After reading through the comments and dialoguing in private emails this week on my recent post, Abortion and the sufficiency of Scripture, I have to admit that I am surprised at the number of Christian women defending Margaret Sanger’s quote, The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it. I’ve been told repeatedly that I’ve taken the quote out of context. I stand behind my interpretation, but I must admit my bafflement that so many people are interpreting it otherwise.

Some of the surprise stems from the fact that the quote was not the basis of my post, as it was just a passing example. Further amazement arises that Christian women would defend anything Margaret Sanger said or wrote. (I assume they’re defending the context and the words and not the woman herself; in fact, one writer said as such.) The only thing I am not surprised with is that many of you have challenged me on it, and for that, I am grateful. I stand behind my interpretation of her meaning, but it is my intention to allow the reader to be able to interpret the passage for herself. Although my site is one of “humble musings” about humble things, sometimes we talk about important things, and I hope this long post poses some clarity on the discrepancy.

Now, to take a few minutes to address the quote in question. Margaret Sanger’s book, Woman and the New Race, was published in 1920. It is available for you to read in its entirety here. The gist of what I’m hearing is that Sanger doesn’t condone abortion and infanticide, but rather the liberal use of contraception in order that abortion might be avoided. Sanger argues in chapter 10, Contraceptives or Abortion, that contraception among the working class needs to be more readily available to combat unwanted pregnancies so that fewer abortions result of it. In this way, the argument is made that Sanger is “really” against abortion. In fact, Sanger says,

The question, then, is not whether family limitation should be practiced. It is being practiced; it has been practiced for ages and it will always be practiced. The question that society must answer is this: Shall family limitation be achieved through birth control or abortion? Shall normal, safe, effective contraceptives be employed, or shall we continue to force women to the abnormal, often dangerous surgical operation?

Notice the absence of a third option for keeping the baby, or fourth, carrying the baby to term to bless another couple with adoption. With Sanger, it is the same argument that modern parents employ today when they hand contraceptives to their teenagers, because—after all, they’re going to do it anyway. Moderns and pragmatists hold their hands on each side of their faces only willing to observe two options, when really, a third option exists.

The third option, however, is always the one that requires self-control, biblical thinking, and biblical behavior. That’s why we always like to think that we only have two options—it excuses us from behaving and thinking biblically.

The entire premise of Sanger’s book is unbiblical: Woman must have her freedom—the fundamental freedom of choosing whether or not she shall be a mother and how many children she will have. The freedom the Bible espouses is freedom in Christ and freedom from sin. Otherwise, we are slaves for the Lord. Insomuch that it is not fundamentally a question of woman’s rights to be a mother or not be a mother, but rather, it is a question of whether to submit to Christ or not to submit to Christ in all things.

If you do not desire children, don’t marry. In fact, it is with great Biblical support to work with your whole life as unto the Lord, not being concerned with a husband or children. (See I Corinthians 7.)

But the matter of being free to choose children or not while married is an erroneous question. It presupposes that children are made for the pleasure of the parents and not for the Lord’s use. It presupposes that barrenness is a blessing. It presupposes that the matter of children is up to the couple and not of the Lord.

The underlying premise of Sanger’s quote is made with a presupposition of autonomy. If you claim to be a daughter of the Lord, then you do not have the right to make autonomous statements.

Yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.” As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil. ~ James 4:14-16

Now, I just said that “the matter of being free to choose children or not while married is an erroneous question.” The emphasis here is on the word “free,” not on the word “choose.” We do face real decisions of whether to choose or not choose children, but we are never to make those decisions autonomously. We are the Lord’s, and our decisions belong to Him. You are not free; you’ve been bought with a price.

It is not my desire to tackle the subject of Christians using contraception here (though I have in a broad sense). Someone asked my opinion of the matter in the previous posts’ comment section, and here’s what I will say on the subject. It’s not so much that I think natural means of contraception are a sin, but that I wholly agree with God that children are a blessing. (You should too, as it is good to love that which He loves.) What that looks like in your family is a matter of conscience between you, your husband, and the Lord.

But back to the original Sanger quote and whether or not I took it out of context. I wanted to preface her quote with the case that Sanger makes autonomous statements, and that as Christians, we do not have the right to do as such, though it may seem a proper and logical thing to do in a post-modern world. In the chapter which the quote appears, The Wickedness of Creating Large Families, Sanger begins by saying this, The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children.

And I’m making sweeping statements, broad judgments?! By her statement, this cookie baking stay-at-home mom with a minivan is worse than Hitler, Stalin, and some guy making video tapes in Afghanistan (or is it Pakistan?).

Sanger argues that large families are a burden on mothers, fathers, and society at large. The context in which the quote is found– The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it– is among a paragraph discussing the morality and mortality rate of children in large families.

Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality [notice the word here is “immorality,” not “mortality!”] of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it….The probability of a child handicapped by a weak constitution, an overcrowded home, inadequate food and care, and possibly a deficient mental equipment, winding up in prison or an almshouse, is too evident for comment. Every jail, hospital for the insane, reformatory and institution for the feebleminded cries out against the evils of too prolific breeding among wage-workers.

In a private email, someone argued that Sanger was not promoting infanticide. But how else does one “kill it,” an infant member of a large family? Just not let “it” be born? Hogwash. Margaret Sanger said, “Kill it.” Soon we’ll be talking about what the meaning of “is” is.

The bottom line is that when you take Sanger’s independent, self-enthroned ideas to their logical conclusions, along with a post-modern definition of “mercy”—which we’ve had time to do since her death in 1966—you end up with the largest concentration camp ever invented, Planned Parenthood. Men and women are not autonomous, and Christians, above all, should recognize this fact. And then go out and live like it.

Blessings to all who wrote,
Amy

*Please do not use the comment box criticize any of the women who emailed.