Sunday, November 6, 2011

Shameless Popery and Margret Sanger

Please scroll down and read the previous post for context.  Thank you.

Okay, where was I?  Oh, yes.  Margret Sanger's remarks.  Let's tackle the first one about marriage being about love and begetting children as being secondary.  Let me say that is totally wrong.  Shameless Popery tackles this subject oh so well in the context of gay marriage.  I invite you to read his article and I will steal parts of it (if he doesn't object) to place it in this context.

First of all, most relationships are surrounded by love.  I love my children.  I love my parents.  I love my neighbors (even though I keep find cigarettes on the patio which is right below their balcony).  You get the point.  I'm not going to have children with any of these people that I have these love relationships with.

The difference between a marriage relationship and that of any other relationship is not love it's having children.  Margret Sanger can disagree, but it's totally not logical.  Why get married if you are uninterested in having children and only interested in love?  You can receive love even romantic love outside the confines of a marriage.  I've received romantic love outside of marriage.  It's called "dating."  If you only interest in getting married is to have sex, well then you've missed the boat and I'm not quite sure how to row you ashore. 

The point of marriage as quoted by Joe from Canon Law is a partnership ordered around the good of the spouse and the procreation and education of children.  In other words, the Catholic Church does not say that you must be in love with a person in order to marry them.  You must not harm them or cause them to fall into anything bad (pimping out your spouse or forcing them to deal drugs for example), but you don't have to have the romantic notion of love.  You only have to agree to take care of each other's welfare and to have children and raise them together.  That's it.

In fact I think our notions of marriage have come a long way.  We used to treat women as property or arrangements to promote the family in social status.  Now we view marriage as a partnership of mutual respect.  Unfortunately, as a going-through-a-divorce friend has explained the vast majority of people he meets in his recently divorced program are divorced because they fell out of love or don't love their ex.  (He is divorced for a different reason than that which is why he was so surprised that about half stated that their reason for divorce was no longer being in love.) 

Margret Sanger's culture of birth control is raining down on our heads.  Marriage is no longer about children and agreeing to remain together.  It's about the fleeting feelings of love.

Switching gears...

Margret Sanger said that the greatest sin in the world is for diseased parents to bring diseased children into the world.  I had to take a breath on this one.  She basically lists prisoners as being an example.  I'll remind you of my previous post discussing children and the nature vs nurture controversy.  How a child turns out in life is not solely determined by the parentage they've had nor is it solely determined by the circumstances under which they were raised.  It certainly means that adult person had to overcome a great deal in order to be a model citizen, but does not determine a person's self-worth.  Here Sanger summarily dismisses any child borne by a prisoner as being a sin since they have "no chance in the world to being human practically."

Furthermore she equates being born with a disease as having no chance at "being human".  I believe that by virtue of our dna we are human.  But okay, let's say she means something more metaphysical.  Breathe.  I had to take a huge breath on this one and remind myself that this interview happened in 1957 and not 2011.  In 1957 children born with handicaps (I don't know what's pc anymore so sorry if offend) were largely institutionalized.  They were put away and not incorporated into society and therefore treated with less dignity than other "humans."

We've come a long way in society as to how we treat and dignify persons with disabilities.  More research has been done in that field and we've learned that children and adults with disabilities thrive and are happier if they are integrated into society as best as can be.  Sanger would not naturally know any of this.  Instead she would see, at that time, that the only truly dignified way to not institutionalize a child is to not have the child in the first place.  Modern society has proved that Sanger is totally incorrect.  Children with disabilities have much to contribute to society and therefore are "being human." 

So hindsight is 20/20, Sanger took the wrong path.  She put her opinion down as eliminating the person and not looking at eliminating the problem (that is research into disabilities and encouraging families to care for their children at home rather than institutionalizing them).  This is why she can say that she is a "humanitarian" who can't stand to see cruelty and unnecessary suffering (although abortion is totally an unnecessary suffering).  In her deluded mindset, she was helping.

And this is the fundamental problem of abortion because of circumstance.  We kill the unborn because of rape and incest rather than doing research into it and eradicating the cause.  We kill the unborn because of disabilities rather than focusing on the abilities or providing more advanced health care (which is what the March of Dimes does).  We encourage the use of birth control and the romantic love mindset instead of focusing on the primary function of marriage.  The list goes on like this.

It's twisted how the Margret Sanger mindset and ideology has infiltrated society to the point of being "normal" when clearly in 1957 it was anything but normal.  Funny how time has changed.  But I suppose that you noticed this since the interview hugely pushed Philip Morris cigarettes big time and now Philip Morris has had to pay out a lot of money and basically run PSAs on how to stop smoking.  Sorry, Phil, glad to say I've never touched your cigarettes in my life other than to throw the butts I find on my porch in the trash (although I think I'm going to save them and show them to my neighbor as I suspect her roommate is not using the ash tray).

1 comment:

  1. Just to get the number right, I re-checked the email our going-through-a-divorce friend sent. He said 1 in 8 had a justified reason. For the rest, someone was just unhappy.
    I'm not terribly surprised. Of the people I've known in my life, only one got a divorce for legitimate reasons. Also, for what it's worth, it was always the women who wanted the divorce. That's partly due to me knowing more men than women, combined with the type of people I like being around, but I get the impression that now days most divorces are initiated by the woman. Anyone have actual statistics?


I love to read your thoughts. Thanks for sharing!