The Catholic Thing
HOME        ARCHIVES        IN THE NEWS        COMMENTARY        NOTABLE        DONATE
Margaret Sanger: “Abortion is Dangerous and Vicious” Print E-mail
By George J. Marlin   
Wednesday, 14 December 2011

The Culture of Death crowd is in a tizzy because Christian groups, empowered by the November 2010 election results, have been assaulting the legal foundation of Roe v. Wade in numerous states.

In Ohio, a “heartbeat” bill has been proposed which would make abortion illegal once an unborn baby’s heartbeat is detected. If signed into law, this would mean abortions could not be procured six weeks after conception. Similar bills have been introduced in ten other state legislatures and are expected to be approved in Mississippi, Louisiana, Arizona, and Kansas.

Then there’s the personhood amendment that holds life begins at conception. It has a good shot in a number of states, despite Mississippi’s rejection of the statute in last month’s referendum election.

Another serious blow to anti-life forces was North Carolina’s decision to consider restitution to thousands of poor teenagers, people with epilepsy, and the allegedly feeble-minded who were sterilized by orders of the Eugenics Board of North Carolina between 1933 and 1977. By awarding cash and mental health services to victims, North Carolina is repudiating a program that the New York Times recently reported was driven by a philosophy of social engineering, of which such Progressive Era icons as “President Woodrow Wilson, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the Supreme Court and Margaret Sanger . . . were ardent supporters.”

The merchants of death, however, are mobilizing well-financed counter offensives. Planned Parenthood, whose clinics perform over 300,000 abortions annually, has persuaded Alexander Sanger, grandson of founder Margaret Sanger, to attack those trying to limit or eliminate “reproductive healthcare” (i.e. killing unborn babies).

In a New York Daily News op-ed piece titled “Republicans’ hundred-year war on abortion rights continues: But we cannot give up the fight for women’s health,” Sanger, who serves as Chairman of the International Planned Parenthood Council, emotionally describes how his grandma began her career 100 years ago as a birth-control advocate by opening a clinic in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn.

Warning that dangerous ideological movements are brewing anti-woman initiatives that might “compromise decades of hard-won gains in public health,” Sanger calls on supporters not to abandon his grandmother’s cause “until reproductive rights and health become a reality for all.” [Emphasis added]

Eugenicist Margaret Sanger, a lapsed Catholic who boldly proclaimed “more children for the fit, less from the unfit, that is the chief issue of birth control,” was certainly America’s leading proponent of limiting the number of children born to those she considered “irresponsible breeders” – Slavs, Italians, Blacks, Latinos, and Jews.


            Margaret Sanger, opponent of abortion

One month after the publication of Pope Pius XI’s 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii, which condemned abortion, contraception, and eugenic sterilization as vices opposed to conjugal union, Margaret Sanger publicly denounced the pope for aiming “to regulate the conjugal affairs of Catholic men and women without the benefit of science. . . .” 

Religion over science: sound familiar?

“As for the breeding of criminal, diseased, feeble-minded and insane classes,” she complained, “the pope opposes every method of control except that of suggesting to these unfortunate people to please not do it [i.e. procreate] anymore.”

Sanger argued that conception should be permissible only if the child will be “well born.” If a new life will mean new misery inflicted on a mother or her family, scientific limitation of offspring should be permitted or required to prevent “the creation of a new tragedy.”

Yet despite her harangues against the Church and her insistence that “for the welfare of children, for the happiness of husbands and wives, and for the full realization of Women’s rights, birth control by scientific methods of contraception [should] properly and wisely be exercised,” she did make one exception to an otherwise thorough pro-choice agenda: abortion.

That’s right. Margaret Sanger actually stated that: “Birth control does not mean abortion.” Here are her exact words:

“The real alternative to birth control is abortion,” wrote Dean Inge, [Dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral, London]. It is an alternative that I cannot too strongly condemn. Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious. [Emphasis added] I bring up the subject here only because some ill-informed persons have the notion that when we speak of birth control we include abortion as a method. We certainly do not. Abortion destroys the already fertilized ovum or the embryo; contraception, as I have carefully explained, prevents the fertilizing of the ovum by keeping the male cells away. Thus it prevents the beginning of life. [Source: Margaret Sanger, "Birth Control Advances: A Reply to the Pope," 1931, Margaret Sanger Papers, Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College MSM S71-243.]

I bet you never heard that Sanger considered abortion “dangerous and vicious.” You can take it to the bank that there are no posters hanging on the walls of Planned Parenthood clinics quoting those particular words of the founder.

Margaret Sanger actually believed that abortion destroys an innocent life because she was honest enough to recognize that life begins at the moment of conception. Hence, she would have disagreed with the U.S. Supreme Court’s conclusion in Roe v. Wade.

Based on her very own words, we can also presume that she would have rejected Planned Parenthood’s sudden claim in the 1960s that “no one really knows when human life begins” and that during “its early intra-uterine existence, [the fetus] is not yet a human being because it is simply a group of specialized cells that do not differ materially from other cells.” She would have rejected Planned Parenthood’s redefinition of reproductive terminology that rationalized abortion as a form of contraception.

It’s time for grandson Sanger to shred the Planned Parenthood idiot cards he reads, to cease sloganeering and to devote some time to reflecting on his grandmother’s view that abortion is evil. If he pursues that course, he may experience an epiphany, have a change of heart, and begin a new crusade that will not rest until the right to life becomes a reality for all the unborn.

 
George J. Marlin is an editor of The Quotable Fulton Sheen. His newest book is Narcissist Nation: Reflections of a Blue-State Conservative.

A note from Robert Royal: We’re grateful at The Catholic Thing for the support of readers this past week. In particular, a number of donations came in over the weekend. But we are far behind where we need to be by the end of the year if TCT is going to be able to keep on bringing you that faithful Catholic commentary you come to this site to read every morning. These are hard economic times and we know many of our readers are hard pressed. That makes it all the more urgent that those of you fortunate enough to be in a position to help with this work do so, and as soon as possible. We really need a slew of $50, $75, and $100 contributions – or more – to meet the readership targets we’ve agreed to with some of our large donors. And I’d really like to end this fundraising drive well before Christmas so that we can all get back to contemplation of the Great Story of our faith. So please, become a collaborator in this work. Give to The Catholic Thing today

 
 
The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.  
 

Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (19)Add Comment
0
...
written by Thomas C. Coleman, Jr., December 14, 2011
While I am am certainly happy to add this information to my arsenal of arguments against the culture of death word-view, I would like to know before I pull that arrow out of the quiver if Sanger continued to hold that view until she closed her eyes fro the last time. After all, many serious people as well as those of foggy minds have changed their stances on things; we call former cases conversion experiences. Do any other TCT readers know of a change of stance by Sanger on either the abortion issue or the race issues? If so, please share. (Sorry if I've overstepped my bounds by making such a request.)
0
...
written by HCSKnight, December 14, 2011
Really? "That’s right. Margaret Sanger actually stated that: “Birth control does not mean abortion.” Here are her exact words:"

In today's world, so many claims are made regarding what someone in the past said that to not cite the source only begs the reader to assume the writer is more interested in their agenda than the truth.

It is disgusting to ask for a "slew of $50, $75, and $100 contributions" yet fail to in the most basic obligation a writer has to the dignity of others and the truth.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

AMDG
HCSKnight
0
...
written by Kat, December 14, 2011
Good article, and surprising new fact. Please, where can one find this statement? It helps if sources are cited.
0
...
written by Mr. Patton, December 14, 2011
Oh my! It certainly takes a great deal of twisting to get Margret Sanger, the woman that told her father at her mothers funeral, "You caused this. Mother is dead from having too many children." which drove her to coin the phrase "birth control" and made Enovid a reality to somehow support a religious ideology she fought her entire life until the very end. Good try though.
0
...
written by c johnson, December 14, 2011
Thank you. Where can we find the quote from Sanger "dangerous and viscous".
0
...
written by Jim, December 14, 2011
Could you give us a reference as to where in Ms. Sanger's writings these quotes appear, so we may look up the entirety of them and their context?

Thanks.
0
...
written by Mike, December 14, 2011
Do we have a reference for the Sanger quotes?
0
...
written by Brad Miner, December 14, 2011
To all who've requested the source for the Margaret Sanger quote, please check back tomorrow. Mr. Marlin has it and will provide it a.s.a.p. -Brad Miner, senior editor

And here it is: Source on Sanger: Margaret Sanger, "Birth Control Advances: A Reply to the Pope," 1931, Margaret Sanger Papers, Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College MSM S71-243. [See above — in the column — for a URL link]

And to HCSKnight: Please feel free not to contribute anything.
0
...
written by Sandra, December 14, 2011
What she meant was that the "undesirable" underclass ought to be sterilized, and abortions used if all other forms of birth control failed.

There was a little booklet she wrote and that was published and circulated among young women attending college in the 1920s. My father's aunt was one young Catholic, (Franco-German 3rd Generation American middle class) that was attending a local college to be a school teacher.

