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 ...
http://www.bartleby.com/1013/5.html
It doesn't match the wording exactly as given by Wagglebee, which may be why netmilsmom didn't find it in a search of the page. Wagglebee gave the quote as “The kindest thing that a large family can do for its youngest member is to kill it.” In Lorianne's link, the quote is " The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Here it is in context:
10 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.
Obviously, Wagglebee didn't distort the context at all. Sanger said what she said. And I believe she meant it.
Thanks Wagglebee. I wish I had time to do that more often.
WOW!!!!
Infanticide. Isn’t that special.
So Lorianne, is this the context that you were talking about?
I gave the context. You said you WOULD NOT read it.
That’s deliberate ignorance.
That’s not the entire context. You have to read the whole thing. Plus you have to know the context of the poor immigants in that time period and the fact that infanticide (or neglect) was common in that period in poor families. (Hint: Look up baby farming in England)
If you only want a soundbite, you’re not wanting context.
What you want is the equivalent of: Thomas Jeffeson owned slaves, ergo Thomas Jefferson was an evil man.
I belive Sanger was wrong on many issues, most notably the issue of eugenics and by today’s standards would be considered evil. However, there is no reason to attribute things to her which she did not say/write or espouse. There is enough that she DID say/write/espouse that is offensive to us.
Truth is important. Even if we wish to make someone look worse than they already are, it is not justification for making up things.
You can't provide any context in which that direct quote from Sanger doesn't mean what it obviously does mean. You gave a link to the real context in which it was written, obviously secure in your belief that no one would take the time to follow up on it. I did follow up on it, and posted what you hoped nobody would see.
If you have any proof that the direct quote from Sanger doesn't mean what it says, put up, or shut up.
Let’s see...using your tactic:
nonsense
nonsense
You forgot Darwinism, a perjorative used to mean “anything you can tie to evolution”
ad hominem nonsense
I know...whe tying your opponent to Nazis, communists, genocidal maniacs doesn’t work. Just call ‘em a liberal.
Nonsense...
Or other ideologies promoted by the Darwin family, namely EUGENICS.
I know...whe [sic] tying your opponent to Nazis, communists, genocidal maniacs doesn’t work. Just call ‘em a liberal.
I don't recall using the term liberal on this thread.
Oops, forgot to deal with your sheer lack of mental ability.
Blaming the ToE for the malevolent use of the theory by people with nefarious ideas and practices is the same as blaming the inventor of gunpowder for all malevolent use of gunpowder by those with nefarious ideas and practices.
The real answer you should give is that youre too freakin stupid to understand that....but I’m sure you’ll just call this gun owning conservative voting and living American.....a liberal....again.
Suppose you’re so conservative that you voted for liberal W. Wouldn’t be surprised if that large government lib thought Man lived with the dinosaurs 4532 years ag too.
I’ve explained upthread why that ONE SENTENCE is not advocating infanticide.
If you want to know what Sanger was advocating you must read her writings.
If you read ONE SENTENCE of anyone’s writings, you do not know what they are about.
Sanger advocated contraception. In her day it was highly controversial. I’ve explained it all upthread. She is presenting an entire case to buttress her advocacy of contraception. She did not live in the soundbyte era. She developed an entire theory to support her belief and wrote at length, not in soudbytes.
Her case for contraception is an example of a wholistic argument that seems sound and even logical, but is later proved wrong (that widely available contraception would eliminate many social ills, including, among many other things, infanticide). In the context of her time, this would have been, I believe, a logical arugment. I believe she has been proven wrong over time. However one cannot make an honest judgement either way if you will not read the entire case and consider the time period and the laws in place at the time and the economic and social conditions many she worked with lived in.
You cannot make any judgment at all if you attribute beliefs to a person they do/did not hold and then tear them down. That’s known as a strawman.
Why because I refuse to argue evolution with you on a thread that has NOTHING to do with evolution.
Blaming the ToE for the malevolent use of the theory by people with nefarious ideas and practices is the same as blaming the inventor of gunpowder for all malevolent use of gunpowder by those with nefarious ideas and practices.
Those "people with nefarious ideas and practices" were members of the Darwin family and as I explained earlier there is a vast difference between blaming inanimate objects like gun powder and blaming ideologies.
Very well said, Wagglebee. They are comparing evil ideologies that tell people what to think and how to behave to gunpowder? Talk about false analogies!
No, you didn’t explain it. You gave a link to her writings that you claimed would provide the context for the quote. You were right about that, but you were wrong about what the context was. I copied an pasted her writing here, and showed that the context was that she did support killing babies. So now you’ve changed your mind, and say that her writing on the subject is out of context. Then provide another link that you now support as providing context. Make up your mind. Take one position, and stick with it.
It would be like saying that Marx and Engels were totally blameless in the hundreds of millions of deaths at the hands of communists throughout the world in the past century.
Exactly right! Why can’t the evos grasp something so simple. I think their cognitive dissonance has much more to do with their will than their brains. Of course, I could be wrong, it could be the other way around, or both :o)
Excuse me, you gave nothing of the sort.
I asked you to give the context. You linked to a 1000 word text. Hellsbells, I even told you that the words to the quote could not be found by a Ctrl-F search. You did NOTHING to point to the quote. I sure did tell you I’m not reading the whole thing. I have a life.
It took BykrBayb to sort through that dribble and post that the context was NOT wrong. It was absolutely correct. So it’s easy to conclude that either you were wrong and owe Wagglebee and apology, or you were intentionally trying to dodge.
I would like to think you are not dishonest but genuinely mistaken.
Spinning counts for nothing here.
I have life too. I don’t wish to argue with someone who says the WILL NOT READ something.
Why bother with someone like that?
You’re getting more and more hysterical in your postings. You are desperate to equivalence Evolution, and the people that believe in it, along with legitimate science in general to every dark aspect ever conceived by humanity.
You are a sad example of pointless repetition.
Furthermore, your source, if you read their “about” page are clearly quack biblical literalists, so this article should be given no credence whatsoever. That it is posted by you is additional reason to give it no credence.
Come up with some new material, friend, this schtick is wearing thin.
I did post it. The entire selection is in support of contraception. She is not advocating infatacide any more than she is advocating any of the numerous social ills that she claims would be eliminated if contraceptives were widely available.
That is the case she is making. I cannot help it if you cannot read for comprehension. That is a big problem through out our society and it will be our downfall.
I read it.
BykrBayb posted it and showed clearly where the quote was.
I really don’t think you are so thick that you can’t understand that when someone is asking WHERE the quote is, that the intellgent thing to do for those of us in the computer age is to cut and paste the quote. Those who do not have something to hide.
What do you have to hide? Could it be that little infanticide thingie? By your reasoning Sanger was against abortion but okay with infanticide. No amount of spin will overcome that. Time to rethink it.
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.