Born of Racism and Misogyny (1 Viewer)

[Felicity]

The abortion/Contraception movement in the US is born primarily of one woman's ANTI-woman beliefs. Margaret Sanger is the founder of Planned Parenthood--the entity at the core of nearly every abortion related litigation and by FAR the biggest abortion provider in the US.

Margaret Sanger was a racist and a misogynist. Read her OWN words.

And the modern Planned Parenthood STILL manipulates the facts concerning this woman and puts her on a pedestal of honor.

History reveals the truth.

 

[Felicity]

Here's some misogyny....



WOMAN AND THE NEW RACE
by Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood)
original copyright: 1920
From: CHAPTER I
WOMAN'S ERROR AND HER DEBT

Woman's acceptance of her inferior status was the more real because it was unconscious. She had chained herself to her place in society and the family through the maternal functions of her nature, and only chains thus strong could have bound her to her lot as a brood animal for the masculine civilizations of the world. In accepting her role as the "weaker and gentler half," she accepted that function. In turn, the acceptance of that function fixed the more firmly her rank as an inferior.

Caught in this "vicious circle," woman has, through her reproductive ability, founded and perpetuated the tyrannies of the Earth. Whether it was the tyranny of a monarchy, an oligarchy or a republic, the one indispensable factor of its existence was, as it is now, hordes of human beings; human beings so plentiful as to be cheap, and so cheap that ignorance was their natural lot. Upon the rock of an unenlightened, submissive maternity have these been founded; upon the product of such a maternity have they flourished.

... The creators of over-population are the women, who, while wringing their hands over each fresh horror, submit anew to their task of producing the multitudes who will bring about the next tragedy of civilization.
While unknowingly laying the foundations of tyrannies and providing the human tinder for racial conflagrations, woman was also unknowingly creating slums, filling asylums with insane, and institutions with other defectives. She was replenishing the ranks of the prostitutes, furnishing grist for the criminal courts and inmates for prisons. Had she planned deliberately to achieve this tragic total of human waste and misery, she could hardly have done it more effectively.

... By her failure to withhold the multitudes of children who have made inevitable the most flagrant of our social evils, she incurred a debt to society. Regardless of her own wrongs, regardless of her lack of opportunity and regardless of all other considerations, she must pay that debt.

http://www.bartleby.com/1013/1.html

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Here's some misogyny....

I think you are misreading this.

WOMAN AND THE NEW RACE
by Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood)
original copyright: 1920
From: CHAPTER I
WOMAN'S ERROR AND HER DEBT

Woman's acceptance of her inferior status was the more real because it was unconscious. She had chained herself to her place in society and the family through the maternal functions of her nature, and only chains thus strong could have bound her to her lot as a brood animal for the masculine civilizations of the world. In accepting her role as the "weaker and gentler half," she accepted that function. In turn, the acceptance of that function fixed the more firmly her rank as an inferior.

Caught in this "vicious circle," woman has, through her reproductive ability, founded and perpetuated the tyrannies of the Earth. Whether it was the tyranny of a monarchy, an oligarchy or a republic, the one indispensable factor of its existence was, as it is now, hordes of human beings; human beings so plentiful as to be cheap, and so cheap that ignorance was their natural lot. Upon the rock of an unenlightened, submissive maternity have these been founded; upon the product of such a maternity have they flourished.

First: women's acceptance of their "inferior" position was unconscious; this is not ascribing a crime to women. It is ascribing, as it says in the heading, an error. Second, if women had to accept their inferior status, it was not natural; it was imposed upon them, presumably by men. Notice that Sanger says, "She had chained herself to her place in society and the family through the maternal functions of her nature, and only chains thus strong could have bound her to her lot as a brood animal for the masculine civilizations of the world." This says that the strength of women is such that they need equally strong bonds to make them into the "brood mare" she calls them; a woman is naturally far more, but she has been forced to accept this lesser role, as the "weaker and gentler half." That is not what women are, it is what they have been told they are, and they have accepted it. Note also how she says that women have been "caught" in this vicious circle; she also says that the error women have committed, this continuation of tyranny and oligarchy, has been founded upon an "unenlightened, submissive maternity." In other words, if women were enlightened and self-determining in their maternity, they would put an end to tyranny and oligarchy; that is power, not weakness.

... The creators of over-population are the women, who, while wringing their hands over each fresh horror, submit anew to their task of producing the multitudes who will bring about the next tragedy of civilization.
While unknowingly laying the foundations of tyrannies and providing the human tinder for racial conflagrations, woman was also unknowingly creating slums, filling asylums with insane, and institutions with other defectives. She was replenishing the ranks of the prostitutes, furnishing grist for the criminal courts and inmates for prisons. Had she planned deliberately to achieve this tragic total of human waste and misery, she could hardly have done it more effectively.

... By her failure to withhold the multitudes of children who have made inevitable the most flagrant of our social evils, she incurred a debt to society. Regardless of her own wrongs, regardless of her lack of opportunity and regardless of all other considerations, she must pay that debt.

http://www.bartleby.com/1013/1.html

Again, she says several times that this is "unintentional," and that women were not "deliberate" in these offenses that she says have incurred this debt. Also, is she wrong about unlimited reproduction causing social ills?

