January 29, 2010

  • Birth control leader Margaret Sanger: Darwinist, racist and eugenicist

    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.”

    by Jerry Bergman

    http://creation.com/margaret-sanger-darwinian-eugenicist

    Sanger believed she was ‘working in accord with the universal law of evolution’. “She maintained that the brains of Australian Aborigines were only one step more evolved than chimpanzees and just under blacks, Jews and Italians. When arguing for eugenics, Sanger quoted Darwin as an authority when discussing ‘natural checks’ of the population, such as war, which helped to reduce the population. Her magazine even argued for ‘state-sponsored sterilization programs’, forcibly sterilizing the ‘less capable’. She won many academics and scientists to her cause, including Harvard University sociologists E. M. East, University of Michigan President Clarence C. Little and Johns Hopkins psychiatrist Alfred Meyer.”

     ”She wrote: ‘Birth control itself … is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.’ She boldly proclaimed that birth control was the only viable way to improve the human race. And while in her later years Sanger redefined what she meant by the unfit, ‘she increasingly saw feeblemindedness, the bogey of all hereditarians, as antecedent to poverty and social organization in the genesis of social problems.’She also opposed charity because it allowed the less fit to survive and propagate more unfit children. The influence of Darwin on Sanger’s racism ideas is obvious from her writings. For example she wrote,‘The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets. According to one writer, the rapist has just enough brain development to raise him above the animal, but like the animal, when in heat, knows no law except nature, which impels him to procreate, whatever the result.’

    “As Sanger stressed in a talk given at the Fifth International Neo-Malthusian and Birth Control Conference, the end goal of her movement was to produce a superior race: ‘To-day the average reliance of civilization is based upon iron and steel, bricks and mortar, and we must change this to the construction and evolution of humanity itself ’.

    To do this she advocated euthanasia, segregation in work camps, sterilization and abortion. She was very successful in achieving this goal—more than half of the American states launched programs that sterilized their ‘unfit … with Virginia, California, and Kansas leading the way’.

    Sanger was also very influenced by Havelock Ellis,

    ‘ … the influential sociologist, “sexologist,” and eugenicist. Ellis’s position on eugenics is summed up by his own statement that appeared in the “Havelock Ellis Number” of Birth Control Review February 1919 issue: “We desire no parents who are not both competent and willing parents. Only such parents are fit to father and mother a future race worthy to rule the world.”’

    Ellis frequently published articles in Birth Control Review, and Ellis had major influence on Sanger’s ideas. Chesler wrote that Ellis, who ‘always considered himself both a eugenicist and a socialist’, converted Sanger to his views. Furthermore,

    ‘Ellis made his most important contribution to the eugenics doctrine … when he assigned women to act as its chief enforcers. Women are critical agents of civilization’s progress … because … they alone have the power to produce and nurture … fitter babies. … Increased sex expression and wider use of birth control were thus significant tools in the eugenic program, and accordingly, he condemned eugenicists who refused to endorse birth control.’

     Sanger wrote that the so-called “borderline cases” are a greater menace than the out-and-out “defective delinquents” who can be supervised, controlled and prevented from procreating their kind. … the mental defective who is glib and plausible, bright looking and attractive, but with a mental vision of seven, eight or nine years, may not merely lower the whole level of intelligence in a school or in a society, but may be encouraged by church and state to increase and multiply until he dominates … an entire community. The presence in the public schools of the mentally defective children of men and women who should never have been parents is a problem that is becoming more and more difficult.’

    According to Roche, Sanger’s end goal was the same as Hitler’s: to ‘create a race of thoroughbreds’, a pure and superior race and her journal even ‘eerily’ foretold the ‘horrors of the Nazi “final solution”.’ “

    Planned Parenthood is a friend to many that see people as the real threat to both Mother Earth and to the long term benefit of the Elite and seek to reduce the world population by 6 billion or more as quick as possible to a more manageable level.

     

Comments (18)

  • None of that shit has anything to do with evolution or darwin. Eugenics is unnatural selection, and no group of humans is by any biological definition more or less evolved than any other group. Evolution doesn’t work that way imbecile.

    Let this “evolutionist” be the first to say margaret sangar was a stupid racist bitch who didn’t know shit about science, just like YOU don’t have the first idea what evolution is or how it works.

    But even if everything in this blog were true (which it isn’t), it would be like saying E doesn’t equal MC squared because the atom bomb killed a lot of people.

  • I learned a lot about this woman and her organization last year in school. Very interesting.

