Birth control leader Margaret Sanger: Darwinist, racist and eugenicist

Who said that? If you wish to try to put words into my mouth, please consider that two can play that game.

No one's playing a game on this end. I merely asked you for a quote to support your position.

Looks like you don't have one after all.

Sanger, IMO, was a racist and a eugenicist (as were MANY in her day)....

And here I say, so what? Still flakking apologetically for the promoters of yesterday's racist and eugenics mouthpieces, because supposedly so many others were doing it at the time? For as common as you are implying it was, they sure went to great lengths to try to hide what they were all about, didn't they?

Like I said I don't know how true your assertion is but the way you're talking now it's like there somehow aren't racists and eugenicists today just like all those other Darwin family members and Sanger herself?

If you have a credible quote where Sanger said she was not promoting abortion with her birth control project, let's have it. I don't care if she ever said she was "repulsed" by it, most in today's society as in yesterday's are -- even many of those who promote abortion or obtain an abortion are repulsed by the procedure.

That said, they still promote it, and they still perform it. I don't care if she even said someplace that the procedure would exploit women. Maybe in her twisted mind it was just another means to an end. Who cares when you're already promoting "extermination" of certain human beings -- and not to the exclusion of women -- and trying to do your best to hide it?

It amazes me that you'd project motives of compassion upon a decidedly compassionless person as I quoted her earlier. No need to apologize for her or make her more of a saint in her motives than she was -- when she wasn't.

So, now, that quotation, please?

Quotation were provided above if you care to read, which apparently you don’t do very well.

Be careful what you accuse others of.

Go ahead. Be big. I'm not doing your research here.

I did my research and I provided my quotations already.

Go ahead. If it backs up what you say it says about abortion, then quote it.

Everybody else has successfully busted you on Sanger's infanticide solution, so I won't pile on there.

C'mon. Let's have the quote.

If Sanger advocated for abortion, Planned Parenthood would have a quote from their Patron Saint advocating it. They don’t. They can’t because she never advocated for abortion in any of her writings or published speeches. This they do not want you to know.

Nor did she advocate infanticide.

You and others are making the same mistake liberals often make, taking things out of context.

Sanger held repugnant views, but there is no reason to attribute to her things which she did not say/advocate. The things that are on record that she did say and advocate are bad enough.

It only hurts the pro-Life cause to overreach by misattributing views and speculating on motives for expediency. Her on-record racial eugenics views and advocacy of involuntary sterilization are enough to discredit her.

Don’t abstract your enemies beyond utility.

As for her contemporaries, it is important to take into account one’s time. We should do this not to justify, but to put historical figures in context. For example, I consider Thomas Jefferson a great man to be admired. His moral failings on the issue of slavery should be viewed in context of his day, not ours. Yet many people discredit him entirely, indeed the entire founding of our great country, based on the fact that the evil of slavery existed and was practiced by some of our Founding Fathers. This, I believe, is a mistake.

In Sanger’s contaception advocacy days, women routinely died or were maimed from abortions as the techniques involed were quite crude and unsanitary. She was a nurse and witnessed this first hand. That is what prompted her to seek a means of pre-empting such butchery.

She discusses abortion vs contraception at length in her writings:

http://www.bartleby.com/1013/10.html

Every Child Born is a Sign

Hope is indelibly engraved in the human heart because God our Father is life, and for eternal life and beatitude we are made.

Every child born is a sign of trust in God and man and a confirmation, at least implicit, of the hope in a future open to God’s eternity that is nourished by men and women. God has responded to this human hope, concealing Himself in time as a tiny human being.

Saint Augustine wrote: “We might have thought that your Word was far distant from union with man, if this Word had not become flesh and dwelt among us” (Conf. X, 43, 69, cited in Spe Salvi, n. 29).

Thus, let us allow ourselves to be guided by the One who in her heart and in her womb bore the Incarnate Word.

O Mary, Virgin of expectation and Mother of hope, revive the spirit of Advent in your entire Church, so that all humanity may start out anew on the journey towards Bethlehem, from which it came, and that the Sun that dawns upon us from on high will come once again to visit us (cf. Lk 1: 78), Christ our God. Amen.

Pope Benedict XVI
From his homily for the first vespers
of the first Sunday of Advent,
December 1, 2007 - St. Peter’s Basilica

Then you would absolutely support the person that said this?

“”To each group we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life”

” Darwinism had a profound influence on her thinking, “

“While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.”

”...she advocating snuffing out the lives of the infant children of large, poor families.

You are wrong. Why do you lie?

Taking sharp issue in plain words with certain other[21] eugenicists, however, Margaret Sanger completely rejected the idea of gassing the unfit. 'Nor do we believe,' wrote Sanger in Pivot of Civilization, 'that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding."

