Sanger the devil (part 2)

If you want to be deeply disturbed, read this.

“Woman must have her freedom—the fundamental freedom of choosing whether or not she shall be a mother and how many children she will have.” -Margaret Sanger

The fundamental problem here is the unlearnability that sex is the source of babies. Margaret Sanger’s insists that a woman’s fundamental freedom or right lies in her choosing of whether or not she should be a mom. Okay, great, then don’t have sex if you don’t want to be a mom, or at least don’t have sex when you are ovulating, but no one even knows one that means today because our culture’s championing of birth control has cost us our biological awareness on top of losing our morality. Insisting, “A woman should be able to have sex whenever she wants,” and in the same breathe saying, “…And she should be able to choose whether or not she should be a mom.” Is like saying, “A woman should be able to eat as many hot dogs and she wants…and she should be able to choose whether or not she ends up on the Jenny Craig diet.” Don’t want to be morbidly obese? Don’t overeat. Don’t want to get pregnant? Don’t have sex when you are ovulating. Why is that so difficult to figure out? Sanger’s error is her separation of pregnancy from intercourse. It would be like a football player who tried out for the team, made it, got all dressed up for the game, and then walked on the field and insisted, “Every player should have the right to not be tackled.” Then he would proceed on the field and be shocked to be tackled when he picked up the ball. If he was afraid of being tackled, he shouldn’t be playing. Pregnancy is part of sex, it’s the point of “the game.” Something has to go right for you to get pregnant. If you don’t want this natural result, get out of the game.

So as I began to say last post, I stepped into Satan’s playground (PP) to see what was going on in there. I found their defense of the founder, the Leviathan’s bag runner (Margaret Sanger) who they proudly insisted was an upstanding citizen and was loving, compassionate, and out for the good of everyone. Here is a fun excerpt from their site where they defend the integrity of Sanger from false quotes or quotes taken out of context. In their own words (excerpt begins with “Through the years…”and ends with the chart):

Through the years, a number of alleged Sanger quotations, or allegations about her, have surfaced with regularity in anti-family planning publications:

"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."This statement is taken out of context from Margaret Sanger's Woman and the New Race (Sanger, 1920). Sanger was making an ironic comment — not a prescriptive one — about the horrifying rate of infant mortality among large families of early 20th-century urban America. The statement, as grim as the conditions that prompted Sanger to make it, accompanied this chart, illustrating the infant death rate in 1920:

Deaths During First Year

1st born children 23% 7th born children 31%
2nd born children 20% 8th born children 33%
3rd born children 21% 9th born children 35%
4th born children 23% 10th born children 41%
5th born children 26% 11th born children 51%
6th born children 31% 12th born children 60%

Somehow I don’t foresee any context that could possibly justify this statement. Truly, there cannot be one. But I did want to know the context anyway. In fact, I was quite interested, so I looked around until I actually found the book that this quote came from. Here is some context for you, the title of the chapter is, “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families.” How’s that for putting it in perspective? We will look at the whole chapter a bit more, but first let’s look at this blurb.

I just want to make sure I have this straight, in order to avoid a possible death, you should go ahead a kill that child? That makes sense.
First of all, possible is a key word. The child may die, so hey, why not speed up the process?
Second, even if it was certain death, there is still something wrong with killing an innocent child. Why is it wrong? Because every child has internal value. The mother not wanting the child to live does not take away her baby’s value. Even if all of those stats read 99% or 100% chance of death, it would still be fundamentally wrong and unjust to kill the child. It doesn’t matter what sort of life that baby is entering into –be it poverty or the life of a gangster. (You can see how abortion has lead to racism and elitism, and why Sanger is right behind that smoking gun too). The bottom line is that any life is better than no life at all. Why? Because human life has intrinsic value. Life is better than no life at all because that which has value is better than that which has no value. Therefore, any human life, no matter how short or feeble, is incredibly valuable by merit of it’s very existence. To deny this is to take on the same mindset as Satan’s monkey boy Sanger.

More on this to come.

Margaret Sanger: The Devil's Monkey Boy. "Dance Monkey! Dance!"

So I decided to do it, against my own desire, I entered the belly of the beast. As disturbing as it is, I knew in the name of research I had to go onto planned parenthood’s website to hear it from their own lips. Actually, my journey began with researching Margaret Sanger. I was surprised to see no sign of her on any of the major abortion advocates’ (aka “pro-choice”) websites. But then, of course, I found her where she could not be denied, in the records of her legacy. Yes, she is the founder of the organization that fights for certain “rights” and “choices.” Which rights? Which choices? Well the choice and the right of a mother to murder the life of the baby inside her, the life that she (and another person I might point out-traditionally a man- but someone, pro-abortionists are in denial about this disturbing fact) had created. Planned Parenthood, aka Satan’s happy chair, continues in this wonderful tradition of protecting the “right” of in-utero baby killing. Yet, in the name of safety, health, science, and technology, Satan’s massage chair masks the deaths of these little babies under the cover of a “right.” Hordes of problems are flowing from this perspective, but would you expect any less from the devil’s own legacy? In order to deal with Margaret Sanger’s horrific views, we must first examine some preliminary questions.

The first question is “what is a right?” A right pertains to justice, so justice is where we begin. Justice is what is due to a person, what is owed or deserved. It is just, it is right, fitting, and good for a person to receive a certain type of treatment, award, punishment, if that person has done something that merits such a thing. To give one what is owed to him would be just. Thus, when one speaks of “my right,” he must have done this thing that affords him the right. If being a citizen of a country affords you the right to have a say in the political affairs of that country, that is, voting, then if you are legitimately a citizen, the right to vote belongs to you. Fundamentally, it is just for you to be able to vote and unjust for you to be prevented from voting. It is also important to realize that you can only speak of rights as long as it is objective. If there is no objective, unchangeable good, then there is no point in us having a conversation about so called “rights.” The best we could do is talk about opinions which would probably lead us to utilitarianism, that is, the greatest good (that is, what we decide is good) for the greatest number of people. (That sounds pretty good actually, if your name is Adolf Hitler or Margaret Sanger).

So justice is that which is due to every person. By merit of being conceived, that is, by becoming a human being, each person has the right to life. This is because each person has internal, intrinsic, inherent value. It is this value that is denied, ignored, and obliterated when that innocent person’s life is taken from them. This is injustice because their right to life is violated. My desire or lack of desire for any given baby to continue having life or not having life is irrelevant to that baby’s worth and value. Just as the fact that I want to be rich and famous doesn’t actually turn me into Brad Pitt.

Many claim that by not having access to abortion, they are being denied a certain “right.” What exactly is this right? What is this based on? How is killing the baby in your womb a right? No one ever has the right to take another innocent person’s life. This fundamentally flawed logic has a ripple effect that creates a wave of erring beliefs that "justify" the murdering of millions. People will make various claims such as:

1) Because they are the one that gave life to the child, the child therefore has no rights and the mother somehow absorbs up the child’s rights because she conceived it. This is why we have slogans like, “keep your laws off my body.” The irony is that the “laws” being protested are not threatening the woman’s body, but are concerned with saving the baby’s body. A mother does not have the right to end her child’s life in her womb any more than she has the right to end her child’s life outside the womb. What’s the difference?

2) The extreme response that has become normative today is this view that the baby is not a person! Yes, we have separated human beings from human persons in order to be consistent in defending the precious “right” to abortion. Metaphysically, scientifically, and medically, it is quite obvious, that at conception a new being, that is not “part” of the mother but is a distinct being, begins to exist. The standard is that rights belong to each human being (who is also a person). Against this standard, we now have the view that only persons (because not all human beings are “persons”) have rights. What is a person you ask? Well that is easy. Imagine the pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia folks sitting around a table pondering this question: “How can we define a person so that makes it acceptable for us to kill the babies and elderly when we want to? Hmm…Yes that’s it! If you are conscious, if you can object to the ending of your life, then you are a person. But if you cannot reply, you’re not a person!” I would hate to fall asleep around one of these guys. Why not slice me up for organs? It takes this view of a personhood, one that can be lost and gained throughout one’s life, in order to justify abortion.

Among those who hold to this view, very few follow this logic to its necessary end. One man insane enough to do so is Peter Singer. He finally admitted what pro-lifers had been screaming, “If killing a baby in the womb is wrong, why is killing a baby just outside that womb wrong?” There is no internal change of value all of a sudden. What makes that baby have no right to life minutes before it is born and then suddenly have every right to life after exiting the womb?

All this just to get to Margaret Sanger. I think I will have to take a nap and hope I don't get my head lopped off by any of Sanger's followers between my episodes of "personhood" and "mass of tissue" -so I can finish the rest of this blog...