Culture Darwinism Eugenics etc Intelligent Design

Wow. At progressive mag, Planned Parenthood is reproved for Canceling Margaret Sanger

Spread the love

We didn’t predict this:

Whether erasing Sanger was an olive branch to Black staffers or part of a deeper self-investigation, there’s no question that the main winners here are abortion opponents. For decades, they’ve claimed that Sanger was a racist bent on Black genocide and that Planned Parenthood is carrying out that mission today. In 2016, Planned Parenthood released a historically accurate, fair, and complex statement refuting that absurd claim, but why would anyone pay attention to that now?…

Katha Pollitt, “Canceling Margaret Sanger Only Helps Abortion Opponents” at The Nation (September 7/14 2020)

Actually, the 2016 statement was the same sort of claim as those made on behalf of Darwin. Both Sanger and Darwin were racists in the old-fashioned sense. That doesn’t mean that they opposed what they saw as the good of their inferiors, maybe forced on them. But no one says it does. It’s still old-fashioned racism.

Now it gets real. We are treated to a sympathetic look at eugenics:

Although she did not single out Black people, Sanger was, yes, a eugenicist. She thought people, especially poor people, often had too many kids to care for properly and that too many of those kids were born physically disabled (or in the language of the day, “feeble-minded”). She did not oppose forced sterilization.

In these views, she had a lot of company. Many intellectuals in the early 20th century—left, right, and center—went even further. That is, they traced social ills like crime and poverty to there being too many of the wrong sort of people, a calamity that modern society, through science and social control, could prevent. Because of the Nazis, we think of eugenics as based on racism and pseudoscientific notions of breeding a racial genetic elite, but it was more about ableism, based on the belief that poverty, crime, prostitution, and promiscuity were the result of inferior genes.

Katha Pollitt, “Canceling Margaret Sanger Only Helps Abortion Opponents” at The Nation (September 7/14 2020)

Right. Thank you. The Witness for the Prosecution may step down. Unless Counsel for the Defense has any questions.

At least we are getting to understand progressives as many of them understand themselves.

See also: Planned Parenthood Disavowed Margaret Sanger — Finally (Barry Arrington)

and

Is Planned Parenthood showing signs of weakness? Carolyn Moynihan: Post-Margaret Sanger, “PPFA also has leadership issues, and staff in some clinics are fed up with bullying bosses and low wages. Indeed, one abortion activist blames Planned Parenthood for the fact that “the pro-life movement has us on our heels.”

17 Replies to “Wow. At progressive mag, Planned Parenthood is reproved for Canceling Margaret Sanger

  1. 1
    john_a_designer says:

    In the latest issue of National Review writer John McCormack notes that the 2020 Democratic National Convention quite surprisingly took a “muted approach to the issue of abortion.” This was a stark contrast with the 2012 and 2016 DNC’s which he describes as “pro-abortion extravaganzas.” He then goes on to discuss several reasons why he thinks 2020 was so different but it was the last reason he gives that I find is the most ironic.

    Amid the pandemic that has taken 170,000 American lives, a major theme of the convention was the dignity and worth of every human life. Vice-presidential nominee Kamala Harris spoke on Wednesday night about the Biden–Harris commitment to “a vision of our nation as a Beloved Community — where all are welcome, no matter what we look like, where we come from, or who we love. A country where we may not agree on every detail, but we are united by the fundamental belief that every human being is of infinite worth, deserving of compassion, dignity and respect.”

    Biden said in his acceptance speech that “as God’s children each of us have a purpose in our lives.” He spoke of the need for America to “finally live up to and make real the words written in the sacred documents that founded this nation that all men and women are created equal. Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/democratic-convention-downplays-abortion/

    Well, maybe it’s not really ironic, rather maybe it’s more like it is downright hypocritical. Unfortunately for some reason hypocrites are never able to see their own hypocrisy. Indeed they love to self-righteously proclaim their “wokeness.” But don’t dare criticize them for virtue signalling. They’ll get offended and they have a right to not be offended.

  2. 2
    AaronS1978 says:

    What a dingbat Margaret What is a racist eugenicist

    It’s not a clean it’s like clear as a bell what she was

    It’s like getting angry at a group that kept telling you that this rattlesnake was a rattlesnake and then when you finally realized it was a rattlesnake and you got rid of it because it was a rattlesnake your bemoaning the fact that we won because we were right it was a rattlesnake

    The logic

  3. 3
    AaronS1978 says:

    It’s not like it wasn’t as clear as a bell what she was…….

    I really hate talk to text

  4. 4
    Belfast says:

    Abortion played down, closing prayer mentioned the unborn, and no mention of impeachment.
    A hypocritical and therefore vain attempt to recapture Christians and especially Catholics.

  5. 5
    David P says:

    “At least we are getting to understand progressives as many of them understand themselves”

    The way with which this site portrays progressives demonstrates a lack of understanding what a “progressive” is. This site seems to recognize how little some Darwinist or Materialist understands an ID theorist. It’s sad to see them commit the same logical fallacy by defining a progressive as a conservative sees them, then marvel at how they don’t seem to understand themselves. Really?
    For the record, progressives are for progress.
    From your link:
    “Sanger also had some beliefs, practices, and associations that we acknowledge and denounce, and that we work to d today.”
    Progressives have no reservation about calling out those bad ideas, no matter how well they thought of Sanger. Calling out mistakes. Making corrections. That’s progress.
    Conservatives on the other hand just tow the line, no matter how bad the POTUS gets, they are still going to vote for him. Complete lack of integrity. Status quo. Enabling corruption. That’s conservatives.

  6. 6
    Seversky says:

    David P @ 5

    Progressives have no reservation about calling out those bad ideas, no matter how well they thought of Sanger. Calling out mistakes. Making corrections. That’s progress.

    Conservatives on the other hand just tow the line, no matter how bad the POTUS gets, they are still going to vote for him. Complete lack of integrity. Status quo. Enabling corruption. That’s conservatives.

    It’s worse than that. Republicans are beginning to openly embrace the QAnon conspiracy theories.

    If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might suspect that QAnon was actually a disinformation campaign being run by one of these covert Russian hacking groups with the aims of undermining confidence in the democratic institutions of the United States and weakening it as a political power by dividing it against itself. I believe that this has long been one of Vladimir Putin’s primary objectives. If we take Trump’s hints that he will not accept any result of the next election except one that returns him to power, that he may even seek a third term, that he displays a clear softness towards – and even envy of – Putin and others of the world’s worst tyrants, then we face the frightening prospect of the US being transformed into a Trump dictatorship. This would mean supporters of QAnon are engaging in a potentially treasonous conspiracy.

  7. 7
    john_a_designer says:

    Eugenics was a pretty big mistake and that was what defined progressivism in the early 20th century (1900-1940.)

  8. 8
    Seversky says:

    Yes, eugenics was a badly misconceived approach to the need to try and improve the human condition.

    Margaret Sanger was driven by a desire to empower women by giving them some measure of control over reproductive issues rather than leaving them entirely subordinate to men. Given the way women were treated at the time in supposedly Christian communities that was commendable. . Her association with eugenics, the KKK and the Nazis was misguided but does that undo the good she did?

    Progessivism is define in the Wikipedia article as:

    …a political philosophy in support of social reform.[1] Based on the idea of progress in which advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition, progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from uncivilized conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.

    That same article notes:

    In the late 19th century, a political view rose in popularity in the Western world that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor, minimally regulated laissez-faire capitalism with out-of-control monopolistic corporations, intense and often violent conflict between capitalists and workers, with a need for measures to address these problems

    Things haven’t changed much, have they? Conservatives may oppose “Darwinism” but the have no problem with letting “survival of the fittest” capitalism rip and to hell with the victims.

  9. 9
    AaronS1978 says:

    @ Seversky
    Kamala Harris
    Please explain the progressive choice for her as vice president, or is it a vote blue no matter who

    Also please explain why progressives tore down statues of abolitionist and racist statues because of their past yet say and do nothing to the party they follow for their racists past??

    I think progressive just pick and choose what they want to be progressive about like every other human the difference is progressives like to virtue single and tell everyone they are progress and good

  10. 10
    AaronS1978 says:

    By the way work standards as such have changed quite dramatically I’m glad Wikipedia stays updated about these things I hope you can sense my sarcasm

    Socialism often turns into a dictatorship in fact I don’t know what socialistic country hasn’t not even your precious Scandinavia isn’t 100% socialist as they actually admit this

    No true form of communism has ever existed either because that would imply that people actually rule the government and not the government ruling the people, it’s always has become socialistic, and the government always ended up being the key factor in ruling all the people instead and it has never ended well. I’m sure you’re in big proponent of the Bolshevik Revolution and their gentle way of change since they were a far left group that advocated for socialism, very progressive

    So my suggestion to you since capitalism is such an offense to you why don’t you move to China and see how well you do, they are your utopia

  11. 11
    AaronS1978 says:

    Oh and you can actually make a really good case with the Bolshevik Revolution being caused by Jewish atheists, now I normally never blame any one particular group for stupidity such as this, but since you’re into constantly pointing out how terrible Christians are I’m sure you might want to take some objections towards the atrocities that these people pulled

    Oh wait your progressive and as I stated before you like to pick and choose what your progressive about

  12. 12
    john_a_designer says:

    Talk about stereotyping. Not everyone who opposes progressivism is a dyed in the wool conservative. I’m certainly not.

  13. 13
    AaronS1978 says:

    @ John
    Exactly

  14. 14
    chuckdarwin says:

    Christian apologists whine incessantly that skeptics cite unflattering portions of the Bible, especially the OT, out of historical context, like the issue of slavery. And there is likely some merit to that claim. However, they do the exact same thing when it comes to historical figures like Darwin, Sanger, Freud and others. The nineteenth century, running over till FDR, was rife with all types of naive and misguided biological notions, including eugenics, IQ testing, etc. Give these people a break. Darwin’s attitude towards non-white, primitive peoples was no different than any other member of the English peerage in Victorian England. It wasn’t limited to foreign people, that’s the way they viewed their own servant class, Not to mention the Scots, the Irish, even Americans.

  15. 15
    BobRyan says:

    Chuckdarwin @ 14

    You can make any justification you wish, but it wasn’t other English people who wrote Decent of Man. Anyone who has read Darwin’s second book knows he viewed extinction of savage races of man, Darwin’s words, as a positive thing for society.

  16. 16
    Marfin says:

    Chuck D , what most of you Darwinist fail to realise is the full implications of your position.Do you believe humans are a product of evolution ,of natural selection working on random mutations, if so please tell me what human trait , desire , action, belief , is not a product of evolution and if not , how not.
    Then tell me if our human traits are but a product of evolution, what makes any of them right or wrong, and not just survival traits.

  17. 17
    BobRyan says:

    Marfin

    For people who believe man is nothing more than just another animal and nothing special about them, they spend a lot of time with justification. I’ve never seen justification in nature and is a purely human trait, which means man is not just another animal by their own words.

Leave a Reply