Yes Negro was how they identified them, but it was not a practice to call the race, feeble. If you can't see the fact that she addressed blacks...then man oh man....I don't know what else to say. You said pro-lifers don't want to allow people to make choices. Ok. Two weeks ago…your abortion position was not what it is today, abortion on demand for any reason, anytime even in the ninth month. You wanted to deny women the right to make a choice and base it on their morality not yours. But since I assume you have seen the error of your ways and changed your mind..which is perfectly alright because mine changed as well when I realized abortion was murder. PP does not want to allow a woman to see a sonogram. To see what they actually are killing….should not be a choice. PP went after Kormen after Komen made a choice to not support them anymore. Most pro-aborts don't believe in parental notification…giving parents who are accountable legally for their children a CHOICE. I could go on, you should get the point. You talk about choices…..you tell me what choice is abortion? Did you know that PP today is moving away from using the term CHOICE. But their goals are not ambiguous and really not open to interpretation. They are the countries largest abortion mill and while they do provide other services, (mammograms not being one of them) abortion is their bread and butter. Abortion can be easy for some, harder for others…but morally the issue is pretty straightforward….I think we all know it is killing a human person although not many pro-aborts will admit this ….the sad part is that despite that…they still don't care. So the unborn does not get a CHOICE. And they don't get a choice, because the pro-abort position demeans who they are…they aren't human, aren't people, don't have the right to live. Back to Sanger…..I would respect you a lot more if you said, look Sanger said and did some outrageous things I admire her goals for birth control…but she was a racist. Because Margaret Sanger was a racist…she was a radical feminist….and she was an elitist…who believed in the class system. You defend her based on the day and time this happened. Should we then excuse the actions of anyone who does something immoral or defends the immoral? Should we look away when Muslims carry out Sharia Law? Should we look away when the weak and vulnerable are attacked? I can tell you this…I never would have owned a slave and I would have been one of the people to stand up against it. You said that the majority of the people back in Sanger's day were pro-eugenics? Why was it stopped? If everyone wanted it, why don't we do it today? Actually we do, do it today…PP does when they target the unborn. Lets kill girls, gays, handicapped, the unwanted…which could mean anything. If every person left the earth that was not wanted for one reason or another….we would hardly have anyone. Not wanted does not mean that after the child is born it would not be wanted. You did not answer the question…what did she mean by race of Thoroughbreds be? She wrote a book on it. Who were they? You said that "Sanger realized that the Negro population had little trust in the white man due to the still racist majority of that time, she realised that in order to get the message of birth control to the negro population that it would need to come from their own ministers." What better way then to make them think one thing when another was the truth. And they basically did it to themselves, fell hook, line and sinker. They were the "feeble" she said so herself. These were the unintelligent, the poor, the darker skinned people….these people were the ones to be segregated and sterilized…because they were the ones breeding like rabbits. Yes let the men of God do the Devils work. No wonder the Blacks did not trust…they had darn good reason, the white doctors that she associated with were in Eugenics who shared the same philosophy…they were the free-thinkers the intelligent. Right? You know I find it sad that you would defend someone like Sanger. It is bad enough that you condone killing living humans in the womb at nine months…but to say Sanger loved Negroes, that she had their best interest at heart. What a crock of manure. She like Hitler believed in a supreme race and it did not include dark skinned people.
Sanger was an active propagandist..and that is what PP is today. And this is some of the crap she spread. Sanger Everything about was about sex to her. And today her organization certainly embraces this....spirit of woman eliminates the child. Motherhood a tortured job. Willing mothers to have sex, but unwilling to take the responsibility to have them...and if they do all lives are ruined. Children are a handicap...have to find a way to get rid of them. Quality of which race. She does use plural here...but singular. Who are the fit? Who are the unfit? Who is the inferior? She talks about the feeble minded, mentally challenged, the poor.....and which race primarily do these terms apply to? What is she saying here? She also mentions drastic methods be taken. Make no bones about it..she is targeting a certain element of the population..not only Negroes but others will fit into her categories. Who are the chaotic breeders today...who was back then in her day? "This much is true: In the United States, the abortion rate for black women is almost five times that for white women." http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/11/3/gpr110302.html So Sanger today would say that the Negroes are the chaotic breeders. They were back then...still today. Sanger says we should not be sentimental about this...but act on it. She is a racist.
