You suffer from the typical dilemma of a liberal:
You are so convinced of your own intellectual superiority that you think your feelings and thoughts supercede due diligence and actual intelligence.

surveys show conservatives are happier, and liberals more likely to be in therapy. Idiot.

“In a 1916 edition of Family Limitation, Sanger advised women douche with boric acid and to take quinine to prevent implantation. She wrote further, “No one can doubt that there are times when an abortion is justifiable but they will become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception. This is the only cure for abortions.”[citation needed]”

It’s so hard for me to know what to make out this quote, since I’ve decided not to investigate the nuances of her abortion position for now. As I said earlier, if Bernard Nathanson lied about this issue, it says loads about the honesty of the pro-life movement.

Thuja, pro-life opposition to Sanger stems from her support for eugenics. Most people regard eugenecists as near-absolute evil, real scum. In Germany you could be investigated for advocating Nazi ideas. I’m sorry to hear that immorality and eugenics is OK with you, I undestand your veneration of Maggie Sanger. Have these life decisions led to a life of joy?

theCork on July 11, 2009 at 1:46 PM

I have never seen any evidence that people’s political positions impact their happiness in a democratic society. I suspect that some political positions may reflect a person’s level of happiness. In particular, I think people who quick to condemn others and quick to support the various witch hunts allowed in modern politics are probably unhappy.

And the next time you read a poll that indicates that most people don’t think a person with horrible genetic defects should have kids, please keep thinking most people oppose Margaret Sanger and my ideas on the topic. Dishonesty so often starts with someone lying to themselves. And I’m anxious that the pro-life movement keeps its high standard on honesty issues.

Pretty sick for a Jewess to advocate eugenics. Oh wait, I am not allowed to mention that ironic fact.

Sanger speaking at a KKK meeting, mentioned in her own autobiography, pretty much sums her up.

Jeff from WI on July 11, 2009 at 9:05 AM

Wow, what a sophisticated argument! Like most people, Sanger was complex and hard to sum up. Ok, so she spook once to a KKK meeting. I went to a Scientology meeting once. Does this mean I agree to all of Scientology’s evil? Maybe it was her experience at the KKK meeting that prompted her to say:

The big answer, as I see it, is the education of the white man. The white man is the problem. It is the same as with the Nazis. We must change the white attitudes. That is where it lies.

She was a socialist as a youth and a Republican when old, but continued to promote family planning the entire time. It makes no sense to identify her family planning crusade with any particular political grouping.

I disagree with you on the issue of abortion as I do with millions. I understand that this issue is difficult to argue/discuss rationally between many who are opposing in beliefs. I think much of that is due because it is based on the premise side of argument and not during the point/conclusion time. I also think it would counter any advance in said discussion to state that any side (coincidentally the one I oppose) has a problem with honesty. Take it for whatever.

anuts on July 11, 2009 at 7:24 AM

Of course, most people who respond to polls as being pro-life have a vague idea abortion is yucky and aren’t extreme people. I certainly wouldn’t claim that the “pro-life” ideology is twisting their honesty. Most such “pro-lifers” have no idea who Margaret Sanger is. I would be shocked to learn to learn that even 10% of those polled as “pro-life” know who Margaret Sanger is. What I’m talking about is the more extreme pro-lifers who just lie about Margaret Sanger and then lie some more about this great woman, by taking a few quotes out of context. No doubt, Margaret Sanger was a product of her times, when race was a category that people used. These people included Presidents Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, and Calvin Coleridge.

Let’s consider Warren Harding. He praised Stoddard’s book horrible racist book “The Rising Tide of Color” in a speech in Birmingham in 1921. If I had the ambition, I could find a copy of “The Rising Tide of Color” and find some truly atrocious quote, since F. Scott FitzGerald used a reference to the book to establish Tom Buchanan as a brutal character in “The Great Gatsby”. I could then talk about Warren Harding was an important antecedent to Adolf Hitler. Of course, it would be a totally ridiculous argument, but it’s exactly the argument that pro-life activists make about Margaret Sanger. And I have yet to finish to showing why it’s ridiculous. In fact, Warren Harding undid some of the racist policies of Wilson administration. Harding truly wanted to take steps in the right direction. The dishonesty about Margaret Sanger also involves ignoring the evidence that suggests she opposed racism. Here’s a Sanger quote:

What hangs over the South is that the Negro has been in servitude. The white southerner is slow to forget this. His attitude is the archaic in this age. Supremacist thinking belongs in the museum.

What I’m still trying to get my hand around is Nathanson’s claim that Sanger was opposed to abortion. This would mean that the pro-life extremists are vilifying Sanger for advocating birth control and that opposing birth control is still part of their agenda. I wonder how well that would go over with the American people. Sadly, they’ll never know the active pro-lifers still target birth control for the same reason that most people who poll “pro-life” don’t know who Margaret Sanger is. Most people simply aren’t interested.

I wish more people cared and bothered to think about these issues. I suppose in that sense you are right that shouldn’t call the “pro-lifers” liars with such intensity as it does drive people away from the argument. It’s just that the extremity of their lies about Sanger make it hard to say anything else. Still, I did overplay the lying meme, and I thank you for pointing it out. I will strive not use it gratuitously in the future.

Ya know, Der Fuhrer preferred immorality too. He was a big-government, socialist, anti-Zionist, vegetarian, a self-confessed pagan who valued animal rights, socialized medicine, gun-control, abortion, and was VERY big in euthanasia. I’m amazed that progressives haven’t launched a full hagiographical campaign to make him a saint!

Hitler was a Leftist

theCork on July 11, 2009 at 1:22 AM

It’s coming, in a hundred years Hitler will be a misunderstood visionary and the left will tell us Buchenwald never happened.

According to Bernard Nathanson in his anti-abortion book on page 32, Sanger opposed abortion. Nathanson is pro-life, so I suspect his ability to tell the truth. But if Nathanson is telling the truth, it throws a real monkey wrench into the pro-life demonetization of Sanger. At the very least, the pro-lifers should mention that Sanger shares their opposition to abortion. If Nathanson is lying, it would do much to verify my ideas of pro-life honesty.

thuja on July 10, 2009 at 7:59 PM

In reading your several strange posts with comments about ‘honesty’ (more specifically, what kind of person is seemingly incapable of the concept), I have to wonder: according to you, was Dr. Nathanson honest while co-founding NARAL and then became dishonest when he became pro life?

Admittedly, my somewhat limited knowledge on what Sanger thought would give me substantially less confidence to claim what was said in her autobiography and/or direct quotes as lies, but I hope you’ll pardon me if I find that nothing short of amazing.

I disagree with you on the issue of abortion as I do with millions. I understand that this issue is difficult to argue/discuss rationally between many who are opposing in beliefs. I think much of that is due because it is based on the premise side of argument and not during the point/conclusion time. I also think it would counter any advance in said discussion to state that any side (coincidentally the one I oppose) has a problem with honesty. Take it for whatever.

I’m guessing that Ginsburg sanely believes that it’s not a great idea for unmarried women living in poverty to have lots of kids. It’s certainly a population that I’d like to prefer abortion to childbirth.
It’s hard for me to even imagine the twisted, sick minds that want to make something sinister out of people not wanting children born into households that are bad places for kids to live. And it’s certainly not eugenics. But even in terms of “eugenics”. By what sane measure, do we wish people who have lots of terrible medical problems related to genetics to have lots of kids? Is it really true the idea of the good life involves living in agony on hospital beds? If morality is people living horrible lives, then give me immorality!

thuja on July 9, 2009 at 9:10 AM

I forgot to include your original email when I cited “also preferring immorality” above. I’m quoting the whole thing to get that crunchy neo-eugenecist context just right.

to vilify Margaret Sanger because her magazine published one article written by Popenoe is simply absurd…

thuja on July 10, 2009 at 9:28 PM

She was responsible for whatever was published in her magazine. This is such an obvious point it bears no further discussion.

What’s next in “pro-life” history? Claiming Martin Luther King, Jr. was responsible for Nazi concentration camps? Margaret Sanger was saint for what she did. It’s just disgusting the lies the pro-life movement tells about her.

thuja on July 10, 2009 at 11:37 PM

It’s disgusting what she says about herself. I doubt the Reverend King read her earlier writings, I doubt that he would have been quite so laudatory. In the post war years eugenecists have launched a full propaganda campaign to clean up Sanger’s image.

Ya know, Der Fuhrer preferred immorality too. He was a big-government, socialist, anti-Zionist, vegetarian, a self-confessed pagan who valued animal rights, socialized medicine, gun-control, abortion, and was VERY big in euthanasia. I’m amazed that progressives haven’t launched a full hagiographical campaign to make him a saint!

