Jump to content

Re: Margaret Sanger, founder of planned parenthood, eugenicist?


Guest MarkS
 Share

Recommended Posts

Wow, she seems like a terrible person based on that article.

 

Isn't it incredible how, in some cases, something so positive can grow out of someone so negative.

 

Obviously your idea of positive differs from mine.  According to the article:  "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Abortion Surveillance report revealed that between 2007 and 2010, nearly 36 percent of all abortions in the United States were performed on black children, even though black Americans make up only 13 percent of our population. A further 21 percent of abortions were performed on Hispanics, and 7 percent more on other minority groups, for a total of 64 percent of U.S. abortions tragically performed on minority groups. Margaret Sanger would have been proud of the effects of her legacy."

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a society we have a lot to be proud of, starting with Roe v Wade, and the subsequent decisions (some of which Planned parenthood played a major role) in allowing women the choice to have an abortion. Kudos to all of us for finally getting our act together.

 

Sanger sounds like she would be very upset at the progress western society has made towards racial and sexual equality.

 

In fact, by turning Sanger's program into a force for equality, I would consider it the ultimate way to turn our collective noses up at Margaret Sanger's racist legacy, and all the other racist and sexist people out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a society we have a lot to be proud of, starting with Roe v Wade, and the subsequent decisions (some of which Planned parenthood played a major role) in allowing women the choice to have an abortion. Kudos to all of us for finally getting our act together.

 

Sanger sounds like she would be very upset at the progress western society has made towards racial and sexual equality.

 

In fact, by turning Sanger's program into a force for equality, I would consider it the ultimate way to turn our collective noses up at Margaret Sanger's racist legacy, and all the other racist and sexist people out there.

 

If you're proud of the fact that black women are five times more likely to have an abortion than a white woman (Hispanic women don't fare much better) than - good for you!  Frankly, I've kind of stopped trying to understand you guys.  The Virginia Governor advocates for infanticide and you really don't hear a peep from the left.  But the left goes nuts over the fact that the same guy put shoe polish on his face 25 years ago.  I don't condone his choice to mock blacks.  But I also find his stance on infanticide appalling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m quite proud to live in a society that allows all women the freedom to choose what to do with their body, the freedom to choose their vote, to own land, and to exist independently of a male’s decision making.

 

I’m especially proud that these freedoms are afforded to all nationalities of women, including black and Hispanic women.

 

And while you may wish only white women had this freedom, and you may wish to confuse abortion with infanticide, what I am most proud of is the fact that civil society has told you, “you are wrong”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m quite proud to live in a society that allows all women the freedom to choose what to do with their body, the freedom to choose their vote, to own land, and to exist independently of a male’s decision making.

 

I’m especially proud that these freedoms are afforded to all nationalities of women, including black and Hispanic women.

 

And while you may wish only white women had this freedom, and you may wish to confuse abortion with infanticide, what I am most proud of is the fact that civil society has told you, “you are wrong”.

 

Lol that’s an awfully convenient way to spin being supportive of irresponsible sluts offing their childre....mistakes. Has nothing to do with voting or owning property...

 

Also, please point out where Mark demonstrated support for laws that only allowed white women to kill their kids...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another benefit of a free society, is that while vile, unintelligent, and backwards ideas will always exist, the freedom to express those ideas has the peculiar effect of emboldening those who are reasonable and kind against them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m quite proud to live in a society that allows all women the freedom to choose what to do with their body, the freedom to choose their vote, to own land, and to exist independently of a male’s decision making.

 

I’m especially proud that these freedoms are afforded to all nationalities of women, including black and Hispanic women.

 

And while you may wish only white women had this freedom, and you may wish to confuse abortion with infanticide, what I am most proud of is the fact that civil society has told you, “you are wrong”.

 

I'm not confusing abortion with infanticide.  You can't change infanticide by calling it "after birth abortion." See https://slate.com/technology/2012/03/after-birth-abortion-the-pro-choice-case-for-infanticide.html

Supporting letting a baby die by dehydration while it's kept "comfortable" doesn't flatter you, LC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know Buffett and Munger are pro-choice and the general idea is that helps with population control (I can't argue with that). But...there are a lot of ways to control population that most folks wouldn't agree with. I'll also agree that if a mother wants to terminate a pregnancy, on average, the mother will probably be a worse mother and the child will have a worse life than if the child is born into a family that wants children.

 

With that said, if human life has intrinsic value (that's debatable), why is it okay to kill innocent human life?

 

Pro-choicers will say, well it isn't human. It's just a fetus. There are other animals that have fetuses. If it's not human, what is it, exactly? A fetus is a simply a stage in the lifespan of human -as is a baby, as is a toddler, as is a teenager, adult, etc.

 

They might say, "well, an embryo can't live on its own". Neither can a baby or someone on life support. Are they less human than an adult?

 

Now, if human life doesn't have intrinsic value, why care about social programs to help the needy or the less fortunate?

 

By the way, Roe in Roe vs Wade spent the rest of her life being pro-life, right?

 

Isn't abortion essentially referring another human as if they're property? Why is it okay to treat another human as if they're your property (treat and or kill them at will)? Why should we rein in the right of the mother, even after birth? After all, she brought the child into the world, why "violate' her "right" to take it out as she sees fit?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another benefit of a free society, is that while vile, unintelligent, and backwards ideas will always exist, the freedom to express those ideas has the peculiar effect of emboldening those who are reasonable and kind against them.

 

That is completely false. A free society means anything goes as long as it is within the realm of morality and doesn't infringe on someone else's freedom. You're free to have an opinion, but if the action of something actually negatively affects someones personal freedom then an issue arises. Abortion does exactly that. Although even within the Libertarian party there are those that support abortion. Most would say they only support abortion in a life and death situation. Because typically taking the life of a baby is much greater of a violation of freedom compared to a mother having to carry a child to term for 9 months.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said it a million times but abortion is probably the last area where 50 years from now society will look back and go "WTF, they used to allow people to kill their babies???".

 

Same as we do now when learning that at one time in history women weren't able to vote or own property, and that blacks were only considered 3/5 of a person...Its just so despicable and mind boggling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Isn't abortion essentially referring another human as if they're property? Why is it okay to treat another human as if they're your property (treat and or kill them at will)? Why should we rein in the right of the mother, even after birth? After all, she brought the child into the world, why "violate' her "right" to take it out as she sees fit?

 

This issue is not that much different than the slavery argument, although the left won't admit it.

You are my property - and you have no say in what I "choose" to do with you.

 

If you were unlucky enough to be a slave or presently unborn - you just have no rights or any voice in the matter.

No one but the mother or the slave owner can defend you. We can terminate you for convenience. Truly appalling.

 

After the Civil War - an enlightened country moved on from slavery - and hopefully abortion will move that way as well.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...