She left the Catholic faith, married (?) a man that was very involved with Sanger's movement, and died from a botched abortion that she was persuaded to have done. Her mother was by her bedside when she died. Story all the kids were told as they grew up, it was typhoid or influenza. It was sepsis.

0
...
written by Edward G. O. Radler Rice, December 15, 2011
Dear Mr. Marlin,

I understand what you are getting at in your article. On the other hand, contraception is dangerous and vicious, too. Does the use of contraception not rend spousal relations? In your article, moreover, there is no mention made of the abortifacient end of many types of contraception.

Sincerely yours,

Edward
0
...
written by Sue McMahon, December 18, 2011
"Relgion over science: sound familiar?" Ummmm....no. What are you talking about?
0
...
written by Sue McMahon, December 18, 2011
I am pleased to hear that Sanger was, apparently, anti-abortion; however, this does not minimize nor trivialize her eugenic beliefs, which are deplorable. Also, let's not forget that wherever and whenever a society accepts contraception, birth control follows quickly on its heels! May we all be like Mary in our willingness to allow God's will to be done in our lives. Perhaps the most pro-life verse in the entire Bible can be summed up in today's gospel reading: "May it be done to me according to your will." Mary chose LIFE! She chose to birth the author of LIFE! Praise God!(By the way, I am the happy mother of 10 precious children and will gladly accept as many more as the Lord chooses to bless me with! And no,I am not particularly wealthy, but I am rich!)God is SO GOOD!!
0
...
written by wow gold, November 16, 2012
I agree with her that is vicious and inhumane act of man..
0
...
written by Kevin Degidon, September 02, 2013
Pro-lifers need to publicize this more. Understandably, pro-lifers like to demonize Sanger by pointing to her obvious racist eugenic views. But it is clear as strongly as she advocated birth control she, like many in the early movement, stopped short of championing "reproductive rights" including the "choice" to abort. It is important to point out just how radically the movement has shifted in dehumanizing early human life.
0
...
written by Jorge, June 24, 2014
This recalls when Robespierre at first claimed to be against death penalty, but finally, was, in fact, responsible for the frightening slaughter well known as "The Reign of Terror".
0
...
written by Catherine, September 01, 2014
Margaret Sanger was in favor of eugenics and a member of the American Eugenics Society that espoused a form of "ethnic cleansing" to rid the world of "dysgenic" classes of people.
What Sanger knew, and deceitfully tried to cover under the terminology of "birth control" was that a good many of the available pills and potions were capable of causing a woman to miscarry--ABORT--the "unwanted" "human weeds" she wanted out of her wealthy, elitist world.
If a sort of benign "birth control" was her only agenda, she and her "Birth Control League" and her "Birth Control Review" newsletter/magazine need not have gone underground after Hitler was exposed. But public animosity against precisely what she espoused made it seem unsafe for her to continue under those "hash-tags," as it were.
Only after the dramatic furor over Hitler and the Nazi's murder of millions of Jews, played out under the same white, racist views held by Sanger and much of the elite Western world, did she resurface with a new organization and name; suddenly Planned Parenthood Federation became her new propaganda vehicle.
One can pull up so much of this information on the web and by reading her autobiography and other works. Have at it.
0
...
written by Catherine, September 01, 2014
“Eugenics without birth control seemed to me a house built upon sands . . . The eugenicists wanted to shift the birth-control emphasis from less children for the poor to more children for the rich. We went back of that and sought to stop the multiplication of the unfit.” Margaret Sanger, quoted in Linda Gordon, Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right (New York: Grossman, 1976), 287, 278–79; or see Michael Perry, “The History of Planned Parenthood,” EWTN Global Catholic Network, accessed December 8, 2011,
0
...
written by Catherine, September 01, 2014
One of Sanger’s early stated goals was to promote “Unlimited
sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children.” Randy Alcorn, Why Pro-Life?
Margaret Sanger, “Why the Woman Rebel?,” The Woman Rebel 1, no. 1 (March 1914): 8, The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger, New York University, accessed December 8, 2011
0
...
written by Catherine, September 01, 2014
"When it became evident that contraceptives were not sufficiently curtailing the black population and other target groups, the eugenicists turned to abortion as a solution to the spread of unwanted races and families."
Randy Alcorn, Why Pro-Life?
Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization (New York: Brentano’s, 1922),

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 

Other Articles By This Author

CONTACT US FOR ADVERTISERS ABOUT US