  • @agnophilo -  I’m so happy that you agree that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sangar did twist science even science of the day to support her agenda. People who make science, religion, law or anything else their lives are still just people and have their own agendas to push forward. People don’t have all the answers no matter how smart they think they are and the more agressive they are in pushing their point by the abuse of others shows that they are fear filled in their stance. The facts alone do not support their position so they often make it up as they go and this is reflected in this (Margaret’s) movement from the start. By the way I think she was far wore than an imbecile and I’m happy she  nor those who support her movement did not inflluence your mother to kill you while you waited for your time to be born.

    I’m not a big fan of the a-bomb that killed thousands but abortion and the stupid racist thought of people like her kills people by the millions.

  • @Barrygw - 

    It sounded like you were attacking evolution by trying to equate it with sangar and abortion, not demonstrating that it was a racist distortion of the science.

    So far as being glad my mother didn’t have an abortion – if she had had an abortion I wouldn’t have existed to care or even conceive of such a thing. You could just as easily say you’re glad my mother didn’t join the clergy and take a vow of celibacy – the effect would be the same.

  • @agnophilo - I do not agree at all that as you put it “the effect would be the same”. There is more to it that you would not be here.  If you were a living person in the womb and then were ripped apart by someone who offered no pain killer or sedation and you had a pain filled death then truly you could not think that would be the same as if you never were there to start with.

  • @Barrygw - 

    First of all, don’t listen to those conspiracy theories about what abortion is like that saline abortion “burns the fetus alive” (actually stimulates uterine contractions to dislodge the fetus, ending pregnancy) etc. Also doctors invented a less invasive form of late term abortion that did not require the fetus to be surgically cut apart and removed in pieces (to avoid cutting open the woman), but republicans banned it in 2003, making the more primitive “tearing the fetus apart” abortion mandatory for late term abortions, including those that are medically necessary.

    But yeah, I give my mom more credit, I think if she did have an abortion it wouldn’t be in the third trimester, so yes the effect would be exactly the same. And no, I wouldn’t mind, would I?

  • @agnophilo - You don’t need to be a republican to respect the value of human life.

    http://www.democratsforlife.org/

    Nor do you have to believe in conspiracy theories to know the many ways people take the lives of the unborn child and how painful or unjust it is in all stages of growth and development from fertilization onward.

    http://www.aaplog.org/

    I’ve listened to former abortion doctors speak of what they did and seen abortions done by suction and forcepts and not in the third trimester. I’ve listened to women who’s lives were never the same after they found out what realy happened to them and their child. Planned Parenthood has always used lies to make money and destroy life starting with it’s founder.

    “Also doctors invented a less invasive form of late term abortion that did not require the fetus to be surgically cut apart and removed in pieces ” Yes they deliver all but the head and force a sharp metal object into the base of the skull prying open enough space to place a suction tip into the skull while the baby kicks until the brain is suctioned out and the skull caves in so the head of the now dead baby may be delivered. ( not a very kind way to kill ) . 

  • @Barrygw - 

    You know that virtually all abortions are not late-term abortions, right? I am pro-choice, but would support banning late-term abortions. As would, btw, our current president.

  • Margaret Sanger.  Angel of Death. 

  • @agnophilo - 

    Suction and curretage of 9 week unborn child.

    http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/medical/suctionweb.jpg

    The Dilatation and Evacuation (D&E) Abortion Procedure of 23 week unborn baby.

    http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/medical/de.jpg

    Partial Birth Abortion of a late term baby.

    http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html#showit

  • Autopsy. Heart Surgery. Childbirth.

    I suppose all these things should be banned too.

  • @agnophilo -

    Autopsy is done on people who are dead and would be with out pain to the dead person.

    Heart Surgery is done to help save life and is done under deep sedation so the patient will not feel pain when done right.

    Childbirth brings life from the womb into the world and the pain can be reduced with drugs and blocks. C-sections does elemate pain to the child when it has to be used.

    Abortion is a attack on a living person that tears a child into smaller parts without pain control resulting in their death while their only crime was waiting for their turn to be brought in to this world . Where is the justice for their right to life and freedom in that? Just as black men and women and their children were called property and not people by the courts in the day of slaves so are these live called by the courts today and oce again this is a lie for they are living people and their life is as important as any other person.

  • @Barrygw - 

    My point was to illustrate that something being graphic and repulsive is not a valid moral argument against it.

    “Autopsy is done on people who are dead and would be with out pain to the dead person.
    Heart Surgery is done to help save life and is done under deep sedation so the patient will not feel pain when done right.”

    Likewise the nerve endings do not connect to the pain centers of the brain until about 26 weeks gestation (around 6 months).

    “Childbirth brings life from the womb into the world and the pain can be reduced with drugs and blocks. C-sections does elemate pain to the child when it has to be used.”

    Would you concede that abortion very early on before the fetus has a brain or any capacity to feel pain is at least less immoral?

    “Abortion is a attack on a living person that tears a child into smaller parts without pain control resulting in their death while their only crime was waiting for their turn to be brought in to this world.”

    No, that is some forms of late-term abortion, less than 2% of all abortions occur in the third trimester and again pro-life advocates made it federal law that you have to dismember the fetus to abort it in the third trimester.

    “Where is the justice for their right to life and freedom in that?”

    Embryos do not have first ammendment rights. Somewhere between this and this a person exists. I think it’s closer to the latter than the former and would support banning late-term abortions. But I think banning all abortions would be stupid and would give men incredible power over women’s lives, as well as worsening the already huge problem of unsustainable population growth, world hunger and other problems, not to mention not actually getting rid of abortions, but rather just going back to the days of women throwing themselves down the stairs and douching with toxic chemicals and having coathanger abortions left and right and often killing themselves.

    “Just as black men and women and their children were called property and not people by the courts in the day of slaves so are these live called by the courts today and oce again this is a lie for they are living people and their life is as important as any other person.”

    I can understand if you’re talking about an 8 month fetus but if you’re talking about a zygote there’s just no comparison.

  • By the way we have a democrat in the white house who publically says he supports a ban on late-term abortion. We should already have one by now, but we won’t for a long time because republican officials don’t want one – they want to keep abortions happening as often as possible so they can use the issue to get elected. That’s why they just twiddle their thumbs and do nothing but posture on issues like abortion. They banned what they called “partial birth abortion” which as I said only made late-term abortions more gruesome (and better for them as a talking point).

    I did this blog about it ages ago, you may find it interesting.

  • @agnophilo -” would give men incredible power over women’s lives, as well as worsening the already huge problem of unsustainable population growth, world hunger and other problems, not to mention not actually getting rid of abortions, but rather just going back to the days of women throwing themselves down the stairs and douching with toxic chemicals and having coathanger abortions left and right and often killing themselves.”
    Margaret Sanger has done her job well in you!

    Yes, I remember all these lame reasons from the 60s and 70s to save these poor strange people who did crazy things to themselves but out of a million who had a living baby inside of them how many realy did such stupid things? the facts are we have killed our tax base in this country by tens of millions and that is why we are so laxed on watching our borders and allow people to abuse these workers from south of the border. If people need help then get them help but if they are too lazy to take birth control measures then the child should not pay the price and allow these same people to have multiple abortions because they can not understand how got that way.

  • @Barrygw - 

    I’m sorry but in no way is any of that a response to anything I said.

  • I hear support being given to eugenics by students on campus. I will sometimes think I am taking them out of context, that perhaps it is said in jest when referring to people they have great dislike for. But every time I have asked, “Do you really believe that?” They tend to affirm it. Its creepy that this sort of thinking exists even today. I wouldn’t call it a bastardization of evolution, in reality the intellectuals of the day really did believe that you could see evidence for it today by comparing different peoples. Today we refer to it as Social Darwinism, in an attempt to separate what credible evolutionist believe today from fascist radicals. An evasion of the fact that intellectuals of that day believed in some very shifty science implies something I used to think was unthinkable of people today. Would it drive anyone crazy if I said I am still pro-choice simply because I believe putting a lien on anyone’s life due to the need of another individual (regardless of who they are) is not the place of government. I am still disturbed with people who refuse to control their urges, and use this as a method to not face the consequences of their actions. Although it disturbs me, I don’t like the idea of a government telling people how to live their lives. It rarely does so with the best interest of the people in mind. Planned Parenthood stinks of fascist corruption, anyone who supports them should really rethink their values.

    If anyone is interested in further information about a select group of ivory tower elites wanting to reduce the population though, I would suggest looking up the “Solid State Economy”. Its an interesting read. I have read up on some economist who have their “pet projects”, setting fees, taxes, and solid standards to get their point across. Its not a far stretch to think that some of them wouldn’t mind setting limits on births, heavy taxes per child born, fees for having over the allotted number of children, etc.

Post a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *