Is this an extreme position?

[Scrabaholic]

I lived a different poor than you did and my parents a different kind of poor than I did - they literally were the barefoot, wearing potato sacks kids that ate whatever they could find in the woods if they could find anything, had pigs squealing under the house, snow coming through the cracks in the sides of the one bedroom palace where all the kids slept in the same bed to stay warm.

I am sorry that you grew up in such conditions.

and never would I say that any of those lives were worth less than because of it and what you are suggesting is your step mother wasn't as valuable because of the situation she was born in? how cruel .... I mean that's just awful

I never said that at all. Please do not lie again about what I do or do not say. Thanks.

 

[Scrabaholic]

2) Sanger called the various methods of population control, including abortion, “defending the unborn against their own disabilities.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

She HATED abortion:

"One final misconception about Mrs. Sanger must also be addressed, it seems, and in this case the truth will terribly inconvenience the propaganda efforts all around. It is not right, pace Planned Parenthood, that Margaret Sanger declined to advocate abortion on grounds that it was then a dangerous and illegal surgery. “There are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician,” she wrote in 1920, and “we know that abortion, when performed by skilled hands, under right conditions, brings almost no danger to the life of the patient.” On the evidence in “The Woman Rebel,” the real reason Sanger declined to advocate abortion, notwithstanding the law’s flexibility and what she took to be the procedure’s safety, is that abortion appalled her.

She turned women seeking abortions away from her clinics: “I do not approve of abortion.” She called it “sordid,” “abhorrent,” “terrible,” “barbaric,” a “horror.” She called abortionists “blood-sucking men with MD after their names who perform operations for the price of so-and-so.” She called the results of abortion “an outrageous slaughter,” “infanticide,” “foeticide,” and “the killing of babies.” And Margaret Sanger, who knew a thing or two about contraception, said that birth control “has nothing to do with abortion, it has nothing to do with interfering with or disturbing life after conception has taken place.” Birth control stands alone: “It is the first, last, and final step we all are to take to have real human emancipation.”

What Did Margaret Sanger Think about Abortion?

Yesterday, January 22nd, 2013, is the anniversary of a date that should live in infamy. It was the 4

redstate.com

7) While advocating for the American Baby Code, she argued that marriage licenses should provide couples with the right to only “a common household” but not parenthood. In fact, couples should have to obtain a permit to become parents:

My high school Home Ec teacher felt the same way - that people should have a permit to reproduce - after taking classes on raising children.

 

[hecatmoggie]

I am sorry that you grew up in such conditions.

not as bad as my parents - they had it bad .... millions of American's did, and there are a lot that have it not so good now as well and every single one of them then and now all had the same value of life regardless of their parents financial situations

I never said that at all. Please do not lie again about what I do or do not say. Thanks.

but you kinda did - why is the unborn baby of a poor woman who doesn't really want another baby less valuable than the unborn baby of a wealthy person wanting a child ?

can you explain that please ?

 

[hecatmoggie]

She HATED abortion:

"One final misconception about Mrs. Sanger must also be addressed, it seems, and in this case the truth will terribly inconvenience the propaganda efforts all around. It is not right, pace Planned Parenthood, that Margaret Sanger declined to advocate abortion on grounds that it was then a dangerous and illegal surgery. “There are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician,” she wrote in 1920, and “we know that abortion, when performed by skilled hands, under right conditions, brings almost no danger to the life of the patient.” On the evidence in “The Woman Rebel,” the real reason Sanger declined to advocate abortion, notwithstanding the law’s flexibility and what she took to be the procedure’s safety, is that abortion appalled her.

She turned women seeking abortions away from her clinics: “I do not approve of abortion.” She called it “sordid,” “abhorrent,” “terrible,” “barbaric,” a “horror.” She called abortionists “blood-sucking men with MD after their names who perform operations for the price of so-and-so.” She called the results of abortion “an outrageous slaughter,” “infanticide,” “foeticide,” and “the killing of babies.” And Margaret Sanger, who knew a thing or two about contraception, said that birth control “has nothing to do with abortion, it has nothing to do with interfering with or disturbing life after conception has taken place.” Birth control stands alone: “It is the first, last, and final step we all are to take to have real human emancipation.”

and i was called out for taking things out of context ?

you are suggesting that Sanger, well known for her racist comments, eugenics/nazi connections and founder of abortion provided Planned Parenthood wasn't supportive of the very thing she's know for ........ that's like saying Henry Ford really didn't like automobiles, although he spent his entire life building them

please

 

[Lursa]

not as bad as my parents - they had it bad .... millions of American's did, and there are a lot that have it not so good now as well and every single one of them then and now all had the same value of life regardless of their parents financial situations



but you kinda did - why is the unborn baby of a poor woman who doesn't really want another baby less valuable than the unborn baby of a wealthy person wanting a child ?

can you explain that please ?

I'm still waiting for you to explain how you consider everything in a person's life a 'convenience' and then, condemn women for having abortions out of convenience...like their health, their ability to keep a job, their ability to keep a roof over a family's heads or food on the table. Did you teach your kids that those things were just 'conveniences' in life? Or are they responsibilities? How about finishing high school or college? Just a convenience? Is developing a career and stability instead of a hand-to-mouth job just a convenience? Is fulfilling your obligations and commitments to other people...just a convenience? Is that what you taught your kids? That everything in life is just a string of 'conveniences?'

If so...then what's the big deal if a woman has an abortion out of "convenience?" To most of us, those things are important and have value to families and society. What about you?

 

[Lursa]

and i was called out for taking things out of context ?

you are suggesting that Sanger, well known for her racist comments, eugenics/nazi connections and founder of abortion provided Planned Parenthood wasn't supportive of the very thing she's know for ........ that's like saying Henry Ford really didn't like automobiles, although he spent his entire life building them

please

What they're posting about Sanger's racism is true and they're sourcing it. And she was against abortion. However the protections for women that she advocated are still here and respected in places like Planned Parenthood.

Would you suggest throwing out the entire Constitution because Thomas Jefferson kept slaves and raped them? Times change and organizations move forward to serve society, even beyond their founder's intent.

 

[hecatmoggie]

What they're posting about Sanger's racism is true and they're sourcing it. And she was against abortion. However the protections for women that she advocated are still here and respected in places like Planned Parenthood.

Would you suggest throwing out the entire Constitution because Thomas Jefferson kept slaves and raped them? Times change and organizations move forward to serve society, even beyond their founder's intent.

Sanger was in favor of abortion obviously .... and Jefferson was in favor of slaves ... their words did not match their actions did they ?

I have an ex-wife that did that ... said one thing, did another

 

[weaver2]

- why is the unborn baby of a poor woman who doesn't really want another baby less valuable than the unborn baby of a wealthy person wanting a child ? can you explain that please ?

Yes, I can explain that, but since you adamantly refuse to understand Ms Sanger, the era she lived in, the families she dealt with and what she advocated for I'm pretty sure any explanation about wanted and unwanted pregnancy will not be acceptable. People who refuse to acknowledge truth are not good candidates for listening to or understanding explanations.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Yes, I can explain that, but since you adamantly refuse to understand Ms Sanger, the era she lived in, the families she dealt with and what she advocated for I'm pretty sure any explanation about wanted and unwanted pregnancy will not be acceptable. People who refuse to acknowledge truth are not good candidates for listening to or understanding explanations.

I don't know Sanger any more than you did ..... we can read the facts that she was racist, affiliated with nazi's, supported eugenics, quotes abound from here on those things and you cannot escape them ....... and that she was the mother of Planned Parenthood

You can't sell Sanger as not being those things, she was

 

[Dans La Lune]

That's a lie.

It's actually reality, due to the legal and ethical paradox doctors are forced into. AND IT HAS HAPPENED. It always matters what happens in reality, since we live in reality not a right-wing think tank.

 

[weaver2]

I don't know Sanger

Well you did get that one thing right: you don't know Sanger, her times, her work, her history, her writings or her affiliations.

any more than you did .....

Unlike you I have read her books, her history and her work. I understand the era she worked in and what life was like for working women and poor women.

we can read the facts that she was racist, affiliated with nazi's, supported eugenics, quotes abound from here on those things and you cannot escape them

You've read nothing but quotes selected for you by the anti-abortion movement. Read just one of her books then get back to us about Ms Sanger.

....... and that she was the mother of Planned Parenthood

She was.

You can't sell Sanger as not being those things, she was

You are the one selling. You brought her up. You misquoted her. And you condemned her without ever having read anything she wrote.

 

[Lursa]

Sanger was in favor of abortion obviously .... and Jefferson was in favor of slaves ... their words did not match their actions did they ?

I have an ex-wife that did that ... said one thing, did another

Sure they did, at the time. It's what both (Const & PP) have become, grown into, in the future.

Again...should the Const be thrown out, dismissed, because Jefferson was a slave owner and rapist? Of course not. And Planned Parenthood today provides many reproductive services and counselling for socio-economically challenged women and couples...it serves an important and positive purpose for society. Today it has nothing to do with Sanger.

Now do you understand this? If not, why not?

 

[hecatmoggie]

Sure they did, at the time. It's what both (Const & PP) have become, grown into, in the future.

Again...should the Const be thrown out, dismissed, because Jefferson was a slave owner and rapist? Of course not. And Planned Parenthood today provides many reproductive services and counselling for socio-economically challenged women and couples...it serves an important and positive purpose for society. Today it has nothing to do with Sanger.

Now do you understand this? If not, why not?

distance from Sanger is one thing we can agree PP has done and for good reason - they don't want any affiliations with her at all, we both know why

killing an unborn child isn't positive for society, we disagree on that and we disagree that socio-economic conditions determine the value of a child's life

 

[Lursa]

distance from Sanger is one thing we can agree PP has done and for good reason - they don't want any affiliations with her at all, we both know why

killing an unborn child isn't positive for society, we disagree on that and

Since you cannot give me any examples of how abortions harm society, I think you're wrong. But please list some if you have them.

we disagree that socio-economic conditions determine the value of a child's life

I dont believe that at all. I believe that it is up to the woman to determine what risks she would face during pregnancy or as a mother, and decide what is best for her health, her life, her abillity to continue to support her family, her ability to continue to contribute to society, her ability to fulfill the obligations and commitments she's made to others, etc. Her decision to remain pregnant or not affects others.

If you remember correctly, you referred to all these things as "conveniences."

 

[hecatmoggie]

Since you cannot give me any examples of how abortions harm society, I think you're wrong. But please list some if you have them.



I dont believe that at all. I believe that it is up to the woman to determine what risks she would face during pregnancy or as a mother, and decide what is best for her health, her life, her abillity to continue to support her family, her ability to continue to contribute to society, her ability to fulfill the obligations and commitments she's made to others, etc. Her decision to remain pregnant or not affects others.

If you remember correctly, you referred to all these things as "conveniences."

killing off 60 million people with a disproportionate African American representation I don't believe is good for society ... how many of them were genius? inventors? climate change solvers? scientists? virologists ? entrepreneurs? we'll never know


you place a high emphasis on a woman's ability to have her baby killed in the womb regardless of what the baby wants, the father of the baby, the families of both sides etc etc ........... I don't want a woman to have her 12 year old child killed, her 8 year old or her 18 month old killed .... I don't want her to have the ability to have her 3 day old or 3 second old child killed or for her to have her 3 seconds before birth child killed either. I also don't want her to have her unborn baby killed 3 minutes before birth, 3 days or 3 months. That's the same child, different ages/stages of its life, but its still the very same child, DNA, blood type etc.

you're right, I don't want a woman to have that ability, its a horrible thing to have a child killed, born or unborn

 

[Lursa]

killing off 60 million people with a disproportionate African American representation I don't believe is good for society ... how many of them were genius? inventors? climate change solvers? scientists? virologists ? entrepreneurs? we'll never know

That's a very old cliche and it also leaves out the opposite that would be true: murderers, the next tyrants, Hitlers, Dahmers, criminals, domestic abusers, etc etc etc.

So it comes out even. No harm.

you place a high emphasis on a woman's ability to have her baby killed in the womb regardless of what the baby wants, the father of the baby, the families of both sides etc etc ........... I don't want a woman to have her 12 year old child killed, her 8 year old or her 18 month old killed .... I don't want her to have the ability to have her 3 day old or 3 second old child killed or for her to have her 3 seconds before birth child killed either. I also don't want her to have her unborn baby killed 3 minutes before birth, 3 days or 3 months. That's the same child, different ages/stages of its life, but its still the very same child, DNA, blood type etc.

you're right, I don't want a woman to have that ability, its a horrible thing to have a child killed, born or unborn

I place a high emphasis on women knowing what's best for herself, her responsibilities to her dependents, and all the people in her life that she has obligations and commitments to.

I place a high emphasis on what's best for OTHERS and society.

 

[Scrabaholic]

not as bad as my parents - they had it bad .... millions of American's did, and there are a lot that have it not so good now as well and every single one of them then and now all had the same value of life regardless of their parents financial situations

Mine were both pro choice.

but you kinda did - why is the unborn baby of a poor woman who doesn't really want another baby less valuable than the unborn baby of a wealthy person wanting a child ?

can you explain that please ?

I never said that - I am pro choice for all women regardless of their financial status.

 

[Scrabaholic]

and i was called out for taking things out of context ?

you are suggesting that Sanger, well known for her racist comments, eugenics/nazi connections and founder of abortion provided Planned Parenthood wasn't supportive of the very thing she's know for ........ that's like saying Henry Ford really didn't like automobiles, although he spent his entire life building them

please

Stop lying.

 

[Scrabaholic]

distance from Sanger is one thing we can agree PP has done and for good reason - they don't want any affiliations with her at all, we both know why

killing an unborn child isn't positive for society, we disagree on that and we disagree that socio-economic conditions determine the value of a child's life

Do you ever get tired of lying?

 

[weaver2]

Stop lying.

Trying to discuss anything with people like him reminds me of the saying "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig."

 

[Scrabaholic]

killing off 60 million people with a disproportionate African American representation I don't believe is good for society ... how many of them were genius? inventors? climate change solvers? scientists? virologists ? entrepreneurs? we'll never know

How many would have been murderers, rapists or child molesters?

you place a high emphasis on a woman's ability to have her baby killed in the womb regardless of what the baby wants, the father of the baby, the families of both sides etc etc ........... I don't want a woman to have her 12 year old child killed, her 8 year old or her 18 month old killed .... I don't want her to have the ability to have her 3 day old or 3 second old child killed or for her to have her 3 seconds before birth child killed either. I also don't want her to have her unborn baby killed 3 minutes before birth, 3 days or 3 months. That's the same child, different ages/stages of its life, but its still the very same child, DNA, blood type etc.

you're right, I don't want a woman to have that ability, its a horrible thing to have a child killed, born or unborn

I don't care. The only one whose opinion matters is that of the pregnant person.

 

[Gordy327]

killing off 60 million people with a disproportionate African American representation I don't believe is good for society

Are African Americans being forced or required to have abortions against their will?

... how many of them were genius? inventors? climate change solvers? scientists? virologists ? entrepreneurs? we'll never know

Or murderers, rapists, terrorists, ect.. Do you see how silly your argument is now?

you place a high emphasis on a woman's ability to have her baby killed in the womb regardless of what the baby wants, the father of the baby, the families of both sides etc etc ...........

No, we place a high emphasis on a woman's right to choose and bodily/personal autonomy. A shame that you appraently do not.

I don't want a woman to have her 12 year old child killed, her 8 year old or her 18 month old killed .... I don't want her to have the ability to have her 3 day old or 3 second old child killed

There are already laws against that.

or for her to have her 3 seconds before birth child killed either.

Except that does not legally or electively happen either. Got anymore hyperbole?

I also don't want her to have her unborn baby killed 3 minutes before birth, 3 days or 3 months. That's the same child, different ages/stages of its life, but its still the very same child, DNA, blood type etc.

If it's not yours, it's not your business.

you're right, I don't want a woman to have that ability, its a horrible thing to have a child killed, born or unborn

Merely your opinion. But abortion can be a good thing.

 

[Fishking]

It's actually reality, due to the legal and ethical paradox doctors are forced into. AND IT HAS HAPPENED. It always matters what happens in reality, since we live in reality not a right-wing think tank.

Nope...it's a lie. There is no Republican that supports forcing a woman to bleed to death to carry a dead baby. No law pushed out there does that either.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Nope...it's a lie. There is no Republican that supports forcing a woman to bleed to death to carry a dead baby. No law pushed out there does that either.

Texas woman forced to carry dead fetus due to anti-abortion laws

Stell carried the dead fetus inside her uterus for two weeks.

www.mysanantonio.com

 

[Fishking]

Texas woman forced to carry dead fetus due to anti-abortion laws

Stell carried the dead fetus inside her uterus for two weeks.

www.mysanantonio.com

Yep...those doctors should be sued for malpractice. There is no law that says a woman has to carry a dead baby, which is why they didn't quote it in the article. There are no Republicans that support such thing either. It may come as a shock to you, but doctors get sued for malpractice all the time. In fact, it's so prevalent that medical errors are the 3rd leading cause of death in the US.

The third-leading cause of death in US most doctors don't want you to know about

More than 250,000 people in the US die every year because of medical mistakes, making it the third-leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer.

www.cnbc.com