This seems to me that Sanger was trying very hard to empower women, that she was trying to make them see themselves as something more than "brood mares," as more than beings that exist to bear and raise children. It seems that she saw great potential for other things in women, potential that was being wasted. Perhaps her rhetoric is inflammatory, but then, she was fighting thousands of years of accepted social norms.

What is your position on the proper role of women and motherhood? Do you feel that women who are "forced" by societal expectations to become mothers are in a position of being brood mares? Alternately, do you feel that the ability to choose not to have a child is actually a position of power?

 

[mixedmedia]

I think it is wrong to apply Margaret Sanger's writing to the women of today. She was writing in reaction to the "place" and status quo position of most women in her time. MOst especially poor women. And if it weren't for activists like Margaret Sanger, women might still be hamstrung by society's "rules" today. I'm not saying that Sanger was not a radical, but sometimes the voice of a radical is efficacious in striking a balance where there is grave injustice.

 

[Felicity]

I think you are misreading this.



First: women's acceptance of their "inferior" position was unconscious; this is not ascribing a crime to women. It is ascribing, as it says in the heading, an error. Second, if women had to accept their inferior status, it was not natural; it was imposed upon them, presumably by men. Notice that Sanger says, "She had chained herself to her place in society and the family through the maternal functions of her nature, and only chains thus strong could have bound her to her lot as a brood animal for the masculine civilizations of the world." This says that the strength of women is such that they need equally strong bonds to make them into the "brood mare" she calls them; a woman is naturally far more, but she has been forced to accept this lesser role, as the "weaker and gentler half." That is not what women are, it is what they have been told they are, and they have accepted it. Note also how she says that women have been "caught" in this vicious circle; she also says that the error women have committed, this continuation of tyranny and oligarchy, has been founded upon an "unenlightened, submissive maternity." In other words, if women were enlightened and self-determining in their maternity, they would put an end to tyranny and oligarchy; that is power, not weakness.


Again, she says several times that this is "unintentional," and that women were not "deliberate" in these offenses that she says have incurred this debt. Also, is she wrong about unlimited reproduction causing social ills?

This seems to me that Sanger was trying very hard to empower women, that she was trying to make them see themselves as something more than "brood mares," as more than beings that exist to bear and raise children. It seems that she saw great potential for other things in women, potential that was being wasted. Perhaps her rhetoric is inflammatory, but then, she was fighting thousands of years of accepted social norms.

What is your position on the proper role of women and motherhood? Do you feel that women who are "forced" by societal expectations to become mothers are in a position of being brood mares? Alternately, do you feel that the ability to choose not to have a child is actually a position of power?

Is it the "woman's fault" or the lack of respect for the woman and her contributions to society?
What is unclear about this:

"In her submission lies her error and her guilt. By her failure to withhold the multitudes of children who have made inevitable the most flagrant of our social evils, she incurred a debt to society. Regardless of her own wrongs, regardless of her lack of opportunity and regardless of all other considerations, she must pay that debt."

Sanger was also an elitist (to the max!)--the only "good" mother was one with money regardless of the spiritual good of the children she produced--and if by chance the kid goes wrong--it's the woman's fault. In the 1st paragraph--she says such woman are "found in the ranks of labor" as well and then in the 2nd paragraph contradicts herself.

I have 5 children. I am not "rich." I do not have a housemaid or governess. I am not "a rarity"--I know several women like myself. We are not "ignorant" nor are we "enslaved"--we are noble and honored by embracing the POWER that comes with motherhood. Shitty mothers exist--and it's not the number of children a woman has that makes her shitty or makes her a good mother.


More from Sanger's....

WOMAN AND THE NEW RACE

original copyright: 1920

In sharp contrast with these women who ignorantly bring forth large families and who thereby enslave themselves, we find a few women who have one, two or three children or no children at all. These women, with the exception of the childless ones, live full-rounded lives. They are found not only in the ranks of the rich and the well-to-do, but in the ranks of labor as well. They have but one point of basic difference from their enslaved sisters; they are not burdened with the rearing of large families.
We have no need to call upon the historian, the sociologist nor the statistician for our knowledge of this situation. We meet it every day in the ordinary routine of our lives. The women who are the great teachers, the great writers, the artists, musicians, physicians, the leaders of public movements, the great suffragists, reformers, labor leaders and revolutionaries are those who are not compelled to give lavishly of their physical and spiritual strength in bearing and rearing large families. The situation is too familiar for discussion. Where a woman with a large family is contributing directly to the progress of her times or the betterment of social conditions, it is usually because she has sufficient wealth to employ trained nurses, governesses, and others who perform the duties necessary to child rearing. She is a rarity and is universally recognized as such.
The women with small families, however, are free to make their choice of those social pleasures which are the right of every human being and necessary to each one's full development. They can be and are, each according to her individual capacity, comrades and companions to their husbands a privilege denied to the mother of many children. Theirs is the opportunity to keep abreast of the times, to make and cultivate a varied circle of friends, to seek amusements as suits their taste and means, to know the meaning of real recreation. All these things remain unrealized desires to the prolific mother.
Women who have a knowledge of contraceptives are not compelled to make the choice between a maternal experience and a marred love life; they are not forced to balance motherhood against social and spiritual activities. Motherhood is for them to choose, as it should be for every woman to choose. Choosing to become mothers, they do not thereby shut themselves away from thorough companionship with their husbands, from friends, from culture, from all those manifold experiences which are necessary to the completeness and the joy of life.
Fit mothers of the race are these, the courted comrades of the men they choose, rather than the "slaves of slaves." For theirs is the magic power; the power of limiting their families to such numbers as will permit them to live full-rounded lives. Such lives are the expression of the feminine spirit which is woman and all of her; not merely art, nor professional skill, nor intellect; but all that woman is, or may achieve.
Yet the poverty and neglect which drives a girl into prostitution usually has its source in a family too large to be properly cared for by the mother, if the girl is not actually subnormal because her mother bore too many children, and, therefore, the more likely to become a prostitute.

