• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Margaret Sanger - founder of planned parenthood.

ngdawg said:
Planned Parenthood is not the only organization that offers 'free' services in poorer neighborhoods. And Planned parenthood is not a 'eugenics' group.


Dictionary.com
eu·gen·ics Audio pronunciation of "eugenics" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (y-jnks)
n. (used with a sing. verb)

The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.


http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

46 million abortions conducted eacy year

Approximately 1,370,000 abortions occur annually in the U.S.
 
vergiss said:
Oh, crap, you figured out my desire to jump in front of a truck that was so secret even I had no idea. :roll:
So what did you mean if it was not a suicidal thought of yours?


So you have an issue with her views on abortion.

In which case, why try to justify your dislike for the women with all this material painting her as a white supremacist, etc? Because you knew you had no rational reason to hate her, otherwise?


The women was involved in eugenics.The women created a eugenics group under the guise of helping people.

I take that fact that you think I have issues as proof of my good character.

You have not good character,you try to rationalize the murder of innocent children,you are out of your mind.
 
jamesrage said:
So what did you mean if it was not a suicidal thought of yours?

...

How many chromosomes do you have?


jamesrage said:
The women was involved in eugenics.The women created a eugenics group under the guise of helping people.

Using the definition of eugenics you supplied, I fail to see how it can be advocating eugenics. How is it "improving humanity through selective breeding" when contraception is supplied to and abortions are performed on all sorts of women with no common, supposed genetic "inferiority"?

jamesrage said:
You have not good character,you try to rationalize the murder of innocent children,you are out of your mind.

Again, thank you!
 
I just love when the totally irrational facets call everyone else 'insane'...:mrgreen:

Sanger didn't create a eugenics group, she wasn't even the creator of eugenics. Eugenics has long since been abandoned.
Don't know what your definition posting has to do with what I said, but then again...nothing you've posted has anything to do with much at all. Posting how many abortions are performed has nothing to do with anything you've said either. It's all been ranting so far.
I answered your question.I have a problem with rat nazis exterminating children under the guise of "choice" and "medical help".
We probably all do. But no one is 'exterminating children' in this country.
 
"You are implying that Planned Parenthood has a propagandist agenda and approach and still uses the eugenics outlines and I'm telling you as a former patient that is NOT the case on a person to doctor basis in their clinics, nor is Sanger's agenda of ethnic cleansing."

Since this is the WORLDS LARGEST ABORTION PROMOTER AND PROVIDER....you certainly stand with millions who have also been patients, myself included. You could get a million different views from patients. One need look at the history of this assembly line.

The organization ended up viewing abortion as just one more way of controlling the birthrate of those considered inferior. If you read Sangers earlier original writings as well as her magazine, Birth Control Review you can decide for yourself what beliefs and attitudes gave birth to PP and the abortion movement in America.

She indeed talked about the poor and handicapped as the "sinister forces of the hordes of irresponsibility and imbecility, " claiming their existence constituted an "attack upon the stocks of intelligence and racial health." She called the less privileged members of society "a dead weight of human waste." Hitler said the same things.

The same views were in her magazine. Its full of articles with titles such as "The Worlds Racial Problem" "Towards Race Betterment," "Eugenic Sterilization:An Urgent Need." The last article I just mentioned was written by a Dr. Ernst Rudin, who was a leader in the German eugenics movement that was at the time laying the foundation for the Nazis acts of racial improvement.


Sanger was responsible for the content of this magazine, they were her views.
She was a part in the eugenics movement and she openly praised Nazi racial policies. I won't go into it here but do some research on Sanger and the "Negro Project" of the 1930s. She worked hard to distribute contraception to "Negro's" to help curtail this undesirable population. Then when it wasn't working they turned to abortion as a solution.
Sanger really wasn't aiming here to curtail the Negro population at all she wanted to illiminate it.

To this day PP does virtually NOTHING to promote adoption or to help poor and minority woman whose choose to give their children up rather than abort them. That is fact. PP has even brought legal action to shut down alternative pregnancy centers that give woman other choices besides abortion.

