Posted on 12/05/2011 6:40:08 AM PST by artichokegrower
It's not hard to guess where Margaret Sanger found her inspiration. Born in 1879, the mother of birth control was one of 11 children. "My mother died at 48," she wrote in "My Fight for Birth Control." "My father lived to be 80." The latter was a stonecutter, specializing in children's gravestones. The former was a devout Catholic who was pregnant 18 times during her 30-year marriage.
From these beginnings, Margaret Sanger became one of the most important reformers in American history - a woman who by the mid-1900s needed no introduction, certainly not to women desperate for information about how to limit their families. Thousands of them wrote her directly, needing to put nothing more on the envelope than "Margaret Sanger, New York."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
bump!
Like Sanger, the Democrats (the politicians AND their voting supporters) have used the slaughter of alive unborn human beings as an empowerment scheme for decades. Their derrangement is coming full circle, to now give awards and send Christmas Cards in praise of their demonic empowerment.
The sob story in the article is that Sanger was there when Sadie Sachs died from a botched abortion. Of course it was a tragedy - but like a typical liberal, Sanger had the problem correct, but the solution completely wrong.
The focus of reform should have been support for the women who were pregnant - not encouraging a death sentence for their preborn children. The churches of the day (and today as well) were perfectly capable of addressing this type of scenario with expanded charitable missions. Look at Father Baker in Buffalo, New York as an example of the successful handling of these issues. The corporal works of mercy are required by Christians -
These issues can be addressed without abortion and keeping the government out of it!
As far as birth control, it encourages abortion because it leads to promiscuity - and for married couples, natural ways of spacing children are available and could easily be promoted.
I finally watched the movie, “Children of Men” a couple of nights ago which poses thesis of what would happen if all of humanity was sterilized by an air-borne disease. I would say that is quite implausible but I’m more concerned about the reality of people simply not choosing to have children. If you look at the global fertility rate it has been dropping since the beginning of the 20th century. It seems as wealth increases the desire for children decreases.
Margaret Sanger: 'Mother' of Planned Parenthood, pro-abortionist and American Eugenics
She was a racist, a eugenicist, an anti-cleric and a left wing radical [IWW]. You don’t need a book to describe Margaret Sanger. Only took about fourteen words and an abbreviation.
She wasn’t real fond of Italians and Eastern Europeans, including Jews, either.
I’m “uncomfortable” with how we talk about “reproductive rights” and “women’s health”, and “abortion rights” interchangeably.
So if you oppose abortion on demand, you are then said to oppose “women’s health”. The left has re-defined abortion rights as part of “women’s health” and is framing the debate in those terms.
I suppose they left out the time Sanger spoke at a Klan rally.
Can’t be “hot” with a baby pushing your belly out, so kill the baby. If your sense of self-worth is based on how “hot” you look, you’re going to have a tough life.
On the other hand, her frequency of pregnancy hints that maybe she wasn't breastfeeding. YMMV, but lactation (especially nighttime breastfeeding) significantly increases the spacing of pregnancies to about 30 months.
Interestingly, Margaret Sanger's father was an atheist and a leftist. If he were concerned about his wife's frequent pregnancies and miscarriages, maybe he could have moderated his behavior just a tad to give her a little recuperation time? Just askin'...
On the other hand, her frequency of pregnancy hints that maybe she wasn't breastfeeding. YMMV, but lactation (especially nighttime breastfeeding) significantly increases the spacing of pregnancies to about 30 months.
Interestingly, Margaret Sanger's father was an atheist and a leftist. If he were concerned about his wife's frequent pregnancies and miscarriages, maybe he could have moderated his behavior just a tad to give her a little recuperation time? Just askin'...
All she really wanted to do was to get rid of those pesky Negroes. And other ‘undesirables.’ For the collective good of all, of course.
sanger bump
Everyone that has the means and emotional stability should raise as many children as they can afford to raise.
I too saw that movie and I don’t see this as a black and white issue....you either have 18 kids or you are an abortion loving monster?
I think that the Lord gave us minds to think with and we can do better than that.
And the Lord gave us hearts to feel with. Whether 3,000 years ago or today the same pattern repeats itself. Wealth seems to cause people’s hearts to harden against children. Combine that with Socialism dumbing down and infantilizing Western society and you have a bunch of people who can only think of themselves and only of today.
Here’s an excerpt on a Jewish teaching on wealth vs. children.
The tribes of Reuven and Gad also showed a flawed orientation toward their children in valuing their possessions first, as seen in their request to Moshe: “We will build here sheepfolds for our livestock, and cities for our children” (Bamidbar, 32:16). Rashi notes, on the basis of Tanchuma 7, that “They were more concerned about their possessions than about their sons and daughters, since they spoke first about their livestock and then about their children.” Moshe corrected them by placing priorities in the proper order, telling them to first “build for yourselves cities for your children” and afterwards “enclosures for your sheep” (there, verse 24).
Read more here.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/4685
When Americans decide to place children above their wealth and possessions we’ll see a positive fertility rate once again.
I don’t believe that everyone should be creating a child every year they are married and fertile unless they can afford to house, clothe and feed those children.
My brother has 5 kids. His family has been on food stamps and government medical coupons for 16 years. That’s right, you are paying to raise his children as HE sees fit.
People need a license to get married. Why not have a license to have children?
Given some “parents” in this world, I’ve considered the idea. I don’t support it as it would add yet more power to the government over our lives.
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.