Posted on 10/03/2018 9:11:00 AM PDT by Olog-hai
House of Representatives Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told the Texas Tribune that she felt famous feminists “crowding” her in her chair during her first meeting with President George W. Bush in the White House after becoming part of the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives. […]
Three of these women — (Susan B.) Anthony, (Elizabeth Cady) Stanton and (Alice) Paul — were also pro-life, in contrast to Pelosi’s pro-abortion views.
In her interview, Pelosi suggested that a woman’s “right” to have an abortion was non-negotiable. “One place you can’t find common ground, I can just tell you this, is on the issue of a woman’s right to choose. That is the thing that is an absolute,” Pelosi stated.
According to Feminists for Life, a nonprofit, nonpartisan grassroots organization which opposes abortion, Paul held a very different point of view. When feminists began to link the Equal Rights Act (ERA) with abortion, Paul “opposed” this trend, saying, “Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.” […]
Anthony and Stanton also opposed abortion. The Revolution, the paper that Anthony and Stanton published together, “editorialized against abortion, terming it ‘child murder’ and ‘infanticide’ while compassionately addressing its root causes in women’s oppression and advocating family planning,” Feminists for Life wrote.
In addition, Anthony made an anti-abortion comment in a speech in 1875. According to Feminists for Life, in the speech, “abortion is listed with infanticide and other murders among the negative consequences of the ‘evils’ perpetrated by men.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Birth Control propaganda is thus the entering wedge for the Eugenic educator. In answering the needs of these thousands upon thousands of submerged mothers, it is possible to use this interest as the foundation for education in prophylaxis, sexual hygiene, and infant welfare. The potential mother is to be shown that maternity need not be slavery but the most effective avenue toward self-development and self-realization. Upon this basis only may we improve the quality of the race.As an advocate of Birth Control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit", admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.
Birth Control is not advanced as a panacea by which past and present evils of dysgenic breeding can be magically eliminated. Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupidly cruel sentimentalism.
Margaret Sanger, "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda"
It should be the duty of government not only to supply the facilities which will enable these unfortunates to be sterilized, but to protect them afterwards. There should be provision for a pension of subsidy for those couples whose procreation would be dangerous to the community. If they are denied the normal family, not only for their own benefit but for that of society and above all of their children, society could well afford to see that they are well protected. If anyone thinks that is a bribe to encourage sterilization of the merely poor, he mistakes human nature.However, the sterilization program should not be confined to the physically or mentally inadequate. The program has wider implications and a broader application.
She founded PP so you might want to get over ot
Another point Very inconvenient I know
But one cannot be for birth control and at the same time against abortion
It defies logic
Additionally, Sanger was for abortion under some circumstances. That is not vehemently against abortion. It is pro
Citing Feminists For Life is not a source. Give us a book or magazine or newspaper quotation. Otherwise it’s just a bunch of women claiming something that dead people said
The quotes are not made up. Alice Paul really did say that “(a)bortion is the ultimate exploitation of women”. With all due respect, it’s absurd to claim that this is a case of “a bunch of women claiming something that dead people said”, especially given the context.
Sanger also is the source of the notion of women controlling their own bodies (as she put it, each woman ought to be “the absolute mistress of her own body”), which although it does not necessarily mean at the expense of a baby in the womb, has certainly been construed over and over again to mean exactly that.
Then please give a proper citation
She proves the point. Can’t be pro birth control and against abortion
Birth control, as you can see by sanger’s view, for instance, takes procreation out of sex. That is a pro abortion position. Abortion is birth control. It’s why a pro birth control fanatic founded PP. planned parenthood is birth control.
A web search can facilitate that; I already checked them myself, so if you are going to claim they are made up, then you make sure you have that on your side before hurling accusations based on the fact that FFL are otherwise following a godless ideology.
God can take procreation out of sex too, by making either man or woman barren. There are several examples of that in the Bible, such as Sarah (Abraham’s wife), Hannah (Samuel’s mother) and Elizabeth (John the Baptist’s mother), although in their cases God intervened and reversed the barrenness.
The problem with people like Sanger and the other feminists is their attack on the family, which is an institution specifically created by God and is actually on His plane spiritually.
Give a proper citation
Even the so called sites giving her quotations don’t give proper citation
“God can take procreation out of sex too...”
This is beside the point
Being open to procreation is what God creased for.
Anytime sex is not open to procreation abortion is in the equation
Along with its precursor birth control
“Can’t be pro birth control and against abortion.”
Your assertion is both logically and factually absurd. Abortion is just one method of birth control, and certainly a drastic alternative when other methods have failed. It is quite logically possible to be in favor of birth control as a concept, but opposed to abortion as a method (consider the analogy of being in favor of the death penalty, but being opposed to certain methods as “cruel and unusual”). Moreover, since there are persons who have been quoted as supporting birth control as a concept, but rejecting abortion as a method, your statement is contrary to fact, the very definition of absurd.
For good white people breeding stock, probably. NOT FOR ANYONE ELSE.
Birth control takes being closed to procreation. It places the relationship in the zone of ‘we are in control’ abortion comes from that
I know she is considered to be the founder of PP, but what does that have to do with her being vehemently opposed to abortion?
“But one cannot be for birth control and at the same time against abortion
It defies logic”
No it doesn’t. Are you actually against contraception?
“Sanger was for abortion under some circumstances. “
Prove it, like I did, with her own words.
https://www.redstate.com/ironchapman/2013/01/23/what-did-margaret-sanger-think-about-abortion/
And this citation disproves your point;
“She turned women seeking abortions away from her clinics: “I do not approve of abortion.” She called it “sordid,” “abhorrent,” “terrible,” “barbaric,” a “horror.” She called abortionists “blood-sucking men with MD after their names who perform operations for the price of so-and-so.” She called the results of abortion “an outrageous slaughter,” “infanticide,” “foeticide,” and “the killing of babies.”
Thank you!
I think it’s important to be accurate. I’m not defending everything about Margaret Sanger but I will defend the fact she was opposed to abortion. Especially to pro-choice people, I love doing that. They don’t know what to say!
Not faslse, read;
“She turned women seeking abortions away from her clinics: “I do not approve of abortion.” She called it “sordid,” “abhorrent,” “terrible,” “barbaric,” a “horror.” She called abortionists “blood-sucking men with MD after their names who perform operations for the price of so-and-so.” She called the results of abortion “an outrageous slaughter,” “infanticide,” “foeticide,” and “the killing of babies.””
https://www.redstate.com/ironchapman/2013/01/23/what-did-margaret-sanger-think-about-abortion/
Most accurately contraception prevents conception. Abortion prevents birth. So contraception really isn’t birth control, it’s conception control. Just like abstaining, it prevents conception and is most accurately conception control.
Her pro birth control stance founded planned parenthood. Birth control is the genesis of abortion
Very inconvenient I realize people think they can be against abortion and pro birth control. They cannot
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.