Posted by life dynamics on March 12, 2015
An article published on Christianity Today’s blog, which puts Margaret Sanger in a good light, is receiving criticism on social media.
Titled, “Contraception Saves Lives” author, Rachel Marie Stone, claims she was not excusing the Planned Parenthood founder’s eugenics associations but rather, “Reconsidering Margaret Sanger as one who was opposed to abortion but emphatic about the personal and social good of contraception.”
It did not take long before educated pro-lifers online fired back:
Stone seems woefully ignorant of Sanger’s true agenda in her quest for contraception, she writes:
And that’s what she did. As she worked among the largely immigrant working poor in New York City, she saw unspeakable suffering..
Mark Crutcher, president of Life Dynamics dispels the idea that Sanger was compassionate in Maafa21, their documentary film on Margaret Sanger, where he points out that eugenics was the primary goal motivating Sanger, “On a practical level, the relationship between Sanger and these elitist eugenicists was basically a marriage of convenience. In order to advance their common agenda, they needed a front man and she needed money. And the whole thing would be held together with this bizarre obsession with race and class…Eugenics would no longer be just a philosophy. Sanger, and others like her, were going the put it into practice.”
If, as Stone suggests Sanger’s drive for contraception was based on a “social good” how do you explain these statements:
“The eugenic and civilization value of birth control is becoming apparent to the enlightened and the intelligent … the campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical in ideal with the final aim of eugenics.” Margaret Sanger, 1921.
“ I consider that the world and almost our civilization for the next twenty-five years, is going to depend upon a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people. Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately, there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.” Margaret Sanger, 1950.
That last quote was written by Sanger in a personal letter to Katharine Dexter McCormick. McCormick, was an heir to the International Harvester fortune and would later use part of her immense wealth to fund the development of the birth-control pill.
Under Sanger’s compassionate and “socially good” system she suggested that the U. S. government implement a system in which women would not have the legal right to have a child without a permit from the government and that these permits would only be good for one baby.
Even though Sanger herself was not an advocate of abortion, what her eugenics agenda had accomplished was to lay the foundation for the next phase of their plan, which was, of course, abortion.
As Crutcher points out, “A lot of Sanger’s colleagues in those days did not advocate abortion – because they implemented forced sterilization. Those who say that Sanger did not push abortion are forgetting that she died before it was legal.”
Whatever Stone’s motives for her piece, Sanger’s quest for contraception which led to abortion is perfectly summed up in a 1973 statement by Frederic Osborn, founding member of the American Eugenics Society, who said, “Birth Control and abortion are turning out to be the great eugenic advances of our time.”
For more information on Margaret Sanger’s views, watch, Maafa21 .
Help educate them by ReTweeting this on twitter: