PP ties

[Hank77]

Sanger came up with the idea for "The Negro Project," to reduce the number of blacks. And it was served to them under the pretense of "better health" and "family planning."

I one of her writings she goes after Catholics as well, because they produce too many children. She goes after the disabled because of bad genetics, it goes on and on.

 

[frenchdefense]

When I read the words of PP's founder, Margaret Sanger, I shudder. The woman was a racist, a bigot, and Hitler had nothing over on this woman.

Why are we always picking on Margaret Sanger here ?

The USA had the largest, longest lived, most legally implemented eugenics system in the entire Western world.

It was legal to sterilize "unfit" people against their will until, well, technically it still is because the SCOTUS decision allowing it (Buck vs Bell) was never overturned. Virginia was sterilizing "imbeciles" against their will until 1974.

19 mercy sakes 74. Think about that.

EVERYBODY was for disposing of "unfit" people in he US: Black intellectuals, whites, doctors, politicians, judges, in 1937 67% of the American population including most Catholics.

You're correct the NAZIs copied and defended their eugenics program by pointing to the American eugenics program, but lets not blame is all on one lady trying to spread the world about contraception.

Every time Ms. Sanger gets mentioned I'm putting up this list of eugenicists to ensure that people understand this was a American societal issue, not some women who started an organization we don't like and who is now a convenient scapegoat.
Because we can't address abortion without addressing the underlying culture (which no "pro-lifer" I ever met really want to take on)

People and organizations that LOVED eugenics in America: (If you don't know some of these names they are all respected, highly educated people in various field who are easy to look up)

Carnegie Institution,
Rockefeller Foundation,
Harriman railroad fortune
J.H. Kellogg
Charles B. Davenport,
Henry H. Goddard,
Harry H. Laughlin
Madison Grant
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
Charles B. Davenport.
Alexander Graham Bell,
Stanford president David Starr Jordan and Luther Burbank
The American Association for the Study and Prevention of Infant Mortality
The National Federation of Women's Clubs,
the Woman's Christian Temperance Union,
National League of Women Voters
and
The Supreme Court of the United States of America,
The US Senate
and the legislators of 48 of the 50 states.

]

 

[MikeK]

Don't forget Ayn Rand, the anti-Christian, pro-abortion hero of the conservative and libertarian movements.

 

[Hank77]

It was legal to sterilize "unfit" people against their will until, well, technically it still is because the SCOTUS decision allowing it (Buck vs Bell) was never overturned. Virginia was sterilizing "imbeciles" against their will until 1974.

And how does that make it morally acceptable?

EVERYBODY was for disposing of "unfit" people in he US: Black intellectuals, whites, doctors, politicians, judges, in 1937 67% of the American population including most Catholics.

Nobody asked me or my parents or anyone I knew. And I knew lots of Catholics including one who has a son who at the time was called "retarded". None of us would have agreed with this.

You're correct the NAZIs copied and defended their eugenics program by pointing to the American eugenics program, but lets not blame is all on one lady trying to spread the world about contraception.

I was not blaming one woman for anything. I was stating what I feeling about her and what she said.

Because we can't address abortion without addressing the underlying culture (which no "pro-lifer" I ever met really what to take on)

Please expound on this. I don't know what you are referring to.

People and organizations the LOVED eugenics in America: (If you don't know some of these names they are all respected, highly educated people in various field who are easy to look up)

Please post the link where you got this list from. Thanks.

 

[Hank77]

Don't forget Ayn Rand, the anti-Christian, pro-abortion hero of the conservative and libertarian movements.

One can agree on some points of libertarian values and not others. I am basically a libertarian and I have never read Rand and have no desire to.
I have not read anything from Margaret Sanger that I agree with.

 

[frenchdefense]

One can agree on some points of libertarian values and not others. I am basically a libertarian and I have never read Rand and have no desire to.
I have not read anything from Margaret Sanger that I agree with.

Well, I agree with some of the stuff Margaret said, do I get the same pass on it you do for Libertarianism ?

 

[Davidnic]

I think we always focus on Sanger because one of the things she implemented to further Eugenics is still operating. And there is a desire to whitewash her views and give out awards with her name on it. So she draws attention. I think someone else who escapes too much is Teddy Roosevelt. He was a big eugenicist.

Eugenics was huge for a time and is sill big with some. The institutional racism and ideology of being better than others made America a fertile ground for it at a time of high nationalism. It was also big because of high anti immigrant feelings.

Eugenics and Other Evils by Chesterton is free as an Ebook from Gutenberg and Amazon. It is a really good refutation of the concept for anyone interested.

I have a few things to add. I think the videos indicate that Planned Parenthood is profiting. The videos are not smoking guns on the profit end but they do indicate it is possible and likely. Several of the comments made by the PP members show that there is something shady. And although no one says...yes we make a profit...they do use euphemisms that are fairly clear. But those are likely not legally going to get them. But you are not going to find evidence in their records because no one would be that stupid. Well...mostly no one.

What is obvious is they have been violating the law by adjusting the method of how they perform abortions to increase what they can get. And that is illegal. There is direct evidence of that in the videos, both edited and non-edited. Now, more may come out. More is coming out. So the story is far from over. Their records will not show that they changed the method so that information will only come from videos and whistle-blowers. But I think it is clear they are doing it. I hope that is clear enough legally, but I have my doubts. I am not sure if they will ever legally pay for what they are doing. And that is sad.

As far as Ben Carson. What he did with the fetal tissue is actually very different. He used banked tissue for pathology. Essentially the same as using a cadaver for research. That is totally different from altering methods to illegally obtain tissue, potentially profiting and doing it without permission from the mother. Setting aside that I do not see it as moral to donate the tissue of another without consent of that person when you are the one who decided to have them killed.

Morally, in Catholic Theology, what Carson did is allowable. This is because it is a different objective act, he was not in material cooperation with getting the tissue and all three moral components (Intention, Act and Circumstance) are different. That would be a whole different thread comparing the two acts in moral theology but I thought it relevant to mention the basic comparison.

Planned Parenthood is committing multiple moral wrongs here. First and foremost is Abortion itself. In addition to that the humans they kill they treat as materials and (I believe) profit. They are illegally changing procedure in order to obtain human tissue as material. And who knows what else will come out. What is clear is that if abortion, which is morally wrong, was illegal...this would not be happening in this manner. So no matter where people disagree on some of the edges here, direct abortion on demand must be opposed as morally wrong.

 

[frenchdefense]

And how does that make it morally acceptable?

This post has nothing to do with anything being morally acceptable it has to be with scapegoating a single person for what was (and to no small extent remains) a general societal movement.

N

Nobody asked me or my parents or anyone I knew.

Were you around in '37 ? Look you're either not reading the post or you're just being goading.

Which one is it ?

And I knew lots of Catholics including one who has a son who at the time was called "retarded". None of us would have agreed with this.

Who's "us" ? and how does your one experience translate into a statistical sample ?

I was not blaming one woman for anything. I was stating what I feeling about her and what she said.

That's disingenuous. On this board Sanger is put into a light as if she was the sole matriarch of eugenics in this country.

Please expound on this. I don't know what you are referring to.

You're a "pro-lifer" am not shocked that you don't know what it is you're actually trying to accomplish.

(Yes, I have that little respect for them and the ham handed way they are going about "ending" abortion)

lease post the link where you got this list from. Thanks.

I spent 45 minutes of research on the interwebs to put it together on my own. If you think it bogus do your own research and prove me wrong

Otherwise, accept it as correct.[/QUOTE]

 

[frenchdefense]

I think we always focus on Sanger because one of the things she implemented to further Eugenics is still operating.

I'm sorry Davy but I take deep exception to that statement. Planned parenthood is many things but it is not an operation putting forth the concept of eugenics and, honestly, (and I'm sorry) but this statement seems beneath you.

 

[Davidnic]

I'm sorry Davy but I take deep exception to that statement. Planned parenthood is many things but it is not an operation putting forth the concept of eugenics and, honestly, (and I'm sorry) but this statement seems beneath you.

I do not mean they currently exist with the snidely whiplash mustache twirling intention of eliminating brown people. But I do believe the original ideals that created it were focused on the Eugenic mindset that did hold some races and people as inferior because of skin color, mental ability and physical infirmity. But since she created it and there is a desire to paint her as a someone great, she, and her original comments gets greater scrutiny than other Eugenicists of the time. Does that clear up my meaning?

 

[Davidnic]

I do not think PP is staffed by closeted racists marking down abortions on a "less black people" score card. But I do think that the founder was racist and eliminating "migrants" and "unfit" was something she saw as laudable in her own writings.

 

[frenchdefense]

under was racist and eliminating "migrants" and "unfit" was something she saw as laudable in her own writings.

Well, yeah,

But I've got a list of others who thought the same thing. Included black intellectuals at the time. I mean, read some of the stuff that went on in America between 1900 and 1945. They just straight up "ill bred" and "well bred" people and how "ill bred" were a drag on society.

This was not unique to Ms. Sanger. And besides, PP was founded not as a eugenics operation anyway. It was and is an organization supporting women's health and the dissemination of contraceptive knowledge.

 

[Davidnic]

Something people need to see when we talk about Eugenics is that it is present in current arguments on both the left and right of the political spectrum. I think many who (rightly) condemn it; are not seeing that it is central to many arguments against welfare and immigration. In many ways eugenics is just as much (some times more of) an ideological grandparent to the Tea Party as it is the radical Abortion mentality.

