(Not so) pro-life vid of day: Margaret Sanger – “No more babies”
by Hans Johnson
In a 1947 newsreel interview at London’s Dorchester Hotel, the notorious eugenicist founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger (addressed in the video as Mrs. Margaret Slee), was asked about her views. Given that post-war Europe was seeking to rebuild its population as well as its industries, she was somewhat deferential in saying it was “up to the mother” – for those not in the Third World, at least. But she made her personal opinion crystal clear:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/ChCjgYGTL4Y[/youtube]
“No more babies…” and the video cuts there. So what do you think Sanger meant by these comments?
Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.
(HT: LifesiteNews)
May.01, 2014 12:00 pm |
Video of the day |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The babies of that time were really misbehaving – something had to be done.
To be more serious, she was saying that certain countries should take a break until 1957.
I’m not sure it is possible to enter the thoughts of such a psychopath and come out with anything reasonable.
Like Sanger, certain modern environmental zealots still insist that there should be no more humans.
Hitler made speeches that there should be no more Jews.
The only rational thread to such behavior is that there is an intense hatred for part or all of the human race, and this hatred finds reasons to justify itself.
Oh Mags.
You must be so proud of us. Killing “human weeds” left and right.
I wonder if this is the same sort of thing she told the Ladies Auxillary of the Ku Klux Klan.
Good grief Mary.
And try as they might to distance themselves from Maggie, PP gives out the Margaret Sanger award every year!!
Didn’t Nancy Pelosi receive it this year????????
Hi Carla,
I’ve read that she had written an actual account of her visit to these charming ladies. She described being blindfolded and driven to an unknown destination. Well what else would one expect? Its not like she was addressing a group of church sewing ladies. Apparently she had no problem with their racist, anti-Semitic beliefs. What the heck, an audience is an audience.
How nice the ladies could take a day off from burning crosses and terrorizing black and Jewish citizens to attend.
BTW, the irony of Faye Wattleton, a black woman, heading this woman’s organization. What better way to promote Mags’ agenda?
Sanger was one of 11 children and had three sons herself. She truly must have hated her mother for bearing so many children and at the same time, her sibllings for perhaps taking up space?
Makes me wonder how come she had three sons instead of, say one or none? What’s good for Margaret was not good for any one else she “so cared” about.
But its interesting that she did not focus on abortion at that time, rather contraception and eugenics. She was actually opposed to abortion and it was not until after her death that PP expanded to include that “service.”
In her book Woman and the New Race, she wrote: “while there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.”
I will vilify her for contraception and eugenics.
Huh. I did not know that, Thomas.
But the reason she could have children and others couldn’t is because obviously *she* believed that she could raise her children properly.
Thomas
The most humane thing a large family can do for an infant is kill it.
Maggie Sanger
Keep reading.
Carla,
Wow. That’s sad. And the most horrific is I’ve actually heard people use that argument to me (or something along those lines). Bet they don’t even know they are echoing Maggie Sanger. It’s so sad that people *still* think it would be better to kill an unborn baby because the baby *might* be poor/suffer/not live up to the speakers’ standards of living than to let that child have a fighting chance.
How very twisted.
Carla, yes: obviously Sanger was into the demise of children already born, as it reflected her ideology of removing the undesirable from the population.
So I’d have to conclude that her stance against abortion was nullified by her desire to kill undesirables. So much for my attempt to salvage this woman….
Yes I am quite educated on Sanger and her horrid views. Omg I just cant believe they give an AWARD in her honor. Mary you have mentioned Waddleton in many prior posts. What did she do and who was she if you dont mind me asking.
I wonder if her hatred of large families came from her being from such a large family. Maybe she felt neglected. Just a thought. Boy would she have a field day on the Duggers. Anyway thanks a lot lady. Only those nutty pro choicers will see things your way. The blood of the dead babies is on your hands. BTW please dont mistake my ? about her being from a large family as any type of justification on her views. I knew nothing about her background. Heck I didnt even know she had kids.
I understand your desire to salvage this woman.
Hey, maybe she made an amazing cherry pie!!!
Mags has a legacy. You can read it and watch it and study it and all you will come away with is her desire to promote and advocate for the deaths of those she deemed “undesireable” or “human weeds.”
And that is evil. She is in a league with Hitler and anyone else who dehumanizes others to kill them.
Her legacy is evil. She spent her life sowing seeds of death and she has reaped what she has sown.
“I understand your desire to salvage this woman.”
Carla, there is some of that, yes, among some pro-choicers. And there’s also some desire to vilify her, among some pro-lifers.
In both cases, we usually forget the context of Sanger’s time – when most people had substantially different views than we do now, including those who would have self-identified as hardcore Christian, ‘pro-life,’ etc.
70 years from now – (if we don’t over-populate ourselves out of existence : P) – who knows what they’ll think of us?
Hi heather,
Faye Wattleton was the first Black president of PP. She was beautiful, well spoken, dedicated to the cause, and a media princess.
I always give credit where its due and I have to admit I wished she was on our side!
She left to host a TV talk show, we don’t have enough of those, and that’s the last I heard. I often wondered if she actually heard the truth about Sanger.
I admire her brutal honesty, Thomas.
She wanted death for others. She advocated it, promoted it, spoke to the KKK about it, encouraged it and was not shy about it in any way. She spoke her truth. She spoke her evil.
Unlike others who are proabortion that use monikers and circular reasoning and euphemisms and can’t bring themselves to say that they are fine with killing innocent human beings.
Mags desired death for others. Whatever context you want to bring to it. Death and destruction and devastation. I am not comparing her to other “Christians” or other “prolifers” of her time. Her words and actions stand for all to see and read and know. It is crystal clear what she wanted.
And yes I will vilify a woman’s actions that led to legalized abortion, the killing of millions of innocent children and the devastation of their mothers.
70 years from now I will be walking on eternity’s shores my good man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4pwJas4En0
Dan Rather’s interview with Margaret Sanger.
Hi Carla did you mean Doug or me, just checking :)
Doug. :)
Hi Doug.
I think she did, Thomas.
I don’t want to hear anyone snark about the attractive Fox News females when PP has had Wattleton and Richards putting such a pretty face on the ugliness of “access to abortion”.
Pull back the curtain and you have Sanger and Gosnell.
Do we really doubt that Sanger would have gotten over her qualms about abortion by the ’70s like so many others?
(I write at a snail’s pace, Carla. :) )
She made it pretty clear- she did not think babies had value. They did not, in her opinion, contribute to the world in any meaningful way.
Mary thank you for explaining.