The probability of a child handicapped by a weak constitution, an overcrowded home, inadequate food and care, and possibly a deficient mental equipment, winding up in prison or an almshouse, is too evident for comment. Every jail, hospital for the insane, reformatory and institution for the feebleminded cries out against the evils of too prolific breeding among wage-workers.


If the upper and middle classes of society had kept pace with the poorer elements of society in reproduction during the past fifty years, the working class today would be forced down to the level of the Chinese whose wage standard is said to be a few handfuls of rice a day.

One thing we know ; the woman who has escaped the chains of too great reproductivity will never again wear them. The birth rate of the wealthy and upper classes will never appreciably rise. The woman of these classes is free of her most oppressive bonds. Being free, we have a right to expect much of her. We expect her to give still greater expression to her feminine spirit ; we expect her to enrich the intellectual, artistic, moral and spiritual life of the world. We expect her to demolish old systems of morals, a degenerate prudery, Dark-Age religious concepts, laws that enslave women by denying them the knowledge of their bodies, and information as to contraceptives. These must go to the scrapheap of vicious, cast-off things. Hers is the power to send them there. Shall we look to her to strike the first blow which shall wrench her sisters from the grip of the dead hand of the past?


What a self-aggrandizing, elitist, hag.:shock:

 

[Felicity]

I think it is wrong to apply Margaret Sanger's writing to the women of today. She was writing in reaction to the "place" and status quo position of most women in her time. MOst especially poor women. And if it weren't for activists like Margaret Sanger, women might still be hamstrung by society's "rules" today. I'm not saying that Sanger was not a radical, but sometimes the voice of a radical is efficacious in striking a balance where there is grave injustice.

My point is that Sanger's views--which are at the genesis of Planned Parenthood and the modern feminist movement--CLAIM to be pro-woman while actually diminish and disparage a unique gift of womanhood while at the same time promoting a clearly elitist, self-aggrandizing agenda.

How can a movement built on such a foundation, and an organization that still embraces the memory and the fundamental tenets of such a founder, be anything but flawed in their conclusions and their activities?


If you support Planned Parenthood--you should know that they support Ms. Sanger--they even have a "Margaret Sanger Award"

Here's a link to what PP says about their beloved heroine...and an example of the LYING and manipulation of FACTS that organization engages in....


http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp...icalinfo/birthcontrol/bio-margaret-sanger.xml


Here is a section that deals with ONE (of many!) of Ms. Sanger's RACIST comments:

Quote:

"We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."

Sanger was aware of African-American concerns, passionately argued by Marcus Garvey in the 1920s, that birth control was a threat to the survival of the black race. This statement, which acknowledges those fears, is taken from a letter to Clarence J. Gamble, M.D., a champion of the birth control movement. In that letter, Sanger describes her strategy to allay such apprehensions. A larger portion of the letter makes Sanger's meaning clear:

It seems to me from my experience . . . in North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas, 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. . . . They do not do this with the white people, and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and with knowledge, which, I believe, will have far-reaching results. . . . His work, in my opinion, should be entirely with the Negro profession and the nurses, hospital, social workers, as well as the County's white doctors. His success will depend upon his personality and his training by us.

The minister's work is also important, and also 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 (1939).


Please note the very last sentence....It appears like that was the last word of her sentence...HOWEVER....

THIS is what she ACTUALLY said:

" the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
http://tcrnews2.com/gentcr.html
http://blackgenocide.org/negro03.html


Interesting that PP conveniently left off that last bit, eh? They are honoring a clearly RACIST B!TCH (sorry--she makes me angry). I don't care what that says about Ms. Sanger--but what do you think of the dishonesty and obviously lacking integrity of the Planned Parenthood Organization? How can anyone support such a manipulating and dishonest organization and still claim to be "pro-woman" and not "racist?"

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Is it the "woman's fault" or the lack of respect for the woman and her contributions to society?
What is unclear about this:

"In her submission lies her error and her guilt. By her failure to withhold the multitudes of children who have made inevitable the most flagrant of our social evils, she incurred a debt to society. Regardless of her own wrongs, regardless of her lack of opportunity and regardless of all other considerations, she must pay that debt."

