141
When the Lord first began to work in my heart about His plan for families, and having children, my husband and I did a lot of reading and research before we came to a final decision. We thought it would be logical to see where the practice of birth control originated, what its implications on society were, etc. What we found was shocking. The “mother of women’s freedom” is often said to be Margaret Sanger. She had a “Hitler mentality”, believing it her duty to help rid the world of the lesser humans, and allow women to experience a sexual revolution, free from the fear of pregnancy, and the horrors of motherhood. She began what is now known as Planned Parenthood. Below is just a very small commentary on her “Eugenic Legacy”. It is a mind under the control of Satan.
“Those who do not care for such a bourgeois life (by that she means a life where a woman was ‘free’ to pursue her own interests and amusements without the ‘burden’ of children), who rather pursue true cultivation in the rhythms of a life of raising children, are by implication unfit.” (Author’s note: Sanger’s vision of the life of mothers in large working-class families makes quite clear that she thought that large families make a woman unfit:)
Instead, such a mother is tired, nervous, irritated and ill-tempered; a determent, often, instead of a help to her children. Motherhood becomes a disaster and childhood a tragedy…. She is a breeding machine and a drudge-she is not an asset but a liability to her neighborhood, to her class, to society. She can be nothing as long as she is denied means of limiting her family.
Instead, such a mother is tired, nervous, irritated and ill-tempered; a determent, often, instead of a help to her children. Motherhood becomes a disaster and childhood a tragedy…. She is a breeding machine and a drudge-she is not an asset but a liability to her neighborhood, to her class, to society. She can be nothing as long as she is denied means of limiting her family.
Thought-provoking question of the day: Can a thing, born out of such an evil intent, evolve into a neutral entity?
7 comments
Margaret Sanger–how wrong she was!! A mother of many children was, in Sanger’s words, “NOT an asset to her neighborhood”?! On the contrary, she is BUILDING A NEW ONE with her own children…And, being a nervous wreck of a mother is, in Sanger’s opinion, worse than choosing to eliminate one’s own children from any existence at all?! She obviously was very selfish, and did not even consider children to be human, certainly she thought they were not worthy of anyone’s loving attention and time, certainly not even worthy to be born…I think she was mostly writing to pacify her own desires to not be a mother or a home-maker, and at the same time, she gathered many supporters who as well, did not think through the consequences of these radical ideas, or were also so blinded by Satan’s lies and false promises (as was Eve), that they bought into it with no trouble and began this most destructive revolution–the women’s movement toward masculinity or toward the role of the man. I think that God has warned us all of this when in Genesis, He says that Eve’s desire shall be for her husband, BUT that her husband SHALL rule over her. God will straighten it all out again some day, somehow!
I agree that Sanger’s ideology was wrong.
However, she did NOT invent birth control!
As long as there have been human beings there has been birth control!
It’s called abstinence.
Yes, the rhythm method may have been less successful than The Pill; but it’s still considered birth control—even in those evil, public-school, government approved textbooks!
Elizabeth is right…Sanger definitely did not invent “the practice of birth control” and my post was unclear about that. I meant, rather, to point to Sanger as the first person who made the practice of birth control a wide-spread, commonly accepted practice. Prior to her campaign, the outward practice of birth control was absolutely taboo among “the church”, and I assume among the general public as well. I think it stands to reason that if so many were against it then, there may have been some validity to their objections. (The church officials warned that such an acceptance and wide-spread practice would increase marital infidelity, fornication, and a host of other evils we have seen come to fruition.)
But thank you, Elizabeth, for bringing clarity to that post.
Word Warrior–the grace with which you answer questions is a testament to your gentle spirit; and I admire that.
You would be hard pressed to find a non-believer answer with such grace when questioned regarding their belief system. “A gentle answer turns away wrath,” yes?
I have enjoyed our discussion.
Thank you.
While I agree that Sanger was prejudiced against large families, I disagree that birth control is a bad thing. People are going to have sex, and I would rather see a girl never get pregnant than have to go through the emotional and physical anguish of an abortion. The sad fact is, many young people that have sex think the easier way out is an abortion, and would not go through with the pregnancy.
carters makes a baby sleeping sack thing that zips up but has a velcro covering for the zipper so babies cant strip….they stay warm and cannot get undressed…it also makes doing 3am diaper changes sooooo much easier.
“I would rather see a girl never get pregnant than have to go through the emotional and physical anguish of an abortion.”
No one “has to” go through the anguish of having her unborn child killed.