This is a model of a 12 week old fetus – this is what the “cluster of cells” looks like that the abortion proponents treat as a tumor.
What does it say about a political ideology that fights tooth and nail for the “rights” of two men to have their oral and anal sex legally recognized but is willing to rob a human being of a chance for life simply because it is inconvenient?
I’m moving this back to the top of the blog as Black3 reminded me of the ties of “progressives” to the eugenics movement and desire to cultivate roses in a weed free flower bed.
You cannot expect to raise beautiful roses in a field choked with weeds.
– Charles Vickery Drysdale, as quoted in his 1917 book, “Eugenics marriage and birth control (Practical Eugenics)”
Drysdale was not a nobody, his family were founders of the Malthusian League in England in the 1800’s. They were ardent supporters of abortion and Margaret Sanger:
Founded by George Drysdale in 1877 in the wake of the prosecution of Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant for publication of Charles Knowlton’s Fruits of Philosophy, the Malthusian League was the first organization to promote family limitation as a cure for poverty caused by universal, periodic overpopulation. While George Drysdale’s belief in utilitarianism, classical economic theory, and family limitation provided the philosophical underpinning of the organization, it was his brother, Dr. Charles Robert Drysdale who served as the League’s president from 1877 until his death in 1907; he was succeeded by his wife, Dr. Alice Vickery Drysdale. Under the Drysdales’ leadership, the League promoted family limitation as a means of reducing poverty and overpopulation. The League’s membership, though never large, was extremely active, particularly in its commitment to promoting “full and open discussion of the Population question” in an environment “unfettered by fear of legal penalties.” In 1913 the League published Hygienic Methods of Family Limitation. In 1872 it also began publishing The Malthusian, a monthly journal. In 1922 it was renamed and published as The New Generation until 1949 when it again became The Malthusian (it ceased publication in 1952). After her 1914 escape from prosecution, Margaret Sanger contacted the League and received a great deal of support from Alice Vickery Drysdale and her son Charles Vickery Drysdale; the latter remained a close friend of Sanger’s for many decades. The Drysdales and other League members encouraged Sanger to continue her fight and also recommended that she visit the clinics run by the Dutch Neo-Malthusian League. Sanger continued a close association with the Malthusian League throughout the 1920s, attending the Fifth International Neo-Malthusian and Birth Control Conference in London in 1922 and sponsoring the sixth such conference in New York in 1925.
As we cataloged an contemporary “ethics” panel declared earlier this year that killing babies was no different from abortion, we can see the depths that our society had plumbed.
What follows was originally posted on November 4, 2011.
Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?
Ellen Chesler writing at New Deal 2.0 (sponsored by Salon Magazine), says no – she was just a feminist pioneer.
Birth control pioneer Margaret Sanger is back in the news this week thanks to GOP presidential candidate and abortion rights opponent Herman Cain, who claimed on national television that Planned Parenthood, the visionary global movement she founded nearly a century ago, is really about one thing only: “preventing black babies from being born.” Cain’s outrageous and false accusation is actually an all too familiar canard — a willful repetition of scurrilous claims that have circulated for years despite detailed refutation by scholars who have examined the evidence and unveiled the distortions and misrepresentations on which they are based (for a recent example, see this rebuttal from The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler).
It’s an old tactic. Even in her own day, Sanger endured deliberate character assassination by opponents who believed they would gain more traction by impugning her character and her motives than by debating the merits of her ideas. But when a presidential candidate from a major U.S. political party is saying such things, a thoughtful response is necessary.
To even make that statement, Ms. Chesler has to ignore all the racist quotes by the Mother of Eugenics (even though using the words “mother” and “eugenics” in the same sentence is an abomination). Some examples:
“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the 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.”
Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.
“Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism … [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”
Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on “The Cruelty of Charity,” pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.
Isn’t it amazing that the same people who can see racism in the Tea Party can’t see it when it is right in front of their faces – overt, obvious and in her own words…but then the Tea Party isn’t supportive of killing babies as a method of “contraception”. It is almost like abortion is a religious sacrament to the Left in America.
This Sanger silliness — calling critics of her eugenics liars instead of people who simply disagree with the prevailing views of journalists on sanctity of life issues — is a great example of the flaws of the “fact check” trend in modern journalism. They conflate and confuse facts and ideology. They rather shockingly hide the facts on Sanger’s eugenics, sure. But they also fail to see that people interpret things such as Sanger’s eugenicism according to their own religious and ideological views. Sanger’s views on race and eugenics are perhaps more easily contextualized by pro-choice journalists than the views of Nathan Bedford Forrest or Adolph Hitler would be, but some just reject the “other people were doing it, too” argument. They might reject that argument as specious or unimportant or irrelevant. That doesn’t mean that they’re liars or the contextualizers are liars. It does mean that they disagree on race issues, sanctity of life issues, quality of arguments or any number of other things.
I know it must be frustrating for some journalists that they’re unable to convince readers of the rightness of a given perspective, through the typical method of biased reporting. But I’d rather that they not double down through one-sided, thinly sourced “fact checks” and instead reconsider whether their job is to convince lowly readers of a given political, philosophical or religious view in the first place.