and as requested and still not provided, where in any of her works does she use the word feeble to describe the black/Negro people .. yours is just an assumption without anything to back it up. Off topic and reported. and if you even bothered to read the comments I have made you would see that on a number of occasions I have stated that I do not support her eugenic views .. even in the original OP I stated that. I am not going to say Sanger was a racist because I have seen nothing that leads me to believe that she was, not in the way you want to portray her anyway. I do not defend her based on the time period she lived in, that is just something that needs to be taken into consideration .. I defend her on the words she wrote, which pro-lifers mis-quote, misrepresent and basically lie about purely to further their own agenda, which is ironic given her staunch anti-abortion views. Impossible for you to confirm that, you have no idea what your position would have been at that time, you are placing your values of now against a time when your values would have been a minority. It stopped because of the Nazi's usage of it to promote a racist agenda, eugenics in itself is not a racist ideology, it becomes one when mis-used. The rest of your response is off topic and reported. already replied and answered, but for you here it is again - "This remark, attributed originally to Sanger, was made by Dr. Edward A. Kempf and has been cited out of context and with distorted meaning. Dr. Kempf, a progressive physician, was actually arguing for state endowment of maternal and infant care clinics. In her book The Pivot of Civilization, Sanger quoted Dr. Kempf's argument about how environment may improve human excellence: "Society must make life worth the living and the refining for the individual by conditioning him to love and to seek the love-object in a manner that reflects a constructive effect upon his fellow-men and by giving him suitable opportunities. The virility of the automatic apparatus is destroyed by excessive gormandizing or hunger, by excessive wealth or poverty, by excessive work or idleness, by sexual abuse or intolerant prudishness. The noblest and most difficult art of all is the raising of human thoroughbreds (Sanger, 1922 [1969]). It was in this spirit that Sanger used the phrase, "Birth Control: To Create a Race of Thoroughbreds," as a banner on the November 1921 issue of the Birth Control Review. (Differing slogans on the theme of voluntary family planning sometimes appeared under the title of The Review, e.g., "Dedicated to the Cause of Voluntary Motherhood," January 1928.)" The comment was not directed at any single group of people, it was directed at humanity as a whole. Point is the "truth" you keep on about is only the truth according to your opinion, and those who would see racism in everything .. It does not go un-noticed that the vast majority of those who claim Sanger was racist are people involved in the pro-life movement. I am still waiting for you to provide a single shred of evidence that Sanger used the word "feeble" when speaking/writing about the negro population .. so far you haven't been able to provide a single thing to back up this erroneous comment, and now you need to provide proof that ALL the doctors she was involved with supported eugenic views .. can you do that? You seem to focus on the colured people while overlooking that Sanger spoke and wrote to people from ALL ethnic backgrounds and wealth status, but of course if you took that into account it would blow your assumptions out of the water. I find it just as sad that you need to resort to misquoting, misrepresenting and basically lying about a person in order to fuel you hatred towards an organization that she started, and you seem to forget I am not defending her views, I am defending her words against the misuse of pro-lifers. Yet again you are attempting to place words into my mouth and thus misrepresenting me (it seems to be a habit of the pro-life people), I have never said anywhere that Sanger loved coloured people, in fact she quite probably did consider them inferior, and there is little doubt that she supported a movement involving eugenics .. however those views were for humanity as a whole and not targeted at a specific group of people, and as you have not provided anything but opinion concerning that then basically you have proved nothing.
