Wednesday, September 22, 2010

40 Days, and Margaret Sanger's "human weeds"

As promised, here's the first of my "40 Days for Life" blog posts for this year's campaign. Don't miss the real 40 Days for Life blog; today's entry is here.

To start things off, do go and read this terrific entry from a blog that is new to me:

I want to address Sophie Fletcher's comments from yesterday's post comparing Mother Teresa and Margaret Sanger.

Sophie's comments are in red italics.

Wow. I don't mean to butt in here, but I am sensing a bit of bias against Sanger.

Actually, you should be sensing a huge bias against Sanger here. :)

I do have a few questions as to some of your points, Leila. I'm sorry if I word my questions bluntly--I don't mean to offend, but I haven't got much time right now and I am simply curious.

Totally fine. I love straight talk!

You say "Mother Teresa was truly humble and radiated joy" etc while Sanger was "proud, troubled selfish and never at peace." I thought both Mother Teresa and Sanger did much for others, especially the poor--Mother Teresa through her physical care, and Sanger through her distribution of contraception.

Oh, yes, they both did a lot for others. In a way that was diametrically opposed.

Mother Teresa loved and cared for the untouchables of society, taking them out of the streets, picking maggots out of their rotted, dying flesh and giving them a clean place to lay, food to eat and water to drink, loving them till their last breath. Many of those she cared for reported that this was the first time in their lives that they had been loved, listened to, touched and cherished.

Margaret Sanger did a lot for others, too. She called for poor people, black people, immigrants and disabled to to stop reproducing themselves since they were "unfit" and "human weeds." She worked her whole life to achieve her goal of culling the herd of undesirables, all while neglecting her children and carrying on multiple adulterous affairs. [All links and text colors in original--E.M.]

Read the whole thing: the writer lays out the difference between compassion for life, and the notion that life is not a gift and that undesirables shouldn't reproduce.

From the "Stopped Clock Can Be Right Occasionally" files comes news that Notre Dame has created a position for the coordinator of life issues:

.- Continuing its response to the controversy over President Obama’s speech at the prominent Catholic institution, the University of Notre Dame has announced the creation of a coordinator for pro-life initiatives. The new coordinator says she is honored to hold the position and will work to advance the Catholic identity of the university.

The Task Force on Supporting the Choice for Life, which ended its service in May, recommended to Notre Dame president Fr. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., the creation of structures to implement its previous recommendations and to continue its work. Fr. Jenkins then created the position of coordinator for university life initiatives and appointed 2010 Notre Dame graduate Mary K. Daly to the post.

Daly served as president of Notre Dame Right for Life and was a spokeswoman for NDResponse, a coalition opposed to the honoring of President Barack Obama. She will coordinate present efforts to implement the task force’s recommendations and will serve as a liaison between various university departments and offices to advance collaboration on life issues.

According to the University of Notre Dame, she will also seek ways to “broaden and deepen respect for the sanctity of life” at the university and beyond.

This is wonderful news, of course; I wish Mary Daly every success, and suggest that a recording which plays something like "Remember, this is a Catholic school...we are pro-life...remember, this is a Catholic school...we are pro-life..." should be made available and used frequently the next time the more liberal element at Notre Dame thinks it would be a good idea to shower yet another award on yet another shameless shill for the Culture of Death.

Finally, when an ad company creates a message pointing out how racist abortion really is, in that clinics which kill babies are overwhelmingly built and located in minority neighborhoods, a lot of people think it's better to kill the message than deal with the implications:

Central to Heroic Media's campaign, is the allegation that Planned Parenthood has placed around 70 percent of its abortion clinics in areas that can be designated as “minority neighborhoods.” A 2005 report by the Cybercast News Service claimed that out of 160 known abortion facilities run by the organization, 100 were located in communities with a higher black population than the state as a whole.

Although the ad campaign does not accuse any current leaders or staff at Planned Parenthood of being motivated by racism, it does note that abortion has reduced the black population by over 25 percent since 1973, making it responsible for more deaths than violent crime, accidents and disease.

A billboard featuring the “most dangerous place” tagline, along with a silhouette of an African American woman, was rejected in both Dallas and Houston. The prospective client first explained that the billboard was overly “'race' based.” A representative from the same company denied that this was the motivation, stating that the depiction of the woman was overly explicit.

Another outlet in Texas first approved the billboard but subsequently rejected it, citing its “questionable” content as a violation of their contract with land owners. Outlets in New York and Chicago followed suit, and likewise declined to discuss their reasons.

Representatives from Heroic Media deny that the campaign is either inappropriate or racially inflammatory. Instead, they have expressed concern that companies which refuse to run the ad on billboards or television may not only be looking out for their commercial interests, but possibly “protecting Planned Parenthood.”

What? Mainstream media outlets are biased in favor of quietly eliminating what Margaret Sanger called "human weeds?" They don't want minority women to realize that liberal America, especially white liberal America, has adopted a "just enough of us, way too many of you" mindset when considering the higher birthrates of minority women? Say it isn't so! probably is so. And 40 Days for Life provides another opportunity to show all women that abortion is not a good thing, not for them, not for their babies, and not for the world.


Anonymous said...

What a disconnect to think that Mother Teresa and Ms. Sanger can be mentioned together in the same thought.

Leila @ Little Catholic Bubble said...

Thank you for linking to my site! :) Keep up your wonderful work for the Kingdom!

Alisha De Freitas said...

Thank you for the info!

Siarlys Jenkins said...

As a frequent visitor to this site, and a few other pro-life sites, I definitely recognize that it is naive to expect anything but a huge bias against Margaret Sanger. I do find a rhetorical contradiction that you highlight how many white educated liberals are choosing to have no children, and advocating this as a lifestyle, then turn around and accuse those same liberals of wanting black and poor families to have fewer children, "just enough of us, way too many of you."

It would be more honest to stick with, all abortions are wrong, pregnancy is a fundamental part of human life, and not resort to gimmicks that are simply tactical attempts to get the attention of people who didn't respond to your message when presented straight up. I personally know a great many African American women who are having, or have had, multiple babies, and are stringently opposed to abortion, as are the men in their families. There is no danger that America is going to run out of black babies. There isn't much danger we are going to run out of white liberal babies either.

As for Notre Dame, it is fine that the university wants to establish an office of pro-life initiatives, but it is too bad some are presenting it as related to the choice to have President Obama deliver a commencement address. There were many good reasons to invite the president; for a Catholic institution, his pro-choice position was, of course, not among them. Similarly, inviting a president with a pro-choice position to speak is no reason that Notre Dame should cease to sponsor pro-life initiatives.

My congresswoman graduated, as a single mother, from Marquette. When she received an alumni award, some objected to her pro-choice legislative record. But, it remained true that she did graduate from Marquette, that Marquette probably saved her from what she called "a sociological train wreck," that there were many aspects of her career which magnificently manifested the principles Marquette had taught her. Incidentally, she had three children, and is not known to have ever chosen abortion.

People are, in the final analysis, an ornery individualistic lot, and come in whole packages that never quite please anyone else. Geoff G. agreed with Erin on abortion, disagreed with her on gay marriage, and I the opposite. It is sad when advocates on a single issue are blinded to everything else a person might offer -- and that is also true of feminists who refuse to respect the many virtues of pro-life congress representatives.