Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Birth control leader Margaret Sanger: Darwinist, racist and eugenicist
Journal of Creation ^ | Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: abortion; catholic; christianright; creation; eugenics; evangelical; evolution; healthcare; intelligentdesign; moralabsolutes; prolife; protestant; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-321 next last

1 posted on 12/06/2009 3:25:47 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

For the record, this post is being posted in News/Activism by the express permission of Jim Robinson, founder and owner of Free Republic:

“Debate on church doctrine and or threads on specific religious matters may be best posted in the religion forum, but the defense of religious freedom, especially against those who wish to deprive us of same belongs front and center on FR....They banned God and prayer and creationism from public schools and public places, but I’ll be damned if they’re gonna ban Him or it from FR!”

—Jim Robinson

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2203455/posts?page=78#78


2 posted on 12/06/2009 3:28:25 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Darwinism had a profound influence on her thinking, including her conversion to, and active support of, eugenics.

Doubtful. Artificial selection was around long before Darwin.

3 posted on 12/06/2009 3:31:56 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

Christian Right Ping!


4 posted on 12/06/2009 3:32:12 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Hey all you Hillary lovers; this woman is her idol.


5 posted on 12/06/2009 3:34:43 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

For me, her abortion rights agenda was the worst of the three.


6 posted on 12/06/2009 3:39:36 PM PST by mtg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtg
There is a special room in hell for Singer and additional ante rooms for abortion supporters. Interesting article in American Thinker called “Adaptive Liberal Hypocrisy” about why liberals arrive at their warped thinking and how they twist their minds into believing that abortion is “reproductive rights” versus murder.
7 posted on 12/06/2009 3:45:05 PM PST by dumpthelibs (dumpthelibs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mtg

I thought I had read that she wanted to limit the growth of deficient races via birth control, but was against abortion. It wasn’t legal anywhere back then. What ever the truth of that, she is still heinous.


8 posted on 12/06/2009 4:03:32 PM PST by joelt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Sanger said each must be a god unto themselves and her practice of ego worship shows she meant it.

Humans are not designed to live apart from their Creator.


9 posted on 12/06/2009 4:04:31 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Care to actually read the article? It’s a good read and very informative.


10 posted on 12/06/2009 4:12:46 PM PST by Liberty1970 (Democrats are not in control. God is. And Thank God for that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Her philosophy is better than we have now, which is to screw responsible mothers and fathers by forcing them through taxation to subsidize irresponsible breeders who go one to make even more irresponsible breeders.


11 posted on 12/06/2009 4:14:49 PM PST by mc6809e
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; All
O.K., Who gave out the crayons to the children? Keywords have “spammer” added so I know it has to be some childish....ummm...individual?....that thinks that's really cute. Wonder who that might be?
12 posted on 12/06/2009 4:28:45 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Considering the list posted by the mods last time, one can guess.


13 posted on 12/06/2009 4:32:12 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I forgot about that. Do you remember what post that was???


14 posted on 12/06/2009 4:34:02 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Of the keywords posted, all but four were posted by GodGunsGuts.
Thanks,
AM


15 posted on 12/06/2009 4:35:22 PM PST by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; 185JHP; 230FMJ; 69ConvertibleFirebird; Albion Wilde; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


16 posted on 12/06/2009 4:36:42 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e; Coleus; narses; Salvation; 8mmMauser; BykrBayb; floriduh voter; Lesforlife; metmom; ...
Her philosophy is better than we have now, which is to screw responsible mothers and fathers by forcing them through taxation to subsidize irresponsible breeders who go one [sic] to make even more irresponsible breeders.

So, you SUPPORT Sanger's racism and eugenics?

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"? You know the plan that Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. justified with the infamous phrase, "three generations of imbeciles are enough"?

17 posted on 12/06/2009 4:44:55 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator; All

Thanks. I think “spammer” was one of the four, yes?


18 posted on 12/06/2009 4:45:28 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

For the record, this post is being posted in News/Activism by the express permission of Jim Robinson, founder and owner of Free Republic:

“Debate on church doctrine and or threads on specific religious matters may be best posted in the religion forum, but the defense of religious freedom, especially against those who wish to deprive us of same belongs front and center on FR....They banned God and prayer and creationism from public schools and public places, but I’ll be damned if they’re gonna ban Him or it from FR!”

—Jim Robinson

For the record I am not religious at all but I strongly consider myself a conservative.

I applaud anyone who stands up for religious freedom becuase in essence they are standing up for freedom itself.

There is no reason why a person should not be able to express their views in public simply beacuse they are based upon their religious belief. I call for EVERYONE regardless of how they base their beliefs to be able to have EQUAL representation under the law. MAJORITY RULES!

The left-wing constantly tries to claim that the science is settled from issues on when Life begins, to how mankind effects the weather, to whether or not homosexuality is a corruption or not. The left-wing does not want the People to have any right to representation on any of these issues. The science is settled they claim.

The left-wing wants to ban religion because they think that they can then force others to march lockstep with them.

I applaud Free Republic for opposing such an agenda and for standing up for liberty.


19 posted on 12/06/2009 4:46:36 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf; Jim Robinson; metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; ...

Amen to that!


20 posted on 12/06/2009 4:51:51 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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.


21 posted on 12/06/2009 4:56:13 PM PST by redpoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970
Care to actually read the article?

No.

It’s a good read and very informative.

The excerpt wasn't.

22 posted on 12/06/2009 4:58:00 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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.


23 posted on 12/06/2009 5:00:02 PM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redpoll
And if you’re going to go after Charles Darwin, why not go after Lord Alfred Wallace,

Probably because Wallace retreated back to religious mysticism. Have you noticed that the YEC'ers always attack Darwin rather than the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis?

24 posted on 12/06/2009 5:01:26 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: redpoll

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!


25 posted on 12/06/2009 5:05:23 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
You are correct; however, I think Sanger's pragmatism was also a factor.

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.”

26 posted on 12/06/2009 5:14:50 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

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.


27 posted on 12/06/2009 5:26:27 PM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

28 posted on 12/06/2009 5:27:44 PM PST by narses ('in an odd way this is cheering news!'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Your last quote is out of context and is opposite the point she was making (which was against abortion).

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.

29 posted on 12/06/2009 5:33:29 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
And when it came to large, poor families, she apparently advocated post-natal abortion (read: murder) to keep their numbers within the limits set by her fellow evo-fanatical/ eugenicist coreligionists.
30 posted on 12/06/2009 5:58:03 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
So, you SUPPORT Sanger's racism and eugenics?

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.

31 posted on 12/06/2009 6:03:22 PM PST by mc6809e
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Read her quote in context and you will see what she was saying.

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.

32 posted on 12/06/2009 6:17:07 PM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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.


33 posted on 12/06/2009 6:20:14 PM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne; wagglebee

>>Read her quote in context and you will see what she was saying.<<

Where is the quote in context?


34 posted on 12/06/2009 6:21:12 PM PST by netmilsmom (I am Ilk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

http://www.bartleby.com/1013/5.html


35 posted on 12/06/2009 6:24:10 PM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Probably because Wallace retreated back to religious mysticism. Have you noticed that the YEC'ers always attack Darwin rather than the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis?

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.

36 posted on 12/06/2009 6:26:09 PM PST by Liberty1970 (Democrats are not in control. God is. And Thank God for that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

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?


37 posted on 12/06/2009 6:27:00 PM PST by netmilsmom (I am Ilk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970
Try actually reading some creationist literature some time and you will discover this. Oh wait, you already said you prefer ignorance on that point.

Yes. I choose to be ignorant of ignorance. Good bye.

38 posted on 12/06/2009 6:28:15 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
As far as I know, Margaret Sanger never considered herself a Spartanist, however she most certainly did consider herself an evolutionist.

It's guilt by association. Should Judaism and Christianity be condemned because Muslim terrorists claim to worship the same God?

39 posted on 12/06/2009 6:32:10 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

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


40 posted on 12/06/2009 6:38:12 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

I suggest you read the whole thing. The quote is in paragraph 10. (The oft misquoted quote does not have the word “youngest” in it) However, you should read the entire entry to see what she is saying.

In paragraph 9 and the preceeding table, she is making the case that infaticide is occuring in large poor families.

She is attibuting many things to poverty: ill health, malnutrition, violence, prostitution, crime, etc etc. She is advocating for smaller families via contraception to eliminate those ills.

If you read all of her writings you will find that she did not advocate abortion because she saw it as further violation of women by unscrupulous men (she was right about that) and a means for men to get out of responsibility for the consequences of sex.


41 posted on 12/06/2009 6:40:34 PM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e
Her philosophy is better than we have now, which is to screw responsible mothers and fathers by forcing them through taxation to subsidize irresponsible breeders who go one to make even more irresponsible breeders.

What are you doing on FR supporting racism, eugenics, and abortion?

42 posted on 12/06/2009 6:40:56 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

No, she is not advocating infanticide. She is saying it is already widely practiced. She uses the argument later on to buttress her advocacy of contraception.


43 posted on 12/06/2009 6:41:38 PM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; Lorianne
What do we have here. Another Planned Parenthood apologist?

Who was Margaret Sanger? Eugenics Society, life fellow. American Eugenics Society. Founder of Planned Parenthood. Head of "The Negro Project." Girlfriend of Havelock Ellis (eugenist) and H. G. Wells (eugenist).

Term "Eugenics" coined first by Francis Galton (Chuckie Darwin's cousin). It's really kind of a family thing too: Francis Galton Darwin Medalist 1902. Charles Darwin's cousin. Coined the word eugenics in the early 1880s. Founded the Eugenics Society (the British one).