So what? You are an active propagandist too. Both sides of the abortion debate use propaganda. So why is propaganda bad? 1) Sanger was a mother of three, and despite suffering from tuberculosis. 2) You forget Sanger didn't live in our times, she lived in a time where women had little control of their fertility, and infant and maternal mortality were grossly high; close to half of Sanger's siblings died before birth and Sanger's own mother died at an early age, forcing the young Sanger to spend much of her youth assisting with household chores and caring for her younger siblings. In her times, motherhood was "wasted, penalized and tortured" and Sanger sought to change that granting women the ability to have some control over their fertility. By having this ability, women could have equal footing and healthier lives in society. 3) Your rant that "children are a handicap" is your own personal belief, not Sanger's. Sanger wanted to elevate the status of women being more than just baby-making-machines Implying she is using race instead of human race. Careful, not only are you projecting your own racism, but putting words into Sanger's mouth. And who's problem is that? Purely based upon your speculation, which isn't evidence. That is awfully racist. How many racists did you know who worked in civil rights movements? Sanger's work with minorities earned praise from Martin Luther King, Jr., in his 1966 acceptance speech for the Margaret Sanger award.
You seem to read an awful lot into a statement that is basically saying that children born into poverty from women who may not want them start life dis-advantaged to those born into wealthy families with females who want them .. Is it something you disagree with? I'd love to know where you get this idea that the comment quoted is about "sex", it isn't. and again you are projecting you opinions as facts, show me where the PP of today are advocating "Motherhood a tortured job, willing mothers to have sex, but unwilling to take responsibility to have them .. and if they do all lives are ruined. Children are a handicap .. have to find a way to get rid of them" .. all of these are just your opinions without facts, in other words worthless. how about the human race, something we are all part of regardless of skin colour. You see racism because you need to see it in order to justify your hatred for Sanger & PP. It applies to any "race" that fit the parameters, you are just making assumptions based on your preconception. Truthfully, today Sanger would consider those who stand against birth control (primarily religious people) as the chaotic breeders regardless of race. Yep, because blacks make up the vast majority of the poorest people in the US, those who cannot afford another newborn, and Sanger was leading the charge to get birth control to these very people, a way for them to control their family size and give them a chance to better their lives .. something pro-lifers stand against. Nope, although unlike you I cannot say for definite what she would say, I believe she would be advocating birth control to all women regardless of their colour or wealth status, that is what she did then and I believe it is what she would do today. she is dead, so she cannot be a racist now .. was she a racist .. I don't believe so, not in the way pro-lifers would have everyone think.
Continuation. I would say that it is pretty obvious who she deemed fit or unfit, and yes her comments are/were outrageous .. but again, where in any of that quote is it specifically aimed at Negros, it would seem to be an obsession of pro-lifers to associate EVERYTHING Sanger wrote or said with Negros when plainly it is not, her words and views were aimed at society as a whole and not a specific group .. I would ask who is it that has the obsession with race, Sanger or pro-lifers? do you even read the quotes you post, her initial interest and what led her into it all was emotionally motivated, she then moved on to scientific research, she fought to remove it from the emotional into the scientific. I'm sorry but your "dismissed" comment is just BS, personally I have looked at every single piece of research you have linked to . .what you can't accept is that I, and others, have posted research that disagrees with yours .. you have even admitted yourself that you don't believe a single thing that comes from CDC, PP or Guttmacher, you "dismiss" them without investigating the merits of the research, and please explain why anyone should give credence to sites that have knowingly posted false pictures, videos and taken Sangers words and misquoted, misrepresented and lied about. That is just the point though isn't it, they have to adhere by your standards, by your morals before you will accept them .. I hate to tell you this but the world does not revolve around what you want. Absolute rubbish, 3% of PP's total work is abortion, how is that "bread and butter" to them, and the "pills" they hand out do not cause embryo abortion, there is no evidence to support this . .none, nothing, nil. PP provide services to those who cannot afford other ways, and you need to remember that correlation does not equal causation .. there are number of reasons why PP clinics can be found more readily in minority areas - as follows - 1. to provide free services to low-income women 2. to target urban areas both of the above tend to be dominated by minorities 3. Responding to demand - abortion is in far greater demand from minorities than "whites" This again is just you seeing what you want to see, blinkered to any other reasons. she was by no means perfect, and her eugenics views were wrong .. however there is nothing to show she was racist in the way you portray, nor any of her actions would conclude that she was.
I will ask you again. The Founding Fathers were racist slave owners, now do you celebrate them or do you despise them? Or do you just pick and choose which racists in history to hate?