What is unclear about this:

While unknowingly laying the foundations of tyrannies and providing the human tinder for racial conflagrations, woman was also unknowingly creating slums, filling asylums with insane, and institutions with other defectives. She was replenishing the ranks of the prostitutes, furnishing grist for the criminal courts and inmates for prisons. Had she planned deliberately to achieve this tragic total of human waste and misery, she could hardly have done it more effectively.

Unknowingly. Not by intention. Therefore, not guilty, not evil, not bad; but nonetheless, responsible. I don't think this argument differs appreciably from your own: Sanger is saying that women have a responsibility to confront the realities of their reproduction, the same as you have said; you just have VERY different views of what that reproductiuon means, and what it symbolizes. While her stance may be construed as insulting to motherhood, it certainly is not misogynistic. She has said much about women's power in these quotes. What part of women's contributions to society are you saying she's disrespecting?

Sanger was also an elitist (to the max!)--the only "good" mother was one with money regardless of the spiritual good of the children she produced--and if by chance the kid goes wrong--it's the woman's fault. In the 1st paragraph--she says such woman are "found in the ranks of labor" as well and then in the 2nd paragraph contradicts herself.

I have 5 children. I am not "rich." I do not have a housemaid or governess. I am not "a rarity"--I know several women like myself. We are not "ignorant" nor are we "enslaved"--we are noble and honored by embracing the POWER that comes with motherhood. Shitty mothers exist--and it's not the number of children a woman has that makes her shitty or makes her a good mother.

This is where the comparison between Sanger's subject and today's women probably falls apart; today, keeping a home is simply not as labor intensive as it once was, and so women with "large" families by Sanger's definition do have the ability to do many other things. But the important point is that women with children simply have less time and energy to devote to other pursuits than women with no children; women with more children have less time than women with few children. When a woman makes a choice to dedicate her time to her children, all well and good; but if she does not make that choice, she should not be forced into a situation where she is limited to being a mother, whether she is a good mother or a poor mother.
I honor your motherhood, but I do not honor motherhood universally, at the cost of any other life choice a woman may make. Women can do anything; the fact that they can become mothers does not mean that they always should. Motherhood is powerful, but it is not the only power, nor the only good power, nor the only proper power for a woman; that is Sanger's point.

WOMAN AND THE NEW RACE

original copyright: 1920

In sharp contrast with these women who ignorantly bring forth large families and who thereby enslave themselves, we find a few women who have one, two or three children or no children at all. These women, with the exception of the childless ones, live full-rounded lives. They are found not only in the ranks of the rich and the well-to-do, but in the ranks of labor as well. They have but one point of basic difference from their enslaved sisters; they are not burdened with the rearing of large families.

Okay; read it again. She is speaking of women who have 0-3 children, which she apparently sees as the ideal; she says they are found "not only in the ranks of the rich and well-to-do, but in the ranks of labor as well." She is saying that these women, the ones she thinks are doing the right thing, can be found anywhere. How is that elitist?

The probability of a child handicapped by a weak constitution, an overcrowded home, inadequate food and care, and possibly a deficient mental equipment, winding up in prison or an almshouse, is too evident for comment. Every jail, hospital for the insane, reformatory and institution for the feebleminded cries out against the evils of too prolific breeding among wage-workers.

This is a fact, not elitism. The fact is that unwanted children in these situations come from lower class homes. The unwanted children of the rich are not in jail, nor in insane asylums (not the kind that Sanger is talking about), nor reformatories; they are in boarding schools. There are far more abortions, adoptions, and unwanted/neglected/abused children among the working class, than among the rich. Do you disagree with that? Or do you disagree with her pointing it out?
I took out the quote about prostitution, because it is no longer accurate, IMO. Women do not turn to prostitution because they are starving. I see what you mean about her blaming the mother for the child's turning to prostitution, but that is one small piece of a great paean to the power of women; if you attribute power to women through their role as mothers, then you have to accept the negative results of that powerful role -- it you want the credit, take the blame.

What a self-aggrandizing, elitist, hag.:shock:

As for this, I totally fail to see it. What I see is this:

Women who have a knowledge of contraceptives are not compelled to make the choice between a maternal experience and a marred love life; they are not forced to balance motherhood against social and spiritual activities. Motherhood is for them to choose, as it should be for every woman to choose. Choosing to become mothers, they do not thereby shut themselves away from thorough companionship with their husbands, from friends, from culture, from all those manifold experiences which are necessary to the completeness and the joy of life.
Fit mothers of the race are these, the courted comrades of the men they choose, rather than the "slaves of slaves." For theirs is the magic power; the power of limiting their families to such numbers as will permit them to live full-rounded lives. Such lives are the expression of the feminine spirit which is woman and all of her; not merely art, nor professional skill, nor intellect; but all that woman is, or may achieve.

I see the power of women. I see the power of choice, and the alternative to choice, which is slavery. I see an argument I wish I had come up with myself, and I thank you for bringing this to my attention.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

My point is that Sanger's views--which are at the genesis of Planned Parenthood and the modern feminist movement--CLAIM to be pro-woman while actually diminish and disparage a unique gift of womanhood while at the same time promoting a clearly elitist, self-aggrandizing agenda.

