Here is an interview that attempts to remain unbiased and does a decent job of maintaining a somewhat neutral position and not resolve the differing political issues.
Here are a few of her responses that stood out to me:
>Bearing and raising children is secondary to the marriage relationship.
>She hates to see suffering and cruelty (of which bearing children in pregnancy, childbirth and rearing constitute besides that which we would normally consider physical suffering from disease, etc).
>As a feminist, she felt that women should not bear the burden of carrying children in pregnancy. (--isn't that just what God mandated?! "Hey honey, I'll carry the child for the first 20 weeks and you can carry him for the last 20 weeks. You can do the labor and delivery, I'll pick up with the breast feeding - since you don't have any breasts.")
>She believes that it is a sin to bring a child into the world who is diseased or will not have a normal quality of life.
>Oh, and notice how she lights up when asked about her grandchildren, when in all her crusade for birth control she divorced and was estranged from her own family!
1 comment:
A critical inconsistency of Sanger lies in how we define a good quality of life. This becomes subjective because that can vary from person to person, which means that there is no objective standard by which quality of life can be measured against. What tends to happen is that a few elite who agree to an extent dictate what this should be, and they hypocritcally leave out their own personal maladies for self-preservation.
Post a Comment