| "What does birth control have to do with "dead babies"??"
DUH!!
"In the limited space of the present paper, I have time only to touch upon some of the fundamental convictions that form the basis of our Birth Control propaganda, and which, as I think you must agree, indicate that the campaign for Birth Control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical in ideal with the final aims of Eugenics." Margaret Sanger in "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda"
"Are you surprised that birth control has a goal?"
That it has a goal? No. It's the content of the goals of the Eugenics movement that are so disturbing. The goals of Eugenics movement are well known and they involved the suppression and eventual elimination of entire groups of People that the White Supremacist leaders of the Eugenics movement considered to be racially inferior and unfit for life. These included Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, dark skinned Europeans, the poor, the disabled, the mentally ill and ultimately, anyone who opposed them politically. That you would also be enamoured with these same ideals and goals is not surprising at all. Sanger's damning confession that the goals of the birth control movement were identical to the goals of the Eugenics movement should be enough to make you hang your head in shame, but you are beyond shame. You have my pity.
In Goldsmith or Dickens or Hood there is a basic idea that the particular poor person ought not to be so poor: it is some accident or some wrong. Oliver Twist or Tiny Tim are fairy [143]princes waiting for their fairy godmother. They are held as slaves, but rather as the hero and heroine of a Spanish or Italian romance were held as slaves by the Moors. The modern poor are getting to be regarded as slaves in the separate and sweeping sense of the negroes in the plantations. The bondage of the white hero to the black master was regarded as abnormal; the bondage of the black to the white master as normal. The Eugenist, for all I know, would regard the mere existence of Tiny Tim as a sufficient reason for massacring the whole family of Cratchit; but, as a matter of fact, we have here a very good instance of how much more practically true to life is sentiment than cynicism. The poor are not a race or even a type. It is senseless to talk about breeding them; for they are not a breed. They are, in cold fact, what Dickens describes: "a dustbin of individual accidents," of damaged dignity, and often of damaged gentility. The class very largely consists of perfectly promising children, lost like Oliver Twist, or crippled like Tiny Tim. It contains very valuable things, like most dustbins. But the Eugenist delusion of the barbaric breed in the abyss affects even those more gracious philanthropists who almost certainly do want to assist the destitute and not merely to exploit them. It seems to affect not only their minds, but their very eyesight. Thus, for instance, Mrs. Alec Tweedie almost scornfully asks, "When we go through the slums, do we see beautiful children?" The answer is, "Yes, very often indeed." I have seen children in the slums quite pretty enough to be Little Nell or the outcast whom [144]Hood called "young and so fair." Nor has the beauty anything necessarily to do with health; there are beautiful healthy children, beautiful dying children, ugly dying children, ugly uproarious children in Petticoat Lane or Park Lane. There are people of every physical and mental type, of every sort of health and breeding, in a single back street. They have nothing in common but the wrong we do them.
G.K. Chesterton.
................................................................................................................................
Sanger makes it crystal clear that improving the family (and thus humanity) must “COME FROM WITHIN”. It must be autonomous, self-directive, and not imposed from without."
If you continue not to get this, it is because you are determined against all good sense to wave the flag of Bigotry.
You speak with Forked Tongue Livesinatent and so did Sanger!
Sanger was completely open about her Racist Eugenic views prior to the Nazi's putting her Eugenic ideas into practice. After the Eugenic atrocities of the Nazi's became known to the public, she changed strategies and pretended that she never advocated forced sterilization and segregation into Concentration Camps of Human Beings whom she considered inferior to her and her White Supremacist friends. Here's part of what she called her "Plan for Peace" in 1932
" to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring. ...
to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.
to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.
The first step would thus be to control the intake and output of morons, mental defectives, epileptics.
The second step would be to take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection, and segregate them on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct.
Having corralled this enormous part of our population and placed it on a basis of health instead of punishment, it is safe to say that fifteen or twenty millions of our population would then be organized into soldiers of defense---defending the unborn against their own disabilities. ..."
A Plan for Peace
by MARGARET SANGER
Summary of address before the New History Society, January 17th, New York City
|
|
