'NAZI FOUNDER OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD'
Noach
"THE ELIMINATION OF HUMAN WEEDS"
By: Chuck Morse
To understand the abortion agenda today we need look no further than its
most influential booster, one of the founders of Planned Parenthood,
Margaret Sanger (1883-1966). Sanger’s philosophical Nazism and association
with the German Nazi movement, along with an examination of her career,
indicate that her focus on abortion and birth control, rather than motivated
by "choice", was actually a reflection of her belief in eugenics and
genocidal population control. The left and the emerging globalist
establishment largely adopted her policies, albeit in a sanitized and
re-marketed version, after WWII and the defeat of the Nazi experiment.
Its quite clear that both Nazism and Communism, with their fellow travelers
and camp followers, represent the same philosophical idea, which is, as
referred to by Marx, state control over the "means of production". Both
strive to use the gun-backed power of the state to control human life and
to decide who lives and who dies.
Statepower is, from their perspective, necessary to fulfill their designs
for world political control and to satisfy their utopian faith of creating
paradise on earth. The Communists dream of a "workers paradise" the Nazis of
an Aryan super-race. American notions of the role of the state are, of
course, the exact opposite of both socialisms.Communists would, to use Lenin
’s term,"liquidate" those who were either deemed members of a socially
regressive class, or those who were not "politically correct" however the
term is defined at a given time. Nazis would incinerate those who were
deemed not to be "racially correct". Either way, there is a total loss of
freedom and innocent people end up just as dead.
Given the fact that our tax dollars support International Planned
Parenthood, with their "family planning program" of forced abortions, forced
sterilization, infanticide, and advocacy of euthanasia in Communist China,
it is reasonable that we look at the career of their primary founder. George
Grant, author of "Killer Angel" presents a well-documented recantation of
Sanger’s career and philosophy. Grant quotes Sanger, in her own book "The
Pivot of Civilization" as referring to "the elimination of human weeds".
Sanger calls for the "cessation of charity" because it results in prolonging
the lives of those she deems to be "unfit".
Sanger advocated, in her own words, the segregation of "morons, misfits, and
the maladjusted", and for the "sterilization of genetically inferior races".
She contended that in order to "save the planet", the "unfit" should be
discouraged from reproducing. With this in mind, she spearheaded the opening
of birth control clinics in, according to Grant,"the Brownsville section of
New York, an area populated by newly immigrated Slavs, Latins, Italians, and
Jews".
Sanger, in the magazine "The Birth Control Review", supported the
"infanticide program" of Nazi Germany, promoted Hitler’s white supremacy in
the 1930’s, and hired Ernst Rudin, the Nazi head of the German Medical
Experimentation Program as a consultant. In 1939, the year WWII broke out,
she organized the "Negro Project" which was designed to eliminate members of
an "inferior race". Sanger stated that:
"The masses of Negroes…particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and
disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more
than among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent
and fit".
Sanger’s stated method of reaching the Negro community was to recruit Negro
ministers "to travel to various black enclaves to propagandize for birth
control". She stated that:
"The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a
religious appeal. 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 to any of their more rebellious members.
Sanger wrote of the necessity of targeting "dysgenic races" which would
include "Fundamentalists and Catholics, blacks, Hispanics, (and) American
Indians". Sanger stated that:
"Birth control appeals to the advanced radical because it is calculated to
undermine the authority of the Christian churches. I look forward to seeing
humanity free someday of the tyranny of Christianity no less than
Capitalism".
Sanger, like Hitler, dabbled in the anti Judeo-Christian occult, or what we
would refer to as the "New Age". This faith, in the hands of these two
socialist radicals, lends itself to utopian ideas of race purity. Hitler’s
Germany presents a textbook example of what happens when eugenic socialism
becomes "empowered".
While it could be argued that abortion should be, as President Clinton
stated, "legal, safe, and rare", women are being deceived if they think that
the pro-abortion lobby stands for "choice". If they did, the
pro-abortionists would advocate against abortion. The pro-abortionists would
also come clean in terms of the negative physical and psychological effect
abortions have on women. It would be easy for them to promote adoption, as
there are thousands of couples who are waiting to adopt a baby. They would
look to abortion, while legal, as an absolute last resort to be considered
for medical reasons only. Instead, they continue to push the envelope with
"partial birth abortion", infanticide, euthanasia, and other devises for
eliminating those deemed "unfit".
Published in the June 14, 2000 issue of Ether Zone Online
Copyright © 2000 Ether Zone Online. (http://etherzone.com).
Reposting permitted with this message intact.
spar...@my-deja.com
even fabricated quotations don't say otherwise. Chuck Morse is a
goddam liar.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ray Fischer
>(From http://www.jewsformorality.org/select/selected_commentary_4.htm )
>
>"THE ELIMINATION OF HUMAN WEEDS"
>
>By: Chuck Morse
>
>To understand the abortion agenda today we need look no further than its
>most influential booster, one of the founders of Planned Parenthood,
Guilt by association.
I guess then that all abortion opponents have, as their real goal,
imposing a dictatorship through the use of terrorism, bombing,
harrassment, and murder.
--
Ray Fischer It is a strange desire to seek power and to lose liberty.
r...@netcom.com Francis Bacon
Society
>
> Margaret Sanger was not a Nazi, and a handful
> of out-of-context and even fabricated quotations
> don't say otherwise. Chuck Morse is a goddam liar.
It's over the top to argue Sanger was a member of
the National Socialist party. But, like so many other
'social progressives' of her day, she had ideas that
she shared with 'em -- even admired the National
Socialists for their social goals of racial hygiene.
You'd be hard pressed to argue that eugenics wasn't
among the core beliefs of Sanger and other so-called
benefactors of the people, including the socialists
of that era. Because you don't like certain parts of
reality you find unpleasant to your cozy socialism,
you employ flames where adults use facts. Then,
you launch into unsubstantiated yelps of "liar". If you
know these quotes are phony, such as the "elimination
of human weeds" quote, then let's see you demonstrate
such. Your mouth isn't a demonstration of anything
except your own lack of credibility.
---
All excuses for socialism, like those for its Ladies
Auxiliary of feminism, depend on censorship
of reality to appear plausible.
webg...@rocketmail.com
"Noach" <azure7(REMOVE)s...@mindspring.REMOVE.com> wrote:
>
> (From
> http://www.jewsformorality.org/select/selected_commentary_4.htm)
>
>
> By: Chuck Morse
>
> To understand the abortion agenda today we need
> look no further than its most influential booster,
> one of the founders of Planned Parenthood, Margaret
> Sanger (1883-1966).
Which is an excellent point if you are trying to
paint Margaret Sanger and the organization that
was to become Planned Parenthood as *racist*, since
to look further at other "most influential boosters",
one would swiftly find that Margaret Sanger and
Planned Parenthood are anything BUT racist!
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was an educated man
and a minister. Surely his opinion of Margaret
Sanger, one of his contemporaries, matters more
than the ramblings of George Grant?
"There is a striking kinship between our movement
and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. ... Our sure
beginning in the struggle for equality by
nonviolent direct action may not have been so
resolute without the tradition established by
Margaret Sanger and people like her."
-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., acceptance
speech after accepting the Margaret Sanger
Award from Planned Parenthood.
To understand the non-racist agenda of the
pro-choice movement, we need look no further
than Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
> Sanger’s philosophical Nazism and association
> with the German Nazi movement,
Sanger's disagreement with the state control of
reproduction, as was used by the Nazis during
the period of Nazi control of Germany, was put
into print EIGHTEEN YEARS before Hitler gained
control of Germany!
The Birth Control Review, February 1919.
See below for exact quote.
> along with an examination of her career,
Don't forget the pivotal point in her career,
1929, when she *stopped editing* the "BIRTH
CONTROL REVIEW". This date is important,
since almost all of the negative language
attributed to Margaret Sanger from "BIRTH
CONTROL REVIEW" is claimed to come from
magazines dated *after* 1929.
> indicate that her focus on abortion and
> birth control, rather than motivated by
> "choice", was actually a reflection of
> her belief in eugenics and genocidal
> population control.
THE BIRTH CONTROL REVIEW
February 1919
"Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's
first duty is to the state; we contend
that her duty to herself is her first
duty to the state. We maintain that a
woman possessing an adequate knowledge
of her reproductive functions is the
best judge of the time and conditions
under which her child should be brought
into the world. We further maintain that
it is her right, regardless of all other
considerations, to determine whether she
shall bear children or not, and how many
children she shall bear if she chooses to
become a mother."
<SARCASM>
Yup, sure sounds like she wasn't in favor
of "choice"!
</SARCASM>
> The left and the emerging globalist
> establishment largely adopted her policies,
> albeit in a sanitized and re-marketed version,
> after WWII and the defeat of the Nazi experiment.
[snip!]
> Given the fact that our tax dollars support
> International Planned Parenthood, with their
> "family planning program" of forced abortions,
> forced sterilization, infanticide, and advocacy
> of euthanasia in Communist China,
Frankly, I'd have to see proof of the IPPF "forcing
sterilizations", "forcing abortions", and "committing
infanticide", before these allegations should be
taken seriously. The population control program of
China is already well known, and it takes very little
effort to try and paint groups also working in China
with the same brush. It takes proof to make the
reverse-whitewashing stick!
> it is reasonable that we look at the career of
> their primary founder. George Grant, author of
> "Killer Angel" presents a well-documented
> recantation of Sanger’s career and philosophy.
> Grant quotes Sanger, in her own book "The Pivot
> of Civilization" as referring to "the elimination
> of human weeds".
Interestingly enough, if one does a text search for
the word "weeds" within the public domain copy of
"The Pivot of Civilization" found at
http://www.pro-life.net/sanger/pivot_in.htm (note
that it is an anti-abortion source), the word is
only found in the following paragraph (the word
WEEDS is emphasized by me, and is not capitalized
within Pivot):
===========================================
http://www.pro-life.net/sanger/pivot_in.htm
===========================================
THE PIVOT OF CIVILIZATION
CHAPTER III: ``Children Troop Down From Heaven....''
===========================================
"...One ten-year- old boy had never been to school
because he was a mental defective; one child of
nine was practically blinded by cataracts. This
child was found groping his way down the beet-rows
pulling out WEEDS and feeling for the
beet-plants--in the glare of the sun he had lost
all sense of light and dark. Of the three hundred
and forty children who were not going or had never
gone to school, only four had reached the point of
graduation, and only one had gone to high school.
These large families migrated to the beet-fields
in early spring."
===========================================
Seems to me that the writer is putting words in
Margaret Sanger's mouth and then condemning her
for saying words which she NEVER SAID.
So lets just make this clear, once and for all:
THE PIVOT OF CIVILIZATION DOES NOT CONTAIN THE
PHRASE: "THE ELIMINATION OF HUMAN WEEDS".
George Grant is LYING because he proposes that
"the elimination of human weeds" is an EXACT
QUOTE in Margaret Sanger's OWN WORDS, and this
is clearly FALSE, from an ANTI-ABORTION SOURCE
of "The Pivot of Civilization".
