By transitioning last week's discussion of TRANSHUMANISM and religion by remembering the difference between EUGENICS AND TRANSHUMANISM.
As REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES who kept EUGENICISTS at bay for several centuries------the early 1800s saw a rise in EUGENICS because of DARWINISM and evolution and increasing HYBRIDIZATION of plants and animals. Social humanists were against this hybridizing of HUMANS-----so, were against EUGENICISTS.
We hinted that the movement towards ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE was tied to SUPREMACY-----whether Asian/European/Arabic. So slowly, since early 1800s this movement towards ONE WORLD embraced this ideal of EUGENICS---UTOPIA-----BUT MORPHED in the mid-1900s to TRANSHUMANISM.
This image of a very beautiful bird is NATURAL EVOLUTION which entailed cross-breeding and genetic inheritance. One would say----evolution tied to survival of most fit -----would not have worked well for RAINBOW BIRDS.
The idea of SUPREMACY for many EUGENICISTS was tied to MAN being the IMAGE OF GOD------not all eugenicists were religious ---many were. Transhumanists have no ties to GOD----they are motivated only by CORPORATE AND WEALTH NEEDS-----so SUPREMACY is tied to SUSTAINING THAT EXTREME WEALTH AND POWER of global 1% who think they are small g GODS.
The Rainbow bird. Another beautiful example of God’s creative work!
Hmmmmm, religious tenets don't even allow for GMO PLANTS OR ANIMALS.
'Ethics - Controversial Dilemma - Selective Breeding
Animals should not be artificially bred as it is not a natural process. People are disgraced about using animals as a means to benefit the ends of the human race which is deemed as totally immoral by some - it is seen as un-natural, therefore wrong. Religion is a significant part in ethics'.
We can segue into next week's discussion on PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY tied to CONTRACEPTION/BIRTH CONTROL/DE-POPULATION goals with the concept of all religions and that is
LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION-----NATURAL EGG MEETS NATURAL SPERM
If left to GOD'S NATURAL evolution-----multiple SPECIES of HUMANS would be nowhere in sight. BASIC SCIENCE tells us that.
There is no capability of religious acceptance of TRANSHUMANISM creating multiple BREEDS/SPECIES of humans.
Hmmmmm, religious tenets don't even allow for GMO PLANTS OR ANIMALS. This is why global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA needed to KILL RELIGION to push TRANSHUMANISM.
Life Begins At Conception. That’s Not the Point
Nov 4, 2012, 8:35pm Jodi Jacobson
The development of a potential human life requires conception as a first step. But that is not the same as either pregnancy or personhood. You can't reduce complex reality to a slogan, and when you try to do so, you actually minimize the personhood of women.
“Life begins at conception.”
This is perhaps the favorite phrase of anti-choicers seeking to eliminate women’s basic right to control over their own bodies. It is, for example, the premise of policies pushed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and fundamentalist evangelicals. It is the cornerstone of the so-called personhood laws defeated by large margins in ballot initiatives undertaken in both Colorado and Mississippi. And it is the basis for the “Sanctity of Life” bill co-sponsored by Congressmen Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Todd Akin (R-MO) in the House of Representatives. The end game in all of these efforts is a radical shift in women’s lives, including a total ban on abortion without exception, and bans on many forms of contraception, in vitro fertilization, and health care for women who are or who may be pregnant.
“Life begins at conception,” is repeated incessantly by politicians such as Richard Mourdock, as though this were a revelation, something not previously known, that should inform our thinking on whether women are people with the same fundamental rights as men, or if they are essentially incubators whose ability to participate in society and the economy, and, quite literally, whose ability to live is dependent on whether they are, might be, or might become pregnant.
But the phrase is highly—and purposefully—misleading because it confuses simple biological cell division both with actual pregnancy and with actual, legal personhood, which are all very different things.
During the October 11, 2012 vice presidential debate, for example, moderator Martha Raddatz asked Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) to discuss “the role religion has played” in their personal views on abortion.
Ryan responded by saying:
Now, you want to ask basically why I’m pro-life?
It’s not simply because of my Catholic faith. That’s a factor, of course. But it’s also because of reason and science.
You know, I think about 10 1/2 years ago, my wife Janna and I went to Mercy Hospital in Janesville where I was born, for our seven week ultrasound for our firstborn child, and we saw that heartbeat. A little baby was in the shape of a bean. And to this day, we have nicknamed our firstborn child Liza, “Bean.”
Now I believe that life begins at conception.
Here is a startling revelation: I am a mother of two and a woman who earlier in her life had an abortion. I am unapologetically pro-choice. And I know life *begins* at conception (which itself is the product of a complex process), because I kinda already knew that having a child required, as a first step, the successful integration of a sperm and an egg, or fertilization.
In other words, “life” begins at conception, if by “life,” we mean the essential starting place of a potential human being. Neither my 16-year-old daughter nor my 13-year-old son would be here if they were not first conceived, if the fertilized eggs had not gone through the process of cell division, successfully implanted in my uterus and developed into healthy embryos, and subsequently gone successfully through the many other phases of development leading to their births.
A fertilized human egg in two phases of division.
The fact that life begins at conception is why women and men use birth control to prevent it from happening and why they have been trying to prevent it from happening since time immemorial. While they may not have had high-resolution microscopes and photography to reveal biological-level activity, women do not and did not need modern “reason and science” (to which anti-choicers now love to refer) to tell them they get pregnant from sex; as Homo Sapiens they have been conceiving, carrying, and bearing babies for at least some 160,000 years, and they’ve been trying to prevent pregnancy and induce abortions for just as long.
Evidence of condom use has been found in cave drawings in France dated between 12,000 and 15,000 years old and in 3,000 year-old illustrations in Egypt. Throughout history, people have variously practiced “outer course” (encouraged even by Christian clergy at some points in history!), and used pessaries, herbs, and other objects to create barriers to fertilization when having sex, not to mention trying many other more dangerous and less effective means, such as drinking lead and mercury or wearing blood-soaked amulets in the hopes of preventing fertilization, a subsequent pregnancy, and later, the birth of a child. I understand that seeing the sonogram of a wanted child is a powerful thing and a connection to the potential person whose birth is much awaited. But if it took Paul Ryan to see a sonogram of his daughter in utero to get him to believe his wife was pregnant and that his daughter’s “life” began with conception, the state of GOP knowledge on sex and biology is even worse than I thought.
The question is not when life begins. That just obfuscates the real issues.
The fundamental issues are:
- When does pregnancy begin?
- Does personhood begin at conception? Is a fertilized egg, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus a person with rights that trump those of the woman upon whose body it depends?
- Do women need “evidence” that if they are pregnant, odds are they are going to have a baby?
- Do women have the moral agency and fundamental rights to decide whether or not to commit themselves not only to the development of a life within their own bodies, but to a lifelong tie to another human being once a child is born?
Pregnancy begins at implantation. Human life has to begin with conception, but conception is not the same thing as pregnancy, the latter of which reason, science, and medical evidence agree begins when a fertilized egg successfully implants in the uterus and develops into a healthy embryo. Fertilized eggs take between six to 12 days to implant in the uterine lining. There simply is no pregnancy until this happens, which is why any method that prevents fertilization or implantation can not cause an abortion. A large share of fertilized eggs never successfully implant to establish a pregnancy: Between 50 and 80 percent of fertilized eggs never successfully impant and end in spontaneous miscarriage (and before a woman even knows she is pregnant) because of insufficient hormone levels or an non-viable egg or for some other reason.
Hormonal contraception, including emergency contraception, works to prevent fertilization in the first place. If you were really, really worried, therefore, about abortion at any stage, you would be a strong supporter of universal access to contraception, and to universal and easy access to emergency contraception, which needs to be taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse to prevent fertilization from taking place.
Anti-choicers are, of course, against both birth control and emergency contraception, which they attack by confusing conception with “personhood,” and then misrepresenting the mechanisms of action of contraception and the medical definition of pregnancy to blur the lines between contraception and abortion. By endlessly repeating “life begins at conception,” anti-choicers, “egged on,” if you will, by the USCCB and fundamentalist evangelicals, are trying to simultaneously sow confusion about when pregnancy begins and how birth control works to declare a fertilized egg to be a person. This is a precursor to promoting their goals of eliminating both contraception and abortion, making abortion the equivalent of murder, and by extension, controlling women’s bodies and their economic and social choices. This is exactly the goal of so-called personhood amendments that have been the subject of several ballot initiatives and of the “Sanctity of Human Life” act co-sponsored by Ryan and Akin.
Efforts to confuse basic biology are so widespread and so trump rational thinking that they have even tripped up some influential GOP leaders. In December 2011, for example, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (who in recent years converted to Catholicism) told Jake Tapper of ABC News that he believes that human life does not begin at conception but at “implantation and successful implantation” because if you say life begins at conception “you’re going to open up an extraordinary range of very difficult questions.” What he was really trying to describe was the beginning of pregnancy, while also acknowledging that “difficult questions” arise when you ascribe personhood to a fertilized egg. Shortly thereafter, however, and after he had his hand slapped hard by anti-choicers, Gingrich “clarified” his statement. to the global Catholic network, ETWN, as reported by the National Catholic Register:
In a statement sent by the Gingrich campaign to EWTN News, the former speaker of the House reiterated his belief that “human life begins at conception” and that “every unborn life is precious, no matter how conceived.”
Hmmmm, NEWT GINGRICH AND PAUL RYAN are great big TRANSHUMANISTS.
He vowed to support pro-life legislation aimed at the ultimate goal of legally protecting “all unborn human life.”
The issue of “personhood” is a theological and personal rather than medical or scientific question. While current teaching by the Vatican is that a fertilized egg is a “person” with full rights under the law, other religious traditions disagree. Jewish law and tradition does not recognize an egg, embryo, or fetus as a person or full human being, but rather “part and parcel of the pregnant women’s body,” the rights of which are subjugated to the health and well-being of the mother until birth. The United Methodist Church recognizes the primacy of the rights and health of women. Islamic scholars, like Jewish scholars, have debated the issues of “ensoulment” and personhood, and continue to do so with no over-riding consensus.
But the issue of “personhood,” legally speaking, really is most clearly articulated by Roe v. Wade under which restrictions on abortions performed before fetal viability, as described in detail by the Center for Reproductive Rights, were limited to those that “narrowly and precisely promoted real maternal health concerns. After the point of viability, the state was free to ban abortion or take other steps to promote its interest in protecting fetal life. Even after that point, however, the state’s interest in the viable fetus must yield to the woman’s right to have an abortion to protect her health and life.”
Intuitively and practically, women who face unintended and untenable pregnancies and choose abortion overwhelmingly prefer to terminate a pregnancy as early as possible.
Share of Abortions Performed in the United States by Length of Gestation, Courtesy of Guttmacher Institute
Nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended and about four in ten women with unintended pregnancies choose abortion. The vast majority—nearly 62 percent—of women who terminate a pregnancy do so before nine weeks of pregnancy, before any fetus is involved. Nearly 80 percent of such abortions occur before 10 weeks, and nearly 90 percent do so by the end of the first trimester, making clear that anti-choice assertions about high rates of late abortion are false. In fact, if anything, anti-choice laws and policies ranging from banning early, safe medication abortion, to mandated waiting periods and unnecessary ultrasounds all serve to push early abortions later than they otherwise would be, belying anti-choice concerns about, say, second trimester abortions, because they are in fact responsible for a large share of such abortions.
Women don’t need to listen to fetal heartbeats, see sonograms, have ultrasounds, and receive lectures on pregnancy to know what being pregnant means. They know that when they are pregnant, they will, in roughly nine months, give birth to an actual person. When considering an abortion, women weigh the responsiblities they have… to themselves and their own futures, to any born children they have or any they may plan to have at a future date.
Preventing conception or having an abortion isn’t just about getting through the “inconvenience” of a pregnancy, as the right often asserts, though in many situations pregnancy does in fact pose substantial risks to the health and lives of women (such as very high rates of maternal mortality among girls and women in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and among women of color in the United States). It is about whether or not a woman wants to and is able to make a lifelong emotional, financial, and physical commitment—often at substantial cost to herself and/or to her family—to the person who will exist if a pregnancy is successfully brought to term. In the case of a wanted pregnancy, or an unintended pregnancy a woman decides to carry to term this can be a joyous, hoped-for, and much anticipated event. Under other circumstances, and without recourse to safe abortion care, an unintended pregnancy is a forced pregnancy and a forced birth, and amounts to reproductive slavery. Only one person—the woman in question—has the right to decide whether, when, and under what circumstances to bring a new person into the world. And the vast majority of women who have an abortion know they are ending biological life that they can not or do not want to sustain because the commitment to an actual child is a moral commitment they are not able, willing, or ready to make, or can not make for reasons of health or life.
In the end, when you hear the phrase “life begins at conception,” remember the implications. In debating the “personhood” of eggs, embryos, and fetuses prior to viability, we are also implicitly and explicity debating the personhood of women. Because if you have no choice and control over your body, you are less than an actual person in the eyes of the law. If the right is so worried about abortion the closer a pregnancy gets to viability, then anti-choicers would be making sure both contraception and early, safe abortion were widely available. That really is not their actual concern.
The development of a potential human life requires conception as a first step. But that is not the same as either pregnancy or personhood. You can’t reduce complex reality to a slogan, and when you try to do so, you actually minimize the personhood of women.
As real left social progressive moral and ethic religious and humanists fought against this ideal of SUPREMACY and breeding goals of HUMANS to create a UTOPIA pushed by global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS ---NOT RELIGIOUS-----but placing this EUGENICS movement into the realm of making man in GOD'S IMAGE-------the REAL goals of EUGENICISTS showed its face in TRANSHUMANISM--------it was not GOD'S image those dastardly global 1% were looking to achieve---it was a BREEDING OF HUMANS to meet the work and pleasure needs of global 1% thinking themselves small g----gods and goddesses.
Looking at DOG BREEDS for example from WORKING DOGS to LAP DOGS ----this is TRANSHUMANISM via ANIMALS. ANIMAL BREEDING was done by natural hybridization----breeding wolves with coyotes for example to get domesticated dogs. The push toward interracial marriages was this natural breeding in humans. A PURE BLOODLINE was SUPREME------hybridized bloodlines were inferior.
'“As he went along, [Jesus] saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned,’ said Jesus, ‘but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him’” (John 9:1–3)'.
Today, TRANSHUMANISM attacks this ideal of what is HUMAN and GOD'S NATURAL CREATION at point of EGG AND SPERM and FETUS before the arrival of BABY. The global 1% are not HUMANISTS-----this movement is for the benefit of only the global 1% and any attempts to show SOCIAL BENEFIT----is FAKE DATA AND FAKE NEWS.
HUMANS AS DOG BREEDS HAVE PEOPLE WITH PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES MUCH LIKE OUR DOGS TODAY. THE EXCEPTION OF COURSE IS THE GOALS OF HUMANS LIVING IN PLANETARY MINING SLAVE COLONIES---WHERE THE VERY INTERNAL WORKINGS OF LIVING THINGS ARE BEING GENETICALLY MANIPULATED.
Does the Bible support eugenics?
Question: "Does the Bible support eugenics?"
Answer: Eugenics is a social movement that supports the supposed improvement of the human population via selective breeding and other means. It was originally developed by Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, and based upon Darwin’s theory of evolution. Eugenics was practiced openly in the early decades of the 20th century in many countries, including the United States. After WWII, eugenics by that name fell into disfavor when the extent of Nazi atrocities became known. Eugenicists advocate genetic screening, birth control, segregation, transhumanism, euthanasia, compulsory sterilization, forced pregnancies, and abortion.
Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion provider. Sanger was also a proponent of eugenics who railed against the “reckless breeding” of the “unfit.” In her book Woman and the New Race, she wrote, “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it” (Chapter V, “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families,” 1920). She desired “to breed a race of human thoroughbreds” and would rather a society “produce a thousand thoroughbreds than a million runts” (Radio WFAB Syracuse, February 29, 1924, transcripted in “The Meaning of Radio Birth Control,” April 1924, p. 111).
From its founding, Planned Parenthood has been involved with eugenics. In 1932 the organization received the endorsement of the American Eugenics Society. To this day, Planned Parenthood is targeting those whom Sanger and other eugenicists would call “unfit.” Their 1997 publication Plan of Action stated their “core clients” are “young women, low-income women, and women of color.”
The Bible does not specifically mention eugenics, but the idea behind eugenics--that man can better himself by ridding the world of “undesireable” people—is definitely not biblical. God told mankind to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28; 9:1, 7). No exception to that command is given in Scripture. In fact, King Solomon wrote in Psalm 127:3–5 that children are a heritage from the Lord and that the fruit of the womb is a reward from Him.
God gives us life and numbers our days (Job 33:4; 14:5). The sovereign Lord determines whether we live or die. For social engineers to usurp God’s authority in order to create a self-defined “master race” is evil. We are to obey God, not men (Acts 5:29).
English theologian G. K. Chesterton wrote in his 1922 book Eugenics and Other Evils, “There is no reason in Eugenics, but there is plenty of motive. Its supporters are highly vague about its theory, but they will be painfully practical about its practice” (from Chapter VIII, “A Summary of a False Theory”).
Eugenics is a meritless and immoral social engineering experiment with dubious chances for “success,” as defined by its supporters. It is a slippery slope in which Chesterton’s scientific madmen abrogate the authority of God and seek to create their own utopia on Earth. Through abortion and euthanasia, eugenics is simply murder. Job 24:14 says, “When daylight is gone, the murderer rises up, kills the poor and needy, and in the night steals forth like a thief.” This is the role of eugenicist: killing the poor and needy and those he deems “unworthy”; preventing a “poor quality of life” (in his estimation) by taking life; denying men’s liberty; and playing God.
“As he went along, [Jesus] saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned,’ said Jesus, ‘but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him’” (John 9:1–3). Who are we to decide who does or does not display the works of God? The Bible tells us to defend the weak (Matthew 25:35–36; Acts 20:35), not to kill them.
TRANSHUMANISTS are not religious---they are not tied to BIG G GOD. They are simply using genetic manipulation for their own benefit. Ergo, increasing longevity would benefit the global 1% who wants a 99% of people to return to living shorter lifespans by denying modern medicine. Any gene therapy treatment for longevity will be given to our 99% as long as that treatment is EXPERIMENTAL. If that longevity treatment is shown safe and effective----that treatment will ONLY be available for that .00014% of global 1%.
Meanwhile, goals of planetary mining slave colonies require genetic manipulation of HUMANS creating BREEDS OF HUMANS with biology to meet the harshness of SPACE. BREEDS OF HUMANS means we leave behind the GENUS SPECIES of HOMO-SAPIENS ------
GOD'S NATURAL evolution for HUMANS have led to one species ------SAPIENS------today's modern humans whether black, white, or brown are all SPECIES---SAPIENS.
TRANSHUMANISTS say----they are just hastening GOD'S natural evolution by artificially creating multiple SPECIES of HUMANS----just as breeding the SPECIES WOLVES created many species of DOGS.
TRANSHUMANISTS see themselves as small g gods------because they are interrupting big G GOD'S natural evolution of EVERYTHING LIVING-----plants, animals and now humans.
'Homo - Wikipedia
Homo ( Latin homō "human being") is the genus that encompasses the extant species Homo sapiens ( modern humans ), plus several extinct species classified as either ancestral to or closely related to modern humans (depending on a species), most notably Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis'.
The Pros and Cons of Gene Therapy
Although the term gene therapy was first introduced during the 1980s, the controversy about the rationality of this line of treatment still rages on. When this concept first surfaced, there were many who were vocal about their resentment, as they felt that tinkering with the genetic constitution of human beings was equivalent to playing God, and this they perceived as being sacrilegious. On the other hand, the scientific community was abuzz with excitement at the prospect of being able to wipe off certain genetic disorders in humans entirely from the human gene pool. At the center of the debate lies the aspect of the pros and cons of this therapy, which are often associated with the religious, ethical, and political beliefs.
What is Gene Therapy?
In simple words, this therapy involves the substitution of defective genes in a cell with genetically altered genes. Genes are the basis of heredity. They are made of triplets of nitrogenous bases that code for amino acids. The amino acids make up proteins, which in turn play an important role in the way our body functions. Hence, defective genes result in malfunctioning of metabolic pathways, which in turn manifests as genetic diseases. The contributing factors of these diseases are embedded deep within the genetic makeup. Till date, there is no cure for genetic disorders. These disorders can only be managed by alleviating the symptoms with the help of drugs or lifestyle-related modifications. No wonder, there is so much frenzy in the scientific community about the therapeutic effects of gene therapy.
Gene Therapy for the Treatment of Genetic Disorders
This therapy can be broadly classified into two types: somatic cell therapy and reproductive cell or germline therapy. In somatic cell therapy, the somatic cells are targeted for gene replacement, whereas in the reproductive cell therapy, the defective gene lies in the reproductive cells that are replaced by the correct gene. The alterations made in the genetic makeup of the somatic cells is corrective only for the patient. This change is not inherited by the offspring of the individual who is being treated. However, in case of germline therapy, the changes are passed on to the descendants of the treated individual. Hence, this line of treatment has the potential of altering the human gene pool for good.
The therapy depends upon vectors, which refer to the carriers of the normal genes that transfer them to the cells that have the defective gene. Viruses are one of the most popular vectors. Mostly, retroviruses have the capability of injecting their genetic material into the host cells. This viral genetic material is armed with the correct gene. Once it integrates with the host genome, all the cells resulting from cell division of the host cell will contain the copy of the correct gene in place of the defective one. The use of liposomes, adeno-viruses, and naked DNA are some other options for vectors that are being investigated to replace defective genes in organisms.
Pros of Gene Therapy
The single most factor that gives gene therapy its edge is its incredible therapeutic potential. The human race has always been under the continuous onslaught of diseases. As we find cure for some of the diseases, we are attacked by new and more virulent forms of disease-causing agents or pathogens. Although some of these diseases can be cured through medicines, genetic disorders cannot be cured unless the defective gene is replaced by the correct one. This is what this therapy aims at. By targeting the reproductive cells, such defects can be done away with. For individuals affected by genetic disorders such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and Huntington's disease, this therapy could be their only hope for cure.
Cons of Gene Therapy
Although virus is the most popular choice for a vector, this method is not foolproof. There is a specific point within the host genome where the correct gene should be introduced. There is no guarantee that the viral enzyme that is responsible for this step will be able to introduce the correct gene at the specific point in the host chromosome. In case, there is an error in this process, it could result in error in the genetic makeup of the cell, which in turn can result in serious disorders.
Moreover, the body's immune system may destroy the vector as it may perceive the carrier as a foreign body. Besides that, there could be problems with the introduction of the therapeutic DNA. Also, rapidly dividing nature of certain cells could be a hurdle. Due to this, the patient may need to undergo multiple therapy treatment processes. Problems could arise, when the immune system responds to a foreign body. It may attack the foreign body more aggressively when the foreign body invades the human body next time.
