During the late 19th and early 20th century, Margaret Sanger grew up in an impoverished home, and this upbringing had a tremendous impact on her life. The fact that she was denied certain royalties as a child gave her the mentality that it was cruel and inhumane to bring a child into this world if he is not able to live in comfort. She especially thought so regarding larger families, being part of one herself (Neven). This idea may be somewhat humane, yet she ignores the fact that bringing a child into this world is a gift from God and the Church embraces large families. Sanger was a large eugenics advocator and even wrote several books which discussed the subject. In her book The Pivot of Civilization she talks about sterilizing “the insane and feebleminded and the encouragement of this operation upon those afflicted with inherited or transmissible diseases” to render them incapable of having children (Sanger, Pivot 98). This is a classic example of negative eugenics. She also declares in her newsletter, the Birth Control Review that America needs “to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class” (Sanger, Plan for Peace).
When it came to the issue of aborting the unfit, Sanger appeared to be against it, making statements in appearance that seemed to be anti abortion. She was careful in her choice of words when it came to this subject and made it clear that she was solely against the reproduction of inadequate persons. The following comes from her book, The Pivot of Civilization in which she lays out the principles and aims of the American Birth Control League. She states that when there is an unwanted pregnancy, it will “often provoke the crime of abortion” thus stating that abortion is wrong (Sanger, Pivot 8). Or does it really? This statement could better be understood as: “Hitting your thumb with a hammer may often provoke the crime of swearing”. Swearing is ‘bad’ but often cannot be helped, is provoked and therefore is, at times, permissible. Unwanted pregnancy forces the women to abort. It is one ‘evil’ over the other: the ‘evil’ of having an unwanted pregnancy is overcome by the ‘solution’ of (the crime of) abortion. Obviously she doesn't believe that “two wrongs don't make a right” – instead, she believes that the end justifies the means – the ‘means’ being abortion. A woman who is pro-everything-else-death is ‘pro-life’ in terms of abortion is oxymoronic and this statement is thus a ‘cover’ that Margaret Sanger purposefully made for herself in order to ‘sell’ her radical ideas to the then-conservative world. Her ideologies grew and became popularized within American society, yet elsewhere in the world eugenics was gaining a huge supporter as well.
The eugenics movement gained a massive audience with the rise of Hitler and the Nazi regime. Hitler aimed to create a master race with eugenics as his main tool of action. He encouraged the Aryans to reproduce while discouraging the Jewish and the Slavic peoples from reproducing given that they were inferior races of peoples in his eyes. His action in doing so gained praise for the effectiveness of the Germans by Sanger’s monthly Birth Control Review in an article by H.J. Muller in which the magazine “favours Hitlerism” (Muller). Hitler outlawed aborting Aryan babies while encouraging the abortion of Slavic and Jewish babies. He used eugenics against what were viewed as genetic defects, to include those who were deaf, blind, mute, disabled, or homosexual. Ultimately though, it became an attempt to systematically eliminate the Jewish race in a bid to maintain racial purity among the Aryans.
When Hitler fell, people seemed the think that the movement fell with him, but the eugenics ideology thrived following the decent and eventual downfall of the Reichstag.
Around the same time that Hitler and Margaret Sanger were pushing their views regarding eugenics in Germany and the US respectively, there was a similar movement occurring within this country. By 1935, along with 27 US States and several European countries, Alberta and BC enacted sterilization laws which barred ‘flawed’ individuals from reproducing. Between the years of 1928, when the Sexual Sterilization Act became law in Alberta, and 1972 when the law was repealed, almost 3,000 people were sterilized through the actions of the government. The individuals sterilized were labelled as flawed individuals through a psychological evaluation and sanity tests. If the client was not found to be fit enough to reproduce, the government would take it upon themselves to have that person undergo sterilization. It is flabbergasting that this horrific practice went on for so many years, and even in 1972 when the act was repealed, there were 55 sterilizations that year alone (Hörner).
This atrocity was brought to light in 1989 when Leilani Muir stepped forward and files a lawsuit against the Alberta government. She claimed to have been sterilized without her knowledge or consent. When she was only 11-years-old, she was put into a mental hospital and given an IQ test. She did poorly enough on that test that the Alberta government was able to label her as a defective and approved her for sterilization. At the age of 14, Leilani was told that she would have to have her appendix removed, but this wasn’t a simple appendix operation. She was to have her fallopian tubes cut at the same time, yet was not told of this whatsoever. She recovered from the operation, left both the hospital and the mental hospital shortly thereafter, and went on to live a ‘normal’ life. She got married later on in life, and after years of trying, she became curious as to why she could not have any children. After completing some tests, the diagnosis was that Leilani’s “insides looked like [they’d] been through a slaughterhouse” (Hörner). To be sterilized is inhumane enough, but to not even inform an individual that he is to be sterilized is beyond atrocious. Since Muir, over 1200 people have stepped forward to file suits against the province, and all are getting reparations for damages done. The government ruined lives and families in the hopes of eliminating bad genetics from society.
Despite the popularity of eugenics throughout the 20th century, the Catholic Church has always been a fervent opponent of such ideologies. The concepts behind eugenics are based on the principal that all men are created unequal, while the Catholic Church and democracy alike both agree that men are created equal: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” (Declaration of Independence). This then, logically infers that eugenics must and is contradictory to both democracy and Christianity as a whole. Eugenicists deny the sanctity of life and degrade the human person.
Several encyclicals lay out the Church’s position on issues regarding the human person. Gaudiem et Spes from Vatican II lays out that the Church wishes to be involved in issues in the world today and offers to help solve problems. This continues the Church’s trend of social action begun with Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum. Humanae Vitae, the popular, yet controversial encyclical, restated the Church’s vehement opposition to birth control and that it was immoral. Birth control is the tool suggested by Margaret Sanger to wipe out blacks and other minorities whom she deemed less fit than true Americans: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population” (Green). Humanae Vitae
goes on to warn against coercive population control which is yet another falsity put into the mind of every westerner by eugenicists to sell the whole birth control concept to the public. Populorum Progressio by Paul VI urges the more wealthy nations to aid the poorer nations, and this clearly goes contrary to the notion of weeding out the unfit from society. Finally, John Paul II defends the family and stresses the right for families to migrate elsewhere in search of a better economic life in Familiaris Consortio. This allows a people who would typically be declared unfit or flawed by the terms of a classic eugenicist such as Sanger, to live within society among those who would be labelled fit (Cavanaugh-O'Keefe).
General teachings within the Church are also contrary to the goals of eugenics. While eugenics places the final end of man in civic worth by stating that it is simply this world that matters, and therefore those not worthy of living here (in their opinion) should either be prevented from coming into this world or be exterminated from it. The Church places the final end of man in eternal life realizing that this world is simply a speck of sand in the Sahara Desert. Eugenicists also define the individual however they see fit and thus the importance of a person is trivialized. The definition of an individual can be changed by humanity, but morality is intrinsic and therefore just because humans label blacks, or women, or unborn babies as not being human, does not mean they aren’t. Contrary to this, the Church regards the individual as the essential part of society.
The underlying fact behind the entire eugenics issue is that people are unique and we should embrace our individuality. Physical qualities differ from person to person and simply because one may be missing a finger or may have a mental deficiency, does not mean that he is any less of a human being than you or I. We will never be perfect in this world, and until the day comes when we finally do become perfect, we should love who we are, and who others are as individuals within our worldly society. With the idea of weeding out the unfit from society, comes such evils as have been mentioned; and hatred, being the root of all this ideology, is the downfall of man. Despite the lack of use of the term “eugenics” it is very much still a part of our society, a culture of death as dubbed by our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae.
Works Cited
Cavanaugh-O'Keefe, John. Introduction to Eugenics. Internet page found at URL:
<>.
Green, Tanya. The Negro Project. Internet page found at URL: <http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/population/the_negro_project.htm>
Hörner, James. Sterilization and Eugenics. Internet page found at URL:
<>.
Muller, H.J. Birth Control Review. January, 1933. p.20. Found at URL:
<>.
Neven, Tom. The Truth About Margaret Sanger: Citizen magazine. January 20, 1992.
Sanger, Margaret. The Pivot of Civilization. New York: Brentano’s, 1922.
Sanger, Margaret. A Plan for Peace: Birth Control Review. April, 1932. pp.107-108.
Found at URL: <>.
Bibliography
Cavanaugh-O'Keefe, John. Introduction to Eugenics. Internet page found at URL:
<>.
Chadwick, Ruth F. Ethnics, Reproduction and Genetic Control. London: Routledge,
1987.
Green, Tanya. The Negro Project. Internet page found at URL: <http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/population/the_negro_project.htm>
Hörner, James. Sterilization and Eugenics. Internet page found at URL:
<>.
Muller, H.J. Birth Control Review. January, 1933. p.20. Found at URL:
<>.
Neven, Tom. The Truth About Margaret Sanger: Citizen magazine. January 20, 1992.
Newman, Horatio Hackett. Readings in Evolution, Genetics, and Eugenics. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1921.
Sanger, Margaret. The Pivot of Civilization. New York: Brentano’s, 1922.
Sanger, Margaret. A Plan for Peace: Birth Control Review. April, 1932. pp.107-108.
Found at URL: <>.
Various Popes. Encyclicals found at URL: <>.
