Tagged: margaret sanger

Antichoicer lies 2

Last time we talked about a quote which purported to prove that Margaret Sanger – and thus all prochoicers, because we’re the side in this debate which has no original thoughts – was all about the unrestrained sexy times.

I will pause momentarily so the Sanger scholars can pick themselves up off the floor.  Seriously, I’ve done all of an hour’s reading of her work, and … ahahahahahaha.

Now, the second quote, which is far more interesting for what antichoicers want to pretend it implies, and for the actual context it appears to be lifted from.

Quote 2: We ❤ Baby Murder

The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.

As with quote #1, this is usually cited as:

The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

Sources: one, two, three, etc etc etc

… because apparently antichoicers only have the one issue of The Woman Rebel and aren’t too creative when making shit up.

But does the quote exist?

Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaahkinda.  It does not appear in The Woman Rebel Volume 1, Number 1, but the original quote appears in chapter 5 of Woman and the New Race.  And we all know context is everything:

  • Chapter V is entitled The wickedness of creating large families.
  • It outlines the steadily rising mortality rates of children under 1 year old based on the number of children in their family.
  • It notes that these mortality rates are in fact not the full story, because of course a number of children who make it to age 1 don’t make it to age 5. 

And thus Sanger concludes:

The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. The same factors which create the terrible infant mortality rate, and which swell the death rate of children between the ages of one and five, operate even more extensively to lower the health rate of the surviving members. Moreover, the overcrowded homes of large families reared in poverty further contribute to this condition. Lack of medical attention is still another factor, so that the child who must struggle for health in competition with other members of a closely packed family has still great difficulties to meet after its poor constitution and malnutrition have been accounted for.

Bold mine.

Sanger is obviously not saying – as the antichoice quote purports – that killing babies is always a totally cool thing to do.  She’s talking about babies who might have a less-than-50% chance of living out a year.  She’s talking about babies born into poverty and overcrowding and poor medical care.

She has a particularly nasty view – as disclaimed in my earlier post – about children born into such environments who have disabilities, and also notes somewhat dispassionately that older children forced into work to support younger siblings will unfortunately drag down their father’s wages.  It’s not all sunshine and prochoice lollipops, but it’s also not what RTL and antichoicers across the internet want to pretend it is:  murdering babies for funsies.

Because Margaret Sanger was against infanticide.  In fact, she was against abortion in principle, and seems to have had a utopian view of a world where no one needed to have abortions because contraception was available and foolproof.  But she couldn’t ignore the facts that a lot of children were living in dire poverty and being killed after-birth anyway, and that control over reproduction was vital to women’s liberation.

That’s prochoicers for you.  Comprehending the realities of life and understanding that babies aren’t always exactly what Hallmark gift cards crack them up to be.

Of note

There is an article in The Rebel Woman Volume 1, Number 1 which also deals with infanticide.  It is Benita Locke’s Mothers’ Pensions: The Latest Capitalist Trap which argues, similarly, that poor families may be killing infants (or, to use a classic antichoice loophole, “letting them die”) because conditions are so unsustainable.

The plain truth is that among the children of the poor, the birth of a child is a misfortune, while its death is a blessing, not even in disguise.  Parents often deliberately remove their children from the world rather than that their little ones should be condemned to the veritable hell on earth which they feel they would be obliged to endure, if allowed to live.

Locke’s main argument though is that state benefits provided to poor families (mothers in particular) to encourage them to keep their babies is basically a capitalist trap, designed to ensure more workers are produced for the economic machine while not actually providing sufficient means to raise the babies in question happily and healthily.

But of course for antichoicers to acknowledge the absolutely horrible conditions which some ~precious unborn babies~ must live in after birth, and the lack of comprehensive social support for them, would involve some actual compassion and logical consistency on their part.

And they’re far too busy making up lies to actually give a fuck about born babies, who are no more use in their campaign to control pregnant people’s bodies.

Let’s also note

The extra lying cherry on top of the lying pie in RTL’s original media release is that not only are the two “quotations” presented as fact, they’re joined with an ellipsis, implying they’re part of the same piece of text.

The same piece of made-up antichoice lying text, maybe.

Antichoicer lies 1

A good sign that you’re reading something spun out of whole cloth by a lying misogynist jerk (anti-abortion or MRA varieties) is when you Google the quote they’re waving around and every single site that pops up is an antichoice (or MRA) site which uses identical punctuation and provides identical – inaccurate – citations.

It’s almost like antichoicers (and MRAs) have no genuine arguments to make and just copy-paste each other’s lies.

Case in point:  two quotes “from Margaret Sanger” circulated most recently by Right to Control Your Uterus.

First, a disclaimer:  Margaret Sanger held a number of views which are abhorrent, about people with disabilities, about people of colour, about eugenics.  There is a huge body of work about why views like hers contribute to a very well-founded distrust of the medical establishment by marginalized groups.

But let’s not kid ourselves.  Antichoicers do not bring up Margaret Sanger’s racism and ableism because they actually care.  They bring it up because they believe (a) that everyone has the same obsequious attitude towards authority that they do and (b) that this somehow discredits all arguments in favour of reproductive freedom (and (c) that if they just scream “YOU’RE A NAZI!!!” loudly enough they don’t have to worry about the complete baselessness of their own rhetoric).

Today I’m dealing with quote 1, which is the easiest, since it appears to be 100% bullshit.

Quote 1: Total world sexy domination

[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children

Usually cited as something like:

The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

Sources: one, two, etc etc etc

Well, unfortunately, I’ve read this scan of The Woman Rebel Volume 1, Number 1 a few times now, and wouldn’t you know it, it isn’t there.  The word “gratification” doesn’t appear at all in Woman and the New Race according to the text on Project Gutenberg, and while “unlimited” and “sexual” do, they are not in any similar context.

I haven’t pored over these texts for days, of course, but that just goes to show you that lying scum like Ken Orr can’t even be bothered to take fifteen minutes to Google things before reproducing them.

Next time on QoT’s Amazing World of Fact-Checking Antichoice Lies: We ❤ Baby Murder!