Hitler was a Leftist

I’m guessing that Ginsburg sanely believes that it’s not a great idea for unmarried women living in poverty to have lots of kids. It’s certainly a population that I’d like to prefer abortion to childbirth.
It’s hard for me to even imagine the twisted, sick minds that want to make something sinister out of people not wanting children born into households that are bad places for kids to live. And it’s certainly not eugenics. But even in terms of “eugenics”. By what sane measure, do we wish people who have lots of terrible medical problems related to genetics to have lots of kids? Is it really true the idea of the good life involves living in agony on hospital beds? If morality is people living horrible lives, then give me immorality!

thuja on July 9, 2009 at 9:10 AM

Thuja? If you ever are able to force sterilization on others… then you too will be an enemy against all humanity by the laws of most nation on this earth. You prefer immorality? You’ve got it! You and Sanger both.

Here is Sanger’s account of her trip to talk to the Ku Klux Klan from pages 366-367 of Margaret Sanger An Autobiography (1971 reprint by Dover Publications, Inc. of the 1938 original published by W.W. Norton & Company).

Jeff from WI on July 10, 2009 at 10:33 PM

She met with the KKK.YOu don’t meet/speak with the KKK for a picnic and this is noted on pages 366-367 of her AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Do you know what AUTOBIOGRAPHY means?
It means she wrote it!

As I stated before, in excellent detail, no “pro abortion”
person could ever be confused with someone telling the truth.

Given Margaret Sanger’s preoccupation with race (see previous article), it should come as no surprise to anyone that Sanger would accept an invitation to give a speech to an organization that also has a preoccupation with race – the Ku Klux Klan. Not only did Sanger accept the invitation, but the excerpt below from her own 1938 autobiography indicates the she got along quite well with members of a New Jersey branch of the Ku Klux Klan, eventually getting a “dozen invitations to speak to similar groups.”

Is there no lie which the pro-life movement won’t stoop to? Margaret Sanger’s preoccupation with race? No honest view of Margaret Sanger’s life would suggest such a thing. As a product of her time, she was influenced by the racism of her time. No doubt that is true. But she was also influenced by anti-racism of her time, and much more by the anti-racism. Here’s an excerpt from a speech by Martin Luther King, Jr praising Margaret Sanger.

There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist — a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.

What’s next in “pro-life” history? Claiming Martin Luther King, Jr. was responsible for Nazi concentration camps? Margaret Sanger was saint for what she did. It’s just disgusting the lies the pro-life movement tells about her.

Given Margaret Sanger’s preoccupation with race (see previous article), it should come as no surprise to anyone that Sanger would accept an invitation to give a speech to an organization that also has a preoccupation with race – the Ku Klux Klan. Not only did Sanger accept the invitation, but the excerpt below from her own 1938 autobiography indicates the she got along quite well with members of a New Jersey branch of the Ku Klux Klan, eventually getting a “dozen invitations to speak to similar groups.”

Perhaps this is because the KKK’s ideas and Margaret Sanger’s ideas concerning race are so similar. No doubt the KKK must have been happy with Sanger’s “Negro Project” which was designed to cut down on the number of black babies being born. In a December 10, 1939 letter, Margaret Sanger wrote to Dr. Clarence Gamble about her “Negro Project,” saying, “We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” (See Blessed Are The Barren The Social Policy of Planned Parenthood by Robert Marshall and Charles Donovan, Ignatius Press, 1991, pages 17-18.)

Here is Sanger’s account of her trip to talk to the Ku Klux Klan from pages 366-367 of Margaret Sanger An Autobiography (1971 reprint by Dover Publications, Inc. of the 1938 original published by W.W. Norton & Company).

Even assuming that the first two sentences are true (given pro-life honesty I seriously doubt it), to vilify Margaret Sanger because her magazine published one article written by Popenoe is simply absurd. What’s your next line of attack on Margaret Sanger? That she once used a toilet that Adolf Hitler also used?

thuja on July 10, 2009 at 9:28 PM

ROFLMAO!!!!…Pro-Life honesty in question?? This coming from a pro-abortionist who can pretend an obvious baby that ANY ultra sound can show is some kind of clump of cells, a TUMOR that moves and kicks back at the mother.
Is there a single liberal pro-aqbortion woman in America that ever through or attended a “non-viable tissue mass showers” Talk about NOT being honest!! ROFL!