Posted on 12/06/2009 3:25:47 PM PST by 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
I’m in agreement about disgust for Margaret Sanger and her perverse racist views, but pulling poor old Charles Darwin into it stretches credulity. The Spartans were practicing their own eugenics program 2,000 years before Margaret Sanger, and anyone who’s worked with livestock knew about selective breeding - and there have been other cultures who tried to apply that knowledge to humanity without any knowledge at all of evolution, starting with the king’s harem and systems with arranged marriages. From what I know about Darwin, he was a believing Christian, a really decent man, a person who would be utterly disgusted and revulsed over what people like Sanger, Stalin, and other did with his ideas. If Sanger is roasting in hell for her beliefs, then Darwin is with the Lord crying over the sins of God’s children, wondering why anyone would use ideas from his observations of finches and worms to kill children and wipe out whole races.
And if you’re going to go after Charles Darwin, why not go after Lord Alfred Wallace, whose contribution to the idea of evolution is just as profound as Darwin - and maybe even more important? Just asking.
No.
It’s a good read and very informative.
The excerpt wasn't.
For the record, Sanger was opposed to abortion (called it an abominable practice). But she WAS an eugenicists and a racist by today’s standards. And she did support forced sterilizations.
Even Planned Parenthood hides the fact that Sanger did not advocate for abortion.
Probably because Wallace retreated back to religious mysticism. Have you noticed that the YEC'ers always attack Darwin rather than the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis?
As far as I know, Margaret Sanger never considered herself a Spartanist, however she most certainly did consider herself an evolutionist. But you ever find any documentation to that effect, be sure and post it, and I’ll be sure to ping my list :o)
PS As for your comments about your disgust for Margaret Sanger, I couldn’t agree with you more!
Sanger knew that early 20th century society would NEVER support abortion and she also knew that the support she enjoyed from prominent eugenicists would likely disappear if she promoted abortion. So, she pushed for forced sterilization because she believed that sterilizing "lesser" people would ultimately have the same result as abortion.
Keep in mind that she DID make these statements:
“More children from the fit, less from the unfit. That is the aim of birth control.”
“Birth control to create a race of thoroughbreds.”
“The kindest thing that a large family can do for its youngest member is to kill it.”
Your last quote is out of context and is opposite the point she was making (which was against abortion).
There is no indication from any of her writings and speeches that she supported or advocated abortion or was making any compromise on the issue.
Her main thing was contraception, which she saw as eradicating poverty and the practice of abortion. (Turns out she was wrong about that).
She also advocated contraception and sterilization (forced if necessary) in order to reduce the numbers of those she deemed ‘unfit’.
She was a eugenicist, as were many prominent people of her day, including Presidents.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
In what way.
There is no indication from any of her writings and speeches that she supported or advocated abortion or was making any compromise on the issue.
No, she supported programs that would prevent those she didn't want to have children from getting pregnant in the first place.
Her main thing was contraception, which she saw as eradicating poverty and the practice of abortion. (Turns out she was wrong about that).
She wanted to eradicate poverty by sterilizing the poor.
I merely suggested a list of preferences. I do prefer eugenics over state funded dysgenics, which is what we have now.
What exactly do you think should be done with those you call "irresponsible breeders who go one [sic] to make even more irresponsible breeders"?
Do you support the forced sterilization of those you consider "irresponsible breeders"?
Nothing need be forced. I'd pay to subsidize the voluntary sterilization of anyone so mentally deficient that they can't take care of their own children.
No, she supported programs that would prevent those she didn't want to have children from getting pregnant in the first place.
True, that's what she advocated.
She wanted to eradicate poverty by sterilizing the poor.
Her main thrust was for widely available contraception, which she saw as eliminating or greatly reducing poverty, and also for eliminating abortion and infanticide, which she felt occured out of desperation as a result of poverty. It must be remembered, contraception or even distributing information about contraceptive techniques was illegal in her day.
Sterilization was more for the 'unfit' (in her estimation). Many people of her day advocated for the same and many States enacted legislation to carry out that advocacy. Eugenics was a quite popular idea in the first half of the 20th century, before WWII.
She did not advocate that. In fact, she expressly advocated for contraception to eradicate that practice.
Sanger was opposed to abortion and infaticide, which she claimed were widely practiced in secret. She used the fact that those two practices were widely practiced (according to her) to advocate for contraception.
>>Read her quote in context and you will see what she was saying.<<
Where is the quote in context?
Darwin is prominent because Darwinists continue to worship him, thus justifying a critical response. But you are simply ignorant when you imagine that criticism of modern schools of evolutionary thought are lacking.
Try actually reading some creationist literature some time and you will discover this. Oh wait, you already said you prefer ignorance on that point.
Anyway, the notion that there is a 'modern evolutionary synthesis' is a joke. Coming unglued at the seams is more like it. Ask any two (much less more) evolutionists to detail this so-called synthesis and you will soon see my point.
I did an Ctrl-F to find the word “youngest” in that link and it is not there.
Could you direct me to the quote?
Yes. I choose to be ignorant of ignorance. Good bye.
It's guilt by association. Should Judaism and Christianity be condemned because Muslim terrorists claim to worship the same God?
Hmmm...so you’re saying that she is not advocating the “kill(ing)” of infant children here:
” Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. The same factors which create the terrible infant mortality rate, and which swell the death rate of children between the ages of one and five, operate even more extensively to lower the health rate of the surviving members. Moreover, the overcrowded homes of large families reared in poverty further contribute to this condition. Lack of medical attention is still another factor, so that the child who must struggle for health in competition with other members of a closely packed family has still great difficulties to meet after its poor constitution and malnutrition have been accounted for.”
http://www.bartleby.com/1013/5.html
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.