Margaret Sanger Called for 10-Year Moratorium on Having Babies

Margaret Sanger Called for 10-Year Moratorium on Having Babies May 3, 2014

 

I’m not sure what to make of this.

According to The Daily Caller this interview with Margaret Sanger and someone she calls John surfaced when British Pathe, a newsreel company uploaded 85,000 of its films to YouTube. The films were originally aired between 1896 and 1976.

This particular news reel is an interview with Margaret Sanger (who the interviewer calls Mrs Sleen, or something like that) about what was evidently her call for women to cease having babies for 10 years.

I have no idea how serious she was. Was this a publicity stunt? Or did she mean it?

Nothing in this video tells us the answer.

Whatever Mrs Sanger’s purpose was in issuing this call, it appears that, at least among women in the “enlightened” West, she has been heard. Birth rates among Western Europeans are below replacement rate. The birth rate among caucasian Americans has fallen so low that they are projected to fall into minority status in a few decades.

This is ironic, considering that Mrs Sanger sold her ideas by saying that we needed to eliminate what she termed “inferiors” through “regulated birth.”

Here, for your enjoyment, is a weird little interview with Margaret Sanger.

"I didn't state that very well, sorry. Nothing wrong with the link, I just couldn't ..."

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."
"You don't remember Lyndon Johnson doing any such thing because he didn't do any such ..."

Dr Christine Ford in Hiding Because ..."
"I haven't had the opportunity to read the FBI investigation. I'm not in the habit ..."

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."
"Was there something wrong with the link?"

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."

Browse Our Archives

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

62 responses to “Margaret Sanger Called for 10-Year Moratorium on Having Babies”

  1. Margaret Sanger Slee was her name after she married her second husband. If you listen to the entire clip at Pathe, you see that she is enjoining European women in starving countries immediately after World War II not to have children. When pressed by the interviewer, she said that of course it is up to the parents to decide whether or not to have children. So where do you see evidence here for her wanting to eliminate non-whites, and where are your “quotes” from? And why would we be concerned if Causasian birth rates fall below replacement levels if parents are choosing how many children they want to have?

  2. Argh, I hate loud advertisements, the whole intro was overrode with latest season of Jeopardy. But I’m watching it again.

    Yep, that’s pretty much been the view of Planned Parenthood all along- all evil in the world comes from children, and to eliminate evil, you must eliminate children.

    Oh, and it’s Mrs. Slee, not Mrs. Sleen. Her second husband, according to the Wikipedia article:
    James Noah H. Slee (1922–1943).

  3. Whether one agrees with Ms. Sanger or not—I’m glad she worked to enable women to get educated in “birth control” methods, besides NOT having sex in order to not get pregnant. Even when a woman is married, she should have a choice of whether to get pregnant or not, besides denying her husband (and herself) the pleasure of intimacy. Though I do not advocate abortions as a method of “birth control”, at least she wanted safe ones for women who chose to terminate She was a front runner for women to be able to control their reproduction.

    • Pagansister,
      You couldn’t be more wrong. Sanger was actually opposed to abortion. She wanted birth control for all. Do you know why? Because she was promoter of eugenics and a racist. She didn’t want the lesser races reproducing. They were inferior and increased poverty in society as a whole.
      Abortion and contraception are both evil acts and are never morally justified.

      • I disagree that contraception is evil as women should always be able to control how many children they want or to choose to not have children at all. Being female doesn’t automatically mean reproduction is required. I feel that abortion should not be used as a means of birth control as I mentioned above. I can’t imagine a woman going thru more than 1 termination.(and I have known several women who have had abortions—once only). However women should be able to continue to legally have a safe termination if they feel it is necessary even after being offered alternatives. As I mentioned above, some do not agree with everything Ms. Sanger promoted, and I’m one of them–racism and eugenics I consider “evil”. BUT she did get birth control started, even if her motives may not have been “moral”. There is no reason to be “barefoot and pregnant” for years!

        • Pagansister,
          Contraception blocks the purpose of the marital act, i.e., reproduction. It turns the spouse into a mere pleasure-seeking device. If you don’t want children there is one 100% effective method: Don’t engage in sexual activity.
          Abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human life. It can never be justified, for any reason. Unless, you believe it is okay to kill innocent people?

          Based on your rationalization of Sanger’s evil views, would you also praise Stalin, Mao, or Hitler for some good they might have done in their lives?
          Sanger didn’t “get birth control started,” by the way. It’s been around since the sin of Onan. The Romans were big practitioners of contraception. And abortion. And leaving babies at garbage dumps or on top of hills. History might not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme! (To paraphrase Mark Twain.)

          • If you read correctly in my last response, I said I did not agree with her about eugenics and racism. Not in any way. Given that fact, why would I praise Hitler, Mao, Stalin? They didn’t do anything “good” in their lives. However, I do not agree that the only way to not get pregnant is to not have sex—–especially in a marriage. Obviously that is the only way, but I’m basically talking marriage here. In a Catholic marriage NFP is still supposed to the only form of “control” of reproduction, right? By not engaging in intercourse at fertile times, the purpose is to NOT get pregnant. Same intention as ABC—not to get pregnant this time. I find the notion that ABC turns a spouse into a mere pleasure seeking device ridiculous. Having been married almost 50 years myself, I do not believe that marriage is just for making babies. I had my 2. They are wonderful adults now. I wouldn’t have liked having to make the choice of whether to keep a 3rd pregnancy or not. That would have been my decision ultimately with the help of my husband in making that decision. Knowing many Catholics who have only one or two children, I am sure not all of them spend their entire reproductive married life using NFP. In fact I know many who use ABC because they have had the number of children they wanted and feel they can take good care of—financially being one of those reasons. And I’m well aware that women have always had ways of trying not to get pregnant for centuries, and that there has always been ways to terminate pregnancies. Sanger brought those ways into the lives of women in this country, when no one would say out loud that there were such methods. Let me ask you a question—-was it worse for the Romans to practice birth control and allow abortions or is it better that they would leave babies on trash heaps? Is no pregnancy better than birth and then killing the child or is it better to terminate early? I taught a little Chinese girl who had been adopted by her mother who brought her here. She had been found on a trash heap and taken to an orphanage. Wouldn’t it have been better for her biological mother to either not have gotten pregnant or to have terminated it?

            • I did read you response correctly, Pagansister. If you read mine correctly, you praised Sanger, despite the evil she promoted. Why won’t you praise Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, despite their evil acts? Stalin was our ally during WWII and industrialized Russia. Mao fought the Japanese. Hitler got Germany out of the Great Depression and built the autobahn. He was also a vegetarian, I’ve heard. I’m sure they did other things that some would consider “good.”
              I was merely pointing out your gross rationalization when it comes to parsing Sanger’s “evil” actions with her “good” ones.

              Now, NFP doesn’t interrupt the natural act, like contraceptives do. It is only allowed to space a couple’s children, and not for financial reasons.
              When one spouse, or both, insist on using contraceptives, they are telling their spouse that they are not willing to give themselves totally to the other. When a husband gives himself freely to his wife, he is saying that he loves her so much that he is willing to have a child with her, and spend the rest of their lives raising their family, together.
              When he contracepts, he is telling his wife that he likes her a lot, but not enough to have another child. Now, he just wants pleasure, and wants to use his wife to get it.
              Using contraceptives damages marriages in real ways. You are an exception to the rule, I’m afraid.
              And the fact that many Catholics use contraceptives, doesn’t make the Church’s teaching wrong.

              I will answer your questions about Romans and trash heaps with a question: Why doesn’t birth control eliminate the use of abortion and abandoning children? Then or now? Contraceptives are widely available, and cheap, and, yet, there are over a million abortions a year in this country. Why?
              Concerning the Chinese girl you taught, why are you asking me? Did you ever ask her if it would have been better if she had been killed in the womb? If not, what do you think her answer would be? Be honest.

              • The Chinese girl I taught was 5. I taught kindergarten. I wouldn’t have asked a 5 year old. As to what her answer would be? Who knows? One really can’t answer that since one really knows only being born—can’t answer about not being born because one doesn’t exist. BTW, I taught in a Catholic elementary school. OK, ABC isn’t always reliable but much more so than NFP. That could be the reason there are still abortions and abandoned children. I would suggest ABC has reduced those 2 things. As for all the stuff about husbands and wives not giving themselves to each other completely etc. because of ABC—boloney. You are again saying that marriage is only for reproduction—and every time one has intercourse then there should be the possibility for a kid as is Catholic teaching. Spouses should also be able to enjoy each other sexually without worrying about a pregnancy every time they are together—especially if the last one may only be 2 months old! Never said that what the Church teaches is necessarily wrong, but I just disagree with it as do some Catholics who choose ABC. And yet again, I still support Sanger’s birth control efforts, even if they weren’t necessarily for the right reasons I feel it was helpful to women. The other guys you mention? Already commented on them. What you pointed out about them is fine and dandy. In the end? They were “evil”. I know some feel Sanger was/is too. None of us are perfect, which is no news to anyone.

                • “As to what her answer would be? Who knows?”
                  Really? You can’t hazard a guess as to whether she
                  should would rather have been aborted or not? How about you, Pagansister? Do you wish that you had been killed in your mother’s womb? How about your 2 children?
                  It is a proven fact that easier access to contraceptives lead to unintended pregnancies or abortions.
                  Sources:
                  http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/contraception/fact-sheets/greater-access-to-contraception-does-not-reduce-abortions.cfm

                  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/study-higher-contraception-rates-associated-with-higher-abortion-rates-in-r

                  Married people are still called to live a chaste life. Pregnancy is not a disease, it is a blessing. So, couples shouldn’t worry about it.
                  Finally, I believe we have well established your situational ethics, vis a vis Sanger. Are you also a fan of well-known racist president, Woodrow Wilson?

                  • Never thought about WW all that much, actually. IF he was a racist, no, I would not be a fan. True, pregnancy is not a disease, but wanting one is preferable. Think about it, would I know if I hadn’t been born? No. Am I glad I’m here, sure, but I wouldn’t know the difference if I wasn’t. Does anyone know how they would feel if they had never been born? It is kind of like asking a person what it would be like to be dead. No ones knows as no one has come back to tell us, yet. I know there is at least one religion that feels that unborn babies are floating about in some heavenly place waiting to be born. Perhaps they could answer that question after they got here. Somehow you failed to answer if you feel a termination (early) is worse than killing a baby after it is born and putting it in the trash to die. Can’t address that?

                    • Of course, a wanted child is preferable. But, not wanting the child does not give one the right to kill the unborn baby (fetus in Latin). And, since science tells us that human life begins at conception, abortion can never be justified, for any reason. The “pill’ and IUDs can act as abortifacients, by the way.

                      “Am I glad I’m here, sure, but I wouldn’t know the difference if I wasn’t.”

                      Cop-out. The question was whether you would rather have been killed in the womb, i.e., aborted, or abandoned on a trash heap as a child? Luckily, in your student’s case, she was adopted. Those who are killed in the womb never get this option. Unless, it’s one of the cases of a botched abortion.
                      If, God willing, abortion is ever outlawed again in this country, adoption will always be the right alternative to killing unborn babies. What is your argument against adoption replacing abortion?

                      Finally, I’m pretty sure that I addressed it by making it clear that I’m against abortion (early and late) in ALL cases, and that I’m against the killing of ANY innocent person, which includes children left in the trash to die. Both acts are intrinsically evil and can never be justified.
                      Haven’t you seen all of the stories about mothers dumping their children in trash cans and dumpsters, in this country, in the last couple of decades?

                    • Yes, of course I’ve heard the stories of women killing their new born babies, many teens who were scared. Giving birth in a bathroom and letting it drown in the toilet. Oh yes, all kinds of horror stories. Centuries of that I’m sure. I’m probably older that you so I remember the days before Roe.. I hope Roe V Wade is never outlawed. That sent women to places where no one should have to go to terminate. If they had enough money, they could go overseas where it was legal. I would much rather a child be put up for adoption, of course. My mother was adopted, so I certainly know about that. BUT the women having the unwanted children for reasons sometimes known only to them, feel carrying for 9 months not possible so termination they feel is their only choice. I’m all for help being given to them during the pregnancy, and adoption options after. Ultimately the woman’s choice and if that is her choice, she should be given a clean, safe and legal place to carry out her choice. Outlawing abortions completely would only put it underground again. As for my so called “cop out”? I have only known being here, so how would I know if I wasn’t? Do you know what it would be like to not be here?

                    • Well, you didn’t hear stories about newborns being left in toilets and dumpsters in the 1960s, ’70s, & ’80s. It is a direct result of those women being raised in a Culture of Death.
                      The tales of “back alley abortions” and “coat-hangers” are lies promoted by the pro-abort crowd.
                      Roe v. Wade was bad law. Even liberal constitutional professors agree with that.

                      [S]he should be given a clean, safe and legal place to carry out her choice.”

                      Like the monster, Kermit Gosnells’, abortion mill? You are aware that plenty of women still die and are severely injured procuring so-called “safe” abortions in this country, aren’t you? Safe is a misnomer.
                      And, again, the question isn’t what you have known. The question was would you, that Chinese girl, or anyone have preferred certain death in your mother’s womb, through abortion, or, being abandoned on a trash heap as a baby?
                      You asked the question remember?
                      Your repeated obfuscations make it clear that you know the answer, but refuse to admit it.

                    • Let’s see—-in the “old days” those things you mentioned weren’t reported or if they were, they were on page 100 of the local newspaper. If they made national news, it was probably mentioned once and forgotten because there wasn’t 24 hour news channels to bomb you with sometimes really insignificant stories. (those not being insignificant, but still not necessary to mention forever). Those things that you think didn’t happen, did. No internet, no Twitter, no Facebook to stick it into your face constantly. But since I was alive in the “old days”, I can remember before and after Roe. I prefer now. And yes, there are still places that botch abortions, but fortunately those women I know who had one are fine and the facility wasn’t Gosnell or even close. Safe in their cases wasn’t a misnomer. In an ideal world, no woman would ever have an abortion and all babies would be loved and cared for, and there would be no need at all to have facilities for, yes, safe abortions. I’m not promoting terminations at all. I much prefer adoptions or no unwanted pregnancy at all. I just feel women should be allowed to make up their own minds.

                    • Baloney. I’m 46, grew up during the 1970s & ’80s, when t.v. news perfected “if it bleeds, it leads.” If newborn babies were being left in dumpsters at the rates they were in the ’90s and 2000s, we would have heard about it. It would have been even more shocking back then.
                      No, it was the generation that grew up knowing nothing but legalized baby killing that decided that there wasn’t anything wrong with leaving their newborns in the trash.
                      Why are you against this practice, by the way? What’s the difference between going into the womb to kill the baby and leaving him to die in the trash? Aren’t both the choice of the mother? If the baby is “unwanted”? That seems to be your only criteria.

                      Incidentally, the women you know that had abortions are not fine. I’m sure they suffer everyday, knowing that they killed their children. I pray for their suffering to end by asking God to forgive them. Then they can forgive themselves.

                    • You are the age of one of my children, but fortunately they do not think as you do on many of the subjects we have been discussing. Incidentally, those women ARE fine, as I am still in contact with all but one of them. They are not suffering daily or weekly or yearly and your belief on that is incorrect. One happens to be a minister. I see one of them at least once a week. They have no reason to “forgive themselves”. Of course there are women who do regret and suffer, but believe me, not all do. As to a difference of early (before 12 weeks) termination and waiting for birth and abandoning? 12 weeks is not viable, birth is. It all comes down to choice and women have that right—as I have said a million times. TV news even in “your generation” (and that of my kids) still wasn’t as in your face as the instant, on the net ‘news’ is. Again and for the last time, I’m not promoting abortions—only a woman’s right to make a choice. Much prefer none whatsoever.

                    • I’m sure some of those women have deluded themselves, possibly through chemical means, that they did nothing wrong. But, they’re still suffering. You can’t violate the natural law in such a severe way, and not have it affect you terribly.
                      I just hope, and pray, that they come to realize some day that God will forgive them, no matter what they have done.
                      No one has the right to kill innocent human beings. No one. That’s why the 6 justices on the Supreme Court had to invent this so-called “right” out of thin air, back on that awful day in January, 1973.
                      Viability is another obfuscation. It has changed a lot in the past 40 years. But, it still doesn’t give the mother the right to kill the living, human child inside of her. And, since human life begins at conception, there is never any justified reason to have an abortion, during any trimester.

                      It doesn’t really matter how “in your face” the media is today. It doesn’t change the fact that the instances of mothers dumping their newborns into the trash, even though most states allow them to leave the child at a hospital, no questions asked, is because of the Culture of Death, which began with Roe v. Wade.
                      Besides, the press has been doing their best to stop covering these atrocities, since the horrors of Kermit Gosnell came to light:

                      http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bizarre-rash-of-cases-of-mothers-throwing-babies-in-trash-flushing-them-dow

                    • You certainly presume a lot, Nick. Those women have not deluded themselves thru chemical means, in fact one of them doesn’t drink at all. Think I mentioned that I’m still in touch with all but one of them. You have never met or talked to any of them so your statement is arrogant. Have you ever talked to any women who stopped a pregnancy/ Did you inquire as to why? Did all of them regret it? I would suggest you probably haven’t. I will agree that survival of early births is much higher, however still not at 12 weeks—that would be 3 months—my limit of when a woman should terminate. (yes, I know it is wrong, huh?) Mother Nature disposes of a pregnancy in that time, for reasons known only to her. As for your culture of death stuff? Has it ever occurred to you that many, many terminations took place before R v W as well as centuries before in all cultures and nations? Without R v W those things would still take place. We just disagree.

                    • You are presuming that these women are confiding everything in their lives to you, Pagansister. Most women hold their pain inside and don’t share it with others. I base my comments on all of the many women I’ve heard give their testimony about what it is like to live with the horror of knowing that they killed their own child. Many of them said that they put on a brave front to others, but, inside, they were suffering terribly. They have very troubled souls, and need our compassion, very much.

                      No, viability has not reached 12 weeks, yet! It still doesn’t change the fact that a unique, living human being is created at the moment of conception. Your 12 week “limit” is completely arbitrary and nonsensical. When do you say human life begins? Precisely? Right after 11 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds? How would you record such an event? In order to know if it had been violated?
                      Finally, it is not my “culture of death stuff.” It was Saint Pope John Paul II’s. He talked about many, many times during his pontificate.

                    • Again you presume to know the women I know, and again you presume our relationship. As a man you also presume to know what “most women” do—as hold their pain inside and not share. I would speculate that those testimonies were held by a religious organization and only women who wanted to talk did so. Women who do not regret the decision aren’t going to come to groups and talk about it, are they? As to the limit I personally place on terminations, that you think is “arbitrary and nonsensical”? Naturally you are entitled to your opinion. I answered you above about the “life” thing, so as I said there, I’m done.

                    • I am not presuming “to know the women” you know. I presume that these several friends of your’s are the same as the dozens and dozens of women I have heard describe the profound pain and suffering they went through, after their abortions. And the damage it continued to do their lives years and decades after the terrible event. Many of them fell into alcohol and drug abuse. There is plenty of research to back up this claim:

                      http://afterabortion.org/1999/new-study-confirms-link-between-abortion-and-substance-abuse/

                      http://www.lifenews.com/2010/05/03/int-1531/

                      Your cop-out on when life precisely begins is not surprising. This is what every pro-choice/pro-abort does, when they can’t answer the tough questions. Questions they have never thought about, usually. This is what happens when they base their mere opinions on cliches and talking-points, rather than scientific facts.
                      The Pro-Life argument is based on provable facts. That is why you are “done” Pagansister. You have no rebuttal. Just like every other defender of “choice” I have encountered on the internets.

                    • It is so interesting that you seem to “know women” and how they respond to different things.You presumed incorrectly about the women I know. Anyhow, those you have heard (in person or on the internet?) describe their regretful abortion reactions would be the ones that are willing to talk about it, as I said above. As for my “cop out”. Yes, “life” begins at conception—can that “life” live outside the womb right then? Is it able to do that at 1 week, 2, 3, 4,5 6? No. How about 8,9,10? No. Not at 11 or 12. Probably not at 13, but by then it should not be aborted. Arbitrary? In your opinion. I do not expect you to agree at all. Glad to be in the company of those you have encountered as a person who believes in choice for women. Women have always had that choice even before R v W. It does seem your “experience” must have been only on the internet? Have you actually talked to women who have chosen to terminate and asked them why? Asked them if they regretted it? I can tell you as a woman, it isn’t and should NEVER be made in hurry and without pursuing all options. The women I knew had their reasons and the decision wasn’t made rashly. Something that important needs to be thought about long and hard. Repeating myself—I would wish that abortions would never be carried out—but life doesn’t work that way.

                    • One other thing—the point at which life begins? Everyone doesn’t agree that it is at conception.

                    • Fortunately, it doesn’t depend on the consensus of “everyone.” It is a scientific fact. And facts don’t require belief. They just are.

                    • Sorry, that’s not how science works. You don’t believe that 2+2=4. It just is. Nor, do you believe that the Earth is round. That is a fact.
                      And, you don’t believe that when the mother’s ovum is fertilized by the male’s sperm a new, unique human being is created, with his own unique DNA found in his 46 chromosomes. This is also a scientific fact.

                    • I’m not going to get into this with you. Fertilization doesn’t mean life is possible outside the womb for many weeks.

                    • Viability has nothing to do with whether, or not, a brand new, unique human being is created at the moment of conception, does it? You don’t want to get into this because you have no way to refute scientific facts.

                    • Your last statement is totally incorrect. I have made my position clear and there is no reason for me to discuss it any more. However if it makes you feel better, you can believe your last statement is correct.

                    • I don’t have to rely on my beliefs, I have science on my side, remember? If you have any facts to offer, please do. I would very much like to read them. Again, your position is completely arbitrary and nonsensical.

    • Intimacy doesn’t require sex, and sex no longer requires intimacy. The two concepts are completely different.

      Or at least, so said this video posted on Patheos in the last week:

      http://player.vimeo.com/video/93079367

      In response to a reply that may or may not make it in:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casual_sex

      It is sad, but one of the MAIN effects of the sexual revolution and use of contraception was to make sex possible without intimacy of any sort.

      It isn’t how marriage is meant to be, but it is how sex in the United States now is.

      • OK, let’s see. Intimacy doesn’t require sex —I can agree with that for the most part, however sex certainly requires intimacy, because the act itself is rather intimate! Whether one enjoys that is a whole different subject.

          • Right or wrong, teenagers (especially males) run on high hormones. 🙂 They just wish to accomplish physical pleasure in many cases. Self pleasure can help take care of some of that, but doesn’t the Catholic church frown on that? In the past it did.

            • It does because like other forms of “physical pleasure without intimacy”, it destroys the ability to feel pleasure WITH intimacy later in life.

              There are real physiological reasons to avoid sex without intimacy, but the point is, in today’s fallen post-sexual-revolution world, sex without intimacy is not only possible but depressingly common, and not just among teenagers.

              In fact, I’d point out that elsewhere in the discussion, what people are trying to tell you about contraception, is that it directly destroys intimacy.

              • Seriously? Never met a male yet who was messed up because as a teen or unmarried male he chose to indulge. Some I know are very happily married in all aspects that that implies. An aside. While there are those that believe that ABC destroys intimacy (as you reminded me that folks are trying to tell me) I certainly didn’t find that true and it certainly hasn’t been what I have heard in my life. I have heard from friends that things were much better because they didn’t have to worry about unplanned pregnancies. When they wished to make a baby, then they obviously didn’t use anything to prevent. I would have made a very bad Catholic. 🙂

                • “Seriously? Never met a male yet who was messed up because as a teen or unmarried male he chose to indulge. ”

                  Really? I know hundreds. Myself included, I’ve struggled hard with this.

                  The trick to not worrying about unplanned pregnancies is to realize they don’t exist. Every pregnancy is planned, because you choose to have sex.

                  And that is part of true intimacy too.

                  • Maybe those males you met had other problems too, or, and this isn’t a put down but were those males raised Catholic? The guilt trip about that situation could cause problems, IMO. I am assuming you were raised Catholic. You mentioned have struggled “hard with this”. And yes, there is certainly such a thing as an unplanned pregnancy. As I have mentioned many times, married sex is NOT, IMO, just for procreation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.