Why is it that the anti-abortion movement, after
claiming to have all this "proof" of Margaret
Sanger being a racist, CHOOSES to use these
blatant falsehoods and outright misattributions?
Could it be that they really don't have any
proof whatsoever?
> Sanger calls for the "cessation of charity"
> because it results in prolonging the lives of
> those she deems to be "unfit".
And if you were a believer of the social darwinist
theories that essentially make up EUGENICS, you
would say things like this. (remember that:
Social Darwinism is just a whitewashed term for
EUGENICS)
But you'll note one important fact about Margaret
Sanger: compared to the majority of eugenicists of
her day, she was opposed to the application of
eugenics based on racist principles. I.e., that
individuals could be inferior, but not entire
population groups!
Ironically, this put her in the "moderate" group
of eugenicists of the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s.
> Sanger advocated, in her own words, the
> segregation of "morons, misfits, and the
> maladjusted",
Her *exact words* were the placing of
"illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals,
prostitutes, [and] dope-fiends" ... "on farms
and open spaces as long as necessary for the
strengthening and development of moral conduct."
By a startling contrast, the GOP supports much
the same policy through the segregation of the
incredibly illiterate prison population of
America, whose numbers include "dope-fiends,
criminals, prostitutes, etc.". Some in the
GOP have suggested Margaret Sanger's idea of
making prisoners work on farms.
I guess it just matters which side you're on.
If you're aligned with Margaret Sanger, then your
ideas of segregating criminals from the rest of
the population and making them work must be EVIL.
If you're aligned with the GOP, then your ideas
of segregating criminals from the rest of the
population and making them work must be GOOD.
> and for the "sterilization of genetically
> inferior races".
I'd need an exact citation or quote on this one.
I suspect that the author of this propaganda
piece is merely using the word "races" in place
of "individuals".
Throughout her life, Margaret Sanger argued that
only individuals, not entire population groups,
could be "inferior" to a eugenics standard.
Incidentally, a text search of The Pivot of
Civilization, using the word "race", does NOT
produce the phrase "sterilization of genetically
inferior races" ANYWHERE within Pivot!
Must be putting words into the mouth of Margaret
Sanger again! Is there ANY proof of Margaret
Sanger being a racist which is not a deliberate
falsehood???
> She contended that in order to "save the planet",
> the "unfit" should be discouraged from reproducing.
Interestingly enough, this sentence here does not
jibe with earlier claims that Margaret Sanger
wanted the government to FORCE sterilizations and/or
FORCE reproductive control on anyone!
> With this in mind, she spearheaded the opening
> of birth control clinics in, according to Grant,
> "the Brownsville section of New York, an area
> populated by newly immigrated Slavs, Latins,
> Italians, and Jews".
The problem here is that by trying to give birth
control to the populations that needed it most
because of their extreme poverty, people are
making claims that she was targeting specific
races within the poverty-stricken communities.
IMAHO, the poverty of the neighborhood spurred
the opening of birth control clinics, not the
races which happened, by the sorry state of
man's inhumanity to man, to be living in
poverty-stricken neighborhoods at the time.
One might as well suggest that the Catholics
target specific races in low-income areas when
they open soup kitchens in poverty-stricken
neighborhoods, and there is a mode of thinking
which suggests that giving people handouts
only encourages more handouts, not people
learning to help themselves.
By a startling contrast, Margaret Sanger and
the GOP both advocate a similar policy of
trying to help people help themselves, rather
than relying upon outsiders all the time for
help.
I guess it all depends on which side you're
on, your side or the side you're attacking.
When the GOP attempts to make people help
themselves by *denying them assistance*,
they're "helping people help themselves".
When Margaret Sanger suggests the SAME DAMN
THING, she's being "racist" or a "eugenicist".
> Sanger, in the magazine "The Birth Control Review",
> supported the "infanticide program" of Nazi Germany,
> promoted Hitler’s white supremacy in the 1930’s,
> and hired Ernst Rudin, the Nazi head of the German
> Medical Experimentation Program as a consultant.
I'm interested in any exact citations of where,
within the pages of The Birth Control Review, exists
the proof for any of these allegations. An allegation
without a citation is effectively a FALSE allegation.
And since the author is unwilling to check the facts
of the claim listed below, the claims listed above
are automatically suspect.
> In 1939, the year WWII broke out, she organized
> the "Negro Project" which was designed to
> eliminate members of an "inferior race".
Race relations supporters who were
involved in the Negro Project:
W.E.B. DuBois, the Founder of the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored
People, and one of the BOARD OF DIRECTORS
for the "Negro Project".
Mary McLeod Bethune, founder of the National
Council of Negro Women
Adam Clayton Powell Jr., pastor of the
Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem
Eleanor Roosevelt, the most visible and
compassionate supporter of racial equality
in her era
Albert and Mary Lasker, the medical
philanthropists whose financial support
made the project possible
The most prominent supporters of race
equality were actively supporting a
project designed to "kill off blacks"?
ROTFL!
> Sanger stated that:
>
> "The masses of Negroes particularly in the South,
> still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the
> result that the increase among Negroes, even more
> than among whites, is from that portion of the
> population least intelligent and fit".
OOPS. Guess the person making the claim has been
reading from anti-abortion PROPAGANDA and not from
"The Birth Control Review" of June ** 1932 **.
In any case, the quote is a misattribution.
The author of the article in which the above
text appears is in fact W.E.B. DuBois, the
Founder of the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People. Margaret Sanger
ceased editing the "The Birth Control Review"
in 1929, and did not contribute any articles
to the "NEGRO NUMBER", the June 1932 issue of
"The Birth Control Review."
As for the Founder of the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People being
*racist*, I'll let you decide whether or not
W.E.B. DuBois was trying to *attack blacks*.
=========================================
THE BIRTH CONTROL REVIEW, June 1932
Issue Titled: NEGRO NUMBER
"Black Folks and Birth Control"
by W.E.B. DuBois
=========================================
Article Review
=========================================
This article contains the famous quote often
misattributed to Margaret Sanger, "the mass
of ignorant Negroes still breed carelessly
and disastrously, so that the increase among
Negroes, even more than the increase among
whites, is from that part of the population
least intelligent and fit, and least able to
rear their children properly."
If one merely notes the very next paragraph,
one sees that his attitude is not a desire
to simply decrease the "Negro" population
among the lower classes, but to help them
achieve the higher class he and other
educated "Negroes" have attained: "There
comes, therefore, the difficult and insistent
problem of spreading among Negroes an
intelligent and clearly recognized concept
of proper birth control, so that the young
people can marry, have companionship and
natural health, and yet not have children
until they are ready to take care of
them...They must learn that among human
races and groups, as among vegetables,
quality and not mere quantity really counts."
Encouraging fellow members of his own race
into practices which can only lead to greater
material goods for themselves and greater
education and employment for their own
children, surely cannot be called racist!
=========================================
> Sanger’s stated method of reaching the Negro
> community was to recruit Negro ministers "to
> travel to various black enclaves to propagandize
> for birth control". She stated that:
>
> "The most successful educational approach to
> the Negro is through a religious appeal. 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 to any of their
> more rebellious members."
Exact Article Quote, in context:
"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."
The problem here is that the article only appears
to be racist if one assumes first that only racist
motives are being used to justify birth control
in the black communities.
The fact is that there were very pro-black reasons
for promoting real birth control methods among
the black communities of the 1920s and 1930s.
First and most obvious would have been to reduce
family size in the increasingly urban populations.
While a rural black family might have cause to
have a large family--every new child represented
a new, largely free farmworker--the urban family
would not have such a benefit from large family
size--every new child represented a new mouth to
feed who would not bring home additional income.
Second, and less obvious, would have been to
replace the black community's already massive
preoccupation with *quack* birth control methods
with real, efficient, less dangerous birth control
methods! Most anti-abortion "historians" like to
leave out the FACT that the black community was
already working quite hard to CONTROL THEIR *OWN*
BIRTHS, and getting HURT from quack birth control
and abortifacients available in the HUGE market
for such things in the South, and to some extent
the market was the SAME in the North.
By replacing the quack, folk methods of birth
control and abortifacients, with modern methods
proven to work to control births, the Birth
Control League (what was to become Planned
Parenthood) was actually saving the lives of
quite a few women while helping them reduce
their family sizes!
==========================================
THE BIRTH CONTROL REVIEW, June 1932
"A Question of Negro Health"
by Charles S. Johnson
==========================================
"An important present circumstance is the
inaccessibility of reliable information
centers for those elements of the Negro
population, which, on the one hand, are
unable to secure high-priced professional
advice, and on the other hand do greater
violence than good to themselves through
reliance on dangerous folk measures."
==========================================
It is obvious that only with deliberate
omissions and deliberate errors or falsehoods,
will the anti-abortion movement create a
picture of a racist Margaret Sanger and a
racist Birth Control League (Planned Parenthood).
> Sanger wrote of the necessity of targeting
> "dysgenic races" which would include
> "Fundamentalists and Catholics, blacks,
> Hispanics, (and) American Indians".
Again, the word "dysgenic" appears only in
conjunction with "the human race", and not
in conjunction with any specific race.
It seems that a bit of wishful thinking on
the part of the anti-abortion movement has
turned into actual DOGMA.
> Sanger stated that:
>
> "Birth control appeals to the advanced radical
> because it is calculated to undermine the
> authority of the Christian churches. I look
> forward to seeing humanity free someday of the
> tyranny of Christianity no less than Capitalism".
Xtianity, at the time and even today, continues
to hold an "immediate post-Black Death ideal" of
repopulating the earth. The authority of Christian
churches is what, for example, causes girls in
Mississippi to forgo birth control, even as they
have sex with their boyfriends to avoid losing them.
Xtianity has caused more and bloodier wars than
any other religion in the world. Xtian attitudes
against birth control and in favor of huge families
have caused untold suffering when huge families try
to live in urban areas.
Her position is one which has some credibility,
albeit her position on charity also has a lot to
do with her opposition to Xtianity.
> Sanger, like Hitler, dabbled in the anti
> Judeo-Christian occult, or what we would refer
> to as the "New Age".
Despite Hitler's repeated claims of being a member
of the Judeo-Christian cult, and his being declared
a "Soldier of Christ" by Pope Pius XI?
Seems to me someone didn't really check his or
her facts before declaring "truths"!
> This faith, in the hands of these two socialist
> radicals, lends itself to utopian ideas of race
> purity. Hitler’s Germany presents a textbook
> example of what happens when eugenic socialism
> becomes "empowered".
>
> While it could be argued that abortion should
> be, as President Clinton stated, "legal, safe,
> and rare", women are being deceived if they
> think that the pro-abortion lobby stands for
> "choice". If they did, the pro-abortionists
> would advocate against abortion.
How hilarious! "The pro-abortion people,
if they were really pro-choice, would be
anti-abortion"!
Does this guy even understand ENGLISH?