How can a movement built on such a foundation, and an organization that still embraces the memory and the fundamental tenets of such a founder, be anything but flawed in their conclusions and their activities?

I do not see how her views are elittist; I suppose you could see them as self-aggrandiuzing, since Sanger was a woman and she wrote that women have great power, bu she is not putting herself above anyone. She is saying that all women have the potential to become what she sees as great; she is disparaging motherhood, but she is promoting the power of women. This sounds much like Planned Parenthood's agenda to me.

If you support Planned Parenthood--you should know that they support Ms. Sanger--they even have a "Margaret Sanger Award"

Here's a link to what PP says about their beloved heroine...and an example of the LYING and manipulation of FACTS that organization engages in....

I do support them. I'd like to win the award, or at least applaud for whoever does win it.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp...icalinfo/birthcontrol/bio-margaret-sanger.xml


Here is a section that deals with ONE (of many!) of Ms. Sanger's RACIST comments:

Quote:

"We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."

Sanger was aware of African-American concerns, passionately argued by Marcus Garvey in the 1920s, that birth control was a threat to the survival of the black race. This statement, which acknowledges those fears, is taken from a letter to Clarence J. Gamble, M.D., a champion of the birth control movement. In that letter, Sanger describes her strategy to allay such apprehensions. A larger portion of the letter makes Sanger's meaning clear:

It seems to me from my experience . . . in North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas, 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. . . . They do not do this with the white people, and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and with knowledge, which, I believe, will have far-reaching results. . . . His work, in my opinion, should be entirely with the Negro profession and the nurses, hospital, social workers, as well as the County's white doctors. His success will depend upon his personality and his training by us.

The minister's work is also important, and also 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 (1939).


Please note the very last sentence....It appears like that was the last word of her sentence...HOWEVER....

THIS is what she ACTUALLY said:

" the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
http://tcrnews2.com/gentcr.html
http://blackgenocide.org/negro03.html


Interesting that PP conveniently left off that last bit, eh? They are honoring a clearly RACIST B!TCH (sorry--she makes me angry). I don't care what that says about Ms. Sanger--but what do you think of the dishonesty and obviously lacking integrity of the Planned Parenthood Organization? How can anyone support such a manipulating and dishonest organization and still claim to be "pro-woman" and not "racist?"

That's not racist. I see that she is stating that their intentions, which would be to promote the achievement of women in areas of life other than motherhood, could be misconstrued by African-Americans, who might be mistrustful of white doctors telling black girls they should have abortions. Frankly, that's a logical assumption to make, on both sides: the African-Americans should have been dubious of white "benefactors" of the 1920's, and Sanger should have been especially wary of how African-
Americans would take her group's activities. Would they see PP as you see them, as this woman-hating, baby-killing, racist, elitist group? Because if so, she might want to watch out for the more "rebellious" people, by which she most likely meant, "Those who may be ready to revolt against white oppressors, and just may take out a shotgun and blow away the white abortion doctor who is messing with their wife/daughter/sister." Thus, to avoid that unfortunate occurrence, she is suggesting that they enlist a local, trusted, official, namely the minister, to explain to the local community exactly what this group is after, and that it is NOT the wholesale extermination of the black race. I see no racism, I see no deception, and I see no manipulation -- at least, not from Planned Parenthood. That last sentence doesn't change the meaning at all, though it does make it easier to misunderstand the quote. Since this whole statement here is a response to some other group's taking the original quote out of context (Hmm, I wonder what group would do that?), I find accusations of bias against PP to be hard to swallow.

Do you have another piece of evidence to prove your accusations of Sanger's racism? Also, I did not check your links, which I assumed to be simply citations; is there more information there that I need to see?

 

[Felicity]

I’m sure you’ve heard the proverb 'the hand that rocks the cradle controls the world.' Sanger only sees the negative of this. She blames all of the ills of the world on prolific motherhood. There are many benefits to large families—not the least of which is SELFLESSNESS—A much needed quality in today’s world. I could wax poetic on all the beauty I find in my larger-sized family...but...I’ll stick to the dry “debate” material.

You know—you don’t need contraception to limit family size. All you need is a little discipline.


What I think is a balanced explanation of Sanger’s racism from a pro-contraception, seemingly pro-PP black woman.
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/618

Two MUST READs to get the scope of the racist aspect of PP’s founder Margaret Sanger--Her "Negro Project" is very revealing.
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=1466&department=CWA&categoryid=life
http://blackgenocide.org/negro03.html


Truly—VERY little research and reading the lady’s own words will let you see the what Ms. Sanger’s all about. Check out “Pivot of Civilization”—She’s disgusting. http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/~rauch/abortion_eugenics/sanger/sanger_04.html

 

[Felicity]

Here's Project Gutenberg's link to "Pivot of Civilization"

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/pvcvl10.txt

 

[CoffeeSaint]

I’m sure you’ve heard the proverb 'the hand that rocks the cradle controls the world.' Sanger only sees the negative of this. She blames all of the ills of the world on prolific motherhood. There are many benefits to large families—not the least of which is SELFLESSNESS—A much needed quality in today’s world. I could wax poetic on all the beauty I find in my larger-sized family...but...I’ll stick to the dry “debate” material.

