Well , it was a bunch of hooey especially this silly thing : ""But those same people bend over backwards to save the patron saint of abortion even though she grossly violates all modern sensibility - and she still has a real impact today - because she reflects on the morality of the church of abortion, planned parenthood. "" I have never seen anyone bend over backwards to "save" Sanger. (I have seen people correct the lies and ignorance of the Anti-Sanger faction who bend over backwards to lie about her ) She is not the patron saint of abortion(she was Anti-Abortion). She doesn't have much of an impact today that I can see. She didn't invent abortion and she certainly didn't promote it. It doesn't need promotion, women just get them when they want them Maybe from your perspective the Anti-Choice/Anti-Woman faction needs to think there's some kind of leader (because they do) but actually women just do as they please. I bet 95% of people who gratefully use PP have never heard of Sanger....
Read this, if you are capable of reading and comprehending: One final misconception about Mrs. Sanger must also be addressed, it seems, and in this case the truth will terribly inconvenience the propaganda efforts all around. It is not right, pace Planned Parenthood, that Margaret Sanger declined to advocate abortion on grounds that it was then a dangerous and illegal surgery. “There are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician,” she wrote in 1920, and “we know that abortion, when performed by skilled hands, under right conditions, brings almost no danger to the life of the patient.” On the evidence in “The Woman Rebel,” the real reason Sanger declined to advocate abortion, notwithstanding the law’s flexibility and what she took to be the procedure’s safety, is that abortion appalled her. She turned women seeking abortions away from her clinics: “I do not approve of abortion.” She called it “sordid,” “abhorrent,” “terrible,” “barbaric,” a “horror.” She called abortionists “blood-sucking men with MD after their names who perform operations for the price of so-and-so.” She called the results of abortion “an outrageous slaughter,” “infanticide,” “foeticide,” and “the killing of babies.” And Margaret Sanger, who knew a thing or two about contraception, said that birth control “has nothing to do with abortion, it has nothing to do with interfering with or disturbing life after conception has taken place.” Birth control stands alone: “It is the first, last, and final step we all are to take to have real human emancipation.” http://www.redstate.com/2013/01/23/what-did-margaret-sanger-think-about-abortion/
Aren't the advocates of eugenics discredited? Doesn't Margaret Sanger's advocacy of eugenics discredit her?
Try actually reading her words and not the interpretation of others. Sanger did not target anyone with abortion, she opposed abortion .. this it what happens when you rely on other peoples writings instead of actually reading the works of the woman herself, you are led down the garden path to what they want you to see and not what is fact. Basing an accusation on today's ideology is fraught with problems, Sanger herself wanted controlled breeding in order to help raise the poor, illiterate etc out of the position they found themselves in and sentenced their children to be in. She was also concerned with the number of children dying before reaching puberty simple because their parents could not feed them. Using your logic then even some of the founding fathers were racist as they owned slaves. Racism is defined as "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that ones own race is superior:" I defy you to find a single thing from Sanger that asserts that the White race is or was superior to other races. I have little time for the politically motivated ideology of the notion that something can be racist simply because unwittingly it effects some people more than others. Sangers eugenic ideology can certainly be said to be discriminative against poor, illiterate, and uneducated people, it cannot be said it shown it was based on race. The very fact she advocated it for white people who were in those categories shows either that she was not racist or she was racist against ALL races, including her own. I have no interest in politically motivated sound-bites. Which I 100% disagree with. You really need to actually do some proper research on Sanger, she opposed abortion . .she was pro-life as far as abortion was concerned and that is a very well documented fact. The rest of your comment is nothing more than the usual political sound-bites and as such can be treated with utter disdain.
That is not the issue here, whether her eugenics ideology discredits her or not has no bearing on the assertion she was racist. Tell me does the fact that some of the founding fathers were slave owners discredit them?
Sanger was anti-abortion but pro legalized contraceptives/birth control. The Catholic Church had succeeded in making contraceptives illegal in most states. The Catholic Church hated and still hates Sanger for making birth control and family planning legal - and prolifers will chant anything the Catholic Church tells them to. All prolife slogans originate from the Vatican and the Vatican tells prolifers exactly who to hate and who to praise. - - - Updated - - - According to prolifers' logic it makes the founding fathers pro abortion baby killers. - - - Updated - - - To you the world is all black and white only. Outlawing incest is illegal as a matter of eugenics. So you oppose outlawing incest, correct?
Sanger was a supporter of negative eugenics. Are you ok with negative eugenics? Margaret Sanger also supported the use of sterilization against the will of the victim. Sanger was some piece of work.
Yes, the Catholic Church hates her for her key role in having contraceptives and family planning legalized. The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld forced sterilization of severely birth defected adults who can carry on the birth defect and lack the ability to know better. I gather you WANT lots and lots of children with birth defects by parents who can't care for them and don't know what they are doing. And you favor legalizing sibling and inbreeding incest.
Can I suggest not indulging the posters attempts to take the thread off topic which is the assertion that Sanger was racist.
Margaret Sanger chose her words so that they could be interpreted in more than one way. This always gave her plausible deniability. Perhaps this was because of her unfortunate experience with the criminal justice system. But if you dig deeply enough it is possible to ferret out her meaning. Margaret Sanger spoke in favor of sterilization of some groups which lack the mental capacity necessary to legally consent to the sterilization procedure. How can a mentally retarded person consent to his or her sterilization? "In a 1921 article in the Birth Control Review, Sanger wrote, 'The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.' Reviewers of one of her 1919 articles interpreted her objectives as 'More children from the fit, less from the unfit.' Again, the question of who decides fitness is important, and it was an issue that Sanger only partly addressed. 'The undeniably feebleminded should indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind,' she wrote." http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger05.html
No I don't. Individual liberty requires that all persons have control over their own bodies. That should be clear. We're talking about Margaret Sanger, not about birth control or legal abortion.
What has this to do with whether Sanger was racist or not? - - - Updated - - - Under the current direction some posters have tried to take the topic, no it shouldn't be here.
