Margaret Sanger's Legacy: Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Writer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Sweetcakes:
If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one.
Click to expand...
Translation: If you don’t believe in murder, don’t murder anyone.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
Christian4life:
Yes Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist, this is obvious not only by several of her books, but also by the magazine she ran “The Birth Control Review” whose contributors included several members of the Nazi party. She also was affiliated with the American Nazi sympathist party, America First, but this info is difficult to verify as she did such a marvelous job covering it up in her later years …
Click to expand...
Margaret Sanger is not the only one that has done “a marvelous job covering it up”.Perhaps more surprising still is the eugenic philosophy advocated by the feminist icon Margaret Sanger, the inspiration behind Planned Parenthood. Sanger called for the sterilization of “genetically inferior races” in her 1922 tome Pivot of Civilization. The Sanger Institute, which has not sought to distance itself from Margaret Sanger, is now at the front line of research in the Human Genome Project.

The philosophy of eugenics may have become synonymous with the Third Reich. But there is plenty of evidence to show that it is accepted - and, indeed, supported - by many of the most powerful people and organizations in the present-day United States, including the family that has produced two American presidents …

surprising links between Bush and Hitler
 
This is a wee bit off the subject but I used to live in Salem too! Writer, I don’t know if you are involved in the oregon chapter of NRLC, but since they are very active in your area, I do hope you’ll check it out when you have the time. Their website is also a good resource for information on abortion and related issues.
 
40.png
Writer:
Does anyone have any observations that they’d like to share on this topic–e.g. ways to battle this culture?
Click to expand...
"The very word eugenics is in disrepute in some quarters … We must ask ourselves, what have we done wrong?
“I think we have failed to take into account a trait which is almost
universal and is very deep in human nature. People simply are not willing to accept the idea that the genetic base on which their character was formed is inferior and should not be repeated in the next generation. We have asked whole groups of people to accept this idea and we have asked individuals to accept it. They have constantly refused and we have all but killed the eugenic movement … they won’t accept the idea that they are in general second rate. We must rely on other motivation. … it is surely possible to build a system of voluntary unconscious selection. But the reasons advanced must be generally acceptable reasons. Let’s stop telling anyone that they have a generally inferior genetic quality, for they will never agree. Let’s base our proposals on the desirability of having children born in homes where they will get affectionate and responsible care, and perhaps our proposals will be accepted.” (from “Galton and Mid Century Eugenics” by Frederick Osborn, Galton Lecture 1956, in Eugenics Review, vol. 48, 1, 1956)
To combat eugenics, I suppose first, one must remind people that they, the majority, are being labeled unfit and undesirable.
 
Second, is the illogic of the whole idea. If we are allowed to kill a baby partially born, is the oxygenation of his or her blood such a great barrier as to prevent killing a full-grown adult? This is the very reason abortion inevitably leads its supporters to euthanasia. The abortion debate is at its heart a fight about rights: the rights of the unborn, the disabled, the minority, and the woman. Just like the Dredd Scott decision, the Supreme Court has again chosen to revoke citizenship and protection of the law to a group which cannot speak up for itself (Pres. Reagan makes a great argument “Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation”) On disabled rights, Roe v. Wade also led to Pearl v. Buck a decade later, as the Supreme Court allowed parents to kill their disabled child. The Alan Guttmacher Institute also claims that 60% of all abortions are performed on minorities; at this rate, Margaret’s racist goals of eliminating minority “weeds” will soon be achieved. Finally, it is a fight about a woman’s rights; her right to be informed and her right to life, as related to abortion’s link to breast cancer (www.abortionbreastcancer.com ).And her right to concieve as child-bearing is demonized as a burden and disease upon women. How long can the human race survive such a philosophy?
"If we go on tolerating legalized abortion, it will amount to collective suicide." -Malcolm Muggeridge
 
The Susan B Anthony association has quite a bit of interesting information about Sanger and the other early “feminists.” I know they have a website. Maybe someone has the link.

Lisa N
 
40.png
Christian4life:
This is a wee bit off the subject but I used to live in Salem too! Writer, I don’t know if you are involved in the oregon chapter of NRLC, but since they are very active in your area, I do hope you’ll check it out when you have the time. Their website is also a good resource for information on abortion and related issues.
Click to expand...
Thank you… I should check them out. Did you, by chance, attend Queen of Peace? We love our church…
 
40.png
Christian4life:
Second, is the illogic of the whole idea. If we are allowed to kill a baby partially born, is the oxygenation of his or her blood such a great barrier as to prevent killing a full-grown adult? This is the very reason abortion inevitably leads its supporters to euthanasia. The abortion debate is at its heart a fight about rights: the rights of the unborn, the disabled, the minority, and the woman. Just like the Dredd Scott decision, the Supreme Court has again chosen to revoke citizenship and protection of the law to a group which cannot speak up for itself (Pres. Reagan makes a great argument “Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation”) On disabled rights, Roe v. Wade also led to Pearl v. Buck a decade later, as the Supreme Court allowed parents to kill their disabled child. The Alan Guttmacher Institute also claims that 60% of all abortions are performed on minorities; at this rate, Margaret’s racist goals of eliminating minority “weeds” will soon be achieved. Finally, it is a fight about a woman’s rights; her right to be informed and her right to life, as related to abortion’s link to breast cancer (www.abortionbreastcancer.com ).And her right to concieve as child-bearing is demonized as a burden and disease upon women. How long can the human race survive such a philosophy?
"If we go on tolerating legalized abortion, it will amount to collective suicide." -Malcolm Muggeridge
Click to expand...
I love your Muggeridge quote! What is the reference for that one?
 
I was looking for info to link abortion to eugenics even today (so that noone can say that was then, but this is now) as an argument for my brother who doesn’t see a problem with it and I saw this link. Unlike many on the left, I decided to try to objectively see what PP had to say about its founder. They address quotes that one might find on Life Dynamics Intl. or HLI.org and refute them as out of context (such as her Negro Project not being used to rid white America of blacks and that she was not racist and did not see any group as being unfit). Is there a site that counters those refutations? Thanks!

plannedparenthood.org/about/thisispp/sanger.html

That is not to say I sympathize with them now. Abortion and contraception of all kinds is still objectively evil in all circumstances. Also, they are still discriminating against a certain type of people (the “unfit” whoever these people believe them to be) and you oddly (the cynical, myself when I get that way, would see it as no suprise for certain reasons) hear nothing from civil rights leaders about this.
 
hli.org/bcr_intro.html

George Weigel said you could find the truth that a fetus is not just a blob to convince those who believe everything they hear on tv, but he didn’t mention a source. Anybody know of such a source that could not be easily (some “open-minded” people will just not open their mind to the other side on controversial matters) blown off as religiousand/or conservative in nature. Thanks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top