You know—you don’t need contraception to limit family size. All you need is a little discipline.


What I think is a balanced explanation of Sanger’s racism from a pro-contraception, seemingly pro-PP black woman.
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/618

Two MUST READs to get the scope of the racist aspect of PP’s founder Margaret Sanger--Her "Negro Project" is very revealing.
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=1466&department=CWA&categoryid=life
http://blackgenocide.org/negro03.html


Truly—VERY little research and reading the lady’s own words will let you see the what Ms. Sanger’s all about. Check out “Pivot of Civilization”—She’s disgusting. http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/~rauch/abortion_eugenics/sanger/sanger_04.html

This is some very interesting stuff. I don't agree at all that she was racist; that claim seems to be based on associations with eugenicists whose articles she published in her magazine, and if association were enough to define a person a certain way, McCarthy would be an American hero and both sides of this debate would be as psychotic as our most extreme brethren, the ones who blow people up and such. She was certainly an elitist, and pretty overt about it, which I hadn't known. Thank you for the info.

Let me just make two quick points:
1. Planned Parenthood is no longer Margaret Sanger's organization, and hasn't been for a long time. If the questionable morality/acts of the founder of the organization were enough to make every future act of the organization tarnished, then we would all be as bad as the slave owners who wrote our Constitution. (I could also point out that this argument is counter to the pro-life argument concerning rape, i.e., the child is not guilty of the father's sins . . .)
2. Planned Parenthood is not the pro-choice side of this argument. I myself have no particular stock in their policies or practices; I will condemn them on the spot for any actions or statements I consider wrong, and it will not change my position on this issue one iota.

As an aside, I am now back at work, Winter Break being over, and my schedule is a bit too hectic to be on here all the time; I should probably take myself out of any active debates, though I will continue to lurk/occasionally post until my time becomes freer. My thanks to everyone who has put up with me.

 

[vergiss]

You know—you don’t need contraception to limit family size. All you need is a little discipline.

What the hell... so married sex is undisciplined, now?

 

[Felicity]

What the hell... so married sex is undisciplined, now?

not exactly the point that was being made, vergiss.

 

[vergiss]

not exactly the point that was being made, vergiss.

So it is undisciplined?

 

[Felicity]

So it is undisciplined?

The point was that you don'r NEED contraception. You don't NEED to medicate or have surgery done on a healthy body. All you need to do is have some self-control a week a month. In context, Sanger was all about birth control and how women where oppressed under their prolific fertility. There is nothing WRONG with fertility. If you know it well, you can avoid pregnancy by listening to your body and being disciplined about choosing not to have sex when the signs say you are likely to get pregnant WITHOUT resorting to the artificial hormones and surgery.

 

[vergiss]

The point was that you don'r NEED contraception. You don't NEED to medicate or have surgery done on a healthy body. All you need to do is have some self-control a week a month. In context, Sanger was all about birth control and how women where oppressed under their prolific fertility. There is nothing WRONG with fertility. If you know it well, you can avoid pregnancy by listening to your body and being disciplined about choosing not to have sex when the signs say you are likely to get pregnant WITHOUT resorting to the artificial hormones and surgery.

Or you could wear condoms or get an IUD and have sex whenever you wanted.

 

[Felicity]

Or you could wear condoms or get an IUD and have sex whenever you wanted.

IUDs intentionally kill embryos that might implant. Sure...wear a condom--or any other barrier method...but anyway....

Do you have any comments about the racist, elitist, mysogynist twit that founded Planned Parenthood and whom Planned Parenthood still immortalizes and looks up to?

 

[vergiss]

Do you have any comments about the racist, elitist, mysogynist twit that founded Planned Parenthood and whom Planned Parenthood still immortalizes and looks up to?

Yeah - she still beats the hell out of the morons controlling the pro-life movement.

 

[Felicity]

Yeah - she still beats the hell out of the morons controlling the pro-life movement.

Okay....deflection duly noted.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

IUDs intentionally kill embryos that might implant. Sure...wear a condom--or any other barrier method...but anyway....

Do you have any comments about the racist, elitist, mysogynist twit that founded Planned Parenthood and whom Planned Parenthood still immortalizes and looks up to?

Sure, I have a comment. It often takes a radical, sometimes an unattractive radical, to effect real change; the best way to handle it is to let the radical do their thing, and then remove the radical, and try to make a better siituation afterward. For example: it took Attila the Hun (and Alaric the Goth and several others) to pull down the corrupt Roman Empire; it took Mao Tse-Tung to remove the Emperor of China; it took Lenin to eliminate the Tsars. These people were all individually horrible, certainly far worse than a woman who didn't like people with mental retardation, and yet their actions led, eventually, to some very positive results. I could think of many more of course, but these make the point well enough. Do I approve of them? No. Would I want to hang out with them? No. Put their pictures on my wall, no. But, does it mean their every legacy is nothing but pure evil? No, it does not. The sins of the father do not pass to the son, remember?

