A Plan For Peace [A screwed up essay by Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger]

http://www.africa2000.com/XNDX/xsanger.htm ^ | April 1932 | Margaret Sanger

[Akron Al]

The first step would thus be to control the intake and output of morons, mental defectives, epileptics.

The second step would be to take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection, and segregate them on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct.

A:Link {color:red; text-decoration:none; } A:Visited {color:red; text-decoration:none; } A:Hover {color:red; text-decoration:underline; }

Two articles, both from the April 1932 edition of The Birth Control Review, at pages 106-107

A Plan For Peace by Margaret Sanger First, put into action President Wilson's fourteen points, upon which terms Germany and Austria surrendered to the Allies in 1918. Second, have Congress set up a special department for the study of population problems and appoint a Parliament of Population, the directors representing the various branches of science: this body to direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and to direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of the individuals. The main objects of the Population Congress would be: a.   To raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population. b.   to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11 per thousand. c.   to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924. d.   to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring. e.   To insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents by pensioning all persons with trnsmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization. f.   to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization. g.   to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives. The first step would thus be to control the intake and output of morons, mental defectives, epileptics. The second step would be to take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection, and segregate them on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct. Having corralled this enormous part of our population and placed it on a basis of health instead of punishment, it is safe to say that fifteen or twenty millions of our population would then be organized into soldiers of defense -- defending the unborn against their own disabilities.... With the future citizen safeguarded from hereditary taints, with five million mental and moral degenerates segregated, with ten million women and ten million children receiving adequate care, we could then turn our attention to the basic needs for international peace.... In the meantime we should organize and join an International League of Low Birth Rate Nations to secure and maintain World Peace. Toward World Peace by Algernon D. Black Malthus over a hundred years ago pointed out that war was one of the methods by which nature removed surplus population. When people are crowded and land hungry, dependent upon imports for their food supply, and pressed against the borders of neighboring nations, a friction is generated which may easily hurl the world into the maelstrom of war. The crowded Balkans are known as the tinder box of Europe; France fears Germany's growing numbers; and Japan has stirred up a veritable hornets' nest in her effort to find security for her sixty millions of people.... [P]eace makers must sooner or later face the fact that to assure world peace they must deal with the population problems of mankind. Professor John Maynard Keynes, eminent authority on post-war economic problems, speaks of contraceptive information as the most important aid on the political horizon and says that without it we might as well throw all treaties into the waste basket. In other words, the way to achieve world peace is to remove one of the causes of war which lies below the surface, and which is not talked of as much as national rights and national honor. This cause is uncontrolled birth rates. We must have a wide-spread dissemination of contraceptive knowledge throughout the world. We must have population control, a control which is guided through the plans laid down at international conferences on population and migration. Such a procedure will require much from the minds and wills of men. But if it can be accomplished we can hope for the removal of the danger spots of the world; we can hope for the elimination of a powerful cause of disturbance of the relations between nations. No program for world peace can hope to succeed which does not make place among its other provisions for the increasing use of birth control.

[Akron Al]

Just imagine if this nutcase had founded a Right to Life organization. We would never hear the end of her nuttiness!

[Captainpaintball]

Thank you!!! (bflr)

[dts32041]

She was a guiding light for the Nazi's and demorat party.

[opinionator]

When I went to the National Holocaust Museum, I noticed that Margaret Sanger's name was listed amongst the names of authors that the Nazis burned the books of. I found it odd that her name was listed. Can anyone verify that her books were burned?

[YankeeReb]

I always knew that Nazism and leftism were indistinguishable, this proves it.

[gaucho]

Can anyone verify that her books were burned?

She forgot to mention that they all needed to be German and blond and blue eyed. LOL

[PrincessB]

Where to start, where to start.
Can we make a farm for Hollywood?

[Lorianne]

In 1933 the Nazis burned Sanger’s books along with those of Ellis, Freud, German sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld, and others.

Sanger's work was looked upon with suspicion and was not endorsed by the leading eugenicists of her day because they wanted to encourage the "fit" women to procreate. Sanger advocated for access to knowledge and birth control for all women, particularly poor women whom she (incorrectly) assumed would use birth control to prevent unwanted births.

The fear eugenicists (of whom there were many in Sanger's era, and most were men) had was that such information in the hands of better off, better educated, "fit" women may translate into women choosing to have fewer children (they were right). This was a direct threat to people like Hitler and many others, who did not want women (especially "fit" women) making such determinations on their own.