I despise anyone....ANYONE....that would own a slave....as I despise the pro-abort position. I don't hate anyone. You might not know this but you can be against someone and not hate them. Or do you think the two go together?
Oh wow...you at least admitted her eugenics views were wrong. Wow. But she was a racist...and the things you deny she said..show that. Even the quotes that are not attributed to her...she allowed them to be published in her journals and reviews. She was friends with racists. What service is the most expensive at any PP clinic? Do they charge hundreds and hundreds of dollars for a pap test....or pregnancy test? The fact is they make the most money on the abortions they provide. http://onenewsnow.com/pro-life/2013...r-for-abortions-taxpayer-funding#.UhodCBYWaqQ - - - Updated - - - I am not running..but am sick today...won't probably be on much...just saying.
As I did in the original OP, did you miss it or not bother to read it. That is your opinion not backed up with any reliable evidence. Only in the corrupt way you interpret them So NOW you admit that some of the quotes used by pro-lifers are in fact not hers, shows how dishonest pro-lifers can be then. In your opinion, and what does being friends with someone prove, I have a lot of friends with who I don't agree with on a number of things .. your comment is nothing but a fallacy of guilt by association. Oh dear dropped yourself in it here .. why are they so expensive, because people like you have ensured that federal funding cannot be used for them, unlike pap tests and pregnancy tests . .remember the Hyde agreement, something pro-lifers campaigned to being in .. allow federal funding and they would be no more expensive than some other services offered. ok, get well soon.
So you despise the Founding Fathers of our country? Good to know. By the way I feel that 'despise' is actually a stronger word than hate. To say you despise something I would say is to hate it very deeply. Despise is a synonym for hate as well. de·spise /diˈspīz, verb verb: despise; 3rd person present: despises; past tense: despised; past participle: despised; gerund or present participle: despising1. feel contempt or a deep repugnance for. "he despised himself for being selfish" synonyms: detest, hate, loathe, abhor, execrate, deplore, dislike; More
Now that the mainstay of the lies pro-lifers use when quoting Sanger have been exposed, I would like the pro-lifers here to comment on the following quotes from her. Margaret Sanger, "Birth Control Advances: A Reply to the Pope -------------------- BIRTH CONTROL OR ABORTION? -------------------- Contraceptives or Abortion? Can one assume that pro-lifers find these words of Sangers as "evil" as all her others. Sanger was pro-life, her own words attest to it, yet pro-lifers demean one of their own .. the question is why, and the only plausible answer is that she was instrumental in establishing PP and was a staunch supporter of a woman's right to control her reproductive life through contraception, and these are the targets of most pro-lifers .. the unborn are incidental to their agenda.
Do I love their views and respect them because some of them owned slaves? No. But I don't hate anyone. Not even you for thinking it's ok to kill a perfectly formed child getting ready to be born, full term. But I don't respect your love for your position. You don't have to hate someone because you hate their words and actions. Being a Founding Father does not excuse a life full of actions, if those actions were wrong. None of them were perfect. Do you think Abraham Lincoln would be respected today had he owned slaves? I abhor the pro-abort position. So...IMO you can despise a position and not hate the person. Obviously you don't see it that way. I think the word Hate, says it all without any definition given to it. I think the opposite of hate is love. - - - Updated - - - Can you be pro-life and a racist?
Fugazi....you avoided this question... You did not answer the question what did Sanger mean by race of Thoroughbreds? She wrote a book on it. Who were they? What race was she talking about? - - - Updated - - - Could you post my entire statement please...I always post yours.
You ask that question with some of the pro-lifers and how they post here? As yet you haven't even proven she was racist, not a single thing you have posted has provided enough evidence to conclude that she was.
I did answer - The human race, what book did she write where she uses the term a race of thoroughbreds .. I've already provided you with where that statement came from and why it was used. Her eugenics views were not aimed at a specific group of people, they were aimed at everyone.
At the time, the Founding Fathers fundamentally understood how wrong it was for Slavery in a state that gave freedom to all Americans. But a significant portion(read: The South) didn't want to give up their property(for good reason, tender cash wasn't necessarily a valued commodity at the time remember). This brought about the http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=163 3/5ths compromise. They also believed in Self-Determination: http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/john_adams_quote_351c The Founders knew that if they violated the principle of Self-Determination, then there would be no Republic for anyone. The Civil war wouldn't have been avoided, in fact it may have even been more violent if the State were consolidated into a non-slavery state. For we all know that freedom was the beckon call of Americans. The idea that the State forced them to abdicate slavery would have ruined the continent for all time. That's neither here or there, but since you made the typical charge against our Founders, I found it a necessity to clear the record for some of America's greatest political statesmen. This, however is in stark contrast to Margret Sanger. She was little more than a private citizen elevated to socio-political status. Her views were of growing but unsubstantial consequence. Because of that, she had all the freedom in the world to choose her path in American History. And we all know where Margret Sanger chose. http://www.toomanyaborted.com/sanger/ For those who believe she was charitable or a work of good for "women". (Laughable, instead of the marriage bed, she made women modern-day prostitutes! That's such an ideal freedom ) The reality is Margret Sanger did no good, for nobody. She destroyed the concept of love in America, she isolated women and managed to butcher millions of babies in the process. And all of this, from her irrational perspective of "Well, my family's poor, so all poor families must have limited children." As that site I posted said: Why the hell didn't she just devote her "hard work" to economic progress. And considering that the vast majority of women have abortions for economic reasons: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/reasonsabortions.html We can conclude that Margret Sanger's legacy is a miserable and catastrophic failure to the American Homeland.
firstly I wasn't the one who brought the Founder Fathers into this, so you comments on that are irrelevant to me Having read through the site you link to I can conclude that you are no different to all the other pro-lifers here who take Sangers words and misrepresent them to further your own ends, Sanger was very much influenced by the eugenics movement, a movement that was supported by numerous high level people of that period - including a future president - and while those views are seen as 'bad' today they were not her main motivation, her motivation was to give women a choice in when and how many children they had .. Sanger was vehemently against abortion .. she was pro-life, her belief was that birth control was the way to remove the need for abortion as well as controlling the population, her views were put to ALL people not just the racial minorities, the poor or the disabled, pro-lifers twist her message in order to try and demonize PP. My "beef" is not what she stood for but the misuse of her words by pro-lifers and the mental gymnastics they use in order to rationalize their erroneous assumptions. I would suggest you remove your blinkers, and actually read her works in full, not just the cherry-picked ones that populate pro-life sites .. though I strongly suspect that suggestion will be ignored, as it might just open your eyes a little wider and let in some truth.
Truth? All of the quotes that you've shown, with an added line or two didn't utterly change the meaning of her message. Hell, the abortion statistics of today, confirm that her message all the more what it was. You're the one whose clinging to straws, engaging in revisionist history about one of the most vicious women the American Continent has ever seen. If they weren't her main motivation, what was? What support did she give to charity? As you yourself just admitted, she wanted to curtail population growth(then, just as now, a complete and utter fiction. Population growth's been declining for the past decade and the U.N expects it to decline further world wide). Finally, Eugenics is not a "science". There isn't a scientist in the continent who would call Eugenics a science. It's a socio-engineering racial program. " Modern science is far more a form of enquiry into natural phenomena, a consensus of information held at any one time (all of which is, so to speak, on loan, and may be modified by new discoveries and new interpretations at any moment), and, most loosely of all, a community of people engaged in enquiry into the natural world."(Bloomberg, 1993)
Question ; Was Sanger pro-life or pro-choice on the issue of abortion .. in fact I'll give you the answer, she was pro-life. Please do tell us all what the "meaning of her message" was, because from where I am sat that "meaning" has been twisted by pro-lifers, so come on give me your 'take' on it. So you judge someone on their views, views I add that were main stream in her time, blinkered to the amazing things she did in pursuit of women's rights and birth control. Wrong - Eugenics is a science - http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/eugenics http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eugenics Or are you saying that you know better?