Hmmm...so you’re saying that she is not advocating the “kill(ing)” of infant children here:

Yes. She is not advocating killing the infant children. She is saying that death of later children is often the natural result and considers that the more merciful ending compared to other alternatives of life.

I am not saying I agree with her conclusions but she is NOT advocating killing.

or me, her abortion rights agenda was the worst of the three

You disagree with her desire to eliminate abortions? I didn't know.

"No one can doubt that there are times when an abortion is justifiable but they will become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception. This is the only cure for abortions."

Yes, she is. She is saying that the most merciful thing you can do in large, poor families sans contraception, is to kill its infant members. That is infanticide.

Only she didn't say that.

If you have a credible quote where Sanger said she was not promoting abortion with her birth control project, let's have it.

"No one can doubt that there are times when an abortion is justifiable but they will become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception. This is the only cure for abortions."[

Who cares when you're already promoting "extermination" of certain human beings -- and not to the exclusion of women -- and trying to do your best to hide it?

"All the news from Germany is sad & horrible, and to me more dangerous than any other war going on any where because it has so many good people who applaud the atrocities & claim its right. The sudden antagonism in Germany against the Jews & the vitriolic hatred of them is spreading underground here & is far more dangerous than the aggressive policy of the Japanese in Manchuria.."[23]

From the American-Catholic.com

“So Planned Parenthood honors this woman, an unequivocal racist and eugenicist, as a trailblazer and hero of women, particularly poor and ethnic women, and the most noteworthy socio-political cause they champion [abortion], she opposed? The irony, if she did in fact oppose abortion.”

>If you have a credible quote where Sanger said she was not promoting abortion with her birth control project, let’s have it. <

———— “Contraceptives or Abortion—which shall it be?”

The question, then, is not whether family limitation should be practiced. It is being practiced; it has been practiced for ages and it will always be practiced. The question that society must answer is this: Shall family limitation be achieved through birth control or abortion? Shall normal, safe, effective contraceptives be employed, or shall we continue to force women to the abnormal, often dangerous surgical operation?

This question, too, the church, the state and the moralist must answer. The knowledge of contraceptive methods may yet for a time be denied to the woman of the working class, but those who are responsible for denying it to her, and she herself, should understand clearly the dangers to which she is exposed because of the laws which force her into the hands of the abortionist. 9

To understand the more clearly the difference between birth control by contraceptives and family limitation through abortion it is necessary to know something of the processes of conception. Knowledge of these processes will also enable us to comprehend more thoroughly the dangers to which woman is exposed by our antiquated laws, and how much better it would be for her to employ such preventive measures as would keep her out of the hands of the abortionist, into which the laws now drive her. 10

In every woman’s ovaries are imbedded millions of ovules or eggs. They are in every female at birth, and as the girl develops into womanhood, these ovules develop also. At a certain age, varying slightly with the individual, the ripest ovule leaves the nest or ovary and comes down one of the tubes connecting with the womb and passes out of the body. When this takes place, it is said that the girl is at the age of puberty. When it reaches the womb the ovule is ready for the process of conception—that is, fertilization by the male sperm. 11

At the time the ovule is ripening, the womb is preparing to receive it. This preparation consists of a reinforced blood supply brought to its lining. If fertilization takes place, the fertilized ovule or ovum will cling to the lining of the womb and there gather its nourishment. If fertilization does not take place, the ovum passes out of the body and the uterus throws off its surplus blood supply. This is called the menstrual period. It occurs about once a month or every twenty-eight days. 12

In the male organs there are glands called testes. They secrete a fluid called the semen. In the semen is the life-giving principle called the sperm. 13

When intercourse takes place, if no preventive is employed, the semen is deposited in the woman’s vagina. The ovule is not in the vagina, but is in the womb, farther up, or perhaps in the tube on its way to the womb. As steel is attracted to the magnet, the sperm of the male starts on its way to seek the ovum. Several of these sperm cells start, but only one enters the ovum and is absorbed into it. This process is called fertilization, conception or impregnation. 14

If no children are desired, the meeting of the male sperm and the ovum must be prevented. When scientific means are employed to prevent this meeting, one is said to practice birth control. The means used is known as a contraceptive. 15

If, however, a contraceptive is not used and the sperm meets the ovule and development begins, any attempt at removing it or stopping its further growth is called abortion. 16

There is no doubt that women are apt to look upon abortion as of little consequence and to treat it accordingly. An abortion is as important a matter as a confinement and requires as much attention as the birth of a child at its full term. 17

