In response to Gay S. Johnson’s letter where she admits her bias in favor of birth control, population control, Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger, using Snopes as her source of information, I respond with my bias against all of the above using sources easily available on the Internet of the writings of Margaret Sanger, founder of today’s Planned Parenthood and in favor of birth control as a means of population control.
Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist. She wanted to eliminate the birth of the “feeble-minded”, the “defective” and the “imbecile” either through forced sterilization or segregation during the time a woman could get pregnant.
Planned Parenthood simply eliminates any and all kinds of people by murdering them. Talk about the ease of population control!
Eugenics has been defined as “the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations, either mentally or physically.” Or, ” a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of a human population.”
In Margaret Sanger’s book, “The Pivotal Civilization,” she wrote: “There is but one practical and feasible program in handling the great problem of the feeble-minded. That is, as the best authorities are agreed, to prevent the birth of those who would transmit imbecility to their descendants.”
And, “The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately. Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous. Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem. Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.”
She was against all philanthropy considering it to be a further propagation of the “biological waste” that needed to be exterminated from humanity in order to realize true progress. She wrote: “The most serious charge that can be brought against modern “benevolence” is that it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents.”
Those who see no moral worth, no human dignity of any human being that is either “unwanted” or is simply one more body contributing to the loss of prosperity of others because of “overpopulation” ought to be reviled rather than revered.
One day it may be that those of us among the privileged living won’t be safe from the human exterminators as who can predict that we too won’t become a new class of the “unwanted” or simply one too many for the population controllers?