Anti-abortion is AGAINST CHOICE, because it
opposes the ONLY OTHER CHOICE in pregnancy!
Adoption REQUIRES childbirth, so it is not
an "alternative" to childbirth. Abortion,
as an alternative to childbirth, is an
alternative to childbirth!
Pro-choicers ALREADY support reduced abortions!
> The pro-abortionists would also come clean
> in terms of the negative physical and
> psychological effect abortions have on women.
Which would be easy if all those damned
studies using the scientific method and anti-bias
stuff wouldn't keep coming up in favor of NO
psychological damage to women after abortions!
As for the potential and actual physical
complications, the comparison is often made
between childbirth's complications and
abortion's complications, with the obvious
winner being the LESSER complications, the
abortion procedure.
> It would be easy for them to promote adoption,
It would be easy if adoption were an alternative
to CHILDBIRTH, but wait, no, it isn't an alternative
to childbirth, so how can it be an alternative to
abortion?
> as there are thousands of couples who are
> waiting to adopt a baby.
Waiting to adopt a healthy, white baby, you mean.
Planned Parenthood promotes adoption by outsourcing
adoption efforts to CPCs. Every Planned Parenthood
counselor who, after two hours mandatory pre-abortion
counselling, discovers that a woman no longer wants
an abortion, will send that woman to a CPC.
> They would look to abortion, while legal, as
> an absolute last resort to be considered for
> medical reasons only.
An arbitrary attitude which defines "medical
reasons" as "extreme medical reasons only".
The fact of the matter is that medical
reasons--severe to extreme--can be used to
justify ALL ABORTIONS, thus pro-choicers
ALREADY look at abortion as "an absolute last
resort to be considered for medical reasons".
> Instead, they continue to push the envelope with
> "partial birth abortion",
Intact dilation and extraction is used when removing
the fetus' head would present a health problem for
the woman in question.
I don't see any major anti-abortion campaign against
Dilation & Curettage, an abortion method which slowly
cuts up the fetus into pieces while it is still in
the womb, starting with the feet.
Seems to me someone in power in the anti-abortion
movement has no problem with permitting fetuses to
be slowly diced from the feet up, since those in
power in the anti-abortion movement need at least
ONE late-term abortion method to satisfy their
promises of "abortions for women to save their lives"!
Or are those promises merely "lip service" in an
attempt to garner more support, then will be swiftly
discarded if anti-abortion folks ever gain control?
> infanticide,
Prove that the pro-choicers support infanticide.
Citations, documentation? I didn't think so.
> euthanasia,
Depends on the program. I oppose Holland's program
of giving the doctor sole power over the patient's
euthanasia. Killing yourself, while only recommended
as a last resort, might save you months of extreme
pain from a terminal condition (mental illness not
included).
> and other devises for eliminating those deemed
> "unfit".
Lets see, you claim, without any proof, that the
pro-choice movement sponsors infanticide, promotes
abortion above any other choice in pregnancy, and
now claim that Holland's program of allowing people
other than the patient to decide euthanasia is
the program of choice for pro-choicers.
But when it comes to attacking the "unfit", as
defined by eugenicists, there is a group which
happens to be largely anti-abortion, which is
also in favor of much the same "destruction of
the unfit".
The GOP is a major supporter of cutting welfare
assistance to the disabled and to the poor, as
evidenced by their support of restricting the
scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
and their constant attacks on welfare.
By a startling coincidence, a certain dictator
whose name we cannot utter thanks to Godwin's
Law, also came up with the idea that the disabled
didn't need rights and that welfare was a stupid
idea and should be cut back to nothing as soon
as possible.
Get the beam out of your own eye before you argue
about the mote in Margaret Sanger's eye!
> Published in the June 14, 2000 issue of
> Ether Zone Online
> Copyright © 2000 Ether Zone Online.
> (http://etherzone.com).
> Reposting permitted with this message intact.
Apparently Ether Zone is just another anti-abortion
hack rag with less need to verify facts than
Matt Drudge.
-----------------------
THE PIVOT OF CIVILIZATION
http://www.pro-life.net/sanger/pivot_in.htm
WOMEN AND THE NEW RACE
http://www.pro-life.net/sanger/woman_in.htm
-----------------------
webg...@rocketmail.com
"Noach" <azure7(REMOVE)s...@mindspring.REMOVE.com> wrote:
>
> (From
> http://www.jewsformorality.org/select/selected_commentary_4.htm)
>
>
> By: Chuck Morse
>
> To understand the abortion agenda today we need
> look no further than its most influential booster,
> one of the founders of Planned Parenthood, Margaret
> Sanger (1883-1966).
Which is an excellent point if you are trying to
paint Margaret Sanger and the organization that
was to become Planned Parenthood as *racist*, since
to look further at other "most influential boosters",
one would swiftly find that Margaret Sanger and
Planned Parenthood are anything BUT racist!
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was an educated man
and a minister. Surely his opinion of Margaret
Sanger, one of his contemporaries, matters more
than the ramblings of George Grant?
"There is a striking kinship between our movement
and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. ... Our sure
beginning in the struggle for equality by
nonviolent direct action may not have been so
resolute without the tradition established by
Margaret Sanger and people like her."
-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., acceptance
speech after accepting the Margaret Sanger
Award from Planned Parenthood.
To understand the non-racist agenda of the
pro-choice movement, we need look no further
than Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
> Sanger’s philosophical Nazism and association
> with the German Nazi movement,
Sanger's disagreement with the state control of
reproduction, as was used by the Nazis during
the period of Nazi control of Germany, was put
into print EIGHTEEN YEARS before Hitler gained
control of Germany!
The Birth Control Review, February 1919.
See below for exact quote.
> along with an examination of her career,
Don't forget the pivotal point in her career,
1929, when she *stopped editing* the "BIRTH
CONTROL REVIEW". This date is important,
since almost all of the negative language
attributed to Margaret Sanger from "BIRTH
CONTROL REVIEW" is claimed to come from
magazines dated *after* 1929.
> indicate that her focus on abortion and
> birth control, rather than motivated by
> "choice", was actually a reflection of
> her belief in eugenics and genocidal
> population control.
THE BIRTH CONTROL REVIEW
February 1919
"Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's
first duty is to the state; we contend
that her duty to herself is her first
duty to the state. We maintain that a
woman possessing an adequate knowledge
of her reproductive functions is the
best judge of the time and conditions
under which her child should be brought
into the world. We further maintain that
it is her right, regardless of all other
considerations, to determine whether she
shall bear children or not, and how many
children she shall bear if she chooses to
become a mother."
<SARCASM>
Yup, sure sounds like she wasn't in favor
of "choice"!
</SARCASM>
> The left and the emerging globalist
> establishment largely adopted her policies,
> albeit in a sanitized and re-marketed version,
> after WWII and the defeat of the Nazi experiment.
[snip!]
> Given the fact that our tax dollars support
> International Planned Parenthood, with their
> "family planning program" of forced abortions,
> forced sterilization, infanticide, and advocacy
> of euthanasia in Communist China,
Frankly, I'd have to see proof of the IPPF "forcing
sterilizations", "forcing abortions", and "committing
infanticide", before these allegations should be
taken seriously. The population control program of
China is already well known, and it takes very little
effort to try and paint groups also working in China
with the same brush. It takes proof to make the
reverse-whitewashing stick!
> it is reasonable that we look at the career of
> their primary founder. George Grant, author of
> "Killer Angel" presents a well-documented
> recantation of Sanger’s career and philosophy.
> Grant quotes Sanger, in her own book "The Pivot
> of Civilization" as referring to "the elimination
> of human weeds".
Interestingly enough, if one does a text search for
> Sanger calls for the "cessation of charity"
> because it results in prolonging the lives of
> those she deems to be "unfit".
And if you were a believer of the social darwinist
theories that essentially make up EUGENICS, you
would say things like this. (remember that:
Social Darwinism is just a whitewashed term for
EUGENICS)
But you'll note one important fact about Margaret
Sanger: compared to the majority of eugenicists of
her day, she was opposed to the application of
eugenics based on racist principles. I.e., that
individuals could be inferior, but not entire
population groups!
Ironically, this put her in the "moderate" group
of eugenicists of the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s.
> Sanger advocated, in her own words, the
> segregation of "morons, misfits, and the
> maladjusted",
Her *exact words* were the placing of
"illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals,
prostitutes, [and] dope-fiends" ... "on farms
and open spaces as long as necessary for the
strengthening and development of moral conduct."
By a startling contrast, the GOP supports much
the same policy through the segregation of the
incredibly illiterate prison population of
America, whose numbers include "dope-fiends,
criminals, prostitutes, etc.". Some in the
GOP have suggested Margaret Sanger's idea of
making prisoners work on farms.
I guess it just matters which side you're on.
If you're aligned with Margaret Sanger, then your
ideas of segregating criminals from the rest of
the population and making them work must be EVIL.
If you're aligned with the GOP, then your ideas
of segregating criminals from the rest of the
population and making them work must be GOOD.
> and for the "sterilization of genetically
> inferior races".
I'd need an exact citation or quote on this one.
I suspect that the author of this propaganda
piece is merely using the word "races" in place
of "individuals".
Throughout her life, Margaret Sanger argued that
only individuals, not entire population groups,
could be "inferior" to a eugenics standard.
Incidentally, a text search of The Pivot of
Civilization, using the word "race", does NOT
produce the phrase "sterilization of genetically
inferior races" ANYWHERE within Pivot!
Must be putting words into the mouth of Margaret
Sanger again! Is there ANY proof of Margaret
Sanger being a racist which is not a deliberate
falsehood???
> She contended that in order to "save the planet",
> the "unfit" should be discouraged from reproducing.
Interestingly enough, this sentence here does not
jibe with earlier claims that Margaret Sanger
wanted the government to FORCE sterilizations and/or
FORCE reproductive control on anyone!
> With this in mind, she spearheaded the opening
> of birth control clinics in, according to Grant,
> "the Brownsville section of New York, an area
> populated by newly immigrated Slavs, Latins,
> Italians, and Jews".
The problem here is that by trying to give birth
THING, she's being "racist" or a "eugenicist".
> Sanger, in the magazine "The Birth Control Review",
> supported the "infanticide program" of Nazi Germany,
> promoted Hitler’s white supremacy in the 1930’s,
> and hired Ernst Rudin, the Nazi head of the German
> Medical Experimentation Program as a consultant.
I'm interested in any exact citations of where,
within the pages of The Birth Control Review, exists
the proof for any of these allegations. An allegation
without a citation is effectively a FALSE allegation.
And since the author is unwilling to check the facts
of the claim listed below, the claims listed above
are automatically suspect.
> In 1939, the year WWII broke out, she organized
> the "Negro Project" which was designed to
> eliminate members of an "inferior race".
Race relations supporters who were
involved in the Negro Project:
W.E.B. DuBois, the Founder of the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored
People, and one of the BOARD OF DIRECTORS
for the "Negro Project".
Mary McLeod Bethune, founder of the National
Council of Negro Women
Adam Clayton Powell Jr., pastor of the
Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem
Eleanor Roosevelt, the most visible and
compassionate supporter of racial equality
in her era
Albert and Mary Lasker, the medical
philanthropists whose financial support
made the project possible
The most prominent supporters of race
equality were actively supporting a
project designed to "kill off blacks"?
ROTFL!
> Sanger stated that:
>
> "The masses of Negroes particularly in the South,
> still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the
> result that the increase among Negroes, even more
> than among whites, is from that portion of the
> population least intelligent and fit".
OOPS. Guess the person making the claim has been
> Sanger’s stated method of reaching the Negro
> community was to recruit Negro ministers "to
> travel to various black enclaves to propagandize
> for birth control". She stated that:
>
> "The most successful educational approach to
> the Negro is through a religious appeal. 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 to any of their
> more rebellious members."
Exact Article Quote, in context:
"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
> Sanger wrote of the necessity of targeting
> "dysgenic races" which would include
> "Fundamentalists and Catholics, blacks,
> Hispanics, (and) American Indians".
Again, the word "dysgenic" appears only in
conjunction with "the human race", and not
in conjunction with any specific race.
It seems that a bit of wishful thinking on
the part of the anti-abortion movement has
turned into actual DOGMA.
> Sanger stated that:
>
> "Birth control appeals to the advanced radical
> because it is calculated to undermine the
> authority of the Christian churches. I look
> forward to seeing humanity free someday of the
> tyranny of Christianity no less than Capitalism".
Xtianity, at the time and even today, continues
to hold an "immediate post-Black Death ideal" of
repopulating the earth. The authority of Christian
churches is what, for example, causes girls in
Mississippi to forgo birth control, even as they
have sex with their boyfriends to avoid losing them.
Xtianity has caused more and bloodier wars than
any other religion in the world. Xtian attitudes
against birth control and in favor of huge families
have caused untold suffering when huge families try
to live in urban areas.
Her position is one which has some credibility,
albeit her position on charity also has a lot to
do with her opposition to Xtianity.
> Sanger, like Hitler, dabbled in the anti
> Judeo-Christian occult, or what we would refer
> to as the "New Age".
Despite Hitler's repeated claims of being a member
of the Judeo-Christian cult, and his being declared
a "Soldier of Christ" by Pope Pius XI?
Seems to me someone didn't really check his or
her facts before declaring "truths"!
> This faith, in the hands of these two socialist
> radicals, lends itself to utopian ideas of race
> purity. Hitler’s Germany presents a textbook
> example of what happens when eugenic socialism
> becomes "empowered".
>
> While it could be argued that abortion should
> be, as President Clinton stated, "legal, safe,
> and rare", women are being deceived if they
> think that the pro-abortion lobby stands for
> "choice". If they did, the pro-abortionists
> would advocate against abortion.
How hilarious! "The pro-abortion people,
if they were really pro-choice, would be
anti-abortion"!
Does this guy even understand ENGLISH?
Anti-abortion is AGAINST CHOICE, because it
opposes the ONLY OTHER CHOICE in pregnancy!
Adoption REQUIRES childbirth, so it is not
an "alternative" to childbirth. Abortion,
as an alternative to childbirth, is an
alternative to childbirth!
Pro-choicers ALREADY support reduced abortions!
> The pro-abortionists would also come clean
> in terms of the negative physical and
> psychological effect abortions have on women.
Which would be easy if all those damned
studies using the scientific method and anti-bias
stuff wouldn't keep coming up in favor of NO
psychological damage to women after abortions!
As for the potential and actual physical
complications, the comparison is often made
between childbirth's complications and
abortion's complications, with the obvious
winner being the LESSER complications, the
abortion procedure.
> It would be easy for them to promote adoption,
It would be easy if adoption were an alternative
to CHILDBIRTH, but wait, no, it isn't an alternative
to childbirth, so how can it be an alternative to
abortion?
> as there are thousands of couples who are
> waiting to adopt a baby.
Waiting to adopt a healthy, white baby, you mean.
Planned Parenthood promotes adoption by outsourcing
adoption efforts to CPCs. Every Planned Parenthood
counselor who, after two hours mandatory pre-abortion
counselling, discovers that a woman no longer wants
an abortion, will send that woman to a CPC.
> They would look to abortion, while legal, as
> an absolute last resort to be considered for
> medical reasons only.
An arbitrary attitude which defines "medical
reasons" as "extreme medical reasons only".
The fact of the matter is that medical
reasons--severe to extreme--can be used to
justify ALL ABORTIONS, thus pro-choicers
ALREADY look at abortion as "an absolute last
resort to be considered for medical reasons".
> Instead, they continue to push the envelope with
> "partial birth abortion",
Intact dilation and extraction is used when removing
> infanticide,
> euthanasia,
> and other devises for eliminating those deemed
> "unfit".
Lets see, you claim, without any proof, that the
pro-choice movement sponsors infanticide, promotes
abortion above any other choice in pregnancy, and
now claim that Holland's program of allowing people
other than the patient to decide euthanasia is
the program of choice for pro-choicers.
But when it comes to attacking the "unfit", as
defined by eugenicists, there is a group which
happens to be largely anti-abortion, which is
also in favor of much the same "destruction of
the unfit".
The GOP is a major supporter of cutting welfare
assistance to the disabled and to the poor, as
evidenced by their support of restricting the
scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
and their constant attacks on welfare.
By a startling coincidence, a certain dictator
whose name we cannot utter thanks to Godwin's
Law, also came up with the idea that the disabled
didn't need rights and that welfare was a stupid
idea and should be cut back to nothing as soon
as possible.
Get the beam out of your own eye before you argue
about the mote in Margaret Sanger's eye!
> Published in the June 14, 2000 issue of
> Ether Zone Online
> Copyright © 2000 Ether Zone Online.
> (http://etherzone.com).
> Reposting permitted with this message intact.
Apparently Ether Zone is just another anti-abortion
Edward A. Falk
> [Seriously excellent article]
Well done; that one's a keeper.
--
-ed falk, fa...@falconer.vip.best.com. See *********************#*************#*
http://www.rahul.net/falk/whatToDo.html #**************F******!******!*!!****
and read 12 Simple Things You Can Do ******!***************************#**
to Save the Internet **#******#*********!**WW*W**WW****
MrT.@whoever.com
Surely Margaret Sanger's own words matter more than MLK's polite
acceptance speech for an award he should really have thrown back in
their faces.
>
> To understand the non-racist agenda of the
> pro-choice movement, we need look no further
> than Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Only because you HOPE no one will look further: at Margaret Sanger's
own words which portray her, the head of the Birth Control League,
as a eugenicist of the first order.
>
> > Sanger’s philosophical Nazism and association
> > with the German Nazi movement,
>
> Sanger's disagreement with the state control of
> reproduction, as was used by the Nazis during
> the period of Nazi control of Germany, was put
> into print EIGHTEEN YEARS before Hitler gained
> control of Germany!
>
> The Birth Control Review, February 1919.
> See below for exact quote.
And Sanger and her ilk were already forced-sterilizing select groups
in the US, long before Nazi Germany's eugenics policies.
These were the same policies that Hitler's racial purification move
started with. They moved on to actually EXTERMINATING groups later
on.
>
> > along with an examination of her career,
>
> Don't forget the pivotal point in her career,
> 1929, when she *stopped editing* the "BIRTH
> CONTROL REVIEW". This date is important,
> since almost all of the negative language
> attributed to Margaret Sanger from "BIRTH
> CONTROL REVIEW" is claimed to come from
> magazines dated *after* 1929.
Really? I recall most of it does not come from any later than the
'20s.
This quote does nothing to contradict her anti-reproductive rights
views regarding groups other than [intellectually competent] women
of child-bearing age.
Eugenics is the antithesis of reproductive rights. Yet, we observe
that the original impetous for what became later known as the
"abortion rights movement" was eugenicists like Margaret Sanger! The
eupehemisms regarding the killing of unborn humans ("family
planning", "reproductive rights", "bodily autonomy", etc) were
invented by eugenicists like Sanger - in particular, when she
renamed the organisation in the mid-40s from the Birth Control
League to "Planned Parenthood". Yet the organization and its members
didn't change. Eugenics is what the pro-abortion movement was
founded on.
The abortion industry is still promoting the eugenics agenda since
Blacks and Hispanics are far more likely to abort than Whites.
Eugenicists continue find a home in the abortion movement. Their
goals are alive and well today because they haven't been realized.
When a dirty little pro-abort like you shills for Sanger you prove
my point.
>
> > The left and the emerging globalist
> > establishment largely adopted her policies,
> > albeit in a sanitized and re-marketed version,
> > after WWII and the defeat of the Nazi experiment.
>
> [snip!]
>
> > Given the fact that our tax dollars support
> > International Planned Parenthood, with their
> > "family planning program" of forced abortions,
> > forced sterilization, infanticide, and advocacy
> > of euthanasia in Communist China,
>
> Frankly, I'd have to see proof of the IPPF "forcing
> sterilizations", "forcing abortions", and "committing
> infanticide", before these allegations should be
> taken seriously. The population control program of
> China is already well known, and it takes very little
> effort to try and paint groups also working in China
> with the same brush. It takes proof to make the
> reverse-whitewashing stick!
The lying apologists - like you - of every population control and
pro-abortion organization at work are not interested in the facts.
That they clearly ignore the reality of forced abortion and
sterilization in China, and its support by the International Planned
Parenthood Federation and the UN Population Fund, which they
continue to shill for, is just proof that they don't give a damn
about "reproductive rights".
Population control, such as that in China, by necessity requires at
least coercion. You know this - but, liars like you are more
concerned with defending the self-proclaimed "pro-choice"
organizations that we KNOW continue to commit abuses in the name of
population control.
Perhaps the original writer was mistaken in the attribution of the
publication title.
Consider a search for '+"human weeds" +sanger'
http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=%2b%22human+weeds%22+%2bsanger&hc=0&hs=0
This reveals many references to Margaret Sanger's writings.
Consider http://www.radioliberty.com/pca.htm , for one.
>
> > Sanger calls for the "cessation of charity"
> > because it results in prolonging the lives of
> > those she deems to be "unfit".
>
> And if you were a believer of the social darwinist
> theories that essentially make up EUGENICS, you
> would say things like this. (remember that:
> Social Darwinism is just a whitewashed term for
> EUGENICS)
>
> But you'll note one important fact about Margaret
> Sanger: compared to the majority of eugenicists of
> her day, she was opposed to the application of
> eugenics based on racist principles. I.e., that
> individuals could be inferior, but not entire
> population groups!
>
> Ironically, this put her in the "moderate" group
> of eugenicists of the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s.
Pro-death morons like you are dying out. Gee, I hope you're not a
Darwinist.
>
> > Sanger advocated, in her own words, the
> > segregation of "morons, misfits, and the
> > maladjusted",
>
> Her *exact words* were the placing of
> "illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals,
> prostitutes, [and] dope-fiends" ... "on farms
> and open spaces as long as necessary for the
> strengthening and development of moral conduct."
>
> By a startling contrast, the GOP supports much
> the same policy through the segregation of the
> incredibly illiterate prison population of
> America, whose numbers include "dope-fiends,
> criminals, prostitutes, etc.". Some in the
> GOP have suggested Margaret Sanger's idea of
> making prisoners work on farms.
>
> I guess it just matters which side you're on.
The above quote isn't representative of EVERYTHING Margaret said.
Anyone perusing the many web sites devoted to this topic finds ample
material, from her own pen, condemning her for the pro-Hitler piece
of trash that she was.
>
> If you're aligned with Margaret Sanger, then your
> ideas of segregating criminals from the rest of
> the population and making them work must be EVIL.
>
> If you're aligned with the GOP, then your ideas
> of segregating criminals from the rest of the
> population and making them work must be GOOD.
Unlike you, I'd much rather discuss eugenics!
>
> > and for the "sterilization of genetically
> > inferior races".
>
> I'd need an exact citation or quote on this one.
There's plenty out there.
> I suspect that the author of this propaganda
> piece is merely using the word "races" in place
> of "individuals".
No, I suspect you're a Sanger apologist and so you'll bullshit your
way through it.
>
> Throughout her life, Margaret Sanger argued that
> only individuals, not entire population groups,
> could be "inferior" to a eugenics standard.
>
> Incidentally, a text search of The Pivot of
> Civilization, using the word "race", does NOT
> produce the phrase "sterilization of genetically
> inferior races" ANYWHERE within Pivot!
>
> Must be putting words into the mouth of Margaret
> Sanger again! Is there ANY proof of Margaret
> Sanger being a racist which is not a deliberate
> falsehood???
Was Hitler a eugenicist and racist?
"blah blah"
Your tortured bullshit does nothing to avoid the fact that the
abortion movement was founded by eugenicists like Sanger. You'd
obviously be more than a little troubled by this fact... For one
thing, it's what proves that there is no need for "abortion rights"
as it exists - that it is of no gain to women because EUGENICISTS -
of all people - were there first. And, likewise, the early feminists
were anti-abortion: they certainly didn't trump it up as an actual
GAIN for women - the way today's radical anti-fertility misogynistic
"feminists" do.
Overall, your weak attempts at revisionism of Margaret Sanger's life
show that you people perhaps should have distanced yourselves FROM
HER instead of HER from her OWN BELIEFS! Perhaps Sanger is turning
in her grave?
webg...@rocketmail.com
falc...@best.com (Edward A. Falk) wrote:
> In article <8kkvq9$pcs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <webg...@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
>
> > [Seriously excellent article]
>
> Well done; that one's a keeper.
Thanks.
Stuff I couldn't include because Deja.com limits message
size: Eugenics was quite commonly accepted as a legitimate
science by America in the 40+ year period from 1914 to
around 1948. If you graduated from high school during this
period, you graduated only by accepting eugenics as a
legitimate science, at least giving it lip service on your
tests. A majority of high school biology textbooks included
an entire chapter on eugenics.
Eugenics wasn't some fringe movement in America, it was
*mainstream*.
Ironically, Margaret Sanger was a moderate when it came
to eugenics thought: while she had definite ideas about
voluntary sterilization of people with disabling
hereditary conditions, she refused to apply eugenics
with racial bias, a difference which set her against
the majority of eugenicists of her day.
webg...@rocketmail.com
Anti-abortion folks like to tell us that the educated
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who grew up DURING the
Negro Project and was aware of the existence of the
*beginnings* of Margaret Sanger's movement, "must not
have known about her eugenics or her racism". This
is tantamount to calling him a FOOL.
Why does the anti-abortion movement insist that most
of the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement in America,
most of whom respected and admired Margaret Sanger,
are FOOLS?
As for "her own words", you and other anti-abortion
folks enjoy putting words in Margaret Sanger's mouth
and then claiming that they are her own words. So no,
I believe a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
over one of your wild, unsubstantiated claims.
> > To understand the non-racist agenda of the
> > pro-choice movement, we need look no further
> > than Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
>
> Only because you HOPE no one will look further:
> at Margaret Sanger's own words which portray her,
> the head of the Birth Control League, as a
> eugenicist of the first order.
A eugenicist of the first order of the 1920s, 1930s,
and 1940s demanded FORCED removal from the gene pool,
and RACIAL application of eugenics principles!
Margaret Sanger, by contrast, requested VOLUNTARY
removal from the gene pool, and OPPOSED racial
application of eugenics principles every time
it was attempted!
Clearly, I'm not worried about anyone looking at
her own writings, since proving anything RACIST
about her takes a LIE!
> > > Sanger’s philosophical Nazism and association
> > > with the German Nazi movement,
> >
> > Sanger's disagreement with the state control of
> > reproduction, as was used by the Nazis during
> > the period of Nazi control of Germany, was put
> > into print EIGHTEEN YEARS before Hitler gained
> > control of Germany!
> >
> > The Birth Control Review, February 1919.
> > See below for exact quote.
>
> And Sanger and her ilk were already
> forced-sterilizing select groups in the US,
> long before Nazi Germany's eugenics policies.
Proof? Didn't think so.
You have this habit of wild accusations without a
SHRED of proof.
[snip!]
> > > along with an examination of her career,
> >
> > Don't forget the pivotal point in her career,
> > 1929, when she *stopped editing* the "BIRTH
> > CONTROL REVIEW". This date is important,
> > since almost all of the negative language
> > attributed to Margaret Sanger from "BIRTH
> > CONTROL REVIEW" is claimed to come from
> > magazines dated *after* 1929.
>
> Really? I recall most of it does not come
> from any later than the '20s.
Then either your memory is failing or you're
making yet another unsubstatiated claim.
The BIRTH CONTROL REVIEW continued through at
least 1939. I cannot honestly claim there
were any issues after 1939 since my local
library does not have any bound issues after
1939.
The important point, which needs to be reiterated,
is that both Negro Number issues, the issues from
which much of the misattributed "Margaret Sanger
Quotes" come from, DID NOT INVOLVE Margaret
Sanger in ANY WAY.
Margaret Sanger wanted VOLUNTARY sterilizations
of such women, not the more mainstream eugenics
view that such sterilizations should be FORCED.
> Eugenics is the antithesis of reproductive
> rights.
Then its just as well the Birth Control League
and later on, Planned Parenthood, didn't
support mainstream eugenics. After all, it
doesn't pay to support your ENEMIES.
> Yet, we observe that the original impetous
> for what became later known as the "abortion
> rights movement" was eugenicists like Margaret
> Sanger!
The original impetus of the birth control movement
had many factors, but two principle ones were
the prevention of childbirth deaths in women
caused largely by overbearing of children; and
the reduction in size of families to help
prevent overcrowding (which leads naturally to
disease and death from disease) and help keep
income and other resources from becoming
overstretched (which led to malnutrition,
starvation, and death).
> The eupehemisms regarding the killing of
> unborn humans ("family planning",
"Family planning" continues to include NFP,
i.e., Natural FAMILY PLANNING, just in case you
conveniently FORGOT.
> "reproductive rights", "bodily autonomy", etc)
> were invented by eugenicists like Sanger - in
> particular, when she renamed the organisation
> in the mid-40s from the Birth Control League
> to "Planned Parenthood". Yet the organization
> and its members didn't change. Eugenics is what
> the pro-abortion movement was founded on.
Eugenics is what the "Social Darwinism" movement
was founded on, and Social Darwinists thrive
quite nicely in their home territory, the GOP.
> The abortion industry is still promoting
> the eugenics agenda since Blacks and Hispanics
> are far more likely to abort than Whites.
The eugenics agenda is the government control
of the reproductive process. Since abortions
are currently only the CHOICE of INDIVIDUALS,
and not forced on them by ANY ORGANIZATION in
the U.S.A., I don't see where you can claim
that eugenics is being served by legal abortions.
Blacks and Hispanics also continue to hold an
income level well below their White counterparts,
and through factors unrelated to genetics have
less education than their White counterparts. Its
not surprising that a poorer, less educated group
doesn't have as much access to birth control as
a richer, more educated group.
You don't even need to bring in wild,
unsubstantiated claims to explain why minorities
have more abortions than whites!
> Eugenicists continue find a home in the
> abortion movement.
Actually, they find a home in the GOP, since the
pro-choice movement has always been and remains
very much opposed to the goals of the eugenics
movement. The GOP, by contrast, shares many of
the same goals as the eugenics movement.
> Their goals are alive and well today because
> they haven't been realized.
Still, the GOP is working very hard to realize the
goals of the eugenics movement:
[1] Government control of a woman's reproductive
processes.
[2] Denial of assistance to the infirm, the elderly,
"those with disabling, hereditary conditions".
[3] Denial of rights to the infirm, the elderly,
"those with disabling, hereditary conditions".
Number [3] has already been realized through
the limiting of the ADA. Welfare DESTRUCTION
and denial of medical assistance to the infirm
and the elderly top the list of the GOP in Congress.
> When a dirty little pro-abort like you shills
> for Sanger you prove my point.
When the only coherent argument you can make against
my points is ad hominem, you prove my points.
> > > The left and the emerging globalist
> > > establishment largely adopted her policies,
> > > albeit in a sanitized and re-marketed version,
> > > after WWII and the defeat of the Nazi experiment.
> >
> > [snip!]
> >
> > > Given the fact that our tax dollars support
> > > International Planned Parenthood, with their
> > > "family planning program" of forced abortions,
> > > forced sterilization, infanticide, and advocacy
> > > of euthanasia in Communist China,
> >
> > Frankly, I'd have to see proof of the IPPF "forcing
> > sterilizations", "forcing abortions", and "committing
> > infanticide", before these allegations should be
> > taken seriously. The population control program of
> > China is already well known, and it takes very little
> > effort to try and paint groups also working in China
> > with the same brush. It takes proof to make the
> > reverse-whitewashing stick!
>
> The lying apologists - like you - of every
> population control and pro-abortion organization
> at work are not interested in the facts.
Neither are you, otherwise you'd post some facts!
> That they clearly ignore the reality of forced
> abortion and sterilization in China, and its
> support by the International Planned Parenthood
> Federation and the UN Population Fund, which they
> continue to shill for, is just proof that they
> don't give a damn about "reproductive rights".
Where is your proof that the IPPF is funding
"forced abortions, infanticide, and sterilizations"?
> Population control, such as that in China, by
> necessity requires at least coercion. You know
> this
Yes, and I know that the IPPF is not involved with
funding "forced abortions, infanticides, and
sterilizations". One might as well attempt to
argue that because Doctors Without Borders sometimes
does work in China, they also "assist forced abortions,
infanticides, and sterilizations". I don't seriously
believe that DWB is involved in implementing China's
public policies, and neither do I take seriously your
similarly wild, unsubstantiated claims that the IPPF
helps implement China's public policies on population
control.
> - but, liars like you are more concerned with
> defending the self-proclaimed "pro-choice"
> organizations that we KNOW continue to commit
> abuses in the name of population control.
Again, where is the PROOF that the IPPF is
funding "forced abortions, infanticides, and
sterilizations"?
A wild, unsubstantiated accusation by you is not PROOF!
THANK YOU FOR ADMITTING THAT GEORGE GRANT *LIED*.
His words in PRINT were that "the elimination of
human weeds" is a phrase found in Margaret Sanger's
book "The Pivot of Civilization". This is clearly
a LIE, which even *you* agree was a LIE.
> Consider a search for '+"human weeds" +sanger'
I did, and here's an example of how anti-abortion
folks are entirely too eager to make up quotes
and then attribute them to Margaret Sanger. George
Grant is NOT ALONE in putting words in Margaret
Sanger's mouth and then condemning her for those
words which she NEVER SAID:
====================================
Search for "+sanger +weeds" on www.yahoo.com.
====================================
THE REPACKAGING OF MARGARET SANGER
Wall Street Journal, May 5, 1997
by Steven W. Mosher
"In her 1922 book "Pivot of Civilization" she
unabashedly called for the extirpation of
"weeds .... overrunning the humnan garden";
for the segregation of "morons, misfits, and
the maladjusted"; and for the sterilization of
"genetically inferior races." "
====================================
Proving that the anti-abortion movement isn't
above using the FALSEHOODS of others in their
own work as TRUTH, the phrases "morons, misfits,
and the maladjusted" and "genetically inferior
races" are NOT FOUND in "The Pivot of
Civilization".
As for "weeds .... overrunning the human garden",
this is a paraphrase of the actual passage found
in "The Pivot of Civilization", in which the word
"weeds" is NOT USED:
"The Pivot of Civilization", Chapter 12
"At the present time, civilized nations are penalizing
talent and genius, the bearers of the torch of
civilization, to coddle and perpetuate the choking
human undergrowth, which, as all authorities tell us,
is escaping control and threatens to overrun the whole
garden of humanity."
As you can see, the quote doesn't make any distinctions
based on race. Margaret Sanger NEVER DID, in ANY of
her writings, ask for eugenics principles to be applied
on the basis of race!
As you can see, I don't find your suggestions of
looking up more misattributions and parroting of
falsehoods to be "convincing proof" of your
and George Grant's wild accusations.
>
http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=%2b%22human+weeds%22+%2bsanger&hc=0&
hs=0
> This reveals many references to Margaret Sanger's writings.
Actually, it reveals something dear to your heart:
STILL MORE unsubstantiated claims about the writings
of Margaret Sanger!
===========================
GENOCIDE
http://www.tiac.net/users/tobya/genocide.html
Source of Margaret Sanger's "Quotes":
GEORGE GRANT, the book "Killer Angel", in
which he LIED by stating that "the elimination
of human weeds" was Margaret Sanger's own
words from her book "The Pivot of Civilization."
===========================
Population Control Agenda
http://www.swikull.com/pca/pca2.html
Source of Margaret Sanger's "Quotes":
GEORGE GRANT, "Killer Angel". See above.
===========================
PropheZine
(one of the Top 100 Christian Websites!)
http://www.prophezine.com/search/database/is56.7.html
Newsletter Archives
"In Killer Angel, George Grant chronicled
the life and writings of Margaret Sanger,
including her plans for genetically
engineering the human race. Margaret Sanger's
The Pivot of Civilization called for "the
elimination of human weeds," and the "cessation
of charity" because it prolonged the lives of
the unfit. She called for the segregation of
the unfit and prohibiting them to reproduce."
[As has already been demonstrated, George Grant
LIED when he stated that Margaret Sanger's book
contained the phrase "the elimination of human
weeds".]
===========================
"[Slavs, Latin, and Hebrew immigrants are] human
weeds ... a deadweight of human waste ... [Blacks,
soldiers, and Jews are a] menace to the race."
"Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We
must prevent Multiplication of this bad stock."
-- Margaret Sanger, April 1933
Birth Control Review .
[Proving once again that the anti-abortion movement
thrives not on truth, but on the propagation of
lies so much that some people will come to believe
them as truth.]
[These fabricated quotations, falsely attributed to
Sanger, were concocted in the late 1980s. The alleged
source is the April 1933 BIRTH CONTROL REVIEW (Sanger
ceased editing the Review in 1929). That issue
contains no article or letter by Sanger.]
===========================
No Accident - Firearms Article by Duncan Long
http://www.duncanlong.com/science-fiction-fantasy-short-stories/no-accid
ent.htm
"She wrote that society needed to go about the
task of the "extermination of ‘human weeds’ ...the
‘cessation of charity,’ ... the segregation of
‘morons, misfits, and the maladjusted,’ and ...
the sterilization of ‘genetically inferior races.’"
("Killer Angels" page 65)
"In 1939, Margaret Sanger organized a "Negro
project" to eliminate what she called an "inferior
race." She claimed, "The masses of Negroes
...particularly in the South, still breed carelessly
and disastrously, with the result that the increase
among Negroes, even more than among whites, is from
that portion of the population least intelligent
and fit." (Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right, p. 332.)
[And we all know about "Killer Angel", right?
George Grant's hilarious attempt to put words
in Margaret Sanger's mouth and then condemn her
for words which she never said.]
[The second quote, "masses of Negroes", has already
been demonstrated to have been in an issue which
had NO involvement by Margaret Sanger (BIRTH CONTROL
REVIEW, June 1932), and in fact the words were
written by W.E.B. DuBois, the founder of the
National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People.]
===========================
Black Genocide:
Planned Parenthood's Evil Roots
by Diane Dew
http://hometown.aol.com/DianeSDew/black.htm
"The purpose in promoting birth control was "to
create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in
The Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)"
[This remark, again 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.
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.)]
"More children from the fit, less from the
unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth
control." (Birth Control Review, May 1919,
p. 12)"
[A quotation falsely attributed to Margaret
Sanger, this statement was made by the editors
of AMERICAN MEDICINE in a review of an article
by Sanger. The editorial from which this
appeared, as well as Sanger's article, "Why
Not Birth Control Clinics in America?", were
reprinted side-by-side in the May 1919 BIRTH
CONTROL REVIEW.]
[This website is only notable in that it
essentially parrots all the misattributions
and misquotes found in the majority of
anti-abortion literature.]
===========================
The anti-abortion movement depends largely on
lies and misattributions, and also on a network
of devoted followers to spread these lies as if
they were truths. Eventually, the lies are
repeated often enough so that people believe
them to be true.
As you can see, the vast majority of sources available
on the Internet translate into "people with agendas
against Margaret Sanger who have no ethical problems
with LYING about what Margaret Sanger said.
> Consider http://www.radioliberty.com/pca.htm , for one.
That website continues to refuse to open to me.
Apparently the anti-abortion website knows I'm about
to check their facts and is refusing my entry. :)
> > > Sanger calls for the "cessation of charity"
> > > because it results in prolonging the lives of
> > > those she deems to be "unfit".
> >
> > And if you were a believer of the social darwinist
> > theories that essentially make up EUGENICS, you
> > would say things like this. (remember that:
> > Social Darwinism is just a whitewashed term for
> > EUGENICS)
> >
> > But you'll note one important fact about Margaret
> > Sanger: compared to the majority of eugenicists of
> > her day, she was opposed to the application of
> > eugenics based on racist principles. I.e., that
> > individuals could be inferior, but not entire
> > population groups!
> >
> > Ironically, this put her in the "moderate" group
> > of eugenicists of the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s.
>
> Pro-death morons like you are dying out.
I hope pro-death morons are dying out. Not being one,
I can't say anything as to their death rate.
> Gee, I hope you're not a Darwinist.
Not a Social Darwinist at any rate, as the GOP's own
eugenicists call themselves.
> > > Sanger advocated, in her own words, the
> > > segregation of "morons, misfits, and the
> > > maladjusted",
> >
> > Her *exact words* were the placing of
> > "illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals,
> > prostitutes, [and] dope-fiends" ... "on farms
> > and open spaces as long as necessary for the
> > strengthening and development of moral conduct."
> >
> > By a startling contrast, the GOP supports much
> > the same policy through the segregation of the
> > incredibly illiterate prison population of
> > America, whose numbers include "dope-fiends,
> > criminals, prostitutes, etc.". Some in the
> > GOP have suggested Margaret Sanger's idea of
> > making prisoners work on farms.
> >
> > I guess it just matters which side you're on.
>
> The above quote isn't representative of
> EVERYTHING Margaret said. Anyone perusing the
> many web sites devoted to this topic finds ample
> material, from her own pen, condemning her for
> the pro-Hitler piece of trash that she was.
Only the anti-abortion websites, of course, and
one need only look at George Grant to realize just
how <SARCASM> accurate </SARCASM> they are.
> > If you're aligned with Margaret Sanger, then your
> > ideas of segregating criminals from the rest of
> > the population and making them work must be EVIL.
> >
> > If you're aligned with the GOP, then your ideas
> > of segregating criminals from the rest of the
> > population and making them work must be GOOD.
>
> Unlike you, I'd much rather discuss eugenics!
We are discussing eugenics, the eugenics currently
being practiced by the GOP. Eugenics, after all,
did call for the segregation of criminals away from
society, and desired to cut all funding towards
preventing the poor from becoming criminals.
Just like the GOP is currently fighting for.
> > > and for the "sterilization of genetically
> > > inferior races".
> >
> > I'd need an exact citation or quote on this one.
>
> There's plenty out there.
And yet you don't have one, and the "search" you
suggested I do turns up only unsubstantiated
claims or claims founded on KNOWN LIARS like
George Grant.
> > I suspect that the author of this propaganda
> > piece is merely using the word "races" in place
> > of "individuals".
>
> No, I suspect you're a Sanger apologist and so
> you'll bullshit your way through it.
David Rasmussen can vouch that when he proved that
Margaret Sanger held some eugenics views, I admitted
to being wrong about the fact that she did hold some
eugenics views.
I was still correct in that she and her organization
and the magazine she founded were not *racist* and
opposed the application of eugenics for *racist*
reasons, but I admitted to being wrong.
You, on the other hand, are unable and unwilling to
admit error, choosing instead to change the subject
or make yet another unsubstantiated claim to try and
argue against my PROOF.
> > Throughout her life, Margaret Sanger argued that
> > only individuals, not entire population groups,
> > could be "inferior" to a eugenics standard.
> >
> > Incidentally, a text search of The Pivot of
> > Civilization, using the word "race", does NOT
> > produce the phrase "sterilization of genetically
> > inferior races" ANYWHERE within Pivot!
> >
> > Must be putting words into the mouth of Margaret
> > Sanger again! Is there ANY proof of Margaret
> > Sanger being a racist which is not a deliberate
> > falsehood???
>
> Was Hitler a eugenicist and racist?
You're changing the subject, since you obviously
have no "proof" of Margaret Sanger being a racist
which is not a deliberate falsehood!!
Thanks for conceding that you have no proof that
Margaret Sanger was a racist.
[rest of posting continued in another posting]
webg...@rocketmail.com
Anti-abortion folks like to tell us that the educated
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who grew up DURING the
Negro Project and was aware of the existence of the
*beginnings* of Margaret Sanger's movement, "must not
have known about her eugenics or her racism". This
is tantamount to calling him a FOOL.
Why does the anti-abortion movement insist that most
of the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement in America,
most of whom respected and admired Margaret Sanger,
are FOOLS?
As for "her own words", you and other anti-abortion
folks enjoy putting words in Margaret Sanger's mouth
and then claiming that they are her own words. So no,
I believe a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
over one of your wild, unsubstantiated claims.
> > To understand the non-racist agenda of the
> > pro-choice movement, we need look no further
> > than Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
>
> Only because you HOPE no one will look further:
> at Margaret Sanger's own words which portray her,
> the head of the Birth Control League, as a
> eugenicist of the first order.
A eugenicist of the first order of the 1920s, 1930s,
and 1940s demanded FORCED removal from the gene pool,
and RACIAL application of eugenics principles!
Margaret Sanger, by contrast, requested VOLUNTARY
removal from the gene pool, and OPPOSED racial
application of eugenics principles every time
it was attempted!
Clearly, I'm not worried about anyone looking at
her own writings, since proving anything RACIST
about her takes a LIE!
> > > Sanger’s philosophical Nazism and association
> > > with the German Nazi movement,
> >
> > Sanger's disagreement with the state control of
> > reproduction, as was used by the Nazis during
> > the period of Nazi control of Germany, was put
> > into print EIGHTEEN YEARS before Hitler gained
> > control of Germany!
> >
> > The Birth Control Review, February 1919.
> > See below for exact quote.
>
> And Sanger and her ilk were already
> forced-sterilizing select groups in the US,
> long before Nazi Germany's eugenics policies.
Proof? Didn't think so.
You have this habit of wild accusations without a
SHRED of proof.
[snip!]
> > > along with an examination of her career,
> >
> > Don't forget the pivotal point in her career,
> > 1929, when she *stopped editing* the "BIRTH
> > CONTROL REVIEW". This date is important,
> > since almost all of the negative language
> > attributed to Margaret Sanger from "BIRTH
> > CONTROL REVIEW" is claimed to come from
> > magazines dated *after* 1929.
>
> Really? I recall most of it does not come
> from any later than the '20s.
Then either your memory is failing or you're
making yet another unsubstatiated claim.
The BIRTH CONTROL REVIEW continued through at
least 1939. I cannot honestly claim there
were any issues after 1939 since my local
library does not have any bound issues after
1939.
The important point, which needs to be reiterated,
is that both Negro Number issues, the issues from
which much of the misattributed "Margaret Sanger
Quotes" come from, DID NOT INVOLVE Margaret
Sanger in ANY WAY.
> > > indicate that her focus on abortion and
Margaret Sanger wanted VOLUNTARY sterilizations
of such women, not the more mainstream eugenics
view that such sterilizations should be FORCED.
> Eugenics is the antithesis of reproductive
> rights.
Then its just as well the Birth Control League
and later on, Planned Parenthood, didn't
support mainstream eugenics. After all, it
doesn't pay to support your ENEMIES.
> Yet, we observe that the original impetous
> for what became later known as the "abortion
> rights movement" was eugenicists like Margaret
> Sanger!
The original impetus of the birth control movement
had many factors, but two principle ones were
the prevention of childbirth deaths in women
caused largely by overbearing of children; and
the reduction in size of families to help
prevent overcrowding (which leads naturally to
disease and death from disease) and help keep
income and other resources from becoming
overstretched (which led to malnutrition,
starvation, and death).
> The eupehemisms regarding the killing of
> unborn humans ("family planning",
"Family planning" continues to include NFP,
i.e., Natural FAMILY PLANNING, just in case you
conveniently FORGOT.
> "reproductive rights", "bodily autonomy", etc)
> were invented by eugenicists like Sanger - in
> particular, when she renamed the organisation
> in the mid-40s from the Birth Control League
> to "Planned Parenthood". Yet the organization
> and its members didn't change. Eugenics is what
> the pro-abortion movement was founded on.
Eugenics is what the "Social Darwinism" movement
was founded on, and Social Darwinists thrive
quite nicely in their home territory, the GOP.
> The abortion industry is still promoting
> the eugenics agenda since Blacks and Hispanics
> are far more likely to abort than Whites.
The eugenics agenda is the government control
of the reproductive process. Since abortions
are currently only the CHOICE of INDIVIDUALS,
and not forced on them by ANY ORGANIZATION in
the U.S.A., I don't see where you can claim
that eugenics is being served by legal abortions.
Blacks and Hispanics also continue to hold an
income level well below their White counterparts,
and through factors unrelated to genetics have
less education than their White counterparts. Its
not surprising that a poorer, less educated group
doesn't have as much access to birth control as
a richer, more educated group.
You don't even need to bring in wild,
unsubstantiated claims to explain why minorities
have more abortions than whites!
> Eugenicists continue find a home in the
> abortion movement.
Actually, they find a home in the GOP, since the
pro-choice movement has always been and remains
very much opposed to the goals of the eugenics
movement. The GOP, by contrast, shares many of
the same goals as the eugenics movement.
> Their goals are alive and well today because
> they haven't been realized.
Still, the GOP is working very hard to realize the
goals of the eugenics movement:
[1] Government control of a woman's reproductive
processes.
[2] Denial of assistance to the infirm, the elderly,
"those with disabling, hereditary conditions".
[3] Denial of rights to the infirm, the elderly,
"those with disabling, hereditary conditions".
Number [3] has already been realized through
the limiting of the ADA. Welfare DESTRUCTION
and denial of medical assistance to the infirm
and the elderly top the list of the GOP in Congress.
> When a dirty little pro-abort like you shills
> for Sanger you prove my point.
When the only coherent argument you can make against
my points is ad hominem, you prove my points.
> > > The left and the emerging globalist
> > > establishment largely adopted her policies,
> > > albeit in a sanitized and re-marketed version,
> > > after WWII and the defeat of the Nazi experiment.
> >
> > [snip!]
> >
> > > Given the fact that our tax dollars support
> > > International Planned Parenthood, with their
> > > "family planning program" of forced abortions,
> > > forced sterilization, infanticide, and advocacy
> > > of euthanasia in Communist China,
> >
> > Frankly, I'd have to see proof of the IPPF "forcing
> > sterilizations", "forcing abortions", and "committing
> > infanticide", before these allegations should be
> > taken seriously. The population control program of
> > China is already well known, and it takes very little
> > effort to try and paint groups also working in China
> > with the same brush. It takes proof to make the
> > reverse-whitewashing stick!
>
> The lying apologists - like you - of every
> population control and pro-abortion organization
> at work are not interested in the facts.
Neither are you, otherwise you'd post some facts!
> That they clearly ignore the reality of forced
> abortion and sterilization in China, and its
> support by the International Planned Parenthood
> Federation and the UN Population Fund, which they
> continue to shill for, is just proof that they
> don't give a damn about "reproductive rights".
Where is your proof that the IPPF is funding
"forced abortions, infanticide, and sterilizations"?
> Population control, such as that in China, by
> necessity requires at least coercion. You know
> this
Yes, and I know that the IPPF is not involved with
funding "forced abortions, infanticides, and
sterilizations". One might as well attempt to
argue that because Doctors Without Borders sometimes
does work in China, they also "assist forced abortions,
infanticides, and sterilizations". I don't seriously
believe that DWB is involved in implementing China's
public policies, and neither do I take seriously your
similarly wild, unsubstantiated claims that the IPPF
helps implement China's public policies on population
control.
> - but, liars like you are more concerned with
> defending the self-proclaimed "pro-choice"
> organizations that we KNOW continue to commit
> abuses in the name of population control.
Again, where is the PROOF that the IPPF is
funding "forced abortions, infanticides, and
sterilizations"?
A wild, unsubstantiated accusation by you is not PROOF!
> > > it is reasonable that we look at the career of
THANK YOU FOR ADMITTING THAT GEORGE GRANT *LIED*.
His words in PRINT were that "the elimination of
human weeds" is a phrase found in Margaret Sanger's
book "The Pivot of Civilization". This is clearly
a LIE, which even *you* agree was a LIE.
> Consider a search for '+"human weeds" +sanger'
I did, and here's an example of how anti-abortion
folks are entirely too eager to make up quotes
and then attribute them to Margaret Sanger. George
Grant is NOT ALONE in putting words in Margaret
Sanger's mouth and then condemning her for those
words which she NEVER SAID:
====================================
Search for "+sanger +weeds" on www.yahoo.com.
====================================
THE REPACKAGING OF MARGARET SANGER
Wall Street Journal, May 5, 1997
by Steven W. Mosher
"In her 1922 book "Pivot of Civilization" she
unabashedly called for the extirpation of
"weeds .... overrunning the humnan garden";
for the segregation of "morons, misfits, and
the maladjusted"; and for the sterilization of
"genetically inferior races." "
====================================
Proving that the anti-abortion movement isn't
above using the FALSEHOODS of others in their
own work as TRUTH, the phrases "morons, misfits,
and the maladjusted" and "genetically inferior
races" are NOT FOUND in "The Pivot of
Civilization".
As for "weeds .... overrunning the human garden",
this is a paraphrase of the actual passage found
in "The Pivot of Civilization", in which the word
"weeds" is NOT USED:
"The Pivot of Civilization", Chapter 12
"At the present time, civilized nations are penalizing
talent and genius, the bearers of the torch of
civilization, to coddle and perpetuate the choking
human undergrowth, which, as all authorities tell us,
is escaping control and threatens to overrun the whole
garden of humanity."
As you can see, the quote doesn't make any distinctions
based on race. Margaret Sanger NEVER DID, in ANY of
her writings, ask for eugenics principles to be applied
on the basis of race!
As you can see, I don't find your suggestions of
looking up more misattributions and parroting of
falsehoods to be "convincing proof" of your
and George Grant's wild accusations.
>
http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=%2b%22human+weeds%22+%2bsanger&hc=0&
hs=0
> This reveals many references to Margaret Sanger's writings.
Actually, it reveals something dear to your heart:
===========================
GENOCIDE
http://www.tiac.net/users/tobya/genocide.html
Newsletter Archives
...particularly in the South, still breed carelessly
and disastrously, with the result that the increase
among Negroes, even more than among whites, is from
that portion of the population least intelligent
and fit." (Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right, p. 332.)
[And we all know about "Killer Angel", right?
George Grant's hilarious attempt to put words
in Margaret Sanger's mouth and then condemn her
for words which she never said.]
[The second quote, "masses of Negroes", has already
been demonstrated to have been in an issue which
had NO involvement by Margaret Sanger (BIRTH CONTROL
REVIEW, June 1932), and in fact the words were
written by W.E.B. DuBois, the founder of the
National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People.]
===========================
> Consider http://www.radioliberty.com/pca.htm , for one.
That website continues to refuse to open to me.
Apparently the anti-abortion website knows I'm about
to check their facts and is refusing my entry. :)
> > > Sanger calls for the "cessation of charity"
> > > because it results in prolonging the lives of
> > > those she deems to be "unfit".
> >
> > And if you were a believer of the social darwinist
> > theories that essentially make up EUGENICS, you
> > would say things like this. (remember that:
> > Social Darwinism is just a whitewashed term for
> > EUGENICS)
> >
> > But you'll note one important fact about Margaret
> > Sanger: compared to the majority of eugenicists of
> > her day, she was opposed to the application of
> > eugenics based on racist principles. I.e., that
> > individuals could be inferior, but not entire
> > population groups!
> >
> > Ironically, this put her in the "moderate" group
> > of eugenicists of the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s.
>
> Pro-death morons like you are dying out.
I hope pro-death morons are dying out. Not being one,
I can't say anything as to their death rate.
> Gee, I hope you're not a Darwinist.
Not a Social Darwinist at any rate, as the GOP's own
eugenicists call themselves.
> > > Sanger advocated, in her own words, the
> > > segregation of "morons, misfits, and the
> > > maladjusted",
> >
> > Her *exact words* were the placing of
> > "illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals,
> > prostitutes, [and] dope-fiends" ... "on farms
> > and open spaces as long as necessary for the
> > strengthening and development of moral conduct."
> >
> > By a startling contrast, the GOP supports much
> > the same policy through the segregation of the
> > incredibly illiterate prison population of
> > America, whose numbers include "dope-fiends,
> > criminals, prostitutes, etc.". Some in the
> > GOP have suggested Margaret Sanger's idea of
> > making prisoners work on farms.
> >
> > I guess it just matters which side you're on.
>
> The above quote isn't representative of
> EVERYTHING Margaret said. Anyone perusing the
> many web sites devoted to this topic finds ample
> material, from her own pen, condemning her for
> the pro-Hitler piece of trash that she was.
Only the anti-abortion websites, of course, and
one need only look at George Grant to realize just
how <SARCASM> accurate </SARCASM> they are.
> > If you're aligned with Margaret Sanger, then your
> > ideas of segregating criminals from the rest of
> > the population and making them work must be EVIL.
> >
> > If you're aligned with the GOP, then your ideas
> > of segregating criminals from the rest of the
> > population and making them work must be GOOD.
>
> Unlike you, I'd much rather discuss eugenics!
We are discussing eugenics, the eugenics currently
being practiced by the GOP. Eugenics, after all,
did call for the segregation of criminals away from
society, and desired to cut all funding towards
preventing the poor from becoming criminals.
Just like the GOP is currently fighting for.
> > > and for the "sterilization of genetically
> > > inferior races".
> >
> > I'd need an exact citation or quote on this one.
>
> There's plenty out there.
And yet you don't have one, and the "search" you
suggested I do turns up only unsubstantiated
claims or claims founded on KNOWN LIARS like
George Grant.
> > I suspect that the author of this propaganda
> > piece is merely using the word "races" in place
> > of "individuals".
>
> No, I suspect you're a Sanger apologist and so
> you'll bullshit your way through it.
David Rasmussen can vouch that when he proved that
Margaret Sanger held some eugenics views, I admitted
to being wrong about the fact that she did hold some
eugenics views.
I was still correct in that she and her organization
and the magazine she founded were not *racist* and
opposed the application of eugenics for *racist*
reasons, but I admitted to being wrong.
You, on the other hand, are unable and unwilling to
admit error, choosing instead to change the subject
or make yet another unsubstantiated claim to try and
argue against my PROOF.
> > Throughout her life, Margaret Sanger argued that
> > only individuals, not entire population groups,
> > could be "inferior" to a eugenics standard.
> >
> > Incidentally, a text search of The Pivot of
> > Civilization, using the word "race", does NOT
> > produce the phrase "sterilization of genetically
> > inferior races" ANYWHERE within Pivot!
> >
> > Must be putting words into the mouth of Margaret
> > Sanger again! Is there ANY proof of Margaret
> > Sanger being a racist which is not a deliberate
> > falsehood???
>
> Was Hitler a eugenicist and racist?
You're changing the subject, since you obviously
have no "proof" of Margaret Sanger being a racist
which is not a deliberate falsehood!!
Thanks for conceding that you have no proof that
Margaret Sanger was a racist.
[rest of posting continued in another posting]
webg...@rocketmail.com
>
> > In article <8jeslh$1k$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > "Noach" <azure7(REMOVE)s...@mindspring.REMOVE.com> wrote:
> >
> > > (From
> > > http://www.jewsformorality.org/select/selected_commentary_4.htm)
> > >
> > > "THE ELIMINATION OF HUMAN WEEDS"
> > >
> > > By: Chuck Morse
> > >
> > > To understand the abortion agenda today we need
> > > look no further than its most influential booster,
> > > one of the founders of Planned Parenthood, Margaret
> > > Sanger (1883-1966).
[snip!]
Lying little sneaks like yourself are often bored by
FACTS, since they so often contradict your wild,
unsubstantiated claims.
But thanks for conceding every single point I made
by admitting that you have no proof to rebut anything
I said above.
> Your tortured bullshit does nothing to avoid the
> fact that the abortion movement was founded by
> eugenicists like Sanger.
I see. Ad hominem coupled with an unsubstantiated
claim that I'm wrong.
> You'd obviously be more than a little troubled
> by this fact...
The pro-choice movement was founded by women who
wanted to have power over their own bodies.
Eugenics, being AGAINST an individual woman's
control over her own body, more closely resembles
the anti-abortion movement than the pro-choice
movement.
The one who should be troubled about any
comparisons is yourself, not me.
> For one thing, it's what proves that there is
> no need for "abortion rights" as it exists -
...except in opposition to the eugenicists, of
course.
After all, it is a smack in the face of "racial
purity" folks whenever a woman of any race chooses
to obtain an abortion. In fact, its a smack in
the face of "racial purity" folks whenever a woman
of any race chooses to continue to term.
Pro-choicers support DOUBLE SMACKING of eugenicists,
WHACK WHACK!
The anti-abortion movement, in contrast, supports
SMACKING them on one cheek and KISSING them on the
other! WHACK SMOOCH!
> that it is of no gain to women because
> EUGENICISTS - of all people - were there
> first.
Lessee, what is the opposite of eugenics, i.e.,
the government control of the reproductive process?
Wouldn't it be the complete freedom of women to
make any reproductive decision they desire without
the government forcing them into a choice they
don't want?
Seems like your movement looks more and more like
eugenics every day.
Pro-choicers, if they ever had any eugenics ideas
like the VOLUNTARY ones proposed by Margaret Sanger,
clearly have decided that dropping them is a good
idea.
Your movement is so stupid it can't even see that
when it condemns the desire to make the government
control reproduction, it is condemning parts of
its own movement which likewise desire the government
to control reproduction!
> And, likewise, the early feminists were anti-abortion:
Only because of the DANGER of abortion in the early
part of this century!
When medical science improved, feminists saw that
abortion was SAFER than childbirth, and knew that
they had an option...provided the folks like the
eugenicists and the anti-abortion folks didn't get
their hands on power over the female reproductive
process!
Margaret Sanger is purported to have made a
"justification" of abortion in her book "Women and
the New Race". It is important to note the context
of the chapter in which this is presented: the fact
that denial of birth control to women only forces
them to use abortion to control their births. In
other words, her "justification" is actually a
condemnation of any society which restricts a
woman's access to reliable birth control methods.
=====================================
http://www.pro-life.net/sanger/woman_in.htm
=====================================
WOMEN AND THE NEW RACE
CHAPTER X
CONTRACEPTIVES OR ABORTION?
=====================================
"Thus a high percentage of women in comfortable
circumstances escape overbreeding by the use of
contraceptives. A similarly high percentage of
women not in comfortable circumstances are forced
to submit to forced maternity, because their only
alternative at present is abortion. When accidental
conception takes place, some women of both classes
resort to abortion if they can obtain the services
of an abortionist."
"When society holds up its hands in horror at the
"crime" of abortion, it forgets at whose door the
first and principal responsibility for this practice
rests. Does anyone imagine that a woman would submit
to abortion if not denied the knowledge of scientific,
effective contraceptives? Does anyone believe that
physicians and midwives who perform abortions go from
door to door soliciting patronage? The abortionist
could not continue his practice for twenty-four hours
if it were not for the fact that women come desperately
begging for such operations. He could not stay out of
jail a day if women did not so generally approve of
his services as to hold his identity an open but
seldom-betrayed secret."
"The question, then, is not whether family limitation
should be practiced. It is being practiced; it has
been practiced for ages and it will always be practiced.
The question that society must answer is this: Shall
family limitation be achieved through birth control or
abortion? Shall normal, safe, effective contraceptives
be employed, or shall we continue to force women to the
abnormal, often dangerous surgical operation?"
=====================================
[the part often taken out of context by anti-abortion
folks, the last paragraph:]
"The woman who goes to the abortionist's table is not
a criminal but a martyr,
a martyr to the bitter, unthinkable conditions brought
about by the blindness of society at large. These
conditions give her the choice between the surgeon's
instruments and the sacrificing of what is highest and
holiest in her, her aspiration to freedom, her desire
to protect the children already hers."
=====================================
> they certainly didn't trump it up as an actual
> GAIN for women - the way today's radical
> anti-fertility misogynistic "feminists" do.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
In the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, abortion was
DANGEROUS. Any woman with an ounce of sense
and who had no interest whatsoever in
protecting the fetus, was STILL anti-abortion
for purely woman-centric reasons! See above
for Margaret Sanger's own words denouncing
abortion, in her own book (published 1920)
"Women and the New Race."
Abortion rights only became a GAIN for women
when medical science made abortions SAFER than
childbirth.
> Overall, your weak attempts at revisionism
Revisionism? I'm quoting her own words, therefore
I'm "revising her words"?
So REWRITING and MAKING UP Margaret Sanger's
words is "accurate reporting of Margaret Sanger"?
I see, so thats why you guys use so many misquotes
and misattributions of Margaret Sanger in your
arguments: you think that lying is being truthful
and that being truthful is actually lying!
Thank you, that answers so many questions about
the anti-abortion movement!
> of Margaret Sanger's life show that you people
> perhaps should have distanced yourselves FROM
> HER instead of HER from her OWN BELIEFS!
Actually, we merely point out her own beliefs.
You, on the other hand, put words in her mouth
and rewrite what she has written, then claim
that her own words and her own written text are
"revisionist".
> Perhaps Sanger is turning in her grave?
Margaret Sanger died happy in the knowledge that
she opposed the eugenicists in their plans to
take over women's reproductive decisions and
force women into reproductive options they don't
want.
Its a good thing she didn't live to see you guys
attempt to make the goals of her opposition,
mainstream eugenicists, a REALITY.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Eleanor Roosevelt
are the ones turning in their graves, since you and
every single anti-abortion apologist person is
calling them FOOLS.