 

[Davidnic]

Well, yeah,

But I've got a list of others who thought the same thing. Included black intellectuals at the time. I mean, read some of the stuff that went on in America between 1900 and 1945. They just straight up "ill bred" and "well bred" people and how "ill bred" were a drag on society.

This was not unique to Ms. Sanger. And besides, PP was founded not as a eugenics operation anyway. It was and is an organization supporting women's health and the dissemination of contraceptive knowledge.

It was not unique to her at all, but she was a central mover in the movement. Where we will have a disagreement is that I believe PP was part of Sangers overall push for a "Fitter" populace. With all the unsavory connotations that had in her era. I do not maintain that those who support it today are racist by association or practice. I think they have other faults when it comes to acknowledging who is a person and has value. But I can not and do not say they are corporately racist as a current institution. However, I do think the institution was created as part of her ideology toward...a less "unfit" people. Sanger created it as something multifaceted. But part of her agenda was less "unfit" people though contraception.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

It was not unique to her at all, but she was a central mover in the movement. Where we will have a disagreement is that I believe PP was part of Sangers overall push for a "Fitter" populace. With all the unsavory connotations that had in her era. I do not maintain that those who support it today are racist by association or practice. I think they have other faults when it comes to acknowledging who is a person and has value. But I can not and do not say they are corporately racist as a current institution. However, I do think the institution was created as part of her ideology toward...a less "unfit" people. Sanger created it a something multifaceted. But part of her agenda was less "unfit" people though contraception.

Except that conservatives are split on the question of immigration. We have a full range of opinions on it whereas abortion is an absolute dogma of the Left. It's like abortion is their "sacred cow." Also, the deportation of someone does not guarantee their death whereas every abortion means the death of a baby. So the two issues are not equal.

 

[frenchdefense]

It was not unique to her at all, but she was a central mover in the movement. Where we will have a disagreement is that I believe PP was part of Sangers overall push for a "Fitter" populace. With all the unsavory connotations that had in her era. I do not maintain that those who support it today are racist by association or practice. I think they have other faults when it comes to acknowledging who is a person and has value. But I can not and do not say they are corporately racist as a current institution. However, I do think the institution was created as part of her ideology toward...a less "unfit" people. Sanger created it as something multifaceted. But part of her agenda was less "unfit" people though contraception.

You're right we're going to disagree because everything I've ever read about her and Planned Parenthood indicates that she basically start it because she saw women dying from 5 pregnancies 7 years and poverty and ignorance of health everywhere around her.

 

[Davidnic]

Except that conservatives are split on the question of immigration. We have a full range of opinions on it whereas abortion is an absolute dogma of the Left.

I know more than a few pro life Democrats who are trying to change that part of their party. So I would not say absolute dogma. On a higher party level it has been since they decided to silence Bob Casey in 1992. But there are Pro-life Democrats who vote and work to end that part of their party.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I know more than a few pro life Democrats who are trying to change that part of their party. So I would not say absolute dogma. On a higher party level it has been since they decided to silence Bob Casey in 1992. But there are Pro-life Democrats who vote and work to end that part of their party.

There are some Pro-Life Democrats but not in any of the high positions of the Democrat party. For example, how many of the Democratic party's potential presidential candidates have said that they want to end abortion or put restrictions on it? For example, in the recent results of the effort to defund Planned Parenthood, out of the 53 who voted "YEA" to end funding to PP there were two token Democrats. And out of the 46 who voted "NAY" there were two token Republicans. So the votes show that almost all the Democrats are Pro-Abortion, and nearly all the Republicans are Pro-Life. It's not surprising at all, and it's why I left the Democrat party years ago. PP is like a "sacred cow" to the Democrat Party.

See:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...m.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00262#state

 

[Davidnic]

You're right we're going to disagree because everything I've ever read about her and Planned Parenthood indicates that she basically start it because she saw women dying from 5 pregnancies 7 years and poverty and ignorance of health everywhere around her.

She had that as an impetus and also her Eugenic philosophy. She was clear on the Eugenic value of contraception and the role of that in Planned Parenthood. She also supported contraception because she viewed it as essential to women's health and ability to participate in national life. So she had multiple intentions with it. One was to produce a more fit society. She wrote on the Eugenic Value of contraception often.

 

[Davidnic]

There are some Pro-Life Democrats but not in any of the high positions of the Democrat party. For example, how many of the Democratic party's potential presidential candidates have said that they want to end abortion or put restrictions on it?

I freely admit that at high levels there have been no pro-life democrats of national importance since Bob Casey. But my point is it is not absolute dogma. And an argument can be made that the heritage of eugenics informs just as many political concepts on the right as the left.

America has a predilection toward Eugenics as well as a sad history of supporting it. And it still infects both ends of our political dialog.