• 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!

Margaret Sanger never advocated for or promoted abortion.

Atreus21 said:
Whatever Sanger's personal views were, the organization she founded would cease to exist if abortion were outlawed.
Click to expand...

Abortion is 4% of the services PP provides to women. It could stop doing abortions and keep right on going. Your focus on abortion only has blinded you to PP, Margaret Sanger, the services rendered by PP and it's mission. If their mission is that every pregnancy be a wanted and planned pregnancy then the focus of the entire organization has to be contraceptives not abortion.

You know, you can read up on all of this if you really wanted to sound intelligent discussing women's reproductive issues. That what you choose to read and regurgitate is lies and propaganda from the Charlotte Lozier Institute, Priests for Life, Lila Rose and her poisonous little organization Live Action and people like the felon David Daleiden makes you look ignorant.
 
Last edited:
Gordy327 said:
The Nazis took it to another level.
Click to expand...

True, but they got the idea from American progressives, who were already passing compulsory sterilization laws to prevent "undesirables" from breeding. Both groups were white nationalists. Both believed the state should control the economy and both rejected free market capitalism. They both supported massive infrastructure spending, and the federal planning boards during the new deal were very similar to the Nazi industrial syndicates.

And they both viewed Jews as genetically inferior. The immigration act of 1924, which was passed by progressives, kept Jews out of America:

The Immigration Act of 1924 shaped the U.S. population over the course of the 20th century, greatly restricting immigration and ensuring that arriving immigrants were mostly from Northern and Western Europe. It closed the door on almost all new Asian immigration and shut out most European Jews and other refugees fleeing fascism and the horrors of the Holocaust in Europe.
Click to expand...
 
aociswundumho said:
No, it was popular among progressives and Nazis. Normal people spoke out against it. GK Chesteron wrote an entire book about it:
Click to expand...
Chesterton was not "normal people". He was very wealthy, highly educated, politically progressive, religiously conservative a gifted artist and a prolific writer(From Wikipedia:Chesterton wrote around 80 books, several hundred poems, some 200 short stories, 4,000 essays and several plays. He was a literary and social critic, historian, playwright, novelist, and Catholic theologian and apologist, debater, and mystery writer. He was a columnist for the Daily News, The Illustrated London News, and his own paper, G. K.'s Weekly; he also wrote articles for the Encyclopædia Britannica.....)

And eugenics was at first an humanitarian effort to make lives better through selective breeding. It was naive, innocent of malice and a very popular movement. Starting in the 1920 it began to turn toward racism. Margaret Sanger condemned the movement and she left it.

The Nazi invented their own brand of genetics all on their own. They looked to American racists for additional ideas on racism not to the original eugenics movement's idealism
 
Who cares what she did or do not do? She’s been dead for a long time now.
 
Slartibartfast said:
Who cares what she did or do not do? She’s been dead for a long time now.
Click to expand...
The anti-abortion movement cares very much in changing public opinion about the pro-choice position. By connecting the eugenics movement after it became a racist movement to Hitlers "final solutions" to abortion, to Sanger's Planned Parenthood Clinics they are creating a vision of evil pro-choice advocates murdering babies just like Hitler and it works. Look at what the anti-abortion advocates posting on the Abortion sub forum say about abortion and women that abort. What the public thinks drives the creation of legal decisions and the creation of laws.
 
weaver2 said:
The anti-abortion movement cares very much in changing public opinion about the pro-choice position. By connecting the eugenics movement after it became a racist movement to Hitlers "final solutions" to abortion, to Sanger's Planned Parenthood Clinics they are creating a vision of evil pro-choice advocates murdering babies just like Hitler and it works. Look at what the anti-abortion advocates posting on the Abortion sub forum say about abortion and women that abort. What the public thinks drives the creation of legal decisions and the creation of laws.
Click to expand...
The anti abortion movement has never been above lying to further their agenda. It seems to be their standard tactic.
 
j brown's body said:
Carrie Buck was sterilized by the state of Virginia.
Click to expand...

:D I guess you forgot what the prominent progressive hero Holmes said about Carrie Buck:

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. [...] Three generations of imbeciles are enough.
— Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)[29]
Click to expand...

