not"

Ideally, that's true. But in reality a person's background predisposes (prejudices) how one receives what he has to say. I trusted the WSJ so I didn't question the article. After reading the Sanger project criticism I've concluded that my trust was misplaced. Had I known Mr. Mosher's background I wouldn't have been as trusting. That's how it works for me...and for everyone else.

"However, Sanger's twisted views are being perpetuated by the population controllers every day, and the folks at Planned Parenthood and IPPF are her chief defenders."

Then let's talk about population controllers, Planned Parenthood, and IPPF. Sanger's views - and whether they are or are not twisted - are not relevant. (But the article after all was about Sanger. It wasn't I who tried to say that her views were twisted, and that therefore population control, etc. is evil)

"Not exactly, what Mosher is referring to is not just birth control, but coercive population control measures which are being carried out throughout the world in the name of 'reproductive freedom.' In reality, it is just the eugenic movement repackaged."

I don't agree, but that too is irrelevant. If you want to talk about population control, let's do that. (I can't talk about the eugenics movement. I know only roughly what it was all about)

You're second post is less civil and harder to respond to. I'll attribute it to righteous passion - and I intend no sarcasm or disrespect.

"Those who ignore the past are condemned to repeat it. To ignore the racist eugenic roots of population control is to ignore what it really is. I will not do so."

As I pointed out earlier that is a selective use of the past. You're quick to forgive America and the old South but refuse to accept the apologizies of the eugenicists. Also you're identification of current population control with eugenics and racism is not universal (to say the least).

"they are victims of the abortion industry and the culture of death as well. We all suffer from it, not just the babies who are murdered."

Self-righteous, self-serving polemics. They don't consider themselves the victims of the abortion industry. They see people of your viewpoint attempting to victimize them.

"I agree it is not a matter of ethics vs. no-ethics. Rather it is a question of an ethics which recognizes abortion as the irredemably evil act that it is and a faulty ethics which seeks to rationalize abortion as a means to end."

The same.

"There are not questions about when life begins. Any biologist with half a brain knows that a fetus is life and is human. The question is whether it is a person, and this cannot demonstrated scientifically- nor does it need to be"

Again.

"Don't generalize there are people on this forum who hold vastly different views"

One cannot help but generalize in a very limited space. The comments you refer to do not apply to you.

"the more important issue here is the coercive population control which seeks to force birth control and abortion upon 3rd world women. There have been many deaths and injuries due to the actions of those spreading the gospel of infertility."

Then let's talk about it. Because I am for it and you against. Shall you begin, or I?

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.