User Tag List

Page 171 of 180 FirstFirst ... 71121161168169170171172173174 ... LastLast
Results 2,551 to 2,565 of 2700

Thread: Trump: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

  1. #2551
    TOL Legend annabenedetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,811
    Thanks
    5,719
    Thanked 7,258 Times in 4,114 Posts

    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147709
    Quote Originally Posted by Tambora View Post
    Flip the coin ......

    The typical Clinton supporter continues to prove his or her actual "Bible" writers are none other them the same writers who write for a Howard Stern or a Jerry Springer.

    This is why the morality issue is not going to hold up when it comes to politics, because the silence from the left on morality was blatantly obvious for years and years.
    Neither side can play the morality card with a straight face.
    And the public realizes that the outcry of 'morality' is not genuine.

    And the Clinton family did much to perpetuate the silence on morality,
    The women that spoke up against Clinton about his rape and molestation were scorned and hounded by the left.
    They should have been shunned him, but, no, the left had no intention of doing that even though they were completely aware of Clinton's actions.
    They didn't shun the perpetrator at all, they shunned the victims,
    So when the tables are turned they have no moral foundation to stand upon.

    I suspect that soon enough, both Bill and Hillary will be thrown under the bus by the left, as NOW they are a hindrance to their cause.
    Too little, too late.

    The public knows that morality is not their main agenda, and never has been.
    So keep your candles burning
    "Nevertheless, she persisted."
    a.k.a. starchild, starburst, stardust, sweetpea, and dumber than dirt.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to annabenedetti For Your Post:

    Rusha (November 15th, 2017)

  3. #2552
    STAND UP Tambora's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    43,142
    Thanks
    131,276
    Thanked 38,653 Times in 24,019 Posts

    Mentioned
    148 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2148080
    Quote Originally Posted by annabenedetti View Post
    On top of her being a sexual molester supporter.

    God Bless America

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Tambora For Your Post:

    patrick jane (November 14th, 2017)

  5. #2553
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    197
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 108 Times in 76 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    35507
    Quote Originally Posted by annabenedetti View Post
    Now that, anna, was a very powerful post. It was a masterful display of being extremely concise. There wasn't a superfluous word in it.

  6. #2554
    TOL Legend annabenedetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,811
    Thanks
    5,719
    Thanked 7,258 Times in 4,114 Posts

    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147709
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    Danoh,

    A question for you. Do you criticize/condemn Christians who vote Democrat? They vote for a platform, not just individual politicians, who not only condone, but openly push for, murder. Does that find a way into your moral compass? You do remember that Hillary was voted the woman of the year by the Margret Sanger foundation don't you? Hillary responded by saying that it was the greatest honor of her life.

    And Sanger openly pushed eugenics too. I've read some of her writings, and her writings are so oppressively evil that I couldn't read for more than a few minutes at a time.
    I've read some of her writings also. She was involved in eugenics, that's true, and not to be dismissed. But some of what is said of her is completely false. Sanger was pro-birth control and anti-abortion, and she had no desire to 'wipe out the Black race.' One quote of hers is quite commonly lifted out of context. Maybe you know which one I mean.

    Further, here she is in 1945:

    Discrimination is a world-wide thing. It has to be opposed everywhere. That is why I feel the Negro’s plight here is linked with that of the oppressed around the globe.
    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.
    . . . .

    When we first started out an anti-Negro white man offered me $10,000 if I started in Harlem first. His idea was simply to cut down the number of Negroes. ‘Spread it as far as you can among them,’ he said. That is, of course, not our idea. I turned him down. But that is an example of how vicious some people can be about this thing.


    Sanger's outreach to impoverished women was about birth control, not abortion. I think that fact gets lost in the rhetoric.
    So keep your candles burning
    "Nevertheless, she persisted."
    a.k.a. starchild, starburst, stardust, sweetpea, and dumber than dirt.

  7. #2555
    TOL Legend annabenedetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,811
    Thanks
    5,719
    Thanked 7,258 Times in 4,114 Posts

    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147709
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    Now that, anna, was a very powerful post. It was a masterful display of being extremely concise. There wasn't a superfluous word in it.
    And so elegantly...
    So keep your candles burning
    "Nevertheless, she persisted."
    a.k.a. starchild, starburst, stardust, sweetpea, and dumber than dirt.

  8. #2556
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    197
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 108 Times in 76 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    35507
    Quote Originally Posted by annabenedetti View Post
    And so elegantly...
    I agree. I just wish I could write so elegantly and concisely. You have it down to an artform. :

  9. #2557
    TOL Legend annabenedetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,811
    Thanks
    5,719
    Thanked 7,258 Times in 4,114 Posts

    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147709
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    I agree. I just wish I could write so elegantly and concisely. You have it down to an artform. :
    It's a heavy burden. I bear it the best I can.
    So keep your candles burning
    "Nevertheless, she persisted."
    a.k.a. starchild, starburst, stardust, sweetpea, and dumber than dirt.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to annabenedetti For Your Post:

    Rusha (November 15th, 2017)

  11. #2558
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    197
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 108 Times in 76 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    35507
    Quote Originally Posted by annabenedetti View Post
    I've read some of her writings also. She was involved in eugenics, that's true, and not to be dismissed. But some of what is said of her is completely false. Sanger was pro-birth control and anti-abortion, and she had no desire to 'wipe out the Black race.' One quote of hers is quite commonly lifted out of context. Maybe you know which one I mean.

    Further, here she is in 1945:
    Discrimination is a world-wide thing. It has to be opposed everywhere. That is why I feel the Negro’s plight here is linked with that of the oppressed around the globe.
    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.
    . . . .

    When we first started out an anti-Negro white man offered me $10,000 if I started in Harlem first. His idea was simply to cut down the number of Negroes. ‘Spread it as far as you can among them,’ he said. That is, of course, not our idea. I turned him down. But that is an example of how vicious some people can be about this thing.


    Sanger's outreach to impoverished women was about birth control, not abortion. I think that fact gets lost in the rhetoric.
    Have you read her book/booklet Woman and the New Race? In it she openly advocates infanticide as well as eugenics as viable means of population control and for improving the human race. She quotes the Greeks as an example in favor of infanticide. She blames the immigrant, the poor, the poorly educated, and says they must not be allowed to procreate as they like. Her solution is abortion, which is nothing less than infanticide, when other means of birth control do not work. And when it is propogated among the different races takes on the mantle of racism for it is the population expansion of those groups which she saw as contributing to the problem.

    In her view, the only ones with unlimited rights to propogate are the wealthy and well-educated. She was one very scary woman. Her ideas are unabashedly evil.

  12. #2559
    TOL Legend annabenedetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,811
    Thanks
    5,719
    Thanked 7,258 Times in 4,114 Posts

    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147709
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    Have you read her book/booklet Woman and the New Race? In it she openly advocates infanticide as well as eugenics as viable means of population control and for improving the human race. She quotes the Greeks as an example in favor of infanticide. She blames the immigrant, the poor, the poorly educated, and says they must not be allowed to procreate as they like. Her solution is abortion, which is nothing less than infanticide, when other means of birth control do not work. And when it is propogated among the different races takes on the mantle of racism for it is the population expansion of those groups which she saw as contributing to the problem.

    In her view, the only ones with unlimited rights to propogate are the wealthy and well-educated. She was one very scary woman. Her ideas are unabashedly evil.
    Quotes from Chapter 2 of that book:

    Usually this desire [for family limitation] has been laid to economic pressure... It has asserted itself among the rich and among the poor, among the intelligent and the unintelligent. It has been manifested in such horrors as infanticide, child abandonment and abortion.
    . . . .
    It is apparent that nothing short of contraceptives can put an end to the horrors of abortion and infanticide.

    Just out of curiosity, do you disagree with either of those two statements?

    Later, we have the infamous cherry-picked quote:

    Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. The same factors which create the terrible infant mortality rate, and which swell the death rate of children between the ages of one and five, operate even more extensively to lower the health rate of the surviving members.

    Do you think she means that as an moral imperative, or as an observation of the current situation? Because depending on one's ideology, interpretation will go one way or the other. I understand how the statement sounds horrifying. I've always been pro-life. But I don't read it as an imperative, it's clear she saw abortion and infanticide as a horror. She didn't advocate for abortion. She advocated for easy access to contraceptives.
    So keep your candles burning
    "Nevertheless, she persisted."
    a.k.a. starchild, starburst, stardust, sweetpea, and dumber than dirt.

  13. #2560
    STAND UP Tambora's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    43,142
    Thanks
    131,276
    Thanked 38,653 Times in 24,019 Posts

    Mentioned
    148 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2148080
    Quote Originally Posted by annabenedetti View Post
    It is apparent that nothing short of contraceptives can put an end to the horrors of abortion and infanticide.

    Just out of curiosity, do you disagree with either of those two statements?

    I disagree with that one.

    God Bless America

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Tambora For Your Post:

    patrick jane (November 14th, 2017)

  15. #2561
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    13,349
    Thanks
    370
    Thanked 3,228 Times in 2,417 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1100283
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    Danoh,

    A question for you. Do you criticize/condemn Christians who vote Democrat? They vote for a platform, not just individual politicians, who not only condone, but openly push for, murder. Does that find a way into your moral compass? You do remember that Hillary was voted the woman of the year by the Margret Sanger foundation don't you? Hillary responded by saying that it was the greatest honor of her life.

    And Sanger openly pushed eugenics too. I've read some of her writings, and her writings are so oppressively evil that I couldn't read for more than a few minutes at a time.
    People have a right to choose to vote for whomever they see fit to.

    Even if that were not my call, I would support that right.

    I have very good friends who voted for Hillary, and very good friends who voted for Trump, and so on.

    We're still friends, despite our strong disagreements.

    Just a few months ago, I and an extreme, diehard Liberal friend of mine, helped an equally extreme, diehard Trump supporter friend of ours, move from one residence to another.

    A great deal of my time ended up keeping the Trump supporter at bay as to his repeated attempts to start up his Trump supporting rhetoric, as then was not the time for that.

    Lol, each time I'd return to the truck, there he was, attempting to goad our Liberal buddy - who merely just allowed him to vent - because this Liberal buddy of ours really is a Liberal (the whole pacifist nonsense, and all the rest).

    We each know how the other feels about what, or what have you.

    We simply don't really allow it to get in our way.

    Lol - a couple days ago, I almost set off another buddy of mine - another die-hard Trump supporter to the max - when, during some business we were talking about engaging in together, I made a crack about "so long as your children don't show up with MAGA caps..."

    That was all it took - up he climbed, onto his MAGA soapbox, once more.

    I stare at him; he stares back, and we both crack up, and return to the business at hand.

    Another very close friend of mine is a Muslim who knows from me directly I believe the Koran is a fraud.

    Some time back, I busted a leg while horsing around with some people...

    Who proved "100% there, when needed" throughout the time of that injury - even putting his business on hold, at times? My Muslim buddy.

    As for your assertions about Sanger, well, not that I hold to Sanger's views in her exact way, but as anna so aptly proved; the woman has been intentionally misread.

    And nope - I did not vote for Hillary - amongst various reasons against the two, I have yet to shake my disgust either with Bill or with her cover up his disgusting sexual notoriety.

    Feel free to make of all that as my answer to your question, whatever you need to.

  16. #2562
    TOL Legend annabenedetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,811
    Thanks
    5,719
    Thanked 7,258 Times in 4,114 Posts

    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147709
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    Have you read her book/booklet Woman and the New Race? In it she openly advocates infanticide
    No, she absolutely does not.

    She quotes the Greeks as an example in favor of infanticide.
    No, she absolutely does not.

    If you're interested in rereading Ch. 2., here it is:

    Spoiler

    II. Women’s Struggle for Freedom


    BEHIND all customs of whatever nature; behind all social unrest, behind all movements, behind all revolutions, are great driving forces, which in their action and reaction upon conditions, give character to civilization. If, in seeking to discover the source of a custom, of a movement or of a revolution, we stop at surface conditions, we shall never discern more than a superficial aspect of the underlying truth. 1
    This is the error into which the historian has almost universally fallen. It is also a common error among sociologists. It is the fashion nowadays, for instance, to explain all social unrest in terms of economic conditions. This is a valuable working theory and has done much to awaken men to their injustice toward one another, but it ignores the forces within humanity which drive it to revolt. It is these forces, rather than the conditions upon which they react, that are the important factors. Conditions change, but the animating force goes on forever. 2
    So, too, with woman’s struggle for emancipation. Women in all lands and all ages have instinctively desired family limitation. Usually this desire has been laid to economic pressure. Frequently the pressure has existed, but the driving force behind woman’s aspiration toward freedom has lain deeper. It has asserted itself among the rich and among the poor, among the intelligent and the unintelligent. It has been manifested in such horrors as infanticide, child abandonment and abortion. 3
    The only term sufficiently comprehensive to define this motive power of woman’s nature is the feminine spirit. That spirit manifests itself most frequently in motherhood, but it is greater than maternity. Woman herself, all that she is, all that she has ever been, all that she may be, is but the outworking of this inner spiritual urge. Given free play, this supreme law of her nature asserts itself in beneficent ways; interfered with, it becomes destructive. Only when we understand this can we comprehend the efforts of the feminine spirit to liberate itself. 4
    When the outworking of this force within her is hampered by the bearing and the care of too many children, woman rebels. Hence it is that, from time immemorial, she has sought some form of family limitation. When she has not employed such measures consciously, she has done so instinctively. Where laws, customs and religious restrictions do not prevent, she has recourse to contraceptives. Otherwise, she resorts to child abandonment, abortion and infanticide, or resigns herself hopelessly to enforced maternity. 5
    These violent means of freeing herself from the chains of her own reproductivity have been most in evidence where economic conditions have made the care of children even more of a burden than it would otherwise have been. But, whether in the luxurious home of the Athenian, the poverty-ridden dwelling of the Chinese, or the crude hut of the primitive Australian savage, the woman whose development has been interfered with by the bearing and rearing of children has tried desperately, frantically, too often in vain, to take and hold her freedom. 6
    Individual men have sometimes acquiesced in these violent measures, but in the mass they have opposed. By law, by religious canons, by public opinion, by penalties ranging all the way from ostracism to beheading, they have sought to crush this effort. Neither threat of hell nor the infliction of physical punishment has availed. Women have deceived and dared, resisted and defied the power of church and state. Quietly, desperately, consciously, they have marched to the gates of death to gain the liberty which the feminine spirit has desired. 7
    In savage life as well as in barbarism and civilization has woman’s instinctive urge to freedom and a wider development asserted itself in an effort, successful or otherwise, to curtail her family. 8
    “The custom of infanticide prevails or has prevailed,” says Westermarck in his monumental work, The Origin and Development of the Moral Idea, “not only in the savage world but among the semi-civilized and civilized races.” 9
    With the savage mother, family limitation ran largely to infanticide, although that practice was frequently accompanied by abortion as a tribal means. As McLennan says in his “Studies in Ancient History,” infanticide was formerly very common among the savages of New Zealand, and “it was generally perpetrated by the mother.” He notes much the same state of affairs among the primitive Australians, except that abortion was also frequently employed. In numerous North American Indian tribes, he says, infanticide and abortion were not uncommon, and the Indians of Central America were found by him “to have gone to extremes in the use of abortives.” 10
    When a traveller reproached the women of one of the South American Indian tribes for the practice of infanticide, McLennan says he was met by the retort, “Men have no business to meddle with women’s affairs.” 11
    McLennan ventures the opinion that the practice of abortion so widely noted among Indians in the Western Hemisphere, “must have supervened on a practice of infanticide.” 12
    Similar practices have been found to prevail wherever historians have dug deep into the life of savage people. Infanticide, at least, was practiced by African tribes, by the primitive peoples of Japan, India and Western Europe, as well as in China, and in early Greece and Rome. The ancient Hebrews are sometimes pointed out as the one possible exception to this practice, because the Mosaic law, as it has come down to us, is silent upon the subject. Westermarck is of the opinion that it “hardly occurred among the Hebrews in historic times. But we have reason to believe that at an earlier period, among them, as among other branches of the Semitic race child murder was frequently practiced as a sacrificial rite.” 13
    Westermarck found that “the murder of female infants, whether by the direct employment of homicidal means, or exposure to privation and neglect, has for ages been a common practice or even a genuine custom among various Hindu castes.” 14
    Still further light is shed upon the real sources of the practice, as well as upon the improvement of the status of woman through the practice, by an English student of conditions in India. Captain S. Charles MacPherson, of the Madras Army, in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1852, said: “I can here but very briefly advert to the customs and feelings which the practice of infanticide (among the Khonds of Orissa) alternately springs from and produces. The influence and privileges of women are exceedingly great among the Khonds, and are, I believe, greatest among the tribes which practice infanticide. Their opinions have great weight in all public and private affairs; their direct participation is often considered essential in the former.” 15
    If infanticide did not spring from a desire within the woman herself, from a desire stronger than motherhood, would it prevail where women enjoy an influence equal to that of men? And does not the fact that the women in question do enjoy such influence, point unmistakably to the motive behind the practice? 16
    Infanticide did not go out of fashion with the advance from savagery to barbarism and civilization. Rather, it became, as in Greece and Rome, a recognized custom with advocates among leaders of thought and action. So did abortion, which some authorities regard as a development springing from infanticide and tending to supersede it as a means of getting rid of undesired children. 17
    As progress is made toward civilization, infanticide, then, actually increased. This tendency was noted by Westermarck, who also calls attention to the conclusions of Fison and Howitt (in Kamilaroi and Kurnai). “Mr Fison who has lived for a long time among uncivilized races,” says Westermarck, “thinks it will be found that infanticide is far less common among the lower savages than among the more advanced tribes.” 18
    Following this same tendency into civilized countries, we find infanticide either advocated by philosophers and authorized by law, as in Greece and Rome, or widely practiced in spite of the law, civil and ecclesiastical. 19
    The status of infanticide as an established, legalized custom in Greece, is well summed up by Westermarck, who says: “The exposure of deformed or sickly infants was undoubtedly an ancient custom in Greece; in Sparta, at least, it was enjoined by law. It was also approved of by the most enlightened among the Greek philosophers. Plato condemns all those children who are imperfect in limbs as well as those who are born of depraved citizens.” 20
    Aristotle, who believed that the state should fix the number of children each married pair should have, has this to say in Politics, Book VII, Chapter V: 21
    “With respect to the exposing and nurturing of children, let it be a law that nothing mutilated shall be nurtured. And in order to avoid having too great a number of children, if it be not permitted by the laws of the country to expose them, it is then requisite to define how many a man may have; and if any have more than the prescribed number, some means must be adopted that the fruit be destroyed in the womb of the mother before sense and life are generated in it.” 22
    Aristotle was a conscious advocate of family limitation even if attained by violent means. “It is necessary,” he says, “to take care that the increase of the people should not exceed a certain number in order to avoid poverty and its concomitants, sedition and other evils.” 23
    In Athens, while the citizen wives were unable to throw off the restrictions of the laws which kept them at home, the great number of hetera, or stranger women, were the glory of the “Golden Age.” The homes of these women who were free from the burden of too many children became the gathering-places of philosophers, poets, sculptors and statesmen. The hetera were their companions, their inspiration and their teachers. Aspasia, one of the greatest women of antiquity, was such an emancipated individuality. True to the urge of the feminine spirit, she, like Sappho, the poetess of Lesbos, sought to arouse the Greek wives to the expression of their individual selves. One writer says of her efforts: “This woman determined to do her utmost to elevate her sex. The one method of culture open to women at that time was poetry. There was no other form of literature, and accordingly she systematically trained her pupils to be poets, and to weave into the verse the noblest maxims of the intellect and the deepest emotions of the heart. Young pupils with richly endowed minds flocked to her from all countries and formed a kind of Woman’s College. 24
    “There can be no doubt that these young women were impelled to seek the society of Sappho from disgust with the low drudgery and monotonous routine to which woman’s life was sacrificed, and they were anxious to rise to something nobler and better.” 25
    Can there be any doubt that the unfortunate “citizen wives” of Athens, bound by law to their homes, envied the brilliant careers of the “stranger women,” and sought all possible means of freedom? And can there be any doubt that they acquiesced in the practice of infanticide as a means to that end? Otherwise, how could be custom of destroying infants have been so thoroughly embedded in the jurisprudence, the thought and the very core of Athenian civilization! 26
    As to the Spartan women, Aristotle says that they ruled their husbands and owned two-fifths of the land. Surely, had they not approved of infanticide for some very strong reasons of their own, they would have abolished it. 27
    Athens and Sparta must be regarded as giving very strong indications that the Grecian women not only approved of family limitation by the destruction of unwanted children, but that at least part of their motive was personal freedom. 28
    In Rome, an avowedly militaristic nation, living by conquest of weaker states, all sound children were saved. But the weakly or deformed were drowned. Says Seneca: “We destroy monstrous births, and we also drown our children if they are born weakly or unnaturally formed.” Wives of Romans, however, were relieved of much of the drudgery of child rearing by the slaves which Rome took by the thousands and brought home. Thus they were free to attain an advanced position and to become the advisors of their husbands in politics, making and unmaking political careers. 29
    When we come to look into the proverbial infanticide of the Chinese, we find the same positive indications that it grew out of the instinctive purpose of woman to free herself from the bondage of too great reproductivity. 30
    “In the poorest districts of China,” says Westermarck, “female infants are often destroyed by their parents immediately after their birth, chiefly on account of poverty. 31
    Though disapproved of by educated Chinese, the practice is treated with forebearance or indifference by the man of the people and is acquiesced in by the mandarins.” 32
    “When seriously appealed to on the subject,” says the Rev. J. Doolittle in Social Life of the Chinese, “though all deprecate it as contrary to the dictates of reason and the instincts of nature, many are ready boldly to apologize for it and declare it to be necessary, especially in the families of the excessively poor.” 33
    Here again the wide prevalence of the custom is the first and best proof that women are driven by some great pressure within themselves to accede to it. If further proof were necessary, it is afforded by the testimony of Occidentals who have lived in China, that Chinese midwives are extremely skillful in producing early abortion. Abortions are not performed without the consent and usually only at the demand of the woman. 34
    In China, as in India, the religions of the country condemned, even as they to-day condemn, infanticide. Both foreign and native governments have sought to make an end of the custom. But in both countries it still prevails. Nor are these Eastern countries substantially different from their Western neighbors. 35
    The record of Western Europe is summarized by Oscar Helmuth Werner, Ph. D., in his book, “The Unmarried Mother in German Literature.” “Infanticide,” says Dr. Werner, “was the most common crime in Western Europe from the Middle Ages down to the end of the Eighteenth Century.” This fact, of course, means that it was even more largely practiced by the married than the unmarried, the married mothers being far greater in number. 36
    “Another problem which confronted the church,” he says in another place, “was the practice of exposure and killing of children by legal parents.” A sort of final word from Dr. Werner is this: “Infanticide by legal parents has practically ceased in civilized countries, but abortion, its substitute, has not.” 37
    How desperately woman desired freedom to develop herself as an individual, apart from motherhood, is indicated by the fact that infanticide was “the most common crime of Western Europe,” in spite of the fact that some of the most terrible punishments ever inflicted by law were meted out to those women who sought this means of escape from the burden of unwanted children. Dr. Werner shows that in Germany, for instance, in the year 1532, it was the law that those guilty of infanticide were “to be buried alive or impaled. In order to prevent desperation, however, they shall be drowned if it is possible to get to a stream or river, in which they shall be torn with glowing tongs beforehand.” 38
    Notwithstanding the fact that at one time in Germany, the punishment was that of drowning in a sack containing a serpent, a cat and a dog—in order that the utmost agony might be inflicted—one sovereign alone condemned 20,000 women to death for infanticide, without noticeably reducing the practice. 39
    To-day, in spite of the huge numbers of abortions and the multiplication of foundlings’ homes and orphans’ asylums, infanticide is still an occasional crime in all countries. As to woman’s share in the practice, let us add this word from Havelock Ellis, taken from the chapter on “Morbid Psychic Phenomena” in his book, Man and Woman: 40
    “Infanticide is the crime in which women stand out in the greatest contrast to men; in Italy, for example, for every 100 men guilty of infanticide, there are 477 women.” And he remarks later that when a man commits this crime, “he usually does it at the instance of some woman.” 41
    Infanticide tends to disappear as skill in producing abortions is developed or knowledge of contraceptives is spread, and only then. One authority, as will be seen in a later chapter, estimates the number of abortions performed annually in the United States at 1,000,000, and another believes that double that number are produced. 42
    “Among the Hindus and Mohammedans, artificial abortion is extremely common,” says Westermark. “In Persia every illegitimate pregnancy ends with abortion. In Turkey both among the rich and the poor, even married women very commonly procure abortion after they have given birth to two children, one of which is a boy.” 43
    The nations mentioned are typical of the world, except those countries where information concerning contraceptives has enabled women to limit their families without recourse to operations. 44
    It is apparent that nothing short of contraceptives can put an end to the horrors of abortion and infanticide. The Roman Catholic church, which has fought these practices from the beginning, has been unable to check them; and no more powerful agency could have been brought into play. It took that church, even in the days of its unlimited power, many centuries to come to its present sweeping condemnation of abortion. The severity of the condemnation depended upon the time at which the development of the foetus was interfered with. An illuminating resume of the church’s efforts in this direction is given by Dr. William Burke Ryan in his authoritative and exhaustive study entitled “Infanticide; Its Law, Prevalence, Prevention and History.” Dr. Ryan says: “Theologians of the church of Rome made a distinction between the inanimate and the animate foetus to which the soul is added by the creation of God, and adopted the opinions of some of the old philosophers, more particularly those of Aristotle, as to animation in the male and female, but the canon law altogether negatived the doctrine of the Stoics, for Innocent II condemned the following proposition: 45
    “‘It seems probable that the foetus does not possess a rational soul as long as it is in the womb, and only begins to possess it when born, and consequently in no abortion is homicide committed.’ Sextus V inflicted severe penalties for the crime of abortion at any period; these were in some degree mitigated by Gregory XIV, who, however, still held that those producing the abortion of an animated foetus should be subject to them, viz., and excommunication reserved to the bishop and also an ‘irregularity’ reserved to the Pope himself for absolution.” 46
    To-day, the Roman church stands firmly upon the proposition that “directly intended, artificial abortion must be regarded as wrongful killing, as murder.” 1 But it required a long time for it to reach that point, in the face of the demand for relief from large families. 47
    As it was with the fight of the church against abortion, so it is with the effort to prevent abortion in the United States to-day. All efforts to stop the practice are futile. Apparently, the numbers of these illegal operations are increasing from year to year. From year to year more women will undergo the humiliation, the danger and the horror of them, and the terrible record, begun with the infanticide of the primitive peoples, will go on piling up its volume of human misery and racial damage, until society awakens to the fact that a fundamental remedy must be applied. 48
    To apply such a remedy, society must recognize the terrible lesson taught by the innumerable centuries of infanticide and foeticide If these abhorrent practices could have been ended by punishment and suppression, they would have ceased long ago. But to continue suppression and punishment, and let the matter rest there, is only to miss the lesson—only to permit conditions to go from bad to worse. 49
    What is that lesson? It is this: woman’s desire for freedom is born of the feminine spirit, which is the absolute, elemental, inner urge of womanhood. It is the strongest force in her nature; it cannot be destroyed; it can merely be diverted from its natural expression into violent and destructive channels. 50
    The chief obstacles to the normal expression of this force are undesired pregnancy and the burden of unwanted children. These obstacles have always been and always will be swept aside by a considerable proportion of women. Driven by the irresistible force within them, they will always seek wider freedom and greater self-development, regardless of the cost. The sole question that society has to answer is, how shall women be permitted to attain this end? 51
    Are you horrified at the record set down in this chapter? It is well that you should be. You cannot help society to apply the fundamental remedy unless you know these facts and are conscious of their fullest significance. 52
    Society, in dealing with the feminine spirit, has its choice of clearly defined alternatives. It can continue to resort to violence in an effort to enslave the elemental urge of womanhood, making of woman a mere instrument of reproduction and punishing her when she revolts. Or, it can permit her to choose whether she shall become a mother and how many children she will have. It can go on trying to crush that which is uncrushable, or it can recognize woman’s claim to freedom, and cease to impose diverting and destructive barriers. If we choose the latter course, we must not only remove all restrictions upon the use of scientific contraceptives, but we must legalize and encourage their use. 53
    This problem comes home with peculiar force to the people of America. Do we want the millions of abortions performed annually to be multiplied? Do we want the precious, tender qualities of womanhood, so much needed for our racial development, to perish in these sordid, abnormal experiences? Or, do we wish to permit woman to find her way to fundamental freedom through safe, unobjectionable, scientific means? We have our choice. Upon our answer to these questions depends in a tremendous degree the character and the capabilities of the future American race.


    After listing various cultures who have tolerated infanticide, near the end of the chapter she says:

    "Are you horrified at the record set down in this chapter? It is well that you should be..."

    She blames the immigrant, the poor, the poorly educated, and says they must not be allowed to procreate as they like. Her solution is abortion, which is nothing less than infanticide, when other means of birth control do not work. And when it is propogated among the different races takes on the mantle of racism for it is the population expansion of those groups which she saw as contributing to the problem.
    No, it absolutely is not.

    Here's Ch. 3:

    Spoiler


    III. The Materials of the New Race

    EACH of us has an ideal of what the American of the future should be. We have been told times without number that out of the mixture of stocks, the intermingling of ideas and aspirations, there is to come a race greater than any which has contributed to the population of the United States. What is the basis for this hope that is so generally indulged in? If the hope is founded upon realities, how may it be realized? To understand the difficulties and the obstacles to be overcome before the dream of a greater race in America can be attained, is to understand something of the task before the women who shall give birth to that race. 1
    What material is there for a greater American race? What elements make up our present millions? Where do they live? How do they live? In what direction does our national civilization bend their ideals? What is the effect of the “melting pot” upon the foreigner, once he begins to “melt”? Are we now producing a freer, juster, more intelligent, more idealistic, creative people out of the varied ingredients here? 2
    Before we can answer these questions, we must consider briefly the races which have contributed to American population. 3
    Among our more than 100,000,000 population are Negroes, Indians, Chinese and other colored people to the number of 11,000,000. There are also 14,500,000 persons of foreign birth. Besides these there are 14,000,000 children of foreign-born parents and 6,500,000 persons whose fathers or mothers were born on foreign soil, making a total of 46,000,000 people of foreign stock. Fifty per cent of our population is of the native white strain. 4
    Of the foreign stock in the United States, the last general census, compiled in 1910, shows that 25.7 per cent was German, 14 per cent was Irish, 8.5 per cent was Russian or Finnish, 7.2 was English, 6.5 per cent Italian and 6.2 per cent Austrian. The Abstract of the same census points out several significant facts. The Western European strains in this country are represented by a majority of native-born children of foreign-born or mixed parentage. This is because the immigration from those sources has been checked. On the other hand, immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, including Russia and Finland, increased 175.4 per cent from 1900 to 1910. During that period, the slums of Europe dumped their submerged inhabitants into America at a rate almost double that of the preceding decade, and the flow was still increasing at the time the census was taken. So it is more than likely that when the next census is taken it will be found that following 1910 there was an even greater flow from Spain, Italy, Hungary, Austria, Russia, Finland, and other countries where the iron hand of economic and political tyrannies had crushed great populations into ignorance and want. These peoples have not been in the United States long enough to produce great families. The census of 1920 will in all probability tell a story of a greater and more serious problem than did the last. 5
    Over one-fourth of all the immigrants over fourteen years of age, admitted during the two decades preceding 1910, were illiterate. Of the 8,398,000 who arrived in the 1900&150;1910 period, 2,238,000 could not read or write. There were 1,600,000 illiterate foreigners in the United States when the 1910 census was taken. Do these elements give promise of a better race? Are we doing anything genuinely constructive to overcome this situation? 6
    Two-thirds of the white foreign stock in the United States live in cities. Four-fifths of the populations of Chicago and New York are of this stock. More than two-thirds of the populations of Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Newark, Jersey City, Providence, Worcester, Scranton, Paterson, Fall River, Lowell, Cambridge, Bridgeport, St. Paul, Minneapolis and San Francisco are of other than native white ancestry. Of the fifty principal cities of the United States there are only fourteen in which fifty per cent of the population is of unmixed native white parentage. 7
    Only one state in the Union—North Carolina—has less than one per cent of the white foreign stock. New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, the Dakotas, Montana and Utah have more than fifty per cent foreign stock. Eleven states, including those on the Pacific Coast, have from 35 to 50 per cent. Maine, Ohio and Kansas have from 25 to 35 per cent. Maryland, Indiana, Missouri and Texas have from 15 to 25 per cent. These proportions are increasing rather than decreasing, owing to the extraordinarily high birth rate of the foreign strains. 8
    A special analysis of 1915 vital statistics for certain states, in the World Almanac for 1918, shows that foreign-born mothers gave birth to nearly 62 per cent of the children born in Connecticut, nearly 58 per cent in Massachusetts, nearly 33 per cent in Michigan, nearly 58 per cent in Rhode Island, more than 43 per cent in New Hampshire, more than 54 per cent in New York and more than 38 per cent in Pennsylvania. 9
    All these figures, be it remembered, fail to include foreign stock of the second generation after landing. If the statistics for children who have native parents but foreign-born grandparents, or who have one foreign-born parent, were given, they would doubtless leave but a small percentage of births from stocks native to the soil for several generations. 10
    Immigrants or their children constitute the majority of workers employed in many of our industries. “Seven out of ten of those who work in our iron and steel industries are drawn from this class,” says the National Geographic Magazine (February, 1917), “seven out of ten of our bituminous coal miners belong to it. Three out of four who work in packing towns were born abroad or are children of those who were born abroad; four out of five of those who make our silk goods, seven out of eight of those employed in woolen mills, nine out of ten of those who refine our petroleum, and nineteen out of twenty of those who manufacture our sugar are immigrants or the children of immigrants.” And it might have shown a similarly high percentage of those in the ready-made clothing industries, railway and public works construction of the less skilled sort, and a number of others. 11
    That these foreigners who have come in hordes have brought with them their ignorance of hygiene and modern ways of living and that they are handicapped by religious superstitions is only too true. But they also bring in their hearts a desire for freedom from all the tyrannies that afflict the earth. They would not be here if they did not bear within them the hardihood of pioneers, a courage of no mean order. They have the simple faith that in America they will find equality, liberty and an opportunity for a decent livelihood. And they have something else. The cell plasms of these peoples are freighted with the potentialities of the best in Old World civilization. They come from lands rich in the traditions of courage, of art, music, letters, science and philosophy. Americans no longer consider themselves cultured unless they have journeyed to these lands to find access to the treasures created by men and women of this same blood. The immigrant brings the possibilities of all these things to our shores, but where is the opportunity to reproduce in the New World the cultures of the old? 12
    What opportunities have we given to these peoples to enrich our civilization? We have greeted them as “a lot of ignorant foreigners,” we have shouted at, bustled and kicked them. Our industries have taken advantage of their ignorance of the country’s ways to take their toil in mills and mines and factories at starvation wages. We have herded them into slums to become diseased, to become social burdens or to die. We have huddled them together like rabbits to multiply their numbers and their misery. Instead of saying that we Americanize them, we should confess that we animalize them. The only freedom we seem to have given them is the freedom to make heavier and more secure their chains. What hope is there for racial progress in this human material, treated more carelessly and brutally than the cheapest factory product? 13
    Nor are all our social handicaps bound up in the immigrant. 14
    There were in the United States, when the Federal Industrial Relations Committee finished its work in 1915, several million migratory workers, most of them white, many of them married but separated from their families, who were compelled, like themselves, to struggle with dire want. 15
    There were in 1910 more than 2,353,000 tenant farmers, two-thirds of whom lived and worked under the terrible conditions which the Industrial Relations Commission’s report showed to prevail in the South and Southwest. These tenant farmers, as the report showed, were always in want, and were compelled by the very terms of the prevailing tenant contracts to produce children who must go to the fields and do the work of adults. The census proved that this tenancy was on the increase, the number of tenants in all but the New England and Middle Atlantic States having increased approximately 30 per cent from 1900 to 1910. 16
    Moreover, there were in the United States in 1910, 5,516,163 illiterates. Of these 1,378,884 were of pure native white stock. In some states in the South as much as 29 per cent of the population is illiterate, many of these, of course, being Negroes. 17
    There is still another factor to be considered—a factor which because of its great scope is more ominous than any yet mentioned. This is the underpaid mass of workers in the United States—workers whose low wages are forcing them deeper into want each day. Let Senator Borah, not a radical nor even a reformer, but a leader of the Republican party, tell the story. “Fifty-seven per cent of the families in the United States have incomes of $800 or less,” said he in a speech before the Senate, August 24, 1917. “Seventy per cent of the families of our country have incomes of $1,000 or less. Tell me how a man so situated can have shelter for his family; how he can provide food and clothing. He is an industrial peon. His home is scant and pinched beyond the power of language to tell. He sees his wife and children on the ragged edge of hunger from week to week and month to month. If sickness comes, he faces suicide or crime. He cannot educate his children; he cannot fit them for citizenship; he cannot even fit them as soldiers to die for their country. 18
    “It is the tragedy of our whole national life—how these people live in such times as these. We have not yet gathered the fruits of such an industrial condition in this country. We have been saved thus far by reason of the newness of our national life, our vast public lands now almost exhausted, our great natural resources now fast being seized and held, but the hour of reckoning will come.” 19
    Senator Borah was thinking, doubtless, of open revolution, of bloodshed and the destruction of property. In a far more terrible sense, the reckoning which he has referred to is already upon us. The ills we suffer as the result of the conditions now prevailing in the United States are appalling in their sum. 20
    It is these conditions that produce the 3,000,000 child laborers of the United States; child slaves who undergo hardships that blight them physically and mentally, leaving them fit only to produce human beings whose deficiencies and misfortunes will exceed their own. 21
    From these same elements, living under these same conditions come the feebleminded and other defectives. Just how many feebleminded there are in the United States, no one knows, because no attempt has ever been made to give public care to all of them, and families are more inclined to conceal than to reveal the mental defects of their members. Estimates vary from 350,000 at the present time to nearly 400,000 as early as 1890, Henry H. Goddard, Ph. D., of the Vineland, N. J., Training School, being authority for the latter statement. Only 34,137 of these unfortunates were under institutional care in the United States in 1916, the rest being free to propagate their kind—piling up public burdens for future generations. The feebleminded are notoriously prolific in reproduction. The close relationship between poverty and ignorance and the production of feebleminded is shown by Anne Moore, Ph. D., in a report to the Public Education Association of New York in 1911. She found that an overwhelming proportion of the classified feebleminded children in New York schools came from large families living in overcrowded slum conditions, and that only a small percentage were born of native parents. 22
    Sixty thousand prostitutes go and come anew each year in the United States. This army of unfortunates, as social workers and scientists testify, come from families living under like conditions of want. 23
    In the New York City schools alone in December, 1916, 61 per cent of the children were suffering from undernourishment and 21 per cent in immediate danger of it. These facts, also the result of the conditions outlined, were discovered by the city Bureau of Child Hygiene. 24
    Another item in the sordid list is that of venereal disease. In his pamphlet entitled “The Venereal Diseases,” issued in 1918, Dr. Hermann M. Biggs head of the New York State Department of Health quoted authorities who gave estimates of the amount of syphilis and gonorrhea in the United States. One says that 60 per cent of the men contract one disease or the other at some time. Another said that 40 per cent of the population of New York City had syphilis, one of the most terrible of all maladies. Poverty, delayed marriage, prostitution—a brief and terrible chain accounts for this scourge. 25
    Finally, there is tuberculosis, bred by bad housing conditions and contributed to in frightful measure by poor food and unhealthy surroundings during the hours of employment. Dr. Frederick L. Hoffman, director of the National Association for the Study and Prevention of Tuberculosis and foremost statistical authority upon tuberculosis in the United States, says: “We know of 2,000,000 tubercular persons in the United States.” 26
    Does this picture horrify the reader? This is not the whole truth. A few scattered statistics lack the power to reflect the broken lives of overworked fathers, the ceaseless, increasing pain of overburdened mothers and the agony of childhood fighting its way against the handicaps of ill health, insufficient food, inadequate training and stifling toil. 27
    Can we expect to remedy this situation by dismissing the problem of the submerged native elements with legislative palliatives or treating it with careless scorn? Do we better it by driving out of the immigrant’s heart the dream of liberty that brought him to our shores? Do we solve the problem by giving him, instead of an opportunity to develop his own culture, low wages, a home in the slums and those pseudo-patriotic preachments which constitute our machine-made “Americanization”? 28
    Every detail of this sordid situation means a problem that must be solved before we can even clear the way for a greater race in America. Nor is there any hope of solving any of these problems if we continue to attack them in the usual way. 29
    Men have sentimentalized about them and legislated upon them. They have denounced them and they have applied reforms. But it has all been ridiculously, cruelly futile. 30
    This is the condition of things for which those stand who demand more and more children. Each child born under such conditions but makes them worse—each child in its own person suffers the consequence of the intensified evils. 31
    If we are to develop in America a new race with a racial soul, we must keep the birth rate within the scope of our ability to understand as well as to educate. We must not encourage reproduction beyond our capacity to assimilate our numbers so as to make the coming generation into such physically fit, mentally capable, socially alert individuals as are the ideal of a democracy. 32
    The intelligence of a people is of slow evolutional development—it lags far behind the reproductive ability. It is far too slow to cope with conditions created by an increasing population, unless that increase is carefully regulated. 33
    We must, therefore, not permit an increase in population that we are not prepared to care for to the best advantage—that we are not prepared to do justice to, educationally and economically. We must popularize birth control thinking. We must not leave it haphazardly to be the privilege of the already privileged. We must put this means of freedom and growth into the hands of the masses. 34
    We must set motherhood free. We must give the foreign and submerged mother knowledge that will enable her to prevent bringing to birth children she does not want. We know that in each of these submerged and semi-submerged elements of the population there are rich factors of racial culture. Motherhood is the channel through which these cultures flow. Motherhood, when free to choose the father, free to choose the time and the number of children who shall result from the union, automatically works in wondrous ways. It refuses to bring forth weaklings; refuses to bring forth slaves; refuses to bear children who must live under the conditions described. It withholds the unfit, brings forth the fit; brings few children into homes where there is not sufficient to provide for them. Instinctively it avoids all those things which multiply racial handicaps. Under such circumstances we can hope that the “melting pot” will refine. We shall see that it will save the precious metals of racial culture, fused into an amalgam of physical perfection, mental strength and spiritual progress. Such an American race, containing the best of all racial elements, could give to the world a vision and a leadership beyond our present imagination.



    In her view, the only ones with unlimited rights to propogate are the wealthy and well-educated.
    That's the exact opposite of what she said. She said the wealthy had access to contraceptives that the impoverished did not. She wanted the impoverished to have the same access as the wealthy.

    She was one very scary woman. Her ideas are unabashedly evil.
    If you're interested, find an unabashedly evil quote from the two chapters I've linked to and share it.

    Her ideas about eugenics aren't likely going to be a point of contention. You may disagree that she shows compassion for the immigrant and the impoverished, the child laborers, etc., but she does say it clearly, and sees their longing for the promises America offered them and she saw birth control as a remedy for disease and deprivation. You could find contention there, but I'm thinking more of some proof for your contention that she said anything advocating for abortion or infanticide. By alleging she said the exact opposite of what she actually did say, you do her history a disservice.
    So keep your candles burning
    "Nevertheless, she persisted."
    a.k.a. starchild, starburst, stardust, sweetpea, and dumber than dirt.

  17. #2563
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    197
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 108 Times in 76 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    35507
    Quote Originally Posted by Danoh View Post
    People have a right to choose to vote for whomever they see fit to.

    Even if that were not my call, I would support that right.

    I have very good friends who voted for Hillary, and very good friends who voted for Trump, and so on.

    We're still friends, despite our strong disagreements.

    Just a few months ago, I and an extreme, diehard Liberal friend of mine, helped an equally extreme, diehard Trump supporter friend of ours, move from one residence to another.

    A great deal of my time ended up keeping the Trump supporter at bay as to his repeated attempts to start up his Trump supporting rhetoric, as then was not the time for that.

    Lol, each time I'd return to the truck, there he was, attempting to goad our Liberal buddy - who merely just allowed him to vent - because this Liberal buddy of ours really is a Liberal (the whole pacifist nonsense, and all the rest).

    We each know how the other feels about what, or what have you.

    We simply don't really allow it to get in our way.

    Lol - a couple days ago, I almost set off another buddy of mine - another die-hard Trump supporter to the max - when, during some business we were talking about engaging in together, I made a crack about "so long as your children don't show up with MAGA caps..."

    That was all it took - up he climbed, onto his MAGA soapbox, once more.

    I stare at him; he stares back, and we both crack up, and return to the business at hand.

    Another very close friend of mine is a Muslim who knows from me directly I believe the Koran is a fraud.

    Some time back, I busted a leg while horsing around with some people...

    Who proved "100% there, when needed" throughout the time of that injury - even putting his business on hold, at times? My Muslim buddy.

    As for your assertions about Sanger, well, not that I hold to Sanger's views in her exact way, but as anna so aptly proved; the woman has been intentionally misread.

    And nope - I did not vote for Hillary - amongst various reasons against the two, I have yet to shake my disgust either with Bill or with her cover up his disgusting sexual notoriety.

    Feel free to make of all that as my answer to your question, whatever you need to.
    Well, actually it was an honest question. Your disdain for anyone who voted for Trump here comes shining through, thus the question. Not being a Trump voter I am now curious how I got lumped in with them in your disdain. The Hillary question was because I hadn't seen a single post from you questioning or even slightly negative towards Democrats. Granted, I haven't been around here that long, but you post a lot so I thought if you had equal disdain for Hillary voters on the moral compass level I would have seen some of that in your posts. I hadn't.

  18. #2564
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    197
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 108 Times in 76 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    35507
    Quote Originally Posted by annabenedetti View Post
    No, she absolutely does not.



    No, she absolutely does not.

    If you're interested in rereading Ch. 2., here it is:

    Spoiler

    II. Women’s Struggle for Freedom


    BEHIND all customs of whatever nature; behind all social unrest, behind all movements, behind all revolutions, are great driving forces, which in their action and reaction upon conditions, give character to civilization. If, in seeking to discover the source of a custom, of a movement or of a revolution, we stop at surface conditions, we shall never discern more than a superficial aspect of the underlying truth. 1
    This is the error into which the historian has almost universally fallen. It is also a common error among sociologists. It is the fashion nowadays, for instance, to explain all social unrest in terms of economic conditions. This is a valuable working theory and has done much to awaken men to their injustice toward one another, but it ignores the forces within humanity which drive it to revolt. It is these forces, rather than the conditions upon which they react, that are the important factors. Conditions change, but the animating force goes on forever. 2
    So, too, with woman’s struggle for emancipation. Women in all lands and all ages have instinctively desired family limitation. Usually this desire has been laid to economic pressure. Frequently the pressure has existed, but the driving force behind woman’s aspiration toward freedom has lain deeper. It has asserted itself among the rich and among the poor, among the intelligent and the unintelligent. It has been manifested in such horrors as infanticide, child abandonment and abortion. 3
    The only term sufficiently comprehensive to define this motive power of woman’s nature is the feminine spirit. That spirit manifests itself most frequently in motherhood, but it is greater than maternity. Woman herself, all that she is, all that she has ever been, all that she may be, is but the outworking of this inner spiritual urge. Given free play, this supreme law of her nature asserts itself in beneficent ways; interfered with, it becomes destructive. Only when we understand this can we comprehend the efforts of the feminine spirit to liberate itself. 4
    When the outworking of this force within her is hampered by the bearing and the care of too many children, woman rebels. Hence it is that, from time immemorial, she has sought some form of family limitation. When she has not employed such measures consciously, she has done so instinctively. Where laws, customs and religious restrictions do not prevent, she has recourse to contraceptives. Otherwise, she resorts to child abandonment, abortion and infanticide, or resigns herself hopelessly to enforced maternity. 5
    These violent means of freeing herself from the chains of her own reproductivity have been most in evidence where economic conditions have made the care of children even more of a burden than it would otherwise have been. But, whether in the luxurious home of the Athenian, the poverty-ridden dwelling of the Chinese, or the crude hut of the primitive Australian savage, the woman whose development has been interfered with by the bearing and rearing of children has tried desperately, frantically, too often in vain, to take and hold her freedom. 6
    Individual men have sometimes acquiesced in these violent measures, but in the mass they have opposed. By law, by religious canons, by public opinion, by penalties ranging all the way from ostracism to beheading, they have sought to crush this effort. Neither threat of hell nor the infliction of physical punishment has availed. Women have deceived and dared, resisted and defied the power of church and state. Quietly, desperately, consciously, they have marched to the gates of death to gain the liberty which the feminine spirit has desired. 7
    In savage life as well as in barbarism and civilization has woman’s instinctive urge to freedom and a wider development asserted itself in an effort, successful or otherwise, to curtail her family. 8
    “The custom of infanticide prevails or has prevailed,” says Westermarck in his monumental work, The Origin and Development of the Moral Idea, “not only in the savage world but among the semi-civilized and civilized races.” 9
    With the savage mother, family limitation ran largely to infanticide, although that practice was frequently accompanied by abortion as a tribal means. As McLennan says in his “Studies in Ancient History,” infanticide was formerly very common among the savages of New Zealand, and “it was generally perpetrated by the mother.” He notes much the same state of affairs among the primitive Australians, except that abortion was also frequently employed. In numerous North American Indian tribes, he says, infanticide and abortion were not uncommon, and the Indians of Central America were found by him “to have gone to extremes in the use of abortives.” 10
    When a traveller reproached the women of one of the South American Indian tribes for the practice of infanticide, McLennan says he was met by the retort, “Men have no business to meddle with women’s affairs.” 11
    McLennan ventures the opinion that the practice of abortion so widely noted among Indians in the Western Hemisphere, “must have supervened on a practice of infanticide.” 12
    Similar practices have been found to prevail wherever historians have dug deep into the life of savage people. Infanticide, at least, was practiced by African tribes, by the primitive peoples of Japan, India and Western Europe, as well as in China, and in early Greece and Rome. The ancient Hebrews are sometimes pointed out as the one possible exception to this practice, because the Mosaic law, as it has come down to us, is silent upon the subject. Westermarck is of the opinion that it “hardly occurred among the Hebrews in historic times. But we have reason to believe that at an earlier period, among them, as among other branches of the Semitic race child murder was frequently practiced as a sacrificial rite.” 13
    Westermarck found that “the murder of female infants, whether by the direct employment of homicidal means, or exposure to privation and neglect, has for ages been a common practice or even a genuine custom among various Hindu castes.” 14
    Still further light is shed upon the real sources of the practice, as well as upon the improvement of the status of woman through the practice, by an English student of conditions in India. Captain S. Charles MacPherson, of the Madras Army, in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1852, said: “I can here but very briefly advert to the customs and feelings which the practice of infanticide (among the Khonds of Orissa) alternately springs from and produces. The influence and privileges of women are exceedingly great among the Khonds, and are, I believe, greatest among the tribes which practice infanticide. Their opinions have great weight in all public and private affairs; their direct participation is often considered essential in the former.” 15
    If infanticide did not spring from a desire within the woman herself, from a desire stronger than motherhood, would it prevail where women enjoy an influence equal to that of men? And does not the fact that the women in question do enjoy such influence, point unmistakably to the motive behind the practice? 16
    Infanticide did not go out of fashion with the advance from savagery to barbarism and civilization. Rather, it became, as in Greece and Rome, a recognized custom with advocates among leaders of thought and action. So did abortion, which some authorities regard as a development springing from infanticide and tending to supersede it as a means of getting rid of undesired children. 17
    As progress is made toward civilization, infanticide, then, actually increased. This tendency was noted by Westermarck, who also calls attention to the conclusions of Fison and Howitt (in Kamilaroi and Kurnai). “Mr Fison who has lived for a long time among uncivilized races,” says Westermarck, “thinks it will be found that infanticide is far less common among the lower savages than among the more advanced tribes.” 18
    Following this same tendency into civilized countries, we find infanticide either advocated by philosophers and authorized by law, as in Greece and Rome, or widely practiced in spite of the law, civil and ecclesiastical. 19
    The status of infanticide as an established, legalized custom in Greece, is well summed up by Westermarck, who says: “The exposure of deformed or sickly infants was undoubtedly an ancient custom in Greece; in Sparta, at least, it was enjoined by law. It was also approved of by the most enlightened among the Greek philosophers. Plato condemns all those children who are imperfect in limbs as well as those who are born of depraved citizens.” 20
    Aristotle, who believed that the state should fix the number of children each married pair should have, has this to say in Politics, Book VII, Chapter V: 21
    “With respect to the exposing and nurturing of children, let it be a law that nothing mutilated shall be nurtured. And in order to avoid having too great a number of children, if it be not permitted by the laws of the country to expose them, it is then requisite to define how many a man may have; and if any have more than the prescribed number, some means must be adopted that the fruit be destroyed in the womb of the mother before sense and life are generated in it.” 22
    Aristotle was a conscious advocate of family limitation even if attained by violent means. “It is necessary,” he says, “to take care that the increase of the people should not exceed a certain number in order to avoid poverty and its concomitants, sedition and other evils.” 23
    In Athens, while the citizen wives were unable to throw off the restrictions of the laws which kept them at home, the great number of hetera, or stranger women, were the glory of the “Golden Age.” The homes of these women who were free from the burden of too many children became the gathering-places of philosophers, poets, sculptors and statesmen. The hetera were their companions, their inspiration and their teachers. Aspasia, one of the greatest women of antiquity, was such an emancipated individuality. True to the urge of the feminine spirit, she, like Sappho, the poetess of Lesbos, sought to arouse the Greek wives to the expression of their individual selves. One writer says of her efforts: “This woman determined to do her utmost to elevate her sex. The one method of culture open to women at that time was poetry. There was no other form of literature, and accordingly she systematically trained her pupils to be poets, and to weave into the verse the noblest maxims of the intellect and the deepest emotions of the heart. Young pupils with richly endowed minds flocked to her from all countries and formed a kind of Woman’s College. 24
    “There can be no doubt that these young women were impelled to seek the society of Sappho from disgust with the low drudgery and monotonous routine to which woman’s life was sacrificed, and they were anxious to rise to something nobler and better.” 25
    Can there be any doubt that the unfortunate “citizen wives” of Athens, bound by law to their homes, envied the brilliant careers of the “stranger women,” and sought all possible means of freedom? And can there be any doubt that they acquiesced in the practice of infanticide as a means to that end? Otherwise, how could be custom of destroying infants have been so thoroughly embedded in the jurisprudence, the thought and the very core of Athenian civilization! 26
    As to the Spartan women, Aristotle says that they ruled their husbands and owned two-fifths of the land. Surely, had they not approved of infanticide for some very strong reasons of their own, they would have abolished it. 27
    Athens and Sparta must be regarded as giving very strong indications that the Grecian women not only approved of family limitation by the destruction of unwanted children, but that at least part of their motive was personal freedom. 28
    In Rome, an avowedly militaristic nation, living by conquest of weaker states, all sound children were saved. But the weakly or deformed were drowned. Says Seneca: “We destroy monstrous births, and we also drown our children if they are born weakly or unnaturally formed.” Wives of Romans, however, were relieved of much of the drudgery of child rearing by the slaves which Rome took by the thousands and brought home. Thus they were free to attain an advanced position and to become the advisors of their husbands in politics, making and unmaking political careers. 29
    When we come to look into the proverbial infanticide of the Chinese, we find the same positive indications that it grew out of the instinctive purpose of woman to free herself from the bondage of too great reproductivity. 30
    “In the poorest districts of China,” says Westermarck, “female infants are often destroyed by their parents immediately after their birth, chiefly on account of poverty. 31
    Though disapproved of by educated Chinese, the practice is treated with forebearance or indifference by the man of the people and is acquiesced in by the mandarins.” 32
    “When seriously appealed to on the subject,” says the Rev. J. Doolittle in Social Life of the Chinese, “though all deprecate it as contrary to the dictates of reason and the instincts of nature, many are ready boldly to apologize for it and declare it to be necessary, especially in the families of the excessively poor.” 33
    Here again the wide prevalence of the custom is the first and best proof that women are driven by some great pressure within themselves to accede to it. If further proof were necessary, it is afforded by the testimony of Occidentals who have lived in China, that Chinese midwives are extremely skillful in producing early abortion. Abortions are not performed without the consent and usually only at the demand of the woman. 34
    In China, as in India, the religions of the country condemned, even as they to-day condemn, infanticide. Both foreign and native governments have sought to make an end of the custom. But in both countries it still prevails. Nor are these Eastern countries substantially different from their Western neighbors. 35
    The record of Western Europe is summarized by Oscar Helmuth Werner, Ph. D., in his book, “The Unmarried Mother in German Literature.” “Infanticide,” says Dr. Werner, “was the most common crime in Western Europe from the Middle Ages down to the end of the Eighteenth Century.” This fact, of course, means that it was even more largely practiced by the married than the unmarried, the married mothers being far greater in number. 36
    “Another problem which confronted the church,” he says in another place, “was the practice of exposure and killing of children by legal parents.” A sort of final word from Dr. Werner is this: “Infanticide by legal parents has practically ceased in civilized countries, but abortion, its substitute, has not.” 37
    How desperately woman desired freedom to develop herself as an individual, apart from motherhood, is indicated by the fact that infanticide was “the most common crime of Western Europe,” in spite of the fact that some of the most terrible punishments ever inflicted by law were meted out to those women who sought this means of escape from the burden of unwanted children. Dr. Werner shows that in Germany, for instance, in the year 1532, it was the law that those guilty of infanticide were “to be buried alive or impaled. In order to prevent desperation, however, they shall be drowned if it is possible to get to a stream or river, in which they shall be torn with glowing tongs beforehand.” 38
    Notwithstanding the fact that at one time in Germany, the punishment was that of drowning in a sack containing a serpent, a cat and a dog—in order that the utmost agony might be inflicted—one sovereign alone condemned 20,000 women to death for infanticide, without noticeably reducing the practice. 39
    To-day, in spite of the huge numbers of abortions and the multiplication of foundlings’ homes and orphans’ asylums, infanticide is still an occasional crime in all countries. As to woman’s share in the practice, let us add this word from Havelock Ellis, taken from the chapter on “Morbid Psychic Phenomena” in his book, Man and Woman: 40
    “Infanticide is the crime in which women stand out in the greatest contrast to men; in Italy, for example, for every 100 men guilty of infanticide, there are 477 women.” And he remarks later that when a man commits this crime, “he usually does it at the instance of some woman.” 41
    Infanticide tends to disappear as skill in producing abortions is developed or knowledge of contraceptives is spread, and only then. One authority, as will be seen in a later chapter, estimates the number of abortions performed annually in the United States at 1,000,000, and another believes that double that number are produced. 42
    “Among the Hindus and Mohammedans, artificial abortion is extremely common,” says Westermark. “In Persia every illegitimate pregnancy ends with abortion. In Turkey both among the rich and the poor, even married women very commonly procure abortion after they have given birth to two children, one of which is a boy.” 43
    The nations mentioned are typical of the world, except those countries where information concerning contraceptives has enabled women to limit their families without recourse to operations. 44
    It is apparent that nothing short of contraceptives can put an end to the horrors of abortion and infanticide. The Roman Catholic church, which has fought these practices from the beginning, has been unable to check them; and no more powerful agency could have been brought into play. It took that church, even in the days of its unlimited power, many centuries to come to its present sweeping condemnation of abortion. The severity of the condemnation depended upon the time at which the development of the foetus was interfered with. An illuminating resume of the church’s efforts in this direction is given by Dr. William Burke Ryan in his authoritative and exhaustive study entitled “Infanticide; Its Law, Prevalence, Prevention and History.” Dr. Ryan says: “Theologians of the church of Rome made a distinction between the inanimate and the animate foetus to which the soul is added by the creation of God, and adopted the opinions of some of the old philosophers, more particularly those of Aristotle, as to animation in the male and female, but the canon law altogether negatived the doctrine of the Stoics, for Innocent II condemned the following proposition: 45
    “‘It seems probable that the foetus does not possess a rational soul as long as it is in the womb, and only begins to possess it when born, and consequently in no abortion is homicide committed.’ Sextus V inflicted severe penalties for the crime of abortion at any period; these were in some degree mitigated by Gregory XIV, who, however, still held that those producing the abortion of an animated foetus should be subject to them, viz., and excommunication reserved to the bishop and also an ‘irregularity’ reserved to the Pope himself for absolution.” 46
    To-day, the Roman church stands firmly upon the proposition that “directly intended, artificial abortion must be regarded as wrongful killing, as murder.” 1 But it required a long time for it to reach that point, in the face of the demand for relief from large families. 47
    As it was with the fight of the church against abortion, so it is with the effort to prevent abortion in the United States to-day. All efforts to stop the practice are futile. Apparently, the numbers of these illegal operations are increasing from year to year. From year to year more women will undergo the humiliation, the danger and the horror of them, and the terrible record, begun with the infanticide of the primitive peoples, will go on piling up its volume of human misery and racial damage, until society awakens to the fact that a fundamental remedy must be applied. 48
    To apply such a remedy, society must recognize the terrible lesson taught by the innumerable centuries of infanticide and foeticide If these abhorrent practices could have been ended by punishment and suppression, they would have ceased long ago. But to continue suppression and punishment, and let the matter rest there, is only to miss the lesson—only to permit conditions to go from bad to worse. 49
    What is that lesson? It is this: woman’s desire for freedom is born of the feminine spirit, which is the absolute, elemental, inner urge of womanhood. It is the strongest force in her nature; it cannot be destroyed; it can merely be diverted from its natural expression into violent and destructive channels. 50
    The chief obstacles to the normal expression of this force are undesired pregnancy and the burden of unwanted children. These obstacles have always been and always will be swept aside by a considerable proportion of women. Driven by the irresistible force within them, they will always seek wider freedom and greater self-development, regardless of the cost. The sole question that society has to answer is, how shall women be permitted to attain this end? 51
    Are you horrified at the record set down in this chapter? It is well that you should be. You cannot help society to apply the fundamental remedy unless you know these facts and are conscious of their fullest significance. 52
    Society, in dealing with the feminine spirit, has its choice of clearly defined alternatives. It can continue to resort to violence in an effort to enslave the elemental urge of womanhood, making of woman a mere instrument of reproduction and punishing her when she revolts. Or, it can permit her to choose whether she shall become a mother and how many children she will have. It can go on trying to crush that which is uncrushable, or it can recognize woman’s claim to freedom, and cease to impose diverting and destructive barriers. If we choose the latter course, we must not only remove all restrictions upon the use of scientific contraceptives, but we must legalize and encourage their use. 53
    This problem comes home with peculiar force to the people of America. Do we want the millions of abortions performed annually to be multiplied? Do we want the precious, tender qualities of womanhood, so much needed for our racial development, to perish in these sordid, abnormal experiences? Or, do we wish to permit woman to find her way to fundamental freedom through safe, unobjectionable, scientific means? We have our choice. Upon our answer to these questions depends in a tremendous degree the character and the capabilities of the future American race.


    After listing various cultures who have tolerated infanticide, near the end of the chapter she says:

    "Are you horrified at the record set down in this chapter? It is well that you should be..."



    No, it absolutely is not.

    Here's Ch. 3:

    Spoiler


    III. The Materials of the New Race

    EACH of us has an ideal of what the American of the future should be. We have been told times without number that out of the mixture of stocks, the intermingling of ideas and aspirations, there is to come a race greater than any which has contributed to the population of the United States. What is the basis for this hope that is so generally indulged in? If the hope is founded upon realities, how may it be realized? To understand the difficulties and the obstacles to be overcome before the dream of a greater race in America can be attained, is to understand something of the task before the women who shall give birth to that race. 1
    What material is there for a greater American race? What elements make up our present millions? Where do they live? How do they live? In what direction does our national civilization bend their ideals? What is the effect of the “melting pot” upon the foreigner, once he begins to “melt”? Are we now producing a freer, juster, more intelligent, more idealistic, creative people out of the varied ingredients here? 2
    Before we can answer these questions, we must consider briefly the races which have contributed to American population. 3
    Among our more than 100,000,000 population are Negroes, Indians, Chinese and other colored people to the number of 11,000,000. There are also 14,500,000 persons of foreign birth. Besides these there are 14,000,000 children of foreign-born parents and 6,500,000 persons whose fathers or mothers were born on foreign soil, making a total of 46,000,000 people of foreign stock. Fifty per cent of our population is of the native white strain. 4
    Of the foreign stock in the United States, the last general census, compiled in 1910, shows that 25.7 per cent was German, 14 per cent was Irish, 8.5 per cent was Russian or Finnish, 7.2 was English, 6.5 per cent Italian and 6.2 per cent Austrian. The Abstract of the same census points out several significant facts. The Western European strains in this country are represented by a majority of native-born children of foreign-born or mixed parentage. This is because the immigration from those sources has been checked. On the other hand, immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, including Russia and Finland, increased 175.4 per cent from 1900 to 1910. During that period, the slums of Europe dumped their submerged inhabitants into America at a rate almost double that of the preceding decade, and the flow was still increasing at the time the census was taken. So it is more than likely that when the next census is taken it will be found that following 1910 there was an even greater flow from Spain, Italy, Hungary, Austria, Russia, Finland, and other countries where the iron hand of economic and political tyrannies had crushed great populations into ignorance and want. These peoples have not been in the United States long enough to produce great families. The census of 1920 will in all probability tell a story of a greater and more serious problem than did the last. 5
    Over one-fourth of all the immigrants over fourteen years of age, admitted during the two decades preceding 1910, were illiterate. Of the 8,398,000 who arrived in the 1900&150;1910 period, 2,238,000 could not read or write. There were 1,600,000 illiterate foreigners in the United States when the 1910 census was taken. Do these elements give promise of a better race? Are we doing anything genuinely constructive to overcome this situation? 6
    Two-thirds of the white foreign stock in the United States live in cities. Four-fifths of the populations of Chicago and New York are of this stock. More than two-thirds of the populations of Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Newark, Jersey City, Providence, Worcester, Scranton, Paterson, Fall River, Lowell, Cambridge, Bridgeport, St. Paul, Minneapolis and San Francisco are of other than native white ancestry. Of the fifty principal cities of the United States there are only fourteen in which fifty per cent of the population is of unmixed native white parentage. 7
    Only one state in the Union—North Carolina—has less than one per cent of the white foreign stock. New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, the Dakotas, Montana and Utah have more than fifty per cent foreign stock. Eleven states, including those on the Pacific Coast, have from 35 to 50 per cent. Maine, Ohio and Kansas have from 25 to 35 per cent. Maryland, Indiana, Missouri and Texas have from 15 to 25 per cent. These proportions are increasing rather than decreasing, owing to the extraordinarily high birth rate of the foreign strains. 8
    A special analysis of 1915 vital statistics for certain states, in the World Almanac for 1918, shows that foreign-born mothers gave birth to nearly 62 per cent of the children born in Connecticut, nearly 58 per cent in Massachusetts, nearly 33 per cent in Michigan, nearly 58 per cent in Rhode Island, more than 43 per cent in New Hampshire, more than 54 per cent in New York and more than 38 per cent in Pennsylvania. 9
    All these figures, be it remembered, fail to include foreign stock of the second generation after landing. If the statistics for children who have native parents but foreign-born grandparents, or who have one foreign-born parent, were given, they would doubtless leave but a small percentage of births from stocks native to the soil for several generations. 10
    Immigrants or their children constitute the majority of workers employed in many of our industries. “Seven out of ten of those who work in our iron and steel industries are drawn from this class,” says the National Geographic Magazine (February, 1917), “seven out of ten of our bituminous coal miners belong to it. Three out of four who work in packing towns were born abroad or are children of those who were born abroad; four out of five of those who make our silk goods, seven out of eight of those employed in woolen mills, nine out of ten of those who refine our petroleum, and nineteen out of twenty of those who manufacture our sugar are immigrants or the children of immigrants.” And it might have shown a similarly high percentage of those in the ready-made clothing industries, railway and public works construction of the less skilled sort, and a number of others. 11
    That these foreigners who have come in hordes have brought with them their ignorance of hygiene and modern ways of living and that they are handicapped by religious superstitions is only too true. But they also bring in their hearts a desire for freedom from all the tyrannies that afflict the earth. They would not be here if they did not bear within them the hardihood of pioneers, a courage of no mean order. They have the simple faith that in America they will find equality, liberty and an opportunity for a decent livelihood. And they have something else. The cell plasms of these peoples are freighted with the potentialities of the best in Old World civilization. They come from lands rich in the traditions of courage, of art, music, letters, science and philosophy. Americans no longer consider themselves cultured unless they have journeyed to these lands to find access to the treasures created by men and women of this same blood. The immigrant brings the possibilities of all these things to our shores, but where is the opportunity to reproduce in the New World the cultures of the old? 12
    What opportunities have we given to these peoples to enrich our civilization? We have greeted them as “a lot of ignorant foreigners,” we have shouted at, bustled and kicked them. Our industries have taken advantage of their ignorance of the country’s ways to take their toil in mills and mines and factories at starvation wages. We have herded them into slums to become diseased, to become social burdens or to die. We have huddled them together like rabbits to multiply their numbers and their misery. Instead of saying that we Americanize them, we should confess that we animalize them. The only freedom we seem to have given them is the freedom to make heavier and more secure their chains. What hope is there for racial progress in this human material, treated more carelessly and brutally than the cheapest factory product? 13
    Nor are all our social handicaps bound up in the immigrant. 14
    There were in the United States, when the Federal Industrial Relations Committee finished its work in 1915, several million migratory workers, most of them white, many of them married but separated from their families, who were compelled, like themselves, to struggle with dire want. 15
    There were in 1910 more than 2,353,000 tenant farmers, two-thirds of whom lived and worked under the terrible conditions which the Industrial Relations Commission’s report showed to prevail in the South and Southwest. These tenant farmers, as the report showed, were always in want, and were compelled by the very terms of the prevailing tenant contracts to produce children who must go to the fields and do the work of adults. The census proved that this tenancy was on the increase, the number of tenants in all but the New England and Middle Atlantic States having increased approximately 30 per cent from 1900 to 1910. 16
    Moreover, there were in the United States in 1910, 5,516,163 illiterates. Of these 1,378,884 were of pure native white stock. In some states in the South as much as 29 per cent of the population is illiterate, many of these, of course, being Negroes. 17
    There is still another factor to be considered—a factor which because of its great scope is more ominous than any yet mentioned. This is the underpaid mass of workers in the United States—workers whose low wages are forcing them deeper into want each day. Let Senator Borah, not a radical nor even a reformer, but a leader of the Republican party, tell the story. “Fifty-seven per cent of the families in the United States have incomes of $800 or less,” said he in a speech before the Senate, August 24, 1917. “Seventy per cent of the families of our country have incomes of $1,000 or less. Tell me how a man so situated can have shelter for his family; how he can provide food and clothing. He is an industrial peon. His home is scant and pinched beyond the power of language to tell. He sees his wife and children on the ragged edge of hunger from week to week and month to month. If sickness comes, he faces suicide or crime. He cannot educate his children; he cannot fit them for citizenship; he cannot even fit them as soldiers to die for their country. 18
    “It is the tragedy of our whole national life—how these people live in such times as these. We have not yet gathered the fruits of such an industrial condition in this country. We have been saved thus far by reason of the newness of our national life, our vast public lands now almost exhausted, our great natural resources now fast being seized and held, but the hour of reckoning will come.” 19
    Senator Borah was thinking, doubtless, of open revolution, of bloodshed and the destruction of property. In a far more terrible sense, the reckoning which he has referred to is already upon us. The ills we suffer as the result of the conditions now prevailing in the United States are appalling in their sum. 20
    It is these conditions that produce the 3,000,000 child laborers of the United States; child slaves who undergo hardships that blight them physically and mentally, leaving them fit only to produce human beings whose deficiencies and misfortunes will exceed their own. 21
    From these same elements, living under these same conditions come the feebleminded and other defectives. Just how many feebleminded there are in the United States, no one knows, because no attempt has ever been made to give public care to all of them, and families are more inclined to conceal than to reveal the mental defects of their members. Estimates vary from 350,000 at the present time to nearly 400,000 as early as 1890, Henry H. Goddard, Ph. D., of the Vineland, N. J., Training School, being authority for the latter statement. Only 34,137 of these unfortunates were under institutional care in the United States in 1916, the rest being free to propagate their kind—piling up public burdens for future generations. The feebleminded are notoriously prolific in reproduction. The close relationship between poverty and ignorance and the production of feebleminded is shown by Anne Moore, Ph. D., in a report to the Public Education Association of New York in 1911. She found that an overwhelming proportion of the classified feebleminded children in New York schools came from large families living in overcrowded slum conditions, and that only a small percentage were born of native parents. 22
    Sixty thousand prostitutes go and come anew each year in the United States. This army of unfortunates, as social workers and scientists testify, come from families living under like conditions of want. 23
    In the New York City schools alone in December, 1916, 61 per cent of the children were suffering from undernourishment and 21 per cent in immediate danger of it. These facts, also the result of the conditions outlined, were discovered by the city Bureau of Child Hygiene. 24
    Another item in the sordid list is that of venereal disease. In his pamphlet entitled “The Venereal Diseases,” issued in 1918, Dr. Hermann M. Biggs head of the New York State Department of Health quoted authorities who gave estimates of the amount of syphilis and gonorrhea in the United States. One says that 60 per cent of the men contract one disease or the other at some time. Another said that 40 per cent of the population of New York City had syphilis, one of the most terrible of all maladies. Poverty, delayed marriage, prostitution—a brief and terrible chain accounts for this scourge. 25
    Finally, there is tuberculosis, bred by bad housing conditions and contributed to in frightful measure by poor food and unhealthy surroundings during the hours of employment. Dr. Frederick L. Hoffman, director of the National Association for the Study and Prevention of Tuberculosis and foremost statistical authority upon tuberculosis in the United States, says: “We know of 2,000,000 tubercular persons in the United States.” 26
    Does this picture horrify the reader? This is not the whole truth. A few scattered statistics lack the power to reflect the broken lives of overworked fathers, the ceaseless, increasing pain of overburdened mothers and the agony of childhood fighting its way against the handicaps of ill health, insufficient food, inadequate training and stifling toil. 27
    Can we expect to remedy this situation by dismissing the problem of the submerged native elements with legislative palliatives or treating it with careless scorn? Do we better it by driving out of the immigrant’s heart the dream of liberty that brought him to our shores? Do we solve the problem by giving him, instead of an opportunity to develop his own culture, low wages, a home in the slums and those pseudo-patriotic preachments which constitute our machine-made “Americanization”? 28
    Every detail of this sordid situation means a problem that must be solved before we can even clear the way for a greater race in America. Nor is there any hope of solving any of these problems if we continue to attack them in the usual way. 29
    Men have sentimentalized about them and legislated upon them. They have denounced them and they have applied reforms. But it has all been ridiculously, cruelly futile. 30
    This is the condition of things for which those stand who demand more and more children. Each child born under such conditions but makes them worse—each child in its own person suffers the consequence of the intensified evils. 31
    If we are to develop in America a new race with a racial soul, we must keep the birth rate within the scope of our ability to understand as well as to educate. We must not encourage reproduction beyond our capacity to assimilate our numbers so as to make the coming generation into such physically fit, mentally capable, socially alert individuals as are the ideal of a democracy. 32
    The intelligence of a people is of slow evolutional development—it lags far behind the reproductive ability. It is far too slow to cope with conditions created by an increasing population, unless that increase is carefully regulated. 33
    We must, therefore, not permit an increase in population that we are not prepared to care for to the best advantage—that we are not prepared to do justice to, educationally and economically. We must popularize birth control thinking. We must not leave it haphazardly to be the privilege of the already privileged. We must put this means of freedom and growth into the hands of the masses. 34
    We must set motherhood free. We must give the foreign and submerged mother knowledge that will enable her to prevent bringing to birth children she does not want. We know that in each of these submerged and semi-submerged elements of the population there are rich factors of racial culture. Motherhood is the channel through which these cultures flow. Motherhood, when free to choose the father, free to choose the time and the number of children who shall result from the union, automatically works in wondrous ways. It refuses to bring forth weaklings; refuses to bring forth slaves; refuses to bear children who must live under the conditions described. It withholds the unfit, brings forth the fit; brings few children into homes where there is not sufficient to provide for them. Instinctively it avoids all those things which multiply racial handicaps. Under such circumstances we can hope that the “melting pot” will refine. We shall see that it will save the precious metals of racial culture, fused into an amalgam of physical perfection, mental strength and spiritual progress. Such an American race, containing the best of all racial elements, could give to the world a vision and a leadership beyond our present imagination.





    That's the exact opposite of what she said. She said the wealthy had access to contraceptives that the impoverished did not. She wanted the impoverished to have the same access as the wealthy.



    If you're interested, find an unabashedly evil quote from the two chapters I've linked to and share it.

    Her ideas about eugenics aren't likely going to be a point of contention. You may disagree that she shows compassion for the immigrant and the impoverished, the child laborers, etc., but she does say it clearly, and sees their longing for the promises America offered them and she saw birth control as a remedy for disease and deprivation. You could find contention there, but I'm thinking more of some proof for your contention that she said anything advocating for abortion or infanticide. By alleging she said the exact opposite of what she actually did say, you do her history a disservice.
    I have the book, anna. I've read it in it's entirety.

    The thing to remember about Sanger is she thought socialism was a new religion and she was an enthusiastic supporter of that religion. And Max Eastman, the original editor of The Masses and a committed influential socialist at the time later wrote, after he had finally come out of the delusion, that Marxism is the religion of immoralism. He describes it as such in an entire chapter of his book Reflections on the Failure of Socialism. Sanger also had very close ties to the Fabian society, a group dedicated to the spread of socialism through the use of deception and deceit. Of course it isn't very hard to understand why when their idols Marx and Engels themselves used deciet and deception on a regular basis. Their entire use of the word Communist in the Communist Manifesto was nothing more than propoganda. They used it to create space between themselves and the socialists who had come before them while all the time acknowledging privately that they were socialists.

    So, to take Margret Sanger at her word that she was not a racist and that she was only there to "help" poor women is a major mistake. It ignores the fact that she belonged to groups dedicated to using deception as a tool to destroy the existing Christian western culture and capitalism. Her stand on abortion was for partly for the purposes of population control for that was a goal of the eugenecists and the socialists, and partly for the destruction of the moral influence of Christianity. She and her fellow elitist socialists wanted an elite to run everything and to keep the despised, by them, lower classes at bay. To do that they had to undermine the Christian influence and so remove the underpinnings of western law and culture. Oh, they knew what they were doing alright. They have been pretty successful in acheiving their goals.

  19. #2565
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    18,924
    Thanks
    2,874
    Thanked 6,350 Times in 3,727 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147798
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    I have the book, anna. I've read it in it's entirety.
    An appeal from personal authority? Then you have more reason to answer her particular rebuttals instead of providing a block quote as a launching point for a blog post that appears to rest on a variation of the "No true Scotsman" approach.

    Meeting particular objection framed in something more than personal opinion and coupling this approach with an argument from personal authority isn't making a prima facie case it appears to attempt.

    And Max Eastman, the original editor of The Masses and a committed influential socialist at the time later wrote, after he had finally come out of the delusion, that Marxism is the religion of immoralism.
    If you want to know the faults of a guy ask his ex, but if you want a clearer picture of him ask around.

    So, to take Margret Sanger at her word that she was not a racist and that she was only there to "help" poor women is a major mistake.
    Whose word should she take and why?

    It ignores the fact that she belonged to groups dedicated to using deception as a tool to destroy the existing Christian western culture and capitalism.
    I don't know Sanger well, but absent factual counter or particular, empirical reason to believe your belief is founded in reason, I'm inclined to go with the literal proof and not someone's pudding. Who knows what's in the latter?
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    annabenedetti (November 15th, 2017),kmoney (November 15th, 2017)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us