Sanger, like many early feminists, was opposed to abortion. She advocated for contraceptive use to PREVENT abortion, which she saw as an inhuman practice ... to the woman. Sanger was not opposed to mandatory or strongly coerced sterilization of the "unfit". However, she did not advocate for eugenics on a racial basis as many of her contemporary eugenicists did. She believed the majority of "unfit" (the poor) would voluntarily limit their reproduction if they had the knowledge and the means.

[Diago]

ping

[Weirdad]

You are speaking dogmatically as though you knew Sanger yourself. Planner Parenthood Pushers have been revising her history for years. Tell us where you are getting your information because it sounds like their party line.

[Weirdad]

Index Bump.

[Lorianne]

Even Planned Parenthood acknowledges Sanger never advocated for abortion. If she had, they would certainly make a big deal of it, considering she is their heroine.

PP minimizes Sanger's eugenics views and skirt Sanger's views on abortion in their literature, saying that Sanger was for "choice" (she was for contraceptive choice but not abortion). They never quote her directly on abortion becasue she never advocated abortion. So they lie by ommission and clever euphemism.

However, her detractors lie in the same way by failing to include the context; that Sanger was one of many eugenicists (mostly men) of her day, and her views on universal access to birth control were not widely supported even by other eugenicists who wished to control women's reproduction in both the positive and negative sense. Hitler was in this category of eugenicists. He did not wish "fit" women to be able to practice contraception on their own.

You can check out Sanger's positions here: http://www.bartleby.com/1013/

[Weirdad]

You are very articulate and what you are saying sounds plausible. And I hate to adopt convenient views that are false both on principle and because ultimately the falsehoods can overshadow the truth in anything we say. So if you are right, I would like to know.

But are your statements because you have actually read Sanger's books (like that list at the bookstore link you provided)? Or have you used an alternate sources, and if so, what?

And what do you think of Sanger overall? Is she immoral enough that her association with Planned Parenthood should be used as a weapon against them in the fight against abortion and barely restrained sexuality outside of marriage?

[Mo1]

---

	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-

[Dajjal]

Stop Planned Parenthood bump

[Lorianne]

I'm no fan of Sanger. But we should put her in perspective. The Eugenics movement was far larger than her, she was one tiny piece of it, and the more stellar members did not endorse Sanger's work advocating universal access to contraceptives because they had a different agenda than Sanger's.

Secondly, Planned Parenthood adopted Sanger as their mascot not the other way around. She was most active in the 1930's but she lived until 1966 and was publishing until late in her life. She had ample opportunity in the intervening 30 years to publically change her position on abortion. She never did. She did however change her more strident views on eugenics after WWII.

Yes I have read her work for a paper I did in college. Like many people of her day she was wrong about a lot of things. For example, she often speculated in her writing that if poor women had access to contraceptives, they would use them and would not resort to abortion in what she considered high numbers in her day. Turns out she was very wrong about that.

Other eugenicists who were her contemporaries were concerned that better off "fit" women would use contraceptives at will and limit the number of children they had. Turns out they were right about that speculation, which is why we had the Comstock laws prohibiting access to contraceptives or even information about limiting conception. (We shouldn't forget that our beloved 1st Ammendment was equivalent to toilet paper at times in our history).

It is important to note that while eugenics is politically incorrect today it was not at one time. As described by historian Daniel Kevles in his 1985 book In the Name of Eugenics, a number of mainstream and even left-of-center thinkers publicly supported eugenic policies - H. G. Wells, Havelock Ellis, Harold Laski, George Bernard Shaw, and J. B. S. Haldane, as well as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1927 when upholding state-mandated sterilization of the mentally retarded in Buck v. Bell.

It is important to look at context when reviewing the attitudes of people of the past. After all many of our Founders owned slaves. Margaret Sanger's eugenicist views reflect the attitudes of many people of her day (and even some of today). We can, and should IMO look back and say "They were wrong" but we should not distort the context. We don't need to sugar-coat Sanger's views but we neither should we embellish them with additional things to make her look worse or atrribute to her opinions she never wrote in favor of.

[Weirdad]

Wow, thank you for your detailed reply. It's going to take me a while to fully digest it, but it makes sense. Just one more thing I thought I knew about that I apparently don't. Too much to investigate in this world! Nice work.

W

[<1/1,000,000th%]

She must have skipped over the part where 1.6 million abortions get performed each year to a group of girls mostly between the ages of 11 and 18.

[Diago]

Margaret Sanger