The fact today that there might be minorities and blacks working at PP does not change its history to which Sanger or anyone else has never apologized for their racist views. I believe today it still carries on these views in many ways.

Sanger advocated abortion as a means of sexual freedom, birth control and EUGENICS. Who is to say those are not the same ideals that PP todays stands for.
 
doughgirl said:
To this day PP does virtually NOTHING to promote adoption or to help poor and minority woman whose choose to give their children up rather than abort them. That is fact. PP has even brought legal action to shut down alternative pregnancy centers that give woman other choices besides abortion.

Agreed. The planned parenthood website is set up to miseducate women as much as it is designed to educate them.

One must only look at the answer to the question, "Does a fetus feel pain?"

Their answer says there is a possibillity that the fetus can never feel pain at any time during the pregnancy!!! That's actually not a possibility at all and I have no current literature that would support that PP claim. There are disagreements over when pain may be felt but the scientific and medical community as a whole agree that at some point late in pregnancy pain is felt.

Also their adoption information is short, sweet, and to the point. It insinuates that your healthy baby may or may not get adopted so you should abort. It points to foster care babies as an example of babies without homes.

This info is total BS. It is almost impossible to adopt a healthy baby in the US today which is why most fertile couple are forced to adopt babies from around the world that generally have health problems. Most of the babies in foster care are not up for adoption they have been removed from their parents care for the time being usually related to legal problems but they are NOT adoptable by law and THAT is why they haven't been adopted.

PP aims to misguide women and miseducate them. And while not all prochoicers are prodeath planned parenthood certainly is.
 
talloulou said:
Also their adoption information is short, sweet, and to the point. It insinuates that your healthy baby may or may not get adopted so you should abort. It points to foster care babies as an example of babies without homes.

This info is total BS. It is almost impossible to adopt a healthy baby in the US today which is why most fertile couple are forced to adopt babies from around the world that generally have health problems. Most of the babies in foster care are not up for adoption they have been removed from their parents care for the time being usually related to legal problems but they are NOT adoptable by law and THAT is why they haven't been adopted.
Even newborns surrendered to the state languish in foster care for at least 6 months because of bureaucracy. Newborns can be adopted in this country, but privately is the quickest albeit most expensive way to go and THAT is why it is almost impossible to adopt a healthy baby-a healthy WHITE baby is a rarity as most who give birth keep them, not give them up. Healthy minority babies simply are not adopted out due to economic and red-tape reasons. I have adopted nephews, each done privately and my neighbor's daughter is adopted, but it's 'open' adoption-she has contact with her birth mother's family.
The children up for adoption in foster care many times are learning disabled, physically disabled or have 'special needs' and like it or not, those willing to adopt those children are a huge rarity. Everyone wants cute, healthy, brand-new babies-not 4 year olds who can't function normally. That is not the fault of Planned Parenthood. They are not in the adoption field, they are in women's health.
 
ngdawg said:
Even newborns surrendered to the state languish in foster care for at least 6 months because of bureaucracy. Newborns can be adopted in this country, but privately is the quickest albeit most expensive way to go and THAT is why it is almost impossible to adopt a healthy baby-a healthy WHITE baby is a rarity as most who give birth keep them, not give them up. Healthy minority babies simply are not adopted out due to economic and red-tape reasons. I have adopted nephews, each done privately and my neighbor's daughter is adopted, but it's 'open' adoption-she has contact with her birth mother's family.
The children up for adoption in foster care many times are learning disabled, physically disabled or have 'special needs' and like it or not, those willing to adopt those children are a huge rarity. Everyone wants cute, healthy, brand-new babies-not 4 year olds who can't function normally. That is not the fault of Planned Parenthood. They are not in the adoption field, they are in women's health.

Right but if they are going to discuss adoption on their website at all it is my opinion that they should let women know that a healthy newborn infant will have no trouble at all finding a loving home in the US and that in fact infertile couples have such a problem finding such babies that they often adopt from foreign countries. That's all I'm asking for. Education vs skewed miseducation.