“The immediate dangers of abortion,” says Dr. J. Clifton Edgar, in his book, “The Practice of Obstetrics,” “are hemorrhage, retention of an adherent placenta, sepsis, tetanus, perforation of the uterus. They also cause sterility, anemia, malignant diseases, displacements, neurosis, and endometritis.” 18

In plain, everyday language, in an abortion there is
always a very serious risk to the health and often to the life of the patient. 19

It is only the women of wealth who can afford the best medical skill, care and treatment both at the time of the operation and afterwards. In this way they escape the usual serious consequences. 20

The women whose incomes are limited and who must continue at work before they have recovered from the effects of an abortion are the great army of sufferers. It is among such that the deaths due to abortion usually ensue. It is these, too, who are most often forced to resort to such operations. 21

If death does not result, the woman who has undergone an abortion is not altogether safe from harm. The womb may not return to its natural size, but remain large and heavy, tending to fall away from its natural position. Abortion often leaves the uterus in a condition to conceive easily again and unless prevention is strictly followed another pregnancy will surely occur. Frequent abortions tend to cause barrenness and serious, painful pelvic ailments. These and other conditions arising from such operations are very likely to ruin a woman’s general health. 22

While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization. 23

The effects of such operations upon a woman, serious as they may be, are nothing as compared to the injury done her general health by drugs taken to produce the same result. Even such drugs as are prescribed by physicians have harmful effects, and nostrums recommended by druggists are often worse still. 24

Even more drastic may be the effect upon the unborn child, for many women fill their systems with poisonous drugs during the first weeks of their pregnancy, only to decide at last, when drugs have failed, as they usually do, to bring the child to birth. 25

There are no statistics, of course, by which we may compute the amount of suffering to mother and child from the use of such drugs, but we know that the total of physical weakness and disease must be astounding. We know that the woman’s own system feels the strain of these drugs and that the embryo is usually poisoned by them. The child is likely to be rickety, have heart trouble, kidney disorder, or to be generally weak in its powers of resistance. If it does not die before it reaches its first year, it is probable that it will have to struggle against some of these weaknesses until its adolescent period. 26

It needs no assertion of mine to call attention to the grim fact that the laws prohibiting the imparting of information concerning the preventing of conception are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths each year in this country and an untold amount of sickness and sorrow. The suffering and the death of these women is squarely upon the heads of the lawmakers and the puritanical, masculine-minded person who insist upon retaining the abominable legal restrictions. 27

Try as they will they cannot escape the truth, nor hide it under the cloak of stupid hypocrisy. If the laws against imparting knowledge of scientific birth control were repealed, nearly all of the 1,000,000 or 2,000,000 women who undergo abortions in the United States each year would escape the agony of the surgeon’s instruments and the long trail of disease, suffering and death which so often follows. 28

“He who would combat abortion,” says Dr. Hirsch, “and at the same time combat contraceptive measures may be likened to the person who would fight contagious diseases and forbid disinfection. For contraceptive measures are important weapons in the fight against abortion. 29

“America has a law since 1873 which prohibits by criminal statute the distribution and regulation of contraceptive measures. It follows, therefore, that America stands at the head of all nations in the huge number of abortions.” 30

There is the case in a nutshell. Family limitation will always be practiced as it is now being practiced—either by birth control or by abortion. We know that. The one means health and happiness—a stronger, better race. The other means disease, suffering, death. 31

The woman who goes to the abortionist’s table is not a criminal but a martyr—a martyr to the bitter, unthinkable conditions brought about by the blindness of society at large. These conditions give her the choice between the surgeon’s instruments and the sacrificing of what is highest and holiest in her—her aspiration to freedom, her desire to protect the children already hers. These conditionsnot the woman—outface society with this question: 32

“Contraceptives or Abortion—which shall it be?”

No one can doubt that there are times when an abortion is justifiable...

So you're the bullseye who's going to take the bullit for Lorrianne tonight! Stepped right into with both feet it in fact!

Worked real hard to plow through all that abortion promo lit you've got stashed in your cave, didn't you. And that's all you could come up with? CW you just make it too easy some times.

Sanger does not say she opposes abortions at all but in fact endorses their presumed necessity. Contraception by her comparison is essentially a statement made on the basis of convenience of one method of birth control over another less convenient, and is distinctly without an appeal based in any form of morality.

Those are not my words. Please retract your post. You even removed the quotes and excerpted the quote. Really. Are you a Christian?

>Sanger does not say she opposes abortions at all but in fact endorses their presumed necessity. Contraception by her comparison is essentially a statement made on the basis of convenience of one method of birth control over another less convenient, and is distinctly without an appeal based in any form of morality.
<

-——— “Contraceptives or Abortion—which shall it be?”————————————————————————————————————————