Francis Darwin Darwin Medalist 1912. Cambridge Eugenics Society member.

Horace Darwin Cambridge Eugenics Society

George Howard Darwin Cambridge Eugenics Society. Charles Darwin's son.

Charles Galton Darwin Eugenics Society life fellow, vice-president 1939, director 1939, president 1953-1959, committee 1960. Chairman of Promising Families. Grandson of Charles Darwin, son of George Howard Darwin. Wrote for the racist journal Mankind Quarterly, which was edited by Otmar Von Verschuer (Josef Mengele's mentor at Auschwitz).

Sanger... Eugenics... so what, right?

Sanger is just so quotable...

"Before eugenicists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed, they must first clear the way for birth control. Like the advocates for birth control, the eugenicists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit." Sanger, Birth Control and Racial Betterment, 1919

“Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents.“

It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant."

The Review printed an excerpt of an address Sanger gave in 1926. In it she said:

"It now remains for the U.S. government to set a sensible example to the world by offering a bonus or yearly pension to all obviously unfit parents who allow themselves to be sterilized by harmless and scientific means. In this way the moron and the diseased would have no posterity to inherit their unhappy condition. The number of the feeble-minded would decrease and a heavy burden would be lifted from the shoulders of the fit."

She founded The Harlem Clinic: 1929. The American Birth Control League. (precursor organization to Planned Parenthood) “was established for the benefit of the colored people,” Sanger wrote in a letter to Dr. W. E. B. duBois The Negro Project (1939) was promoted by Margaret Sanger to the influential within the African American community for the purpose of reducing the African American population.

Her other outfit the "Birth Control Federation of America" (BCFA) was vested with promotion of birth control and sterilization in the African American community. Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, of the soap-manufacturing company Procter and Gamble, was nominated to be the BCFA regional director of the South. Gamble wrote a memorandum in November 1939 entitled “Suggestions for the Negro Project,” in which he recognized that “black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot.” Gamble suggested that black leaders be placed in positions where it would appear they were in charge. Yet Sanger's reply reflects Gamble's ambivalence about having blacks in authoritative positions:

“I note that you doubt it worthwhile to employ a full-time Negro physician. It seems to me from my experience ... that, while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table, which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts. They do not do this with white people and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and ... knowledge, which ... will have far-reaching results among the colored people.”

Sanger knew blacks were a religious people—and how useful ministers would be to her project. In the context of summoning the support of "intellectuals" in launching her "Negro Project" (1939) she wrote in the same letter to Gamble:

“The minister's work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. 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."

From Dr. Dorothy Boulding Ferebee, “Planned Parenthood as a Public Health For the Negro Race,” BCFA Annual Meeting, 29 January 1942: "“The future program [of Planned Parenthood] should center around more education in the field through the work of a professional Negro worker, because those of us who believe that the benefits of Planned Parenthood as a vital key to the elimination of human waste must reach the entire population."

Everybody seems to have gotten Sanger's memo promoting "extermination." Is there a credible quotation of Sanger's that indicates she did not equate "birth control" with abortion although she spoke very freely of "extermination" -- a term most commonly applied to eliminiating already viable, living beings?

All PP is about today is abortion. When it comes to "extermination" it seems they've gotten the memo too.

44 posted on 12/06/2009 6:45:50 PM PST by Agamemnon (Intelligent Design is to evolution what the Swift Boat Vets were to the Kerry campaign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

She is commenting on the practice of infanticide and saying that it is more merciful to kill an infant child of a large family than to let it live. That is infanticide, no matter which way you slice it...and Sanger is endorsing it under the circumstances she describes.


45 posted on 12/06/2009 6:51:45 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon

Sanger... Eugenics... so what, right?

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

I am in no way “apologizing” for Sanger. I am, however, attempting to steer potential pro-Life people away from making incorrect statements because it hurts the pro-Life cause. Sanger, IMO, was a racist and a eugenicist (as were MANY in her day) and that is very bad. But she did not advocate for abortion as a means to those ends, unlike many do today. She correctly foresaw that abortion would be used to exploit women for nefarious ends. She believed widely available contraception and reproductive education was a way to prevent that happening.


46 posted on 12/06/2009 6:54:28 PM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

correction: make that “large, poor family”...she advocating snuffing out the lives of the infant children of large, poor families.


47 posted on 12/06/2009 6:54:58 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

She is not endorsing it. She is using it to make a case for contraception.


48 posted on 12/06/2009 6:55:17 PM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

No she is not.


49 posted on 12/06/2009 6:56:42 PM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62; GodGunsGuts
It's guilt by association. Should Judaism and Christianity be condemned because Muslim terrorists claim to worship the same God?

But they don't worship the same God.

Muslims deny the deity of Christ. They believe in Allah, which is clearly not the God who so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.

50 posted on 12/06/2009 6:57:10 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-321 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson