These footnotes below are intended
to document with sources the conclusion made above. One might argue with the
theme, but one should not argue with the hard data and especially with the
direct quotes of the primary sources, for the abortion-eugenics argument of
Sanger and Stopes seems first and foremost about racism.
[ 1 ]
p.12, Birth Control Review, May 1919. If Sanger is to
heeded, then birth control equates to Darwinian natural selection. She
concludes in advance that this "selection" will
improve the species by limiting a perceived population explosion among the
"unfit." Robert Samuelson writes of current demographics trends, "There's no
more population 'explosion.' In wealthier countries, motherhood is going out
of style and plunging birthrates portend population loss. This is a hugely
significant development, even if we don't fully understand the causes -- 30
years ago experts didn't predict it -- or consequences. One way or another,
the side effects will be massive for economics, politics and people's
well-being. Indeed, they may already have started. Is it a coincidence that
Germany and Italy, two countries on the edge of population decline, are so
troubled?" (The Washington Post Writers Group, 26 May 2006)
Sanger was among those "experts." She foresaw a eugenic paradise, and failed
to foresee instead the decline which it has assisted into being.
UCLA'S Anderson Forecast published an article written by Nicholas Eberstadt
entitled "Four Surprises in Global Demography." (A Newsletter of FPRI's
Center for the Study of America and the West, Volume 5, Number 5, July
2004). It reads in part:
...today we can observe some important
and surprising exceptions to these generalizations. Four of these
unanticipated trends are (1)
the rapid spread of sub-replacement fertility, (2) the
emergence of unnatural gender imbalances among the very young, (3)
sustained increases in death rates, and (4) American
The Rapid Spread of
Sustained reductions in family
size in the context of peace and social progress-were first witnessed in
late eighteenth-century Europe. In the first half of the twentieth
century, European countries unveiled another demographic first: non-
catastrophic sub-replacement fertility. During the interwar period, a
number of European states reported fertility patterns that, if
continued, would lead to an eventual stabilization and indefinite
population decline thereafter, absent offsetting immigration. These low
fertility regimens were entirely voluntary: heretofore, such low birth
Rates had virtually always been attended by war, pestilence, famine, or
disaster. Europe experienced a baby boom after World War II, but
sub-replacement fertility has now returned with a vengeance.
To maintain long-term
population stability, a society's women must bear an average of about
2.1 children per lifetime. According to projections of the U.S. Census
Bureau, Europe's total fertility rate (or TFR-births per woman per
lifetime) is about 1.4. Indeed, nearly all the world's developed
regions-Australia and New Zealand, North America, Japan, and the highly
industrialized East Asian outposts of Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and
South Korea- are reporting sub-replacement fertility. (Israel remains an
exception.) But sub-replacement fertility is clearly no longer mainly a
developed-nation phenomenon. If the Census Bureau's projections are
roughly accurate, just about half the world's population lives in
sub-replacement countries or territories.
Apart from Mongolia, according
to the Census Bureau, all of East Asia is sub-replacement, as are
Thailand and Burma in Southeast Asia, Kazakstan and Sri Lanka in
South-Central Asia, many Caribbean societies, and most South American
Perhaps the biggest surprise,
given received notions about the Arab/Muslim expanse, is the recent
spread of sub- replacement fertility to parts of the Arab and the Muslim
world. Algeria, Tunisia, and Lebanon are now sub-replacement countries,
as is Turkey. And there is the remarkable case of Iran, with a current
TFR of under 1.9, which is lower than the United States'. Between 1986
and 2000, the country's TFR plummeted from well over 6 to just over 2.
If modernization and Westernization are the handmaidens of sustained
fertility decline, as is often supposed by students of demography, both
terms are apparently being given a rather new meaning.
There are no reliable methods
for anticipating just how low fertility levels may sink, or how long
sub-replacement fertility may persist in various locales.
One consequence, however, is already clear: it will force a great
aging of the populations affected.
All of the developed countries
are already "graying." This is most pronounced in Japan, where, by the
year 2025, it is expected that one out of nine people will be 80 or
older. Japan's prospective aging is unprecedented, and the scale of the
transformation suggests the enormousness of the challenges that will
accompany it. Japan, Europe, and North America are places where people
traditionally got rich before they got old. In the decades ahead, many
national populations are going to get old before they get rich.
China promises to be the most
important case in point. Thanks to low levels of mortality, its
population control program, and its now-low fertility,
China is aging at a breathtaking velocity. Between 1975 and 2000,
China's median age jumped from just over 20 to about 30; by 2025, it is
projected to rise by nearly another decade. By then, it is quite
possible that China's median age will be higher than America's. But
China is much poorer than Japan or the U.S. were at every comparable
stage of their aging processes.
China's rapidly aging
population faces a looming triple bind. Apart from the family, China
lacks any functional nationwide arrangements for pensioning its elders.
Thus, a great many Chinese will have to continue to work into old age.
But working life in China typically entails more physical labor, which
does not favor the frail, than work in Japan or the United States.
China's aging problem has the makings of a slow-motion humanitarian
The term, "sub-replacement fertility" refers to a
population. Sanger and her allies referred to the individual in their
enthusiasm for birth control. The two were and remain unalterably
interconnected. Eberstadt's article speaks of the "rapid spread of
sub-replacement fertility." The lingo is fancy, while the meaning is
plain. A population in decline is a population which opts for birth
control, to add to the various other causes for death of the young -- a
replacement generation, on which so much is predicated. Without
reproduction equal to the needs of replacing a population, that
population's culture will dwindle and its ideals, values and culture
must necessarily wither. The Darwinian understanding suggests that this
evidences that population as plainly unfit. It is to this that Margaret
Sanger has contributed, and therefore her words need be revisited to
experience with the hindsight of a century's experimentation what "kill
it" -- her words verbatim -- has meant to whole nations and cultures.
[ 2 ]
"Millions" is a number readily agreed to and
unchallenged in Planned Parenthood documentation, much like the ubiquitous
"Billions served" message of fast food restaurants. The scholarly Rabbi Eli
Schochet of Shomrei Torah commented that "millions" is a word often reserved
to define the Holocaust of World War II, or the results of decades of
pogroms of Soviet Russia, the genocide in Cambodia under Pol Pot, and the
wholesale slaughter in Rwanda, but rarely stirs a similar critical
conclusion for many in the ongoing political debate about abortion, which
entities should support it financially and what it means.
Irrespective of morality, abortion and birth control seem to be massively
impacting Western populations, as they dwindle in numbers unimagined at the
start of the birth control phenomenon of the 20th century.
The most "fit" societies seem to be those who evidence reproductive
outcomes of approximately 2.1 children per family, while "unfit" societies
evidence reproductive rates below this statistical biological replacement
value. Sanger's eugenic theories seem to have gotten Darwin's theory of
"survival of the fittest" wholly wrong, as demographically tested and
verified over the span of many decades.
Societies which abort their young in greatest numbers do not show signs
of survival, but rather withering. Sanger's eugenics has contributed to
this withering numbered now in the "millions." There is no debate in
population figures, and no long term political value in pretending the
demographic changes are not occurring.
One might look at how "inadequates" were discussed among the peers of
Sanger, and in the same journal. As an example: "Reference is
made throughout this discussion to the mentally, physically and socially
inadequates. One might ask who are included in this group, since it is
for those so afflicted that sterilization is suggested as a desirable
measure Those classed as inadequate include 1) The Mentally Defective,
2) The Mentally Diseased, 3) The Epileptics, 4) Those
afflicted with certain physical disorders, such as Leprosy, 5) The
Defective Delinquents, 6) The Moral Degenerates, 7) The Drug
Habituates, 8) Those afflicted wlth social disease, such as Syphilis,
9) The confirmed Criminals." In "Selective Sterilization," by E. A.
Whitney, MD, Birth Control Review, Vol. XVII, No. 4, April 1933.
In the same issue, one finds: "By selective sterilization we
mean the sterilization of defective individuals in order to prevent them
from procreating them kind. By preventing the birth of mental defectives, we
raise the general average level of intelligence throughout the population --
since the preponderance of births in the average and superior group is
relatively increased." In "Towards Race Betterment," by Theodore
Russell Robie, MD, Birth Control Review, Vol. XVII, No. 4, April 1933.
[ 3 ]
p. 117, Birth Control in America, "The
Career of Margaret Sanger," by David Kennedy, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
[ 4 ]
p. 2, Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921.
[ 5 ]
In Women and the New Race, Eugenics Publishing Co.,
1920, 1923. One should note Sanger's choice of "mercy" to describe
killing an infant. It is, at best, a macabre choice. But Sanger stated that
the urge to infanticide was greater than the urge to motherhood. For any who
might doubt this, the book is available from Project Gutenburg as a free
Women and the New Race, one will read, "If infanticide did not spring
from a desire within the woman herself, from a desire stronger than
motherhood, would it prevail where women enjoy an influence equal to that of
men? And does not the fact that the women in question do enjoy such
influence, point unmistakably to the motive behind the practice?"
Moreover, Sanger corresponded with Ernst Rudin, architect of the National
Socialists in Hitler's Germany, and Sanger published Rudin's "Eugenic
Sterilization: An Urgent Need" in
Birth Control Review, which Margaret Sanger started and continued to
influence until its demise in 1940. The article appeared three months before
the German 'sterilization law was passed in Germany.
this seem out of place for Sanger, she wrote in
A Plan for Peace (1932) of her plan "to apply a
stern and rigid policy of sterilization transmitted to offspring." Her
plan also called for giving "certain dysgenic groups in our population their
choice of segregation or sterilization," and apportioning "farm lands and
homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work
under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives."
other words, eugenic concentration camps for those deemed "dysgenic" -- an
adjective defined as "causing deterioration of hereditary qualities of a
[ 6 ]
The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May
1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.
[ 7 ]
Woman's Body, Woman's
Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon. In
addition, in 1939, Margaret Sanger organized the “Negro Project,”
designed to eliminate members of what she considered an “inferior race.” She
claimed “the masses of Negroes ... particularly in the South, still breed
carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among
Negroes, even more than among whites, is from that portion of the population
least intelligent and fit...” “Beyond Birth Control: The Population Control
Agenda." L. Gordon,
Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right (New York: Penguin Press, 1990),
p. 332. See also, G. Grant, Killer Angel: A Biography of Planned
Parenthood’s Founder Margaret Sanger (Ars Vitae Press: Franklin, Tenn.,
1995), p. 72-73.
fact, throughout the 1930s, Sanger spoke to convocations of the Ku Klux
Klan. (See pages 366-367 of
Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography (1971 reprint by Dover
Publications, Inc. of the 1938 original published by W.W. Norton & Company)
She argued that there were in fact "genetically inferior races." The overt
racism of Margaret Sanger, found documented in her own words has been
suppressed in favor of the Mathusian argument for abortion as the answer to
Turner, one of the co-chairs of the State of the World Forum, wants to
drastically reduce the world’s population:
simplest answer is that the world’s population should be about two billion,
and we’ve got about six billion now. I haven’t done the actuarial tables,
but if every woman in the world voluntarily stepped up and said, ‘I’ll only
have one child,’ and if we did that for the next 80 to 100 years that would
reduce the kind of suffering we’re having. ... We could have 10 billion
people living below the poverty line, or we could have two billion people
living well, and having color TVs and an automobile. The planet can support
that number of people, and that’s the way it was in 1930. … Personally, I
think the population should be closer to when we had indigenous populations,
back before the advent of farming.”
Source: T. Rembert, “Ted Turner: Billionaire, Media Mogul ... And
should be noted, in order to measure his ideological stance with his
personal behavior, Turner has had three unsuccessful marriages and has
five children. [The emphasis is mine.] It seems obvious that
his view of what other people should do to prevent over-population is not
related to his own personal life. This is essentially an elite racist
argument, in which the wealthy ideologue sees reduction in another ethnic,
cultural or racial "class" as good, while said advice is not applicable to
his class and station.
[ 8 ]
Quoted in Population Implosion Worries a Graying Europe,
by Michael Specter in the
New York Times, July 10, 1998.