If it is true that the originator corrupts all descendants: let us remember, please, the virulent anti-Semitism of Martin Luther, and denounce the cruelty and prejudice of every person affiliated with the Protestant forms of Christianity; Catholics should also begin polishing up their apologetics for the Borgia pope --was it Pius, or Innocent? I never remember.

Vergiss may be deflecting, but this is an unusual, and somewhat shady, attempt at an end run around the pro-choice position. If you are just positing this in reference to Planned Parenthood, and intend nothing else about the abortion discussion, so be it; Planned Parenthood was founded by someone who had some pretty scummy ideas. I still fail to see how that taints the organization today. If you are suggesting that PP carries on Sanger's attempt to breed out undesirables, let's see some evidence.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

The point was that you don'r NEED contraception. You don't NEED to medicate or have surgery done on a healthy body. All you need to do is have some self-control a week a month. In context, Sanger was all about birth control and how women where oppressed under their prolific fertility. There is nothing WRONG with fertility. If you know it well, you can avoid pregnancy by listening to your body and being disciplined about choosing not to have sex when the signs say you are likely to get pregnant WITHOUT resorting to the artificial hormones and surgery.

This does not reflect reality. People are not generally that self-aware, and people do not generally have that much self-control. You can want them to, and you can try to influence them to pursue this option; I think it might do a lot of good, if done right. But this is not a reasonable argument against abortion. Idealistically, abortion is not a good thing, and I doubt anybody believes it is. But it is pragmatic, and that is something this country desperately needs. I do not believe we are ready to handle the effects of a ban on abortion: 1.3 million unwanted children a year? When there are now children who never get adopted out of foster care?
When women relied on listening to their bodies and controlling their urges one week a month, they had 12 children in 12 years, and died at 35; they lived in exactly the reproductive slavery that Sanger fought against -- and the pro-life movement seems to want to reinstate today. I think that many people in the pro-life movement really need to study more history; Margaret Sanger might be a good place to start, if one could read about her with an open mind.

 

[Felicity]

Sure, I have a comment. It often takes a radical, sometimes an unattractive radical, to effect real change; the best way to handle it is to let the radical do their thing, and then remove the radical, and try to make a better siituation afterward. . .......If you are just positing this in reference to Planned Parenthood, and intend nothing else about the abortion discussion, so be it; Planned Parenthood was founded by someone who had some pretty scummy ideas. I still fail to see how that taints the organization today.

Did you miss that PP still HONORS Ms. Sanger??? Their "most prestegious" award is the Margaret Sanger Award...and they have another award for the media promotion of abortion related information (what I would call "propaganda) the Maggie Award. .

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp...linfo/birthcontrol/pub-martin-luther-king.xml

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America Margaret Sanger Award, sculpted by American artist Stanley Bleifeld, is presented annually to honor especially distinguished service promoting family planning and advancing the principles of social justice for which Mrs. Sanger fought.

Recipients of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Margaret Sanger Award

1966
Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
General William H. Draper Jr.
Carl G. Hartman, M.D.
President Lyndon Baines Johnson

1967
John D. Rockefeller III

1968
Hon. Ernest Gruening

1969
Lord Caradon

1970
Hon. Joseph D. Tydings

1971
Louis M. Hellman, M.D.

1972
Alan F. Guttmacher, M.D.

1973
Sarah Lewit
Christopher Teitze, M.D.

1974
Harriet F. Pilpel, Esq.

1975
Cass Canfield

1976
John Rock, M.D.

1977
Bernard Berelson

1978
Julia Henderson
Frederick S. Jaffe
Edris Rice Wray, M.D.

1979
Alfred E. Moran
Senator Robert Packwood

1980
Mary S. Calderone, M.D.
Sarah Weddington, Esq.

1981
Governor William G. Milliken

1982
Madame Jihan Sadat

1983
Katharine Hepburn

1984
Bishop Paul Moore

1985
Guadalupe de la Vega
Mechai Viravaidya

1986
Jeannie I. Rosoff

1987
Phil Donahue

1988
Ann Landers
Abigail Van Buren

1989
Henry Morgentaler, M.D.

1990
Mufaweza Khan

1991
Bella Abzug

1992
Faye Wattleton

1993
Richard Steele
Audrey Steele Burnand
Barbara Steele Williams

1994
Fred Sai, M.D.

1995
Jane Hodgson, M.D.

1996
Justice Harry A. Blackmun

1997
Louise Tyrer, M.D.
Robin Chandler Duke

1998
Rev. Howard Moody

2000
Nafis Sadik, M.D.

2001
Kathleen Turner

2002
Jane Fonda

2004
Ted Turner
The Forum for Women, Law, and Development in Nepal
K-MET


The article associated with the above list is especially ironic considering what Ms. Sanger said about recruiting black ministers to help keep the message of their rasist agenda under wraps.

More on the awards...
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp...sreleases/pr-040424-margaret-sanger-award.xml
http://www.ppfa.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/media/maggie-awards-2006.xml

If you are suggesting that PP carries on Sanger's attempt to breed out undesirables, let's see some evidence.

33.9% of all abortions are performed on black women according to the CDC chart linked to below, but only make up 11.5% of the populationhttp://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/race.asp
http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_race.html


http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2 1/2 times as likely.[6]

www.plannedparenthoodrx.com/annualreport/report-04.pdf Go to page 9.