No different from what a Nazi would say.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (March 8, 1841 – March 6, 1935) was an American jurist who served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1902 to 1932.[A] Holmes is one of the most widely cited and influential Supreme Court justices in American history, noted for his long tenure on the Court and for his pithy opinions—particularly those on civil liberties and American constitutional democracy—and deference to the decisions of elected legislatures. Holmes retired from the Court at the age of 90, an unbeaten record for oldest justice on the Supreme Court. He previously served the Union as a brevet colonel in the American Civil War (in which he was wounded three times), as an associate justice and chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and as Weld Professor of Law at his alma mater, Harvard Law School. His positions, distinctive personality, and writing style made him a popular figure, especially with American progressives.[2]
Click to expand...
 
aociswundumho said:
:D I guess you forgot what the prominent progressive hero Holmes said about Carrie Buck:



No different from what a Nazi would say.
Click to expand...

Guess you forgot about Virginia and 30 other states.

Nice try.
 
j brown's body said:
Guess you forgot about Virginia and 30 other states.

Nice try.
Click to expand...

I don't even have to try, because entire books have been written about progressives and eugenics. For example:

Progressives saw sterilization as having natural advantages over traditional methods of helping the poor, such as charity. Sterilization was "scientific" -- its rationale could be found in the writings of Charles Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, the father of eugenics, who mused that superior people, like superior crops and farm animals, were the product of good breeding. The term "gene" had not yet been coined -- among the surprises in Bruinius' book is that the science and the word "genetics" were born of the pseudoscience eugenics, and not vice versa -- but any well-read person could understand that if you wanted to rid the world of inferior people, you ought to stop them from passing on their characteristics to future generations. Whereas charity only prolonged and deepened the problem of poverty by allowing the "unfit" among us to survive and procreate, sterilization presented what you might call a permanent, final solution.
Click to expand...

Like it or not, the Nazis and American progressives have an awful lot in common. Most early progressives were racist, white nationalists. They also hated Jews back then, and they still hate them today.

@Lycanthrope
@phoenix2020
 
aociswundumho said:
I don't even have to try, because entire books have been written about progressives and eugenics. For example:



Like it or not, the Nazis and American progressives have an awful lot in common. Most early progressives were racist, white nationalists. They also hated Jews back then, and they still hate them today.

@Lycanthrope
@phoenix2020
Click to expand...
I hear Nazis weren't actually fascists but socialists! I mean, is says "Socialist" right there in their own title, libz!

Libz jus don wanna admit they are Nazis the same way dey don wanna admit antebellum slavers were Democrat!
 
aociswundumho said:
I don't even have to try, because entire books have been written about progressives and eugenics. For example:



Like it or not, the Nazis and American progressives have an awful lot in common. Most early progressives were racist, white nationalists. They also hated Jews back then, and they still hate them today.

@Lycanthrope
@phoenix2020
Click to expand...

Virginia and 30 other states were not controlled by progressives. You're argument is disingenuous.


Trump is a eugenicist. which category does he fall under? I doubt its 'progressive.'
 
Lycanthrope said:
I hear Nazis weren't actually fascists but socialists! I mean, is says "Socialist" right there in their own title, libz!

Libz jus don wanna admit they are Nazis the same way dey don wanna admit antebellum slavers were Democrat!
Click to expand...

Yeah, funny though how after the Nazis were defeated, no one in Europe wanted conservatives involved in their governments. They had all been too close to the Nazis. :unsure:
 
Lycanthrope said:
I hear Nazis weren't actually fascists but socialists! I mean, is says "Socialist" right there in their own title, libz!
Click to expand...

It also says "nationalist" in the name. And the original name of the party was the German Workers' Party.

But it's best to look at their actions, not their name, and no one disputes that the Nazis controlled the German economy. They weren't Marxists of course, because Marxism is a form of international socialism and hence a political competitor to Nazism. But there are plenty of varieties of socialism which embrace nationalism.
 
aociswundumho said:
It also says "nationalist" in the name. And the original name of the party was the German Workers' Party.

But it's best to look at their actions, not their name, and no one disputes that the Nazis controlled the German economy. They weren't Marxists of course, because Marxism is a form of international socialism and hence a political competitor to Nazism. But there are plenty of varieties of socialism which embrace nationalism.
Click to expand...
Know what else, libz? The reason Donald said he sent beautiful love letters to Kim is because North Korea is a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. No doubt you didn't get taught this in your progressive public schools of indoctrination, but it's right there in their name: Democratic People's Republic of Korea! Is your mind blown yet, libz? Spend more time watching FOX and less in your kommanyst school and you might learn something. ;)
 
aociswundumho said:
It also says "nationalist" in the name. And the original name of the party was the German Workers' Party.

But it's best to look at their actions, not their name, and no one disputes that the Nazis controlled the German economy. They weren't Marxists of course, because Marxism is a form of international socialism and hence a political competitor to Nazism. But there are plenty of varieties of socialism which embrace nationalism.
Click to expand...

Supported by conservative industrialists.
 
j brown's body said:
Supported by conservative industrialists.
Click to expand...

Yep. They had a choice between Nazism or communism. They saw what communism was doing to the USSR, so they chose Nazism. Author Victor Klemperer lived in Nazi Germany and then in East Germany after the war, so he experienced both. His view was they weren't much different as far as he could tell.
 
aociswundumho said:
True, but they got the idea from American progressives, who were already passing compulsory sterilization laws to prevent "undesirables" from breeding. Both groups were white nationalists. Both believed the state should control the economy and both rejected free market capitalism. They both supported massive infrastructure spending, and the federal planning boards during the new deal were very similar to the Nazi industrial syndicates.

And they both viewed Jews as genetically inferior. The immigration act of 1924, which was passed by progressives, kept Jews out of America:
Click to expand...
Tell it to George and Ira Gershwin, Fanny Brice, and the many talented Jewish artists, great Hollywood film producers/movie moguls, and brilliant scientific intellectuals of the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s in the US.

I don't see that progressives were all the way you're portraying them. The state control was never a full rejection of free market capitalism, and progress would never have occurred without massive infrastructure spending. Those who weren't Marxist were all terrified that Marx was correct and capitalism would contradict itself in its capitalist/labor dichotomy.

That's why there was initial interest in more government intervention in the economy by some people. They wanted to save some free market capitalism, because they knew if they didn't Marx could prove correct. After the 1929 crash, of course, that was even more true. Without some socialist influence, capitalism would have died forever.
 
Slartibartfast said:
Who cares what she did or do not do? She’s been dead for a long time now.
Click to expand...
This thread is about her. If you don't care, why are you on it? And FYI, saying she advocated or promoted abortion is untrue and, therefore, if you write it, it's libel.
 
weaver2 said:
The anti-abortion movement cares very much in changing public opinion about the pro-choice position. By connecting the eugenics movement after it became a racist movement to Hitlers "final solutions" to abortion, to Sanger's Planned Parenthood Clinics they are creating a vision of evil pro-choice advocates murdering babies just like Hitler and it works. Look at what the anti-abortion advocates posting on the Abortion sub forum say about abortion and women that abort. What the public thinks drives the creation of legal decisions and the creation of laws.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, libel and slander. The name "Satan," in Arabic "Shaitan," basically means slander. It's the anti-abortion forces that like to libel and slander her.
 
Lycanthrope said:
I hear Nazis weren't actually fascists but socialists! I mean, is says "Socialist" right there in their own title, libz!

Libz jus don wanna admit they are Nazis the same way dey don wanna admit antebellum slavers were Democrat!
Click to expand...
Political parties can change. In the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, huge numbers of Southern Democrats left that party and became Republicans. And vice versa, after the Democratic Party's commitment to those Acts and their content, various Republicans and Independents joined it. Today, the Democratic Party stands for individual civil rights, feminism, and social libertarianism, all of which at one time had some significant Republican support.
 
choiceone said:
Political parties can change. In the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, huge numbers of Southern Democrats left that party and became Republicans. And vice versa, after the Democratic Party's commitment to those Acts and their content, various Republicans and Independents joined it. Today, the Democratic Party stands for individual civil rights, feminism, and social libertarianism, all of which at one time had some significant Republican support.
Click to expand...
"NUH UH! DEMOCRATS ARE THE PARTY OF SLAVE OWNERS AND NAZIS!!!"

(disclaimer - this is sarcasm on my part bjt all I am doing is parroting many MAGAs who sincerely put this out there. Because ya know - only good things come from the right!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom