5 ms·

Arnold Gessel wasn't Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. Here's what Planned Parenthood says about Margaret Sanger: https://www.plannedparentho

Arnold Gessel wasn't Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. Here's what Planned Parenthood says about Margaret Sanger: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/8013/9611/6937/Opposition_Claims_About_Margaret_Sanger.pdf https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/8013/9611/6937/Oppos... Sanger's views were not that of the mainstream eugenics movement. Eg, she writes "Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state." Further, Planned Parenthood writes: > Planned Parenthood Federation of America finds [the views Sanger shared with 'the "progressives" of her day'] objectionable and outmoded. Nevertheless, anti-family planning activists continue to attack Sanger, who has been dead for nearly 40 years, because she is an easier target than the unassailable reputation of PPFA and the contemporary family planning movement. However, attempts to discredit the family planning movement because its early 20th-century founder was not a perfect model of early 21st-century values is like disavowing the Declaration of Independence because its author, Thomas Jefferson, bought and sold slaves. This is repudiation of those views of Sanger. What's the equivalent for the Cato Institute and Charles Koch?

waterbadger 3y ago
Yeah, I wasn’t trying to imply that they are the same. As a Catholic we don’t condone artificial birth control (or believe in divorce!) so it’s very different than the general 20th century perspective on things. I do think it is important to historically understand where things most people take for granted come from because sometimes it can be pretty eye-opening. There are many aspects of the modern world (birth control and related issues are just one) that were invented by people with intentions I think 90% of people would strongly disagree with if the they understood them.
- eesmith 3y ago
  You said "Birth control is also rooted in eugenics." That is a tough argument to make. Eugenics and birth control have been around for a very long time. Eg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_birth_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_birth_control and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Origin_and_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Origin_and_developmen... . Galton, an early eugenicist, coined the term in 1883. I'll use ~1880 as the start date for that strain of eugenics. The history of birth control page points out "The Malthusian League was established in 1877 and promoted the education of the public about the importance of family planning and advocated for the elimination of penalties against the promoters of birth control.[38] It was initially founded during the "Knowlton trial" of Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh in July 1877" It also points out how "In the United States, contraception had been legal throughout most of the 19th century, but in the 1870s the Comstock Act and various state Comstock laws outlawed the distribution of information about safe sex and contraception and the use of contraceptives". Which means birth control, and family planning, predate Galton, so cannot be rooted in eugenics, in the way you likely mean "eugenics" to mean. Modern statistics was invented by eugenicists and "race scientists", like Galton.
  - waterbadger 3y ago
    Uh, I would consider something called the “Malthusian League” close enough to eugenics from my point of view. But you are right, birth control itself predates modern era eugenics. What I meant was “modern” birth control. A lot of the people who have shaped this cultural stuff are just very disturbed. In the past they were pretty open about their perspective before talking about it openly became somewhat taboo. As an example of the “Malthusian mindset” in 1954: Nuclear scientist Harrison Brown publishes his book "The Challenge of Man’s Future". In the book Brown examines carefully the probability that the human carrying capacity of the planet is between 50 and 200 billion people, before summarizing the reasons this fact is best kept secret: “If humanity had its way, it would not rest content until the earth is covered completely and to a considerable depth with a writhing mass of human beings, much as a dead cow is covered with a pulsating mass of maggots.” Here is the papal encyclical “Humanae Vitae” by the way if you are interested in why the Church considers birth control to be harmful: https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/docume...
    - eesmith 3y ago
      What informs your view? Because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_League https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_League doesn't sound anything like the eugenics movement. Modern birth control started in the mid 20th century with the combined oral contraceptive pill. Rice-Wray, from what I can tell, saw it as a way for poor families to be able to voluntarily plan the number of children they have. I don't see how that's informed by eugenics. What do you see as "eugenics"? What do you see as '"modern" birth control'? > As an example of the “Malthusian mindset” in 1954 "Malthusian" has multiple meanings. The Malthusian League Wikipedia entry says: "The organisation maintained that it was concerned about the poverty of the British working class and held that over-population was the chief cause of poverty". This is in accord with what Malthus wrote. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism#Early_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism#Early_history , Mathus' "criticism of the working class's tendency to reproduce rapidly, and his belief that this, rather than the exploitation of their labour by capitalists, led to their poverty, brought widespread criticism of his theory." The Malthusianism page goes on to quote: "Though Malthusianism has since come to be identified with the issue of general over-population, the original Malthusian concern was more specifically with the fear of over-population by the dependent poor" You quoting someone in 1954 doesn't mean it's the same as the goals of the Malthusian League some 80 years previous. I have so many disagreements with the position of the Catholic church - sex outside of marriage, sex by teens, abortion, the role of women in the church, gay marriage, co-habitation, and so much more - that I don't see the point of trying to understand its official views of birth control.

waterbadger 3y ago

Yeah, I wasn’t trying to imply that they are the same. As a Catholic we don’t condone artificial birth control (or believe in divorce!) so it’s very different than the general 20th century perspective on things. I do think it is important to historically understand where things most people take for granted come from because sometimes it can be pretty eye-opening. There are many aspects of the modern world (birth control and related issues are just one) that were invented by people with intentions I think 90% of people would strongly disagree with if the they understood them.

eesmith 3y ago
You said "Birth control is also rooted in eugenics." That is a tough argument to make. Eugenics and birth control have been around for a very long time. Eg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_birth_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_birth_control and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Origin_and_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Origin_and_developmen... . Galton, an early eugenicist, coined the term in 1883. I'll use ~1880 as the start date for that strain of eugenics. The history of birth control page points out "The Malthusian League was established in 1877 and promoted the education of the public about the importance of family planning and advocated for the elimination of penalties against the promoters of birth control.[38] It was initially founded during the "Knowlton trial" of Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh in July 1877" It also points out how "In the United States, contraception had been legal throughout most of the 19th century, but in the 1870s the Comstock Act and various state Comstock laws outlawed the distribution of information about safe sex and contraception and the use of contraceptives". Which means birth control, and family planning, predate Galton, so cannot be rooted in eugenics, in the way you likely mean "eugenics" to mean. Modern statistics was invented by eugenicists and "race scientists", like Galton.
- waterbadger 3y ago
  Uh, I would consider something called the “Malthusian League” close enough to eugenics from my point of view. But you are right, birth control itself predates modern era eugenics. What I meant was “modern” birth control. A lot of the people who have shaped this cultural stuff are just very disturbed. In the past they were pretty open about their perspective before talking about it openly became somewhat taboo. As an example of the “Malthusian mindset” in 1954: Nuclear scientist Harrison Brown publishes his book "The Challenge of Man’s Future". In the book Brown examines carefully the probability that the human carrying capacity of the planet is between 50 and 200 billion people, before summarizing the reasons this fact is best kept secret: “If humanity had its way, it would not rest content until the earth is covered completely and to a considerable depth with a writhing mass of human beings, much as a dead cow is covered with a pulsating mass of maggots.” Here is the papal encyclical “Humanae Vitae” by the way if you are interested in why the Church considers birth control to be harmful: https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/docume...
  - eesmith 3y ago
    What informs your view? Because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_League https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_League doesn't sound anything like the eugenics movement. Modern birth control started in the mid 20th century with the combined oral contraceptive pill. Rice-Wray, from what I can tell, saw it as a way for poor families to be able to voluntarily plan the number of children they have. I don't see how that's informed by eugenics. What do you see as "eugenics"? What do you see as '"modern" birth control'? > As an example of the “Malthusian mindset” in 1954 "Malthusian" has multiple meanings. The Malthusian League Wikipedia entry says: "The organisation maintained that it was concerned about the poverty of the British working class and held that over-population was the chief cause of poverty". This is in accord with what Malthus wrote. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism#Early_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism#Early_history , Mathus' "criticism of the working class's tendency to reproduce rapidly, and his belief that this, rather than the exploitation of their labour by capitalists, led to their poverty, brought widespread criticism of his theory." The Malthusianism page goes on to quote: "Though Malthusianism has since come to be identified with the issue of general over-population, the original Malthusian concern was more specifically with the fear of over-population by the dependent poor" You quoting someone in 1954 doesn't mean it's the same as the goals of the Malthusian League some 80 years previous. I have so many disagreements with the position of the Catholic church - sex outside of marriage, sex by teens, abortion, the role of women in the church, gay marriage, co-habitation, and so much more - that I don't see the point of trying to understand its official views of birth control.