Plus I think their statement that its possible a fetus may never feel pain at any point in the pregnancy is woefully misrepresentative of the scientific and medical communities current data and therefore that can only be considering misleading and miseducation.
 
I reiterate, they are not IN the adoption field and I see no problem with this information at all, considering they have no onus to publish it:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/adoption/adoption-faq.xml

Frequently Asked Questions About Adoption

What is adoption?
Adoption is the legal placement of a child with people who will raise the child as their own.

What is an "open" adoption?
An open adoption involves an agreement between a child's adoptive family and birth family that says that the two families will keep in touch. In other words, open adoption allows for birth parents to contact the child they gave birth to through letters, pictures, and visits with the child and his family.

Is adoption permanent?
Yes. Once placed, the child becomes permanently and legally a member of the adoptive family with full rights to inheritance and a lifetime family relationship.

What "qualifications" must someone meet before he or she is approved as prospective adoptive parents?
At most adoption agencies, adoptive parents go through a fairly lengthy process in order to become "approved." They attend group meetings and interviews. They complete a lot of paperwork, and they go through a "home study." Each agency prepares their families differently, but they all do their best to make sure the family is ready for a baby.

How much do birth parents know about the adoptive family?
Birth parents can be very involved in choosing an adoptive family for their child; they can also choose to be completely uninvolved. When choosing prospective adoptive families, birth parents are often given profiles of each family. Profiles include information about potential adoptive families' ages, their physical and personality descriptions, their marriage, religion, lifestyle, occupation, education, feelings about birth parents, and more.

What information is needed from the birth father?
Most agencies like to get as much information from the birth father as possible. Each state has different laws detailing just how much information is needed from a birth father - contact a local adoption agency to find out more about the laws in your state.

How soon after the baby is born can it be placed in an adoptive home?
Each state has different laws about this, too. There is usually a waiting period of 48 hours or more before a child can be placed. Contact a local adoption agency to find out what the laws are in your state.

May birth parents write the adoptive parents a letter explaining to them the reasons for placing the child for adoption?
Most agencies encourage birth parents to write a letter not only to the adoptive parents but also to their child. Many agencies act as a "go between" for the birth and adoptive families.

Are birth parents able to have a visit with their baby before they sign the adoption papers?
Most often, relinquishment forms are signed after discharge from the hospital, and birth parents are often present at the adoptive placement. Many agencies even encourage what's called a "placement ceremony," to which both the adoptive family and the birth family can invite others to witness the placement of the child.

May birth parents have a picture of the baby?
Most often, yes. Many birth parents take lots of pictures in the hospital before they and the baby are discharged. Agreements are often made with the adoptive family regarding the sharing of pictures and letters prior to the placement of the child.

As for you claims about pain, link it, because I am in their site now and see nothing about fetal development.
 
"Can an embryo or fetus feel pain?

We know for sure that the embryo or fetus cannot perceive pain in the nearly 99 percent of all abortions that occur before the 20th week of pregnancy. It is even possible that a fetus is unable to perceive pain at any time during pregnancy. If, however, the ability to feel pain does develop before birth and consciousness, it is likely to happen only after the 28th week of pregnancy, when abortion is performed only for urgent medical reasons."

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp...-and-a.xml#1096486124102::4516956132643891678
 
That, I will concede, is a softsell point to alleviate any guilt from the ones seeking abortions and should be updated, but they do use the words 'possible' and 'likely' to soften their stance. They also say:
Most abortions — nearly 90 percent — are provided in the first trimester — the first three months of pregnancy. Fewer than 11 percent take place in the second trimester. Abortion is very rare and only done for serious health reasons after 24 weeks.
While their information might not be as hardcore as their opposition uses and would like them to use, that's true of anything in the way of medical information that is given to a public seeking it-prescription drugs makers play the same game-softsell the downsides.
 
ngdawg said:
That, I will concede, is a softsell point to alleviate any guilt from the ones seeking abortions and should be updated

Agreed. And you are right the word "possible" keeps them off the hook otherwise they would be straight up lying.

Furthermore I don't think any educated womens guilt would be relieved by this fallacy and if there are women who are not so educated that they are fooled then planned parenthood is helping to keep them ignorant.

But I very much respect your being able to see some of my point in this regard. :mrgreen:
 
ngdawg said:
I just love when the totally irrational facets call everyone else 'insane'...:mrgreen:

Sanger didn't create a eugenics group, she wasn't even the creator of eugenics. Eugenics has long since been abandoned.
Don't know what your definition posting has to do with what I said, but then again...nothing you've posted has anything to do with much at all. Posting how many abortions are performed has nothing to do with anything you've said either. It's all been ranting so far.

http://bevets.com/evolutionconsequences.htm

Planned parenthood is a eugenist group created by a eugenist.Sanger is a eugenist.Sanger used certian people as pawns to help her with eugenist goals.Sanger used that old feminist rhetoritc into duping people into doing what she wanted.


"Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed,
they must first clear the way for Birth Control. Like the advocates of Birth Control,
the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.
Both are seeking a single end but they lay emphasis upon different methods. …"
—Margaret Sanger, "Birth Control and Racial Betterment." Birth Control Review,
February 1919, (vol. III, no. 2); p. 11.



http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

"The basic freedom of the world is woman's freedom. A free race cannot be born of slave mothers. A woman enchained cannot choose but give a measure of that bondage to her sons and daughters. No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother."
"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. Regardless of what man's attitude may be, that problem is hers; and before it can be his, it is hers alone. [npg] She goes through the vale of death alone, each time a babe is born. As it is the right neither of man nor the state to coerce her into this ordeal, so it is her right to decide whether she will endure it. That right to decide imposes upon her the duty of clearing the way to knowledge by which she may make and carry out the decision. [npg] Birth control is woman's problem. The quicker she accepts it as hers and hers alone, the quicker will society respect motherhood. The quicker, too, will the world be made a fit place for her children to live."
Woman and the New Race, Chapter 8, "Birth Control; A Parents' Problem or Woman's?" New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.


* "[We propose to] hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
o Commenting on the 'Negro Project' in a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, December 19, 1939. - Sanger manuscripts, Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.
o (Note: Dec. 10 is the correct date of the letter. There is a different date circulated, e.g. Oct. 19, 1939; but Dec. 10 is the correct date of Ms Sanger's letter to Mr. Gamble.)


Planned parenthood is not going to be open about their goals.



People with any brains would find this suspicious.Apparently not that many people do.
plannedparenthood.jpg
 
jamesrage said:
http://bevets.com/evolutionconsequences.htm

Planned parenthood is a eugenist group created by a eugenist.Sanger is a eugenist.Sanger used certian people as pawns to help her with eugenist goals.Sanger used that old feminist rhetoritc into duping people into doing what she wanted.


"Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed,
they must first clear the way for Birth Control. Like the advocates of Birth Control,
the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.
Both are seeking a single end but they lay emphasis upon different methods. …"
—Margaret Sanger, "Birth Control and Racial Betterment." Birth Control Review,
February 1919, (vol. III, no. 2); p. 11.



http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

"The basic freedom of the world is woman's freedom. A free race cannot be born of slave mothers. A woman enchained cannot choose but give a measure of that bondage to her sons and daughters. No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother."
"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. Regardless of what man's attitude may be, that problem is hers; and before it can be his, it is hers alone. [npg] She goes through the vale of death alone, each time a babe is born. As it is the right neither of man nor the state to coerce her into this ordeal, so it is her right to decide whether she will endure it. That right to decide imposes upon her the duty of clearing the way to knowledge by which she may make and carry out the decision. [npg] Birth control is woman's problem. The quicker she accepts it as hers and hers alone, the quicker will society respect motherhood. The quicker, too, will the world be made a fit place for her children to live."
Woman and the New Race, Chapter 8, "Birth Control; A Parents' Problem or Woman's?" New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.


* "[We propose to] hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
o Commenting on the 'Negro Project' in a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, December 19, 1939. - Sanger manuscripts, Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.
o (Note: Dec. 10 is the correct date of the letter. There is a different date circulated, e.g. Oct. 19, 1939; but Dec. 10 is the correct date of Ms Sanger's letter to Mr. Gamble.)


Planned parenthood is not going to be open about their goals.



People with any brains would find this suspicious.Apparently not that many people do.
plannedparenthood.jpg

Yeah, sorry, but your quotes from a dead woman don't mean much.
 
Not sure what a poorly drawn cartoon accompanied by a badly spelled and grammatically incorrect banner have to do with anything....:roll:

Oh, and try to find something a tad more recent, JR....you've been borrowing from the Robodoon manual of 'ancient, archaic and useless thoughts' a bit much lately:lol:
 
afr0byte said:
Yeah, sorry, but your quotes from a dead woman don't mean much.


DOnm't you mean those quotes do not mean much to you?

You justify the murder of innocent babies.
If it thinks like a nazi acts like a nazi,it is nazi?Does that make you a nazi?You justify that just because a child has not left his or her mother's womb that make them less than a human being,something the nazis did to other races and groups of people.They made them less than a human being in their minds to justify their murder.


This statement by Sanger clarifies the goals of herself and her orginization.

"Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed,
they must first clear the way for Birth Control.
Like the advocates of Birth Control,
the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.
Both are seeking a single end but they lay emphasis upon different methods. …"
—Margaret Sanger, "Birth Control and Racial Betterment." Birth Control Review,
February 1919, (vol. III, no. 2); p. 11.




You demand proof and I give you proof.I gave you more than enough proof to know that the founder of planned parenthood is monster and the intentions of why she created planned parenthood and now her quotes mean nothing to you?

This seems to be a new tactic,instead of debating the facts,you ignore them and act like they don't mean anything.Considering this group and others like this group have murdered millions of babies each year should be proof enough that they are trying to controll the population and they do so by getting niave women to willfully instead of forcefully control their numbers for them.


This is what planed parenthood is underneath all the hoopla they try to sell to niave people.
plannedparenthood.jpg
 
ngdawg said:
Not sure what a poorly drawn cartoon accompanied by a badly spelled and grammatically incorrect banner have to do with anything....:roll:

Oh, and try to find something a tad more recent, JR....you've been borrowing from the Robodoon manual of 'ancient, archaic and useless thoughts' a bit much lately:lol:


The drawing illistrates planed parenthood.If I had enough time I would have put in a line of people trying to get free abortions and birth controll to represent the idiots who buy their lie.
 
jamesrage said:
DOnm't you mean those quotes do not mean much to you?

You justify the murder of innocent babies.
If it thinks like a nazi acts like a nazi,it is nazi?Does that make you a nazi?You justify that just because a child has not left his or her mother's womb that make them less than a human being,something the nazis did to other races and groups of people.They made them less than a human being in their minds to justify their murder.


This statement by Sanger clarifies the goals of herself and her orginization.

"Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed,
they must first clear the way for Birth Control.
Like the advocates of Birth Control,
the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.
Both are seeking a single end but they lay emphasis upon different methods. …"
—Margaret Sanger, "Birth Control and Racial Betterment." Birth Control Review,
February 1919, (vol. III, no. 2); p. 11.




You demand proof and I give you proof.I gave you more than enough proof to know that the founder of planned parenthood is monster and the intentions of why she created planned parenthood and now her quotes mean nothing to you?

This seems to be a new tactic,instead of debating the facts,you ignore them and act like they don't mean anything.Considering this group and others like this group have murdered millions of babies each year should be proof enough that they are trying to controll the population and they do so by getting niave women to willfully instead of forcefully control their numbers for them.


This is what planed parenthood is underneath all the hoopla they try to sell to niave people.
plannedparenthood.jpg

Well, she's been dead for 40 years. Things have changed a bit since then. Besides, you were originally trying to paint me as a eugenist because I support abortion. Supporting a woman's right to choose (any woman, not just those from a particular race) does not make me a eugenist.
 
Oh, and, jamesrage you've failed to prove that the majority of people having abortions did so based on the rhetoric of Margaret Sanger. Oh and statistics about Black women having more abortions just means they have more abortions, you can't prove that it's because of what Margaret Sanger said. Besides, if the abortion is something a Black woman wanted in the first place, it doesn't really matter what Planned Parenthood's motives are (I'm not saying they're one way or another).
 
afr0byte said:
Well, she's been dead for 40 years. Things have changed a bit since then. Besides, you were originally trying to paint me as a eugenist because I support abortion. Supporting a woman's right to choose (any woman, not just those from a particular race) does not make me a eugenist.

If you support Al Qeada you support the group in their murdering of innocent people.Because Al Qeada is terrorist groupIf you support the KKK yo support all thge lyncnings,murders and all the other horrible stuff they did.Becuase the KKK is a racist orginization with roots in terrorism.If you support planned parenthood and abortions then you support eugnenics because that is why the group is formed in the first place.Since you support abortion you support the murder of innocent children.
 
jamesrage said:
If you support Al Qeada you support the group in their murdering of innocent people.Because Al Qeada is terrorist groupIf you support the KKK yo support all thge lyncnings,murders and all the other horrible stuff they did.Becuase the KKK is a racist orginization with roots in terrorism.If you support planned parenthood and abortions then you support eugnenics because that is why the group is formed in the first place.Since you support abortion you support the murder of innocent children.

Well, I never said I support Planned Parenthood (supporting the right to abortion is different from supporting Planned Parenthood it self). I said I supported the right to abortion. Which again, you see as the murder of innocent children, but I don't, which is why we've been debating abortion.
 
afr0byte said:
Well, I never said I support Planned Parenthood (supporting the right to abortion is different from supporting Planned Parenthood it self). I said I supported the right to abortion.

Since I support the right to bear arms it would be fair to say that I support the NRA and other gun advocate groups.
 
jamesrage said:
Since I support the right to bear arms it would be fair to say that I support the NRA and other gun advocate groups.
OMGWTFBBQ!!! YOU support the killing of innocent children in playgrounds!! You support shooting innocent political cronies in the face!!! YOU support spousal abuse!!! Holy Holes, Batman!! You must support irresponsible gunplay!
Get real....funny how stupid the original claims seem when they're turned back to the OP that made them:doh
 
ngdawg said:
OMGWTFBBQ!!! YOU support the killing of innocent children in playgrounds!! You support shooting innocent political cronies in the face!!! YOU support spousal abuse!!! Holy Holes, Batman!! You must support irresponsible gunplay!
Get real....funny how stupid the original claims seem when they're turned back to the OP that made them:doh

The right to bear arms was created by our forefathers in order to keep a oppresive government at bay.

Nice try but Planned parenthood was created for the soul purpose of eugenics.

"Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed,
they must first clear the way for Birth Control. Like the advocates of Birth Control,
the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.
Both are seeking a single end but they lay emphasis upon different methods. …"
—Margaret Sanger, "Birth Control and Racial Betterment." Birth Control Review,
February 1919, (vol. III, no. 2); p. 11.
 
Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You're in a well-regulated militia? Fighting for the security of a 'free state, eh? And yet, you think women are not free to make a personal decision. Oh, the irony.....

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Sanger had the right to voice opinion, as do you, regardless of the absurdity.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The right to be secure in our persons, without violation without probable cause, pertains to the notion of NOT being forced to bear pregnancy against one's will as well. That would also fall under Amendment VIII:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Since forcing someone to do something against their will and with their own bodies would be considered involuntary servitude, your posted views seem to apply. But guess you COULD hold a gun to their heads.....
 
Back
Top Bottom