It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
You don't seem to be learning from your mistakes it seems.
Even when proof is shown to you, from her own hand
that her views were simply evil and she wanted the sterilization of people with disabilities, or genetic disorders, or when you are shown that she wanted the extermination of minorities because of their race
your support for her seems to increase 10 fold... I wonder why that is...
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: M5xaz
So, for you it's "Yay, Sanger and yay the extermination of Black people"
How do you figure that promoting access to condoms, diaphragms and spermicide equals the "extermination of black people?" How do you logically even get there? Sanger was opposed to abortion.
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: UKTruth
a woman who's life's work was to suppress and exterminate African Americans.
What a failure she must appear to be in your eyes, since she failed to suppress and exterminate any African Americans.
Eugenics is essentially about the altering of genetics through engineering, the basic idea
being to eliminate certain traits from the gene pool. The eugenics movement was launched
by Sir Francis Galton in 1904 and the term ‘survival of the fittest’ was advanced by
Herbert Spencer who argued that the so called ‘unfit’ were reproducing at a greater
People with intellectual disability were among these ‘unfit’ and their continuing
reproduction was thought to somehow undermine or dilute the intelligence of the population.
They were in essence not fit to produce children
Supporters of eugenics based theories saw them translated into government policy and action
in several American states where sterilisation was practised freely on people with intellectual
disability and was also adopted by some European countries. By 1937 thirty one states as
well as Canada had enacted eugenic sterilisation laws enabling forced sterilisations to
be carried out with the aim of protecting the gene pool.
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
...to my factual statement that Margaret Sanger did not promote, nor did she support abortion.
Margaret Sanger, "Birth Control and Racial Betterment," Feb 1919.
Published article. Source: Birth Control Review, Feb. 1919. , Library of Congress Microfilm 131:0099B .
Birth Control and Racial Betterment
By Margaret Sanger
Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed, they must first clear the way for Birth Control. Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit. Both are seeking a single end but they lay emphasis upon different methods.
Margaret Sanger’s Beliefs about Disability & Eugenics
(f) the whole dysgenic population would have its choice of segregation or sterilization.
The main objects of the Population Congress would be:
(c) keep the doors of Immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feeble-minded, idiots, morons, insane, syphiletic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred from entrance by the Immigration Laws of 1924.
To clarify, I am not here to speak on whether abortion and/or birth control is immoral or moral. That is a discussion for another day. I am here to simply point out that disabled people deserve to live, and that Margaret Sanger was not the heroine we are taught about in school. She should never be lauded as champion of women’s rights. She is only a champion of able-bodied, healthy, and “normal” women she believed deserve to exist. The rest of us- well, Sanger makes it pretty clear what should happen.
Margaret Sanger, " [The Unfit] ," n.d..
Typed draft article. Source: Margaret Sanger Papers, Sophia Smith Collection , Margaret Sanger Microfilm: Smith College Collections S73:0246 .
No final version or other information was found on this text.The added numbers appear in the margin of the document.
One authority claims that out of our population of one hundred million only fifteen million can be regarded as intelligent. That eighty-five million have less than average mental capacity and compare to the youth of fifteen years--under this comes the morons, feebleminded, high grade imbeciles, then idiots, etc.
From this grade come paupers, prostitutes, criminals, tramps, inebriates, all tending to be born somewhat defective. The histories of some of the degenerate families have gone on record. Jukes in this country who in five generations produced 709 known descendants who were not only unfit but a constant and continuous danger and burden to society throughout the five generations.
In case of refusal such persons should have a choice of sterilization or isolation. Under no circumstances should the state allow such parents to cast their diseased and demented progeny upon society for the normal and fit to provide for.
Pensions could be offered to those complying to sterilization. It is part of the problem of today to reconcile the claims of the race with the claims of the individual. It is also hard to reconcile humanitarian ↑ism↓ and tremendous efforts to ameliorate disease, poverty, misery with race improvement.
originally posted by: eletheia
I didn't realise this thread was about Nazi's?
I was under the impression it was about Margaret Sanger?
originally posted by: eletheia
And the question I was addressing was......
**Again, more black babies are aborted than are allowed to be born. That's her legacy.**
Abortion is a 'choice' and not forced on any woman therefor if more
black babies are aborted it is the *choice* of more black woman .
But to the contrary, in contemporary America, the rate of pregnancy among black women is almost three times as high as it is for white women and, though they make up less than 13% of the female population, black women have about 37% of the abortions. In other words, the family planning lobby’s argument that they concentrate their facilities in minority communities because that is where the need is, cannot be reconciled with their long espoused claim about the connection between contraception, pregnancy and abortion. Seeing that they had painted themselves into this corner, their options were to either abandon the assertion that contraception is the way to reduce abortion rates, or reverse field and start denying that their facilities are disproportionately placed into minority neighborhoods. They chose the latter.