I believe in taking things at face value, what she said, was what she meant. She's no hypocrit and stood for what she believed, if you'll stand by her at least give her that much credit. When she said the "most merciful thing a family could do to a sibling is to kill it", she really meant those words. To quote Hillary Clinton, what does it matter at this point under what context that statement was made? The important thing is the statement. Do you think if I advocated for the lynching of blacks under some self-justified statement, that makes the context acceptable? No, I'd be deemed a racist, an extremist and someone with unhealthy views. Associating Margret Sanger with a "pro-life" stance is a joke, she was only "pro-life" in the sense that she thought that birth control was far more effective at its job. And no one disagrees with that. It was her first, logical observation of her entire life. But even birth control, falls to the wayside upon improving economic conditions.(IE: The better the economy, the more desirable it is to have children. Shocker!) So it turns out, she didn't promote a solution for anything. At best, her views should've been a non existent factor. At worst, her views gave rise to modern day feminism, single parent homes and delinquent children. All the mean while as I noted in another thread, vastly increasing our morality rate and decreasing our birth rate. "Women's rights"? Do women even know what those rights are? Let me give them a hint: The same "rights" that are afforded to men, none of which are unfortunately birth control, nor do we have equal council on abortion decisions. Perhaps, at one point women suffered from economic inequality(but even this is a misnomer. It's generally accepted(especially now, ironically) that a man's income is the woman's. The woman moves into the man's house, not vice versa most of the time. Oh, and today? The "inequality" (0.75 to a 1.00) can be traced back to women's sociological and ecological decisions regarding the work place. The market is truly unbiased and unracial or non-sexist. It's a true survival of the fittest arena. So if you support eugenics, you should be pleasantly pleased at our current economic model. Give men the same "rights" women has, as it regards to dictating who lives and who dies. Who can have a family and who can't. Then we'll talk about inequality, but throughout history with very few exceptions, women have always had the men looking out for their best interests. I gave you a definition of science, under that definition I could never possibly consider eugenics to be a "science". Eugenics isn't the practice of finding out what those "traits" are, but rather the eugenicist makes the arrogant presumption on what those "traits" are. As long as Eugenicism is on a first person basis, and not on the basis of actual facts, it cannot, under any circumstance be called a science. We do not view straw polls for example, as the final indicator of who'll be president. Eugenics exist as a "science" on the same level as a straw poll.
Then why are you even posting this? What difference does it make what words were used if they still reflect the exact same views? Are you trying to declare her "not guilty by reason of semantics?" That's stupid. You're essentially just arguing that someone is better for calling someone a "porch monkey" than a "(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)." The end result is still the same. It still makes somebody a racist. .......Oh wait. You were serious. Dude, you people won't even admit that a child is a human being. And you're calling us dishonest? You believe it's perfectly acceptable to KILL an innocent child at the most defenseless stage of life. And you're calling us uncivil? The amount of denial it takes to maintain such a blatantly ridiculous worldview borders on the pathological.
Absolutely, in fact, you couldn't even muster any attempt to debunk my assessment without your typical childish ridicule. Here we have a pro-"life" activist which you pro-"lifers" unfairly demonize like a pack of piranhas cannibalizing their own. And why? Because Mrs.Sanger, who has nothing to do with abortion, drives you people so hysterical with rage that you have to blatantly lie about her JUST because she founded Planned Parenthood. I find this extremely unfair because so far, we can only find pro-"lifers" like Margaret Sanger and Adolf Hitler which endorsed racism and eugenics and yet neither one of you condemn the practice. I just hope, one day, you people can muster the inner courage to speak out against the racism which has plagued your movement. As a former pro-"lifer", I know my former movement has a lot to answer for. The pro-"lifers" on this forum are tragically addicted to sensationalism. It isn't that pro-choicers deny a child as a human being, but instead the zygote is. And while constantly referring to the unborn as children may suit your need to make an emotional appeal, the truth is that such terminology just muddies up the discussion with vagueness. What children are we talking about, Unifier? Has anyone denied a toddler of being human? No. Has anyone proposed aborting 11 year old children? Of course not. However, what is being mentioned is specifically a fetus. The fact that you fail to refer to them specifically shows you are uncomfortable with proposing protection and ultimately exposes a weakness. And maybe one day, when you mature a little bit, you'll find the value of making rational arguments instead of such kneejerk responses which required little expense from that organ in between your ears on your behalf.
