The Problem with Eugenics

   Margaret Sanger (1883-1966) served as a public health nurse on the Lower East Side of New York City where she encountered poor families and became convinced that population control was the premier way to deal with the issue of poverty in the United States.
   In 1916, Mrs. Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in New York City for the purpose, as described by Planned Parenthood, of providing reproductive information and assistance to men and women who might not otherwise be able to afford it. On the surface, this sounds rather benign; however, when one carefully examines the philosophy of the organization’s founder and reads her own words, the reader is left with a much different impression of Mrs. Sanger.
   It is quite evident that Mrs. Sanger was a major proponent of eugenics Eugenics, from the Greek words eu-genos (meaning “good birth”) is defined as: the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).¹
   In 1921, Mrs. Sanger stated, “Eugenics is… the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political, and social problems.”² Her philosophy involved various avenues of implementation. A proponent of abortion, at a time when it was illegal, Sanger stated, “The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”³ She also proposed the belief that “birth control must ultimately lead to a cleaner race.”⁴ In regard to birth control she also stated:
As an advocate of birth control, I wish…to point out that the unbalance of the birth rate between the “fit” and “unfit” admitted the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between the two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation… On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.⁵
   Based upon her writings, it appears that she was also convinced that the poor should be sterilized as a way of preventing them from reproducing. Mrs. Sanger stated, “Eugenics sterilization is an urgent need…We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”⁶
   If her comments appear to echo the teachings of Adolf Hitler, this should come as no surprise. While I am not proposing that Mrs. Sanger was a Nazi, the fact remains that what she proposed was accepted as completely valid by the Third Reich. The Nazi belief that there were certain people who were not worthy of life was stated by Mrs Sanger in 1922 when she wrote:
   “Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism... [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant. We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all..."⁷
   A “dead weight of human waste” is how these children, who were made in the image and likeness of God, were seen by Mrs. Sanger. There is no necessity to embellish Mrs. Sanger’s comments since the very words she wrote give a clear and exact explanation of her philosophy. She went on to say, "The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."⁸
   The interesting thing is that term “feeble minded” appears to have a rather fluid definition when used by Mrs. Sanger. The traditional definition of feeble mindedness is one who has only a limited capacity to learn or understand. Does the fact that these people would not agree with her philosophy make them, by definition, feeble minded? Nowhere in the definition is there a listing for “a refusal to accept arrogance” as a criteria for feeble mindedness.
   Not surprisingly, Mrs. Sanger directly challenged the teachings of the Catholic Church and others who believe in the sanctity of human life:
"The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped."⁹
   Apparently having religious convictions qualifies one as “feeble minded” according to Mrs. Sanger.
   Recently U S Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood. Mrs Clinton stated that she was “in awe” of Mrs. Sanger and stated that Mrs Sanger’s “life and leadership was one of the most transformational in the entire history of the human race.” Given Mrs. Sanger’s philosophy, the very same thing could easily be said of Adolf Hitler.
   Speaking on the floor of the U S House of Representatives, Congressman Christopher Smith (R-NJ) challenged the fact that Mrs Clinton visited the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe immediately before receiving the Margaret Sanger award. Appearing to St Juan Diego at Tepeyac, Mexico on December 12, 1531, as a pregnant woman, the Blessed Virgin Mary under the title of Our Lady of Guadalupe is both the patroness of the Americas and of the pro-life movement.
   After briefly narrating the story of the apparitions of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Congressman Smith stated, “last Thursday, Hillary Clinton visited the shrine On Friday, she paid homage to Planned Parenthood and to Margaret Sanger. Margaret Sanger is the founder of Planned Parenthood. She was a self-described pro-abortionist eugenist and a racist who considered charity care for impoverished, disenfranchised women, including women of color, especially pregnant women to be ‘cruel’.”¹⁰
   The teachings of Margaret Sanger are not worthy of emulation. Eugenics is not an acceptable form of scientific research. However, this does not mean that it is not practiced. On Saturday, February 21, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI warned participants at a conference sponsored by the Pontifical Academy for Life of the rise of a “new eugenics” which judges the worth of a person based upon his or her genetic makeup, as expressed in factors such as health and beauty. Statistics show that in many Western nations up to ninety-five (95) percent of unborn children diagnosed in utero with Down syndrome are killed in their mother’s womb before birth. Recently it was announced that a screening technique is in development that may enable the diagnosis of autism in utero. Critics have said that such a test will inevitably lead to the eugenic abortion of children with autism.¹¹ Even though some might argue that this would never happen, the fact remains that we see very few children with Down syndrome anymore. Some would like us to believe it is because modern science has found a cure for this syndrome; however, the fact is that these children are simply denied the right to live.
   The fact that prospective parents can actually pre-determine the eye color and other characteristics of their child prior to birth has a certain “Frankenstein-like” quality about it. The idea of in utero genetic screening is the logical conclusion when one follows the methodology of people like Margaret Sanger. Ideas truly do have consequences. Once again, it is the Catholic Church which is standing up and saying, “This is not acceptable.” People like Pope Benedict XVI, Congressman Christopher Smith, and others need to be encouraged in their efforts to continue to stand up for the truth. The legacy of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood should be presented for what is it, a violation of the God given right to life of the most defenseless among us.
   Such profound philosophical questions as, who has the right to play God?, certainly did not begin with the Nazis or Margaret Sanger, but we are able to see the consequences of these teachings.  Earlier in history there were other authors who wrote about this same topic.  For example, Mary Shelley (1797-1851) wrote about this exact same theme in her most famous novel, Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus (1818), which deals with the consequences of Dr. Frankenstein’s experiments with bringing the dead back to life. 
    In 1925, Mikhail Bulgakov (1891-1940), a Russian physician turned author, wrote a story entitled Собачье сердце (The Heart of a Dog). The summary of this story is as follows: A bedraggled street dog is about to perish in the cold winter night, after having been scalded by boiling water earlier in the day. Suddenly, an elegant man feeds him and takes him home. The dog's savior is a famous and wealthy medical professor, Philip Philippovich Preobrazhensky, who rejuvenates people by hormonal manipulations.
    As soon as the dog becomes accustomed to his new life of plenty, he finds himself the subject of a strange experiment--the professor and his assistant implant the testicles and pituitary gland of a dead criminal into the dog's body. After a rocky post-operative course, the dog gradually begins to change into an animal in human form and names himself Poligraph Poligraphovich Sharikov. The half-beast-half-man, who gets along very well in the prevailing proletarian society, turns his creator's life into a nightmare--until the professor manages to reverse the procedure.¹²
    Comparisons were made between Bulgakov’s “dog-man” character and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein monster.  However, in the case of Frankenstein everyone who encountered the creature rejected it because it was so unnatural.  Poligraph Sharikov is equally unnatural, but fits in quite well in 1920s Russian society.  The Bolsheviks came to power by convincing the people that they needed to get rid of Czar Nicholas II and share all things in common.  In no time at all, these same people slowly began to turn on the very people that put them into power. The highly educated were banished from Russia and those who did not leave were eventually executed.
    Every generation comes up with an idea which they are convinced are both new and original.  Eugenics is one of these ideas.  As a result of the Second World War, eugenics is now associated with Nazi Germany; however, even without the Nazi connection eugenics is still problematic.  If we do not learn the lessons of history we are prone to repeat them over and over again. 

                                                        End Notes

1 Eugenics:

2 Margaret Sanger "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda" Birth Control Review, October 1921, p 5

3 Margaret Sanger (editor), The Woman Rebel, Vol 1, No 1, Reprinted in Woman and the New Race (NY: Brentanos Publishers), 1922

4 Margaret Sanger Woman, Morality, and Birth Control (New York: New York Publishing Company), 1922 p 12

5 Margaret Sanger "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda " Birth Control Review, October 1921, p 5

6 Margaret Sanger Birth Control Review, April 1933

7 Margaret Sanger The Pivot of Civilization, 1922 Chapter on "The Cruelty of Charity," pp 116, 122, and 189 (Swarthmore College Library edition)

8 Margaret Sanger quoted in Charles Valenza "Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?" Family Planning Perspectives, January-February 1985, p 44

9 Margaret Sanger Speech quoted in "Birth Control: What It Is, How It Works, What It Will Do" The Proceedings of the First American Birth Control Conference Held at the Hotel Plaza, New York City, November 11-12, 1921 Published by the Birth Control Review, Gothic Press, pp 172 and 174.

10 Congressman Smith: Mrs Clinton, Choose either Our Lady of Guadalupe or Margaret Sanger: (Accessed 4/13/09)

11 Pope Warns of Proliferation of New Eugenics: (Posted 2/24/09, Accessed 4/13/09)

12 “Climbing the Ladder at any Cost” http://heideggerm1.blogspot.com/2011/05/climbing-ladder-at-any-cost.html  

 

Climbing the Ladder at Any Cost

   From our youth, we are taught about the importance of climbing the corporate or social ladder. While it is true that there many who have certain advantages when it comes to climbing these ladders because of various factors including their education and/or the financial standing of their family, the Horatio Alger myth would have us believe that such ladder climbing is available to each of us if we are willing to work hard enough.

   We live in a culture which is driven by consumerism.  The idea of having to “keep up with the Jones family” is almost ingrained in us from childhood.  Our entire economy is consumer driven.  People need to keep spending money and buying things in order to keep our country financially sound. 

  While it is certainly not mandatory that we become like animals in order to have financial or personal success, the fact is that this does happen.  There are people who would have no problem at all grinding people into the ground in order to get what they want.  The Roman playwright Plautus (d. 184 BC) made reference to this fact when he stated, “Homo homini lupus” (man unto man a wolf).  We know of many people throughout history who have ruined the lives of others simply in order to get ahead.

   However, instead of a wolf, what if it was a dog?  Imagine for a moment that a scientist places human male genitalia and a pituitary gland inside a dog and this dog slowly begins to speak and act like a human.  Imagine that this half-man/half-dog creation is able to adapt to life within our society rather well.  We have often heard it said that the business world is “dog eat dog”, so he would feel right at home. 

   Since dogs operate well according the pack model, this new “man-dog” would display his dominance within the pack and soon become the Alpha male.  Snapping and growling at anyone who challenged his position, he would have no problem biting someone’s head off (quite literally).  He would not be conscious of the notion that there is plenty of money to be made by everyone.  Remember, he has the mind of a dog.  If he has something he will defend it to the death and if you have something that he wants, he will do whatever he needs to do to take it away from you.  In the pack model, you are either the leader or you are nothing.

   This same mindset would carry over to his personal relationships as well. If he met a woman, his main ideas would be domination and breeding.  Since he has the mind of a dog, her feelings would be completely unimportant to him.  He simply sees something that he wants and he goes after it.  As long as you understand that he is the Alpha male, he will tolerate you, but do not expect to become his friend.  He has no friends, simply other creatures who are there for his convenience. 

   Imagine now that this “man-dog” enters the world of politics.  Now he is not only an Alpha male, but one with quite a bit of authority and power.  His strong personality might be what gets him elected, but do not be fooled for one moment, he has no interest in helping anyone who put him in power.  He uses the power and authority he has been given to grab as much for himself as he can.  You might say, “He was elected to help his constituents!”  His response would be, “I got what I want, if they do not have what they want that is not my problem.  However, if they have something that I want I will take it.”   Sound familiar?    

   We can imagine that this new failed medical experiment has caused major problems for the doctor who performed it.  At one point the “dog-man” actually reports this physician to the local housing authority because the doctor is occupying several apartments in order to do his experiments and the “dog-man” does not like the fact that someone has something that he cannot have. After giving this “person” a new life, this doctor is now forced to defending himself in front of the housing authority who wants to take away these apartments from him so they can use them for other purposes. 

    In 1925, Mikhail Bulgakov (1891-1940), a Russian physician turned author, wrote a story entitled Собачье сердце (The Heart of a Dog). The summary of this story is as follows: A bedraggled street dog is about to perish in the cold winter night, after having been scalded by boiling water earlier in the day. Suddenly, an elegant man feeds him and takes him home. The dog's savior is a famous and wealthy medical professor who rejuvenates people by hormonal manipulations.

    As soon as the dog becomes accustomed to his new life of plenty, he finds himself the subject of a strange experiment--the professor and his assistant implant the testicles and pituitary gland of a dead criminal into the dog's body. After a rocky post-operative course, the dog gradually begins to change into an animal in human form and names himself Poligraph Poligraphovich Sharik. The half-beast-half-man, who gets along very well in the prevailing proletarian society, turns his creator's life into a nightmare--until the professor manages to reverse the procedure.¹

      The dog-man’s choice of a new name is satirical.  The word sharik means “ball” or “round” in Russian.  Interesting choice of a name given the gift he received from the medical professor. Sharik is still most popular dog’s name in Russia and Ukraine.

    Comparisons were made between Bulgakov’s “dog-man” character and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein monster.  However, in the case of Frankenstein everyone who encountered the creature rejected it because it was so unnatural.  Poligraph Sharik is equally unnatural, but fits in quite well in 1920s Russian society.  The Bolsheviks came to power by convincing the people that they needed to get rid of Czar Nicholas II and share all things in common.  In no time at all, these same people slowly began to turn on the very people that put them into power. The intelligentsias (the highly educated) were banished from Russia and those who did not leave were eventually executed. 

    The same thing could happen in our country as well.  While we are not a Communist society, human nature remains the same regardless of where one lives.  It is natural that people in power want to stay in power and they will do whatever it takes to maintain the power that they already have.  Many of the comments that were made in this story regarding the issues facing Russia in the 1920s could easily be applied to our country at this point in our history.

    Given Bulgakov’s satirical look at life in Russia following the Bolshevik revolution, it is not surprising that this work was banned from the Soviet Union.  It was first published in English in 1968 and was not published in the Soviet Union until 1987. 

     As I mentioned earlier, names are very important in this story.  The name of the person whose genitalia and pituitary gland were used was an alcoholic named Chugunkin.  In Russian, “chugun” means “cast iron” and this choice of name could easily be understood by the Russian reader as a parody of Joseph Stalin.  In Russian, “stal” means “steel”. 

     Climbing the ladder of success is certainly not a bad thing.  Every parent would want his or her children to be more successful than they are; however, climbing the ladder does not mean that we step on the fingers of the person on the rung below us in order to lift ourselves up.

      It is true that success comes at a price; however, that price should not include becoming an animal in the process. 

¹Mikhail Bulgakov “The Heart of a Dog”

http://litmed.med.nyu.edu/Annotation?action=view&annid=1572