Given the technology involved, it is obvious that this treatment will be expensive. It will be just the rich who would be able to afford its benefits. This gives rise to increasing disparity between the rich and the poor. The rich will become richer and the poor may become poorer.
We know the potential of reproductive gene therapy. The scope of this line of treatment triggers the fear of eugenics, which in turn denotes the creation of a superior race, the idea that media has tried to embody in the concept of designer babies. Although this definitely isn't on the minds of geneticists but it is difficult to erase the repercussions of Hitler's belief in supremacy of the Aryan race.
Manipulating genetic makeup of man is absolutely unacceptable for those with strong religious beliefs. According to them, altering genes is similar to interfering with the Nature. It amounts to questioning God's will or in other words, 'playing God'.
Undoubtedly, the therapeutic advantage of this therapy is a blessing for the mankind. However, unless the techniques of this therapy are perfected, there would always be discussions on the pros and cons of gene therapy. So, should we deny mankind the blessings of a revolutionary scientific development that could help eradicate incurable diseases? Be it industrialization or its harmful effects, or the great source of power that nuclear energy is or its ugly face that we saw during the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, man has been walking the tight rope of scientific developments and its ill effects. Would gene therapy be too much for us to handle?
REVISIONIST HISTORY is painting a MARGARET SANGER who was indeed an AYN RAND LIBERTARIAN ---AKA FAR-RIGHT WING LAISSEZ FAIRE as women's rights leader when in fact she was the female face of those SOCIAL DARWINIST MEN
The REVISIONIST HISTORY of MOVING FORWARD takes these issues of EUGENICS early history to corrupt the REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE I AM MAN ----MORALS AND ETHIC HUMANIST people who were AGAINST EUGENICS----because it was against GOD'S NATURAL LAW and fought against SOCIAL DARWINISTS who were back in 1800s LAISSEZ FAIRE NEO-LIBERALS ----AKA ----ECONOMIC PROGRESSIVES----opposite of social progressives.
Social progressives called REFORM DARWINISTS fought the use of DARWIN'S theories to promote EUGENICS which led to TRANSHUMANISM as social benefit.
'Individuals who have been labeled "social Darwinists" did not use the term to describe themselves. Reform Darwinists and other critics of laissez-faire economic policies invented the label in the early twentieth century as a derogatory term to describe their opponents' position'.
You will notice all these SOCIAL DARWINISTS are MEN-----MALE ACADEMICS and scholars created all of this science. Somehow, white women are now being saddled as EUGENISTS/SOCIAL DARWINISTS especially if they were tied to our early US WOMEN'S MOVEMENT.
Social Darwinism Emerges and Is Used to Justify Imperialism, Racism, and Conservative Economic and Social Policies
Science and Its Times: Understanding the Social Significance of Scientific Discovery
COPYRIGHT 2001 The Gale Group Inc.
Social Darwinism Emerges and Is Used to Justify Imperialism, Racism, and Conservative Economic and Social PoliciesOverviewSocial Darwinism was a sociological theory popular in late nineteenth-century Europe and the United States. It merged Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection and Herbert Spencer's sociological theories to justify imperialism, racism, and laissez-faire (i.e. conservative) social and economic policies. Social Darwinists argued that individuals and groups, just like plants and animals, competed with one another for success in life. They used this assertion to justify the status quo by claiming that the individuals or groups of individuals at the top of social, economic, or political hierarchies belonged there, as they had competed against others and had proven themselves best adapted. Any social or political intervention that weakened the existing hierarchy, they argued, would undermine the natural order.
Darwin's theory of natural selection and the subsequent arguments by social Darwinists were based heavily on the work of Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), an early nineteenth-century British clergyman who wrote Principles of Population.
Malthus predicted that food resources increased arithmetically while human populations, unchecked by war, disease, or famine, increased geometrically. The disparity between resources and population meant a constant struggle among members of a given population for scarce resources. Darwin (1809-1882) applied the Malthusian principle to the natural world and posited his theory of natural selection. In Origin of Species (1859) he argued that the scarcity of natural resources led to competition among individuals, which he called "the struggle for survival." Through this competition, the best-adapted members of a given population were most likely to be successful, reproduce, and pass their beneficial adaptations on to their offspring. Poorly adapted members, he asserted, probably would not survive and therefore would not pass their lower quality traits to the next generation.
Social Darwinists argued on the basis of Darwin's theory of natural selection that the best adapted humans naturally rose to the top of social, political, and economic strata. Therefore, they argued, those members at the top of society, either by virtue of hard work or birth, were the best-adapted citizens. They used this rationale to argue against welfare policies that would help the poor by redistributing resources from the most fit members to the least fit, which they claimed would violate the natural order and allow the perpetuation of less fit members. Darwin himself did not promote social Darwinism and probably would have opposed many of the claims of social Darwinists.
Social Darwinism was the product of late nineteenth-century economic and political expansion. As the European and American upper class sought to extend its economic and political power, it employed scientific explanations to justify the increasingly obvious gap between rich and poor. The social Darwinists' reliance on natural laws allowed social, political, and scientific leaders to dismiss those who sought to redistribute wealth and power by claiming that reformers were violating the natural hierarchy. By extending their arguments to address entire nations, some social Darwinists justified imperialism on the basis that the imperial powers were naturally superior and their control over other nations was in the best interest of human evolution. The increasing public interest and respect for the sciences also contributed to the success of social Darwinism, as policies that had the stamp of scientific legitimacy were accepted as above political interest or influence.
While Darwin coined the term "struggle for survival," it was Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) who invented and popularized the concept of "survival of the fittest," and Spencer is widely considered the chief proponent of social Darwinism. Spencer's synthesis of evolutionary thought with sociology, psychology, and philosophy provided the stamp of scientific justification to the social and political leaders who sought to preserve the status quo and promote unrestrained competition. Originally trained as an engineer, Spencer developed an increasing interest in the natural and social sciences and proposed theories that linked them under the umbrella of evolution. He believed that biological evolution had brought about human intellect, which in turn produced society. Therefore, he argued, human intellect and social activities were products of biological evolution, and all three operated on natural laws. His work was a clear reflection of English industrialism, which was dedicated to promoting competition, exploitation, and struggle in the human social realm. He asserted that all aspects of life, be it human, plant, or animal life, were guided by the constant struggle in which the weak were subjugated by the strong. However undesirable humanitarians might find this process, he argued, it was the natural order of things and could not be altered by charity, welfare policies, or legislative actions.
Spencer was well known in Europe, but he was especially popular in the United States because his work provided Americans with a scientific justification for free competition, which was widely recognized as the most effective path to economic progress. Between the 1860s and 1900, Americans purchased more than 350,000 copies of Spencer's books, and his influence on late-nineteenth century figures such as Henry James, John Dewey, and Josiah Royce was significant. Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919) was one of America's most prominent followers of Spencer and popularized social Darwinism in America. He called Spencer his "teacher" and visited him in England. In 1882 Spencer arrived in the United States for a widely publicized tour that brought together American writers, scientists, politicians, theologians, and businessmen around the doctrines of social Darwinism.
William Graham Sumner (1840-1910), a Yale sociologist, was another prominent American social Darwinist. In What the Social Classes Owe to Each Other, Sumner argued against governmental and private charity attempts to improve the conditions of the lower classes. Like Spencer, Sumner believed that society evolved and operated in a deterministic fashion and any attempt to alter social hierarchies was doomed to failure. Using his authority as a scientist, Sumner legitimated aggressive competitive practices of American businessmen by declaring their activities to be the source of human evolutionary progress.
The best known American opponent of social Darwinism was Lester Ward (1841-1913), a paleontologist and one of the founders of sociology in America. Ward argued against the social Darwinists' natural justifications for the status quo and posited the theory of telesis, or planned social evolution. While social Darwinists focused on the role of competition in the natural and social worlds, Ward highlighted the importance of cooperation and marshaled historical evidence against Sumner to argue that human progress was the product of cooperative activities and intelligence, not merciless competition. He used this analysis to urge social and political leaders to adopt measures deliberately aimed at social improvement.
By the turn of the century social Darwinists were attacked and their credibility undermined by reform Darwinists, who used the same scientific theories about the natural world to uphold opposite conclusions about society. Reform Darwinists asserted that the scientific knowledge of evolution allowed social and political leaders to intervene in the natural order to better the human condition. Using Darwin's theory of natural selection and Gregor Mendel's recently rediscovered theories of inheritance, reform Darwinists argued that humans could control their own evolutionary destiny by adopting interventionist policies such as public sanitation and eugenics.
Individuals who have been labeled "social Darwinists" did not use the term to describe themselves. Reform Darwinists and other critics of laissez-faire economic policies invented the label in the early twentieth century as a derogatory term to describe their opponents' position. In doing so, they highlighted the influence of Darwin's theory of natural selection on social and political activities by emphasizing the social Darwinists' use of Darwin's work. More recent historians have emphasized the social influences that went into Darwin's theories, such as the nineteenth-century British tendency to emphasize competition and overlook cooperation and altruism in the natural world. Taken together, the work of early and late twentieth-century scholars illustrates the reciprocal influence between science and society, as social concerns affected the development of evolutionary theory and then that evolutionary theory influenced later social developments.
REVISIONIST HISTORY is painting a MARGARET SANGER who was indeed an AYN RAND LIBERTARIAN ---AKA FAR-RIGHT WING LAISSEZ FAIRE as women's rights leader when in fact she was the female face of those SOCIAL DARWINIST MEN
'The main difference between the two schools of thought is that social Darwinists believe that however social hierarchy exists, it is solely because the "fittest" rose to the top, reform Darwinists believe that the whole of society should be given the opportunities and resources to be able to rise to the top, rather than just the wealthy being able to do so'.
This was point of EUGENICS morphing towards TRANSHUMANISM.
Birth control leader Margaret Sanger: Darwinist, racist and eugenicist
by Jerry Bergman
Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood, the leading organization advocating abortion in the United States today. Darwinism had a profound influence on her thinking, including her conversion to, and active support of, eugenics. She was specifically concerned with reducing the population of the ‘less fit’, including ‘inferior races’ such as ‘Negroes’. One major result of her lifelong work was to support the sexual revolution that has radically changed our society.
1916 photograph of Sanger and two of her children, Grant and Stuart. Sanger did not like caring for her children and grossly neglected them. (From Sanger63).
Margaret Sanger (14 Sept. 1879–6 Sept. 1966) was the most prominent leader of the modern birth control and ‘free love’ movements. Sanger’s mother was a devout Irish Catholic; her father, Michael Higgins, was an unstable man unable to provide adequately for his large family. Although a skilled stonemason and tombstone carver, Mr Higgins was unable to properly care for his family because he alienated many of his customers with his radical politics. He drank heavily when he had the money while his 11 children ‘suffered bitterly from cold, privation, and hunger.’ He was so anti-Christian that when Margaret was baptized at St. Mary’s Catholic church on March 23, 1893, the event ‘had to be kept secret, as her father would have been furious.’
Sanger left her unhappy home as a teen, never to return—except briefly to study nursing at a co-educational boarding school called ‘Claverack College’. She was reportedly a poor student, skipped classes and neglected her part-time job. She dropped out of school and, after a brief stay at home to help care for her dying mother, moved in with her older sister and worked as a first grade teacher. She taught the children of immigrants but left after only two terms. This unhappy experience may have contributed to her later enthusiastic embrace of eugenics.
About this time she married William Sanger, an architect and painter, in 1902 and soon had three children. Her husband tried everything within his power to please his wife, but she turned out to be very difficult to satisfy. Margaret was also a distracted mother who did not like caring for children, including her own. She detested domestic life and grossly neglected her children to the point that neighbours had to step in to care for them. The letters her children wrote to their mother vividly reveal this neglect.
Margaret Sanger’s second husband, oil magnate and founder of the 3-in-1 Oil Company James Noah H. Slee, was also very wealthy. She wrote to her secretary, ‘I don’t want to marry anyone, particularly a stodgy churchgoer … Yet … how often am I going to meet a man with nine million dollars?’
Following her father’s footsteps, Sanger became involved in radical politics. When she was formally introduced to Marxism, anarchism, secular humanism, free love and Darwinism, she found her passion in life. Sanger used her husbands’ wealth to support her activities. Her sexual passion, though, resulted in free-love behaviour that neither of her two husbands could cope with.
Sanger’s writingsSanger wrote extensively, leaving ample documentation of her life. She founded Birth Control Review, published from 1917 until the early 1940s, and was either an editor or contributor to this publication during most of its existence. Sanger’s relationship with eugenicists was clearly expressed in the pages of Birth Control Review from its inception. Eugenics also ‘soon became a constant, even a dominant, theme at birth-control conferences’.
Sanger believed she was ‘working in accord with the universal law of evolution’. She maintained that the brains of Australian Aborigines were only one step more evolved than chimpanzees and just under blacks, Jews and Italians.Sanger believed she was ‘working in accord with the universal law of evolution’. She maintained that the brains of Australian Aborigines were only one step more evolved than chimpanzees and just under blacks, Jews and Italians. When arguing for eugenics, Sanger quoted Darwin as an authority when discussing ‘natural checks’ of the population, such as war, which helped to reduce the population. Her magazine even argued for ‘state-sponsored sterilization programs’, forcibly sterilizing the ‘less capable’. She won many academics and scientists to her cause, including Harvard University sociologists E. M. East, University of Michigan President Clarence C. Little and Johns Hopkins psychiatrist Alfred Meyer.
Sanger also made her eugenic views clear in her many publications, such as The Pivot of Civilization and Woman Rebel, stressing that birth control was not only ‘important with respect to controlling the numbers of unfit in the population’, but was the ‘only viable means to improve the human race’. For example, she wrote: ‘Birth control itself … is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.’ She boldly proclaimed that birth control was the only viable way to improve the human race. And while in her later years Sanger redefined what she meant by the unfit, ‘she increasingly saw feeblemindedness, the bogey of all hereditarians, as antecedent to poverty and social organization in the genesis of social problems.’
She also opposed charity because it allowed the less fit to survive and propagate more unfit children. The influence of Darwin on Sanger’s racism ideas is obvious from her writings. For example she wrote,
The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.—Margaret Sanger
‘The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets. According to one writer, the rapist has just enough brain development to raise him above the animal, but like the animal, when in heat, knows no law except nature, which impels him to procreate, whatever the result.’
Her conversion to eugenics
Early in her career, Sanger became a follower of Thomas Malthus, the same man that inspired Darwin. Malthus’s disciples—then called Malthusians and Neo-Malthusians—taught that ‘if Western civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to somehow be suppressed and isolated—or perhaps even eliminated.’
As Sanger stressed in a talk given at the Fifth International Neo-Malthusian and Birth Control Conference, the end goal of her movement was to produce a superior race: ‘To-day the average reliance of civilization is based upon iron and steel, bricks and mortar, and we must change this to the construction and evolution of humanity itself ’.
To do this she advocated euthanasia, segregation in work camps, sterilization and abortion. She was very successful in achieving this goal—more than half of the American states launched programs that sterilized their ‘unfit … with Virginia, California, and Kansas leading the way’. Sanger was also very influenced by Havelock Ellis,
‘ … the influential sociologist, “sexologist,” and eugenicist. Ellis’s position on eugenics is summed up by his own statement that appeared in the “Havelock Ellis Number” of Birth Control Review February 1919 issue: “We desire no parents who are not both competent and willing parents. Only such parents are fit to father and mother a future race worthy to rule the world.”’ Ellis frequently published articles in Birth Control Review, and Ellis had major influence on Sanger’s ideas. Chesler wrote that Ellis, who ‘always considered himself both a eugenicist and a socialist’, converted Sanger to his views. Furthermore,
‘Ellis made his most important contribution to the eugenics doctrine … when he assigned women to act as its chief enforcers. Women are critical agents of civilization’s progress … because … they alone have the power to produce and nurture … fitter babies. … Increased sex expression and wider use of birth control were thus significant tools in the eugenic program, and accordingly, he condemned eugenicists who refused to endorse birth control.’ Sanger wrote that her concern was not just that feeble-mindedness leads to criminality but
‘ … there is sufficient evidence to lead us to believe that the so-called “borderline cases” are a greater menace than the out-and-out “defective delinquents” who can be supervised, controlled and prevented from procreating their kind. … the mental defective who is glib and plausible, bright looking and attractive, but with a mental vision of seven, eight or nine years, may not merely lower the whole level of intelligence in a school or in a society, but may be encouraged by church and state to increase and multiply until he dominates … an entire community. The presence in the public schools of the mentally defective children of men and women who should never have been parents is a problem that is becoming more and more difficult.’
As early as 1917 Sanger was openly giving ‘public support to the eugenics movement’ and to ‘race betterment’ programs. The eugenicists on her board believed that ‘birth control would eliminate disease and deformity as well as empty the jails and orphanages’. Sanger ‘supported sterilization for the incarcerated and considered birth control a necessary component of racial improvement’. Her eugenics crusade, although toned down later in her life, was to consume her until she died in 1966. According to Roche, Sanger’s end goal was the same as Hitler’s: to ‘create a race of thoroughbreds’, a pure and superior race and her journal even ‘eerily’ foretold the ‘horrors of the Nazi “final solution”.’
Left, the cover of one of Sanger’s openly eugenic books. First published in 1922, it became one of the ‘text books’ of the movement for years and is still in print. Centre, one volume of papers presented at the International Neo-Malthusian and Birth Control Conference and published in 1926. The papers published in these proceedings make it clear that Sanger and many of her closest followers were foremost concerned with applying Darwinism to produce a superior race and improve the lot of humankind by eugenics. Right, the cover of one of the many books that Sanger wrote to teach sex-education to young people. This book was written to instruct mothers to teach ‘sex education’ to their young children. It was published in New York by Max N. Maisel, 1916. This set of books openly advocated immoral behaviour such as sex outside of marriages.
Racism and birth control clinicsMargaret Sanger opened her first birth control clinic in 1916 in the impoverished Brownsville section of Brooklyn to help control the problem of ‘over breeding’. The two-room storefront clinic was a great contrast to Margaret’s plush Greenwich Village home, but
‘ … since the clientele she wished to attract—“immigrant Southern Europeans, Slavs, Latins, and Jews”—could only be found “in the coarser neighborhoods and tenements,” she was forced to venture out of her comfortable confines.’
Sanger once addressed the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey, and received a ‘dozen invitations to speak to similar groups’.As her organization grew, Sanger set up more clinics in the communities of other ‘dysgenic races’—such as Blacks and Hispanics. Sanger turned her attention to ‘Negroes’ in 1929 and opened another clinic in Harlem in 1930. Sanger, ‘in alliance with eugenicists, and through initiatives such as the Negro Project … exploited black stereotypes in order to reduce the fertility of African Americans.’
The all-white staff and the sign identifying the clinic as a ‘research bureau’ raised the suspicions of the black community. They feared that the clinic’s actual goal was to ‘experiment on and sterilize black people’. Their fears were not unfounded: Sanger once addressed the women’s branch of the Klu Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey, and received a ‘dozen invitations to speak to similar groups’. Flynn claims that she was on good terms with other racist organizations.
Sanger believed the ‘Negro district’ was the ‘headquarters for the criminal element’ and concluded that, as the title of a book by a member of her board proclaimed, The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy, was a rise that had to be stemmed.
To deal with the problem of resistance among the black population, Sanger recruited black doctors, nurses, ministers and social workers ‘in order to gain black patients’ trust’ in order ‘to limit or even erase the black presence in America’.
Margaret Sanger around 1938 (From Sanger35). All authorized published photographs, including this one, were staged in an attempt to show Mrs Sanger as a conservative, serious, middle class and very respectable lady.
Her Birth Control League board was ‘made up almost exclusively of sociologists and eugenicists’, insuring that her eugenic goals were implemented.
Margaret and the Malthusian Eugenicists she worked with did not discriminate narrowly, but targeted every ‘non-Aryan’ ethnic group, whether red, black, yellow or white. They placed clinics wherever they judged ‘feeble-minded, syphilitic, irresponsible, and defective’ persons ‘bred unhindered’. Since, by their estimation, as many as 70% of the population fell into this ‘undesirable’ category, Margaret and her cohorts had their work cut out for them. Much of the early grass-roots work in her movement was done by ‘radicals’, mostly socialists and communists. Birth control colleague, Mrs. Besant, told a court:
‘I have no doubt that if natural checks were allowed to operate right through the human as they do in the animal world, a better result would follow. Among the brutes, the weaker are driven to the wall, the diseased fall out in the race of life. The old brutes, when feeble or sickly, are killed. If men insisted that those who were sickly should be allowed to die without help of medicine or science, if those who are weak were put upon one side and crushed, if those who were old and useless were killed, if those who were not capable of providing food for themselves were allowed to starve, if all this were done, the struggle for existence among men would be as real as it is among brutes and would doubtless result in the production of a higher race of men.’Sanger eventually recognized that this solution to the problems of crime, poverty and other social problems would never happen, at least in America. She then proposed a realistic solution that would prevent bringing the ‘weak, the helpless and the unwanted children into the world. We can refuse to overcrowd families, nations and the earth.’ The solution was positive eugenics by encouraging selective population control, and a means of achieving this more realistic goal was birth control.
Sanger’s war against the Church
Many churches opposed Sanger because she championed ‘sex without consequences’, eugenics, abortion and concentration camps for the unfit—all practices that Christianity has historically opposed. She stressed that she was against especially the Catholic Church because they opposed ‘science’, evolution, eugenics and race improvement. Sanger sought out allegiances with eugenicists to help blunt the opposition to her from the religious community.
The church’s view that the handicapped, diseased and deformed were all equals in the eyes of God ‘struck Sanger as anathema to the dictates of the Brave New World’ that she wanted to create. She even argued that persons ‘whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers’ were ‘irresponsible and reckless’ and that the ‘procreation of this group should be stopped’.
Sanger ‘attributed insanity, epilepsy, criminality, prostitution, pauperism, mental defectiveness’, and ‘everything from child labor to world war’, to ‘unchecked breeding’. The church taught these were sins that could be overcome and had many success stories to support this claim—and followed up on these successes with activities like Catholic charities. Until Hitler was defeated, Sanger did little to support positive eugenics (ie: encouraging the fit to have large families), which may have been supported by the church, but rather until later in her career advocated negative eugenics, the prevention of procreation of the unfit by law and sterilization.
Exporting eugenics and sterilization
Sanger also worked hard to spread her eugenic ideas about ‘human weeds’ to the rest of the world.Sanger also worked hard to spread her eugenic ideas about ‘human weeds’ to the rest of the world. Trombley claimed that eugenics, sterilization and birth control projects on a large scale were an Anglo-American export. He notes that Sanger’s birth control movement was the most powerful in the world, and in England its head offices were based at the London Eugenics Society. Sanger’s movement became a ‘truly international organization with the bulk of its multi-million annual budget coming from the United States.’ Most of the money came from taxes; the rest was donated by large corporations such as General Motors.
Sanger’s movement had an impact in many nations, including India, Singapore, Japan, China, Korea and much of Europe. Her programs involving sterilization of the unfit were adopted by Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and, most infamously, by Nazi Germany.
Planned Parenthood today boasts three-quarters of a billion dollars in annual revenue, most paid for by taxpayers, and is active throughout the world.
Her role as an iconMargaret Sanger is still widely admired for her work in the birth control movement. She was listed as one of the most influential persons of the twentieth century by Time-Life and was given many honours during her lifetime including an Honorary Doctorate of Law by Smith College. Paul and Anne Ehrlich wrote that
‘America’s heroine in the family planning movement was Margaret Sanger, a nurse. … Sanger and others who joined her rapidly growing birth control movement (then known as the Birth Control League) led the fight for … legal changes and for support from medical, educational, health, and religious organizations.’54Gloria Steinem wrote a laudatory chapter on Sanger in the Time volume listing the 100 most important Americans. Steinem falsely implied Sanger opposed eugenics and what it stood for and lionized her as a heroine of the women’s movement.
Rewriting historyAlthough Sanger’s involvement in eugenics and radical politics is well documented, many people today are attempting to whitewash her past eugenics involvement. Her ‘hagiographers, and her most devoted followers in the abortion rights movement, deny and gloss over the eugenicist nature of her program.’ Reasons for rewriting (or ignoring) history include the fear that ‘exposing birth control’s political history to hostile lawmakers and anti-choice lobbyists’ could affect their political goals. Other persons hid her past because they were concerned about tarnishing her ‘perceived labors on behalf of gender equity, self-determination, and redress of economic and personal privation’. Even many reprints of Sanger’s writings select sections that give a very distorted picture of her beliefs and goals.
Today Planned Parenthood stresses ‘family planning’, but the fact is ‘Sanger sold birth control as the crypto-eugenicist Marie Stopes had, as offering “freedom from fear” … which in aggregate would contribute to the wider social good. The reasoning was straightforwardly eugenic.’ To the end of her life she supported eugenics. In one of her last speeches she ‘attacked welfare programs for not eliminating the “feeble minded and unfit” and proposed “incentive sterilization”’, a program to bribe the ‘unfit’ to be sterilized.
Reasons for her enormous successA major reason for Sanger’s success was that she met a genuine need of the poor, many of whom had large families they could not adequately support. America, at that time, was changing from an agricultural to an industrial society. Large families could be supported on farms that needed the low-cost labour provided by many children, but large families could not be properly supported by most factory work. This motivated a drive to limit family size, a need that Sanger exploited to further her eugenic goals. The problem is ‘Sanger’s zeal blinded her to the reality that her actions occasionally worked against her desired purposes.’
It was only after World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust that Sanger abandoned her dream of producing a socialist, perfected eugenic society. She then played down her eugenic and socialist ideals and increasingly stressed the goals now advocated by Planned Parenthood. In Trombley’s words, ‘after the Nazi atrocities’ she clothed her movement in the words that Planned Parenthood advocates use today because the ‘Nazi’s eugenics became a word to strike fear in the hearts of ordinary people. Thus eugenics re-emerged from the doldrums of the post-Nazi period to exert an influence on a much larger scale than had ever been previously imagined.’ Partly because of her past association with known racists and a history of several decades of racist and eugenic rhetoric, the name of the American Birth Control League was changed to Planned Parenthood during World War II. Unfortunately, despite the name change, the racism of her movement lingered.
SummarySanger was openly influenced by Darwinists and various radicals in her highly successful campaign against Judeo-Christian morality and in support of eugenics. She worked hard to produce a socialist state based on eugenics, and her movement thrived because it partly fulfilled a real need in the early 1900s. Her movement played a major role in loosening sexual morality, contributing to the current high rate of illegitimacy and sexual immorality. Her goals for society may not have worked in her own life: Flynn claims Sanger died an alcoholic addicted to painkillers, a bitter woman feeling both abandoned and alone, a victim of her youthful, selfish hedonism. She lived and died by her credo published in the Woman Rebel, namely ‘The Right to be Lazy. The Right to be an Unmarried Mother. The Right to Destroy. The Right to Create. The Right to Live and the Right to Love.’
THIS ARTICLE IS LONG BUT PLEASE GLANCE THROUGH---THE REVISIONIST HISTORY TIED TO OUR WOMEN'S CHOICE MOVEMENT IS GLARING.
We spend this time fighting this REVISIONIST HISTORY of our REAL LEFT WOMEN'S MOVEMENT because this movement has nothing to do with EUGENIC AND TRANSHUMANISM----all SCIENCE motivated by MEN.
We simply ask people to see the obvious----WOMEN/FEMINISTS would not support a SOCIAL DARWINISM which is based upon women BEING DANGEROUS you know, all that PANDORA'S BOX thing -------
FOR GOODNESS SAKE.
'developed a scientific theory which fitted the era of industrialization and empire like a glove'
'Galton was of the opinion that “women tend in all their capacities to be inferior to men”. He viewed the woman as a “breeder”, central to the healthy development of the species. Many public figures adhered to this movement, including early feminists'....'The woman is intrinsically dangerous to the established order of things'.
The women called FEMINISTS in REVISIONIST HISTORY are women speaking the talking points of MALE SOCIAL DARWINISTS.
Our US women's movement was about WOMEN/FAMILIES/OPPORTUNITY ------
Here is the same MARGARET SANGER as far-right wing AYN RAND LIBERTARIAN LAISSEZ FAIRE called 'women's leader' returns in 21 st century=======HILLARY IS AN AYN RAND LIBERTARIAN LAISSEZ FAIRE NEO-LIBERAL ----just like MARGARET SANGER-----and yet today she is sold as a LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE women's leader-----
HILLARY IS A NASTY LADY WHO WORKS FOR THE GLOBAL 1% OLD WORLD KINGS---MOVING FORWARD EUGENICS AND TRANSHUMANISM----
This is the opposite of our REAL left social progressive I AM MAN AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT-----morals and ethics women's movement. TRUMP may have said this---but he would correct.
'Nasty woman - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasty_woman
"Nasty woman" was a phrase used by 2016 American presidential candidate Donald Trump to refer to opponent Hillary Clinton during the third presidential debate. The phrase made worldwide news, became a viral call for some women voters, and has also launched a feminist movement by the same name'.
EUGENICS AND TRANSHUMANISM has always been theories written by the rich ----our REAL left social progressive movements including women is about empowering the 99% of people-----that is the opposite of far-right wing AYN RAND LIBERTARIAN NEO-LIBERALISM
Hmmm, the goals of TRANSHUMANISM is to GENDER BLEND the natural state of women and men------only the global banking 5% freemason/Greek women working for men would want that---THEY DON'T CARE where MOVING FORWARD TRANSHUMANISM takes us.
Eugenics and Feminism
A Brief History
28th February 2017
Mena is a SOAS graduate in History & Law.
She is currently working with young people with severe emotional and behavioural difficulties and training to become a counsellor. She writes in her spare time, as a way of trying to unpick the logic of our confused times as well as trying to find a narrative thread that can guide our society towards a kinder space.
The woman is intrinsically dangerous to the established order of things. Based on Darwinian notions of survival of the fittest, British society has inbuilt mechanisms to ensure the proliferation of its favoured elements. The woman, as mother, is at the centre of this process. From the moment she begins to engage romantically with men, the woman is controlled and monitored; this is deemed to her own benefit lest she slip up left to her own choices. As the vehicle for the next generation, who the woman frequents, who she marries, how she dresses, where she works, how much she works, how she behaves whilst pregnant, and how she raises her child, all pose a potential threat to the future of our species when we adopt a biological approach to healthy human life, based around the preservation of certain social groups.
Eugenics as a science entered the mainstream in the late 19th century. Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, expanded on his cousin’s ideas of survival of the fittest and developed a scientific theory which fitted the era of industrialization and empire like a glove – that of superior human genetics, and the need to ensure the survival of society’s fittest. Galton had found a science to confirm 19th century social thinking, rendering colonization, the class system, and the subservience of women a scientific necessity. He and fellow eugenicists believed that, rather than let nature run its course to the detriment of humanity, human intervention was a necessary guiding force in the shaping of future generations. He coined the term ‘eugenics’ in 1883, from the Greek word “well-born”, accounting for a science that had little regard for who actually did survive, rather devoted to deciding who should survive. His theory was prompted by Darwin’s chapter on domestic animals, “The question was then forced upon me. Could not the race of men be similarly improved? Could not the undesirables be got rid of and the desirables multiplied?”. Eugenics spawned decades of scientific research on the biological inferiority of races, women and social classes that influenced government policy, economic and social thinking for the next century.
Galton was of the opinion that “women tend in all their capacities to be inferior to men”. He viewed the woman as a “breeder”, central to the healthy development of the species. Many public figures adhered to this movement, including early feminists. Caleb Saleeby was an advocate for feminists in the eugenics movement, viewing feminism without eugenics as potentially “ruinous to the race”. He expanded on Galton’s concepts in the early 20th century, discarding Galton’s notion of women as “breeders” preferring to position the woman as “nature’s supreme organ of the future”, in this Saleeby hoped that women could become agents of reproduction and would be able to develop what he termed “eugenic feminism”. Indeed his wishes were granted, and early feminists took easily to ideas of ‘rational reproduction’ that were in keeping with social and racial thinking at the time, this provided a consistent narrative around which they could begin to position themselves as citizens. For unlike other rights which could be compared and contrasted with those of men, reproductive and sexual rights were the easy argument back into the kitchen, and as such, for many early feminists it was an imperative to find a narrative that regulated women’s sexual and reproductive rights as well. In this way eugenics came to find itself entangled in women’s views on reproduction, motherhood, and the state, and narratives of strength, weakness, and worthiness came to enter the feminist sphere.
One of the most prominent figures of the early feminist movement was Marie Stopes, founder of the first birth control centre in the UK in 1921, Stopes was a fervent believer in eugenics and was opposed to contraception and abortion, preferring the avoidance of conception altogether. Marie Stopes founded the Society for Constructive Birth Control and Racial Progress as well as the magazine Birth Control News promoting a eugenic agenda. Stopes wrote in 1920, “I would legislate compulsory sterilization of the insane, feeble minded… revolutionaries… half castes”. Stopes sent love poetry to Hitler for the ‘German youth’ at the height of his campaigns, and wrote passionately on the theme of ‘racial purity’. Her views on the woman were adopted by female labour politicians who chose to sideline her more contentious ideas, in such great need of a rallying call for women’s rights they began the process of obfuscation we are still enduring today.
The progressive nature of a large part of Stopes’ views is undeniable, particularly her insistence upon the enjoyment of sex by women in equal measure to men; however given the ideological underpinning to her thinking their impact was one of social engineering. The modern offspring of her organisation in the UK empowers women to be proactive with regards to contraception and sexual education, as well as giving access to abortion. The history of the organisation does not, and cannot detract from the importance of women’s control over their reproductive health, however any attempt to downplay of the centrality of her eugenic views to her thinking means that we whitewash a large part of feminist history. If the core thinking behind birth control was to rid society of ‘undesirables’, of the children of immigrants, of the disabled and the mentally ill, then it is vital that this history is openly analysed and discussed as well as our current thinking on how we ‘manage’ our fertility and as such our population. It is clear that this remains a sorely underexplored area of feminist thought, without further exploration of which there can be no universal ‘feminist’ success.
Marie Stopes was not alone in her time, Margaret Pyke was another huge figure in family planning in the UK and another fervent eugenicist. Eugenics dominated national conversation around the development of society for the following decades, and was at the root of left and right wing thinking about the state – indeed to the early proponents of the welfare state such as Sydney and Beatrice Webb, Bertrand Russell, William Beveridge, J.M. Keynes and H.G. Wells eugenic thinking was at the heart of their theory as the meeting point between the individual and the ‘collective’. It was only when a certain Adolf Hitler took a bit too keenly to these ideas that it was no longer acceptable to speak of eugenics, and the conversation shifted to the notion of ‘population control’ that we find recurrent in discourse today.
This process was not limited to Britain, Americans took quickly to eugenic ideas and were hearty in their application; Scandinavian welfare states were rooted in eugenic theory and government sponsored mass forced sterilization programmes have been widespread the world over throughout the course of the 20th century, from Puerto Rico, to Japan, via Peru. The concerning fact of our day is that eugenic notions have found new expression with the advent of international women’s health organisations, many of which actively support sterilisation programmes aimed at the poorest in society. The woman has become a convenient vehicle for a new form of apparently benevolent imperialism through social embetterment. These organisations, by virtue of their scientific character are often favoured for their practical approach to women’s reproductive health. However these charities do not promote active sexual health via methods that are standard in western societies such as condoms, oral contraceptives, or IUDs. Rather these initiatives favour sterilisation, with bonuses for clinics that perform more than 30 in one day, as well as for doctors and NGO professionals who sign patients up. In India the treatment of women in sexual health clinics is sordid, as part of programmes sponsored by societies such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In Kenya a court case has been brought against the government and organisations such as Marie Stopes International and Medecins sans Frontieres (MSF) for the forced sterilisation of HIV positive women, and other studies have revealed similar experiences of women in Uganda, Namibia and South Africa.
In the context of a global ideology centred around population control, a woman’s freedom over her own body forms the most dangerous part of her rights, for the woman – in constant need of supervision and guidance in the public sphere, freedom over her body awards her agency over the right to decide future generations, and thus the future of society. This is why the roots of our current thinking are in such deep need of consideration and analysis, for we must understand what is so threatening to the established order in giving women the freedom to have complete control over their bodies. Given the eugenic origins of the conversation surrounding women’s reproductive rights that persisted publicly into the 1950’s, it is imperative that we assess the impact on our current mainstream conversation around women’s bodies.
To this day there is very little real notion of female ownership over her body, marital rape was legal just over 20 years ago in the UK. The woman’s body has never been hers. Invasive, often painful reproductive choices were offered to women long before sexual choices were, making it patently clear that progress was never intended to benefit women, rather the greater good of society and science through the medium of the female body. Only now are we beginning to see the ground shift in the conversation surrounding women’s sexuality and therefore actual freedoms for the woman inside her own body. However reproductive freedoms are still at stake, forced sterilisation is in practice to this day in the US and the UK, and the fact that phenomenal amounts of money and resources are being pumped into genetic research whilst people live in appalling conditions in one of the richest countries in the world implies that not very much has changed at the root of our thinking. And this should concern women.
Provided arguments surrounding superior genetics remain, women will not be granted social freedoms over their bodies, it is anathema to the concept. Within this structural vision of gender it is impossible for a woman to be viewed for anything more than her body, as life giving is the central function to her existence, her body becomes central to her social identity. The focus on population control rather than on individual bodies gives future value to the female body which cannot be left to the disposal of the woman alone. This process ensures the parallel demonisation and fetishisation of female sexuaity and what is considered feminine, and will continue to justify the necessity of unequal treatment. By placing science as the ultimate regulator of human society we are abdicating responsibility as to the healthy functioning of our societies; where we should be looking to develop infrastructure to care for our people we are instead looking for techniques and narratives that justify the ethnic and social cleansing of our populations. This process takes place through the woman and as such the woman is agent as well as victim of oppression, dangerous in absolutely every sense.