244,628 abortions were provided by PP in 2003--this does not include referrals to other abortion providers.


http://www.statehealthfacts.org/cgi...0&viewas=&showregions=0&sortby=region#sorttop
Abortions in the US in 2001 = 853,485

If you take those two numbers as average......you see that PP provides about a quarter of all those abortions that are heavily racially unequal.

The combination of promotion of the procedure (that the "Maggie Awards" honor) and the availability of the locations of the PP sites help to continue Ms. Sanger's racist and eugenic goals.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200501\SPE20050118a.html
Interesting article about the $$$ side of PPs operation.

 

[Felicity]

This does not reflect reality. People are not generally that self-aware, and people do not generally have that much self-control. You can want them to, and you can try to influence them to pursue this option; I think it might do a lot of good, if done right. But this is not a reasonable argument against abortion.

Nor is "it's not practical to expect people to have adequate self-control" a good argument for allowing the killing of human individuals that are powerless against the attack. With the current state of abortion "propaganda"--who wants to listen to the message that "if you have some self-discipline, you can avoid pregnancy" When the opposition tells you "naw...go ahead...pop this pill and you'll be okay...and if it fails we can take care of it with a simple little procedure...no biggie..."

Idealistically, abortion is not a good thing, and I doubt anybody believes it is. But it is pragmatic, and that is something this country desperately needs. I do not believe we are ready to handle the effects of a ban on abortion: 1.3 million unwanted children a year? When there are now children who never get adopted out of foster care?

Again--I don't se this as justification for killing. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

When women relied on listening to their bodies and controlling their urges one week a month, they had 12 children in 12 years, and died at 35; they lived in exactly the reproductive slavery that Sanger fought against -- and the pro-life movement seems to want to reinstate today.

The "rhythm Method" is not the "Sympto-Thermal" method. This is innacurate and hyperbole.

I think that many people in the pro-life movement really need to study more history; Margaret Sanger might be a good place to start, if one could read about her with an open mind.

I think it might be a good place for pro-choicers to start the study of the history of the abortion indistry. You don't need an "open mind", you just need eyes to see the roots of their modern movement.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Did you miss that PP still HONORS Ms. Sanger??? Their "most prestegious" award is the Margaret Sanger Award...and they have another award for the media promotion of abortion related information (what I would call "propaganda) the Maggie Award. .

We still celebrate Columbus Day. He enslaved, raped, slaughtered thousands of Native Americans. Isn't that a bit worse than publishing articles by racists? Is all of America evil because Columbus was evil? Is all of Central America evil because of Cortez and Pisarro?
The founder does not make the organization evil.

The article associated with the above list is especially ironic considering what Ms. Sanger said about recruiting black ministers to help keep the message of their rasist agenda under wraps.

She did not say that. I have addressed this: there has been no direct evidence that Margaret Sanger was specifically racist in the articles you have posted on here. Her letter to the minister referred to her desire to keep his congregants from getting the WRONG idea, not keeping them from discovering her evil plot to eliminate the black race. Her association with eugenicists does not make her a racist, any more than it is logical to accuse every German of anti-Semitism because of the Nazis. She published their articles; she did not write them, nor inspire them. Racially insensitive, yes, as your articles have pointed out; racist, and evidence of intent to eliminate the race? No.

33.9% of all abortions are performed on black women according to the CDC chart linked to below, but only make up 11.5% of the populationhttp://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/race.asp
http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_race.html


http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2 1/2 times as likely.[6]

www.plannedparenthoodrx.com/annualreport/report-04.pdf Go to page 9.

244,628 abortions were provided by PP in 2003--this does not include referrals to other abortion providers.


http://www.statehealthfacts.org/cgi...0&viewas=&showregions=0&sortby=region#sorttop
Abortions in the US in 2001 = 853,485

If you take those two numbers as average......you see that PP provides about a quarter of all those abortions that are heavily racially unequal.

Every abortion provider does the same. This is evidence that our educational systems, and particularly our socioeconomics, are racially biased, but that is hardly news, and not at all an indictment of Planned Parenthood.

The combination of promotion of the procedure (that the "Maggie Awards" honor) and the availability of the locations of the PP sites help to continue Ms. Sanger's racist and eugenic goals.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200501\SPE20050118a.html
Interesting article about the $$$ side of PPs operation.

Planned Parenthood puts its clinics where they are needed. the fact that there are many in predominantly black and Hispanic areas, again, is evidence that our country remains segregated, even ghettoized, and that the opportunities for different races are unequal. It is a travesty. It is not caused, encouraged, or promoted by Planned Parenthood. The percentage of blacks in America has been, I believe, steadily rising; the percentage of Hispanics is skyrocketing. If Planned Parenthood were eugenicists, I would have to say they suck at their job.
As for the "Maggie Awards" promoting eugenics, didn't I read a few non-white names on that list? What kind of idiotic eugenicist gives an award to Dr. Martin Luther King?

 

[Felicity]

Swims like a fish...stinks like a fish...


...doesn't it feel like you're making excuses, Coffee?