Virtually overnight, they went from claiming that they target minority communities with noble intentions to claiming that they don’t target them at all. Then, to support this revised strategy, they began quoting a new report by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI)showing that only one in 10 Planned Parenthood clinics is located in a minority community.
Next, the media began publishing articles citing these stats in which AGI was routinely characterized as an independent entity. This was obviously done to give the stats an aura of credibility. It was also done despite the fact that the American media is fully aware that AGI is not an independent agency but is, instead, the research arm of Planned Parenthood and receives funding from Planned Parenthood. In fact, Alan Guttmacher was once the president of Planned Parenthood and vice-president of the American Eugenics Society.
analysis & conclusion
The fact is that even a cursory scan of those column stakes the allegations of racial targeting made in Maafa 21 and transforms them into an observable and undeniable reality. The numbers are staggering. As just one example,consider Texas which has 94 Zip codes with at least one population control facility. Of those, only 22 are not disproportionately black and/or Hispanic. As the charts demonstrate, similar patterns are found across the country and they do not vary appreciably by the size of the state. In Connecticut – a state thoroughly dissimilar from Texas in size, culture and geography – there are 21 Zip codes in which population control facilities are located and only six are not disproportionately black and/or Hispanic.
Birth Control will solve the problem of the latter, while the former can only be settled in the individual’s conscience. It is the developed individual conscience guided by the sense of racial responsibility that such claims can be reconciled.
We should breed out the feeble minded families who have done and still are doing much social and racial damage. In mental defectiveness they may be classed into four groups-- 1.) complete idiots who merely exist, 2.) incomplete idiots with few and rudimentary ideas, 3.) imbeciles with limited and often perverted ideas but capable to being taught to read and write 4.) Weak or feebleminded who can be educated to a varying extent by special methods.
Those who would be labeled as dysgenic, according to Sanger, should have two choices and only two choices: segregation or sterilization. What does she mean by that? The dysgenics would be removed from society if they didn’t undergo sterilization. Where would they go exactly? Sanger has an idea:
(g) there would be farm lands and homesteads where these segregated persons would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.
Meaning, these people would be sent to work camps and would not imprisoned there for their entire lives. She summarizes her proposal like this:
The first step would thus be to control the intake and output on morons, mental defectives, epileptics.
What Sanger is calling the “first step” is a plan that would remove anyone with a disability, who she classifies as “morons, mental defectives, (and) epileptics.”
Then she wishes to control a second group she named “the unemployables.” Examples of which being: prostitutes, addicts, criminals, and uneducated people. Sanger’s very suggestion of segregation, camps, and sterilization shows that she sees the disabled and “the unemployables” as burdens that need to be cut loose. Her entire speech doesn’t offer a hint of compassion for those she labels as “dysgenics.” Instead, it only outlines how to rid society of them.
Sanger goes on to state that “coralling” these people, presumably against their will, is justified, because it’s all about “defending the unborn against their own disability.” She wraps up eugenics in a pretty package, saying her plan is all about healthcare, not punishment. All the while, she is really just coming up with reasons to label less productive members of society as sub-human.
I agree with you if you mean, as I suppose you do, that society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind.
It is the possibility of happiness, intelligence and power that give life its sanctity, and they are absent in the case of a poor, misshapen, paralyzed, unthinking creature.
The way of nature has always been to slay the hindmost, and there is still no other way, unless we can prevent those who would become the hindmost being born. It is in the sterilization of failures, and not in the selection of successes for breeding, that the possibility of an improvement of the human stock lies.
You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight, and since you won't, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.
The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the Feeble-Minded and Insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate. I am convinced that the multiplication of the Feeble-Minded, which is proceeding now at an artificial rate, unchecked by any of the old restraints of nature, and actually fostered by civilized conditions, is a terrible danger to the race.
Gamble was a heir to the Proctor and Gamble fortune and a major financial backer of Sanger’s.
Gamble was also a director of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League, which later changed its name to Planned Parenthood.
In 1947, Gamble called for the expansion of North Carolina’s State’s sterilization program saying that for every feeble minded person sterilized, 40 more were polluting and degrading the bloodlines of future generation with their defective genes.
Research from North Carolina’s Winston-Salem Journal reveals a long history of abuses in the N.C. sterilization program — abuses that Gamble consistently glossed over. According to the Journal, “Gamble wanted sterilizations to increase rather than decrease, and increase they did.”
But merely wanting the sterilizations to happen was not enough for this Margaret Sanger supporter. Clarence Gamble put his money where his eugenics views were and actually funded the North Carolina Eugenics Board that sterilized many blacks, including 14 year old Elaine Riddick.
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
What is the point of this thread? Some on the left idolize a racist, probably more than one. Some on the right also idolize racists.
"They are just as bad as us", seems like a pretty worthless argument to make. Neither side looks good.