Specter further quotes Dr. Pierpaolo Donati, professor of sociology at the
University of Bologna and a leading Catholic intellectual "Prosperity has
strangled us. Comfort is now the only thing anybody believes in. The ethic
of sacrifice for a family -- one of the basic ideas of human societies --
has become a historical notion. It is astonishing." So for Sanger, urban
poverty was linked to "uncontrolled" fertility, while controlled fertility
would "breed" prosperity. The problem is that prosperity is an
intergenerational economic phenomenon, and requires, as Chesnais [cited
above] states, a world with "children in it." Birth control, therefore
must also be linked to infertility of whole national and cultural
populations, whose demographic decline is most assuredly linked to birth
control and abortion, as well as issues of prosperity and taxation.
similar view, British Member of Parliament David Willetts has written,
"Europe faces a birth-dearth. Nobody wants to force women to have more
children than they wish. But we have created an environment in which people
are having fewer children than they aspire to. ("At the Launch of his
Pamphlet 'Old Europe?', 23 Sep 2003.) Willetts added, "What Europe
really needs is more babies. This is not a matter of forcing traditional
roles on women: countries were the feminist revolution has advanced furthest
also have higher birth rates. Nor can people be forced to have more children
than they want."
Rakhsat Sleiman offers a similar conclusion in "Europe's Demographic
Evolution Through to the Year 2050" (Centre d'Etudes Prospectives et
d'Informations Internationales, June 2006). He writes, "...the fall in
the working populations and the number of young people will be sufficiently
large to lead to a reduction in population sizes, that in some cases will be
another similar viewpoint, George Weigel addressed Europe's "two culture
wars," illuminating the trajectory of Europe's demographic crisis and its
"self-defeating, nihilistic, post-modernism." He wrote, "The overall
picture is sobering enough. Not a single European Union member has a
replacement-level fertility rate, i.e., the 2.1 children per woman needed to
maintain a stable population. Moreover, eleven EU countries—including
Germany, Austria, Italy, Hungary, and all three Baltic states—display
'negative natural increase' (i.e., more annual deaths than births), a clear
step down into a demographic death-spiral." [Commentary Magazine, May
"death-spiral" began with the advocacy of state-sponsored birth control and
abortion. As Margaret Sanger so clearly said, "Kill it." It is societal
norms, whole populations and cultures which are being "killed," i.e., proven
"unfit," while Sanger saw the unfit as poor minorities who she happily
called "reckless breeders."
This view is only now beginning to be documented as racist, though it has
been from the start.
considering the future, the European Union commissioned and published a
report which speaks to the critical need for "replacement bodies", which
states, "...demographic growth in the EU has resulted more from immigration
than from natural increase." [p. 19, The New Global Puzzle - What World
for the EU in 2025?, Nicole Gnesotto and Giovanni Grevi, eds., EU
Institute for Security Studies, 2006.]
is proof from contemporary demographers that population replacement, due to
sub-replacement fertility which is fueled in part by prevalent, state and
insurance sponsored abortion, is necessary for the simple survival of a
people and a culture. These demographic realities are beginning to overturn
Malthusian arguments, and expose the lunacy of eugenics as espoused by
Sanger and others of her convictions.
those poor who are the new migrant pool of "replacement bodies," birth
control having exterminated the "thoroughbreds" of Sanger's and Stope's
eugenic fantasy, and not merely the "unwanted" and "defective."
true Darwinian would conclude that those who opt for birth control and
abortion are in fact "self limiting" and therefore proving themselves
"unfit," a conclusion which would surely have astounded this naive yet
central woman in the forefront of feminism and "abortion rights." For
today's fallacious interpreters of Darwin, the single fact of natural
selection is that fitness is the natural way forward, while aborting a
generation is the exact opposite -- though it fulfills the Maltusian image
of population reduction -- the polar opposite of natural selection.
[ 9 ]
p. 488, Chapter XIV, "Conclusion." Charles Darwin, (1859)
On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the
preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John
Murray. 1st edition, 1st issue.
[ 10 ]
op. cit. p. 490.
[ 11 ]
Robert A. Heinlein, quotation from Heinlein's address at the U.S.
Naval Academy April 5, 1973.
[ 12 ]
Mother Teresa, in The Nobel Peace Prize 1979 Nobel Lecture, 11