Prolife's prurient interest in controlling your body: explained. (1 Viewer)

[1069]

Statistically speaking, there are more female prolifers than male prolifers, according to CBS's latest poll.
How can this be? It is so perplexing.
Why would so many females choose to be complicit- to be willing accomplices- in their own progressive genderwide dehumanization?
Here's a telling little factoid that might provide a clue:

Any good defense lawyer who is defending a rapist will tell you that in a rape trial, you want to pack the jury box with women.
Men will tend be more sympathetic to the female victim, identifying her with their mother, their sister, their daughter or wife.
Women are generally more unsympathetic to rape victims, and more likely to vote to acquit the defendant.
This is a well-known phenomenon that has been widely studied, and is still not very well understood.
It is, nevertheless, an objective fact that in rape trials, female jurors are more likely to acquit the accused rapist, less likely to believe or sympathize with the victim, than male jurors.

I think this is partially because some women still view all others as "competition", despite the best efforts of the women's liberation movement to promote unity and sisterhood among females.
Society doesn't help; it seems to pit women against each other, insisting that the most valuable women are the ones who best conform to some largely unattainable standard of youth and beauty. Unlike men, women are told that their utility, their usefulness to society, decreases as they mature and get older, rather than increasing as men's does.
This causes some women to view other females as threats, and to judge them very harshly; especially when their sexuality is at issue (ie, abortion, rape, pornography/prostitution, etc).
It's easy for some women to apply dehumanizing sexist labels like "slut" to other women, because they are threatened by other women's sexuality.
It's easy for some women to convince themselves that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy "got what she deserved" and ought to be made to suffer for being sexual and therefore a threat.
It's much more difficult for women to look at a woman with an unwanted pregnancy and say, "That could just as easily be me."
But it could, and women really ought to make an effort to overcome their fears and insecurities and see that their best chance lies in unity with other females, not in competition with them. It's not a competition that can be won; even if you are the most beautiful woman in the world, you still get old and lose your status in this society so fast.

So anyway. That's my opinion; I perceive that many women in this society are insecure, and that they like to see other women suffer... not consciously, but subconsciously. Consciously, they might tell themselves it's about protecting fetuses, or promoting abstinence and morality, or whatever. But what it's really about is women wishing to punish other women for their sexuality, because they feel threatened by it.

Male prolifers are a different story.
Although statistically less numerous than female prolifers, they tend to be more... militant about it. While female prolifers can certainly be hostile and shrill, they rarely resort to physical intimidation or violence. Most if not all of the violence committed in the name of "saving the unborn children" has been committed by males.

This, I believe, is because male prolifers are motivated by an entirely different impetus than female prolifers.
Men are not generally *threatened* by women's sexuality, per se.
It is something they can relate to. Therefore, they have less of this urge to punish women for being sexual.
When men oppose women's reproductive rights, I believe there is some other dynamic at play; I think those men are threatened not by women's sexuality but by women's increasing independence, autonomy, and equal status in society. Instead of equality, they perceive that women are actually receiving preferential treatment, and some men fear that women will take their jobs, their livelihood... that women will not need men anymore.
These men see outlawing abortion as a step toward returning society to a status quo they feel safe and comfortable with; one where men clearly have more power than women.

Either way, it confuses and saddens me that so many of my fellow citizens wish so adamantly to see females lose their right to bodily sovereignty, and so I've spent a lot of time thinking about why. And these are the most likely motivations I've been able to come up with.

Keep in mind that all this is going on at a largely subconscious level.
It only becomes obvious when one spends a lot of time observing prolifers and their behavior, and slowly becomes aware that there is a dissonance between their words and their actions.
Their vehemence and venom toward pregnant women, as well as their collective indifference to the needs of born children living in poverty, all belie their stated motive: "protecting the unborn babies".
Many of them, discussing women, use language that is spiteful, vicious.

The only time people become really hateful, I think, is when they feel threatened, so that's what I've come up with.
Prolifers, for one reason or another, feel threatened by the concept of women controlling their own reproductive functions.
Understanding this is the key to preempting their agenda and safeguarding the human, civil, and constitutional rights of all Americans.
We have to help them stop feeling threatened, and bring them to the realization that our best hope as a society lies not in restriction and oppression but in equity for all people, regardless of race or gender.
How can we do this?
Heh. I'm all out of ideas.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Since you're out of thoughts, let me add a few of my own.

In terms of motivations for women to join the pro-life movement, one that should not be discounted is guilt. Women who have had abortions, and regretted it, may sometimes decide to eliminate the possibility for other women, presumably for one of two reasons: they may wish to spare other women the guilt that they feel, and have somehow convinced themselves that any woman's situation can bear the addition of a child (presumably based on an imagined reconstruction of their own situation when they had an abortion); or they may wish to punish those who commit the same sin they themselves committed, as they cannot (or will not) punish themselves.

As for men, there are men who feel threatened by women's sexuality and who simply wish to dominate women; I would theorize that this motivation comes from having been controlled by a woman's sexuality in the past. Men who impregnated a woman in their past, and then that woman had an abortion either over the man's objection or without consulting the man, can then resort to punishing other women, again because of misplaced rage. And in some cases, even if pregnancy doesn't enter into it, a man who is simply a misogynist may look at pro-life as a path to "punish the sluts." This may help explain the militancy of those men who are pro-life.


As for a solution, I think the best (though not the easiest) would be to eliminate the need for women to compete with each other in terms of their sexuality. One step might be the elimination of marriage, since marriage is both seen as a legitimization of women's sexuality -- and thus a weapon to brandish at unmarried women who seek abortions -- and also a primary cause of competition: wives are threatened by the thought of their husbands' possible adultery, and of being replaced by younger women, and younger women are threatened by the idea of other women taking their prospective husbands. Perhaps if there were no marriage, there would be less threat to women.

This would also necessitate a true equality between men and women in terms of economic power, to reduce the need for women to get married and have a man provide for them; true equality in the workplace would also reduce competition.

As for how to achieve true equality? Now I'm out of ideas.:lol:

 

[FallingPianos]

its really not that complicated. you dont like pro-lifers and you have philosophised yourself into a hole to try to make them look evil.

what it really comes down to is this: pro-lifers believe that pregnant women have a duty to their unborn to carry the pregnancy to term. its not about men vs women.

does that mean that there is no misogyny in the pro-life movement? not at all. anyone who has heard a pro-lifer say that "the slut should have kept her legs together!" should know that. but this is reflective of a greater problem, not just of pro-lifers.

 

[talloulou]

As for a solution, I think the best (though not the easiest) would be to eliminate the need for women to compete with each other in terms of their sexuality. One step might be the elimination of marriage, since marriage is both seen as a legitimization of women's sexuality -- and thus a weapon to brandish at unmarried women who seek abortions --

How would getting rid of marriage lessen sexual competition amoung women? I think it would create more competition as more men would feel like society has given them a pass to not take care of their women and children.

and also a primary cause of competition: wives are threatened by the thought of their husbands' possible adultery, and of being replaced by younger women, and younger women are threatened by the idea of other women taking their prospective husbands. Perhaps if there were no marriage, there would be less threat to women.

No marriage would not stop men from trading their old women in for younger ones. The only thing it would do is make the behavior even more acceptable and thus many more men would do it. The idea that this would in anyway make women less competitive and more secure is absurd. It would make matters worse.

This would also necessitate a true equality between men and women in terms of economic power, to reduce the need for women to get married and have a man provide for them; true equality in the workplace would also reduce competition.

Yeah and the children can all just piss off and we can forget all the studies that show how much children benefit from having a parent stay home and actually raise them. Sounds very anti-family and anti-children to me. Talk about promoting reckless irresponsibility. Are there even any children in your scenarios or have they all been aborted?

I know nazi-feminists have pulled out all the stops to make feminism a bad word. But you have now taken that one step further so that "equality" means "selfish" and no one should have any responsibilty for any one else ever. Doesn't sound like a society I'd be eager to live in.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

How would getting rid of marriage lessen sexual competition amoung women? I think it would create more competition as more men would feel like society has given them a pass to not take care of their women and children.

It was just an idea; perhaps it's a bad one. I was thinking that it might allow both men and women to change partners as they wished, without feelings of guilt or irresponsibility; why would men be the only ones to take advantage of that? Why couldn't women trade their men in for younger versions, if they were looking for a companion and not a husband? It seems likely that the reason younger men do not date older women is mainly that younger men are not after marriage or children, and the stereotype is that older women -- and here I'm thinking of women in their 30's and men in their 20's, so "older women" only relative to the men -- are hearing the ticking of their biological clocks. But isn't it true that women reach their sexual peak between 35 and 45, while men reach theirs around 18? Why shouldn't both genders take advantage of that? The only thing against it now is the idea that for a long term romance, that's strange or weird. But why? Only because 18 year old men don't marry 35 year old women. So eliminate marriage.

As I said, maybe it's a bad idea. Do you have any suggestions?

No marriage would not stop men from trading their old women in for younger ones. The only thing it would do is make the behavior even more acceptable and thus many more men would do it. The idea that this would in anyway make women less competitive and more secure is absurd. It would make matters worse.

Yeah, maybe. And maybe women would be happier too, and men would worry more about their appearance because they would have to compete just as much as women, and maybe that would stop them from being so bloody shallow. And maybe people would be exactly as they are now: couples that truly care about each other and want to have a life together would stay together, and couples that may not be that well suited would break up. Isn't that what you see now, with our 50% divorce rate? How has the sacrament of marriage helped us?

Yeah and the children can all just piss off and we can forget all the studies that show how much children benefit from having a parent stay home and actually raise them. Sounds very anti-family and anti-children to me. Talk about promoting reckless irresponsibility. Are there even any children in your scenarios or have they all been aborted?

I know nazi-feminists have pulled out all the stops to make feminism a bad word. But you have now taken that one step further so that "equality" means "selfish" and no one should have any responsibilty for any one else ever. Doesn't sound like a society I'd be eager to live in.

It is anti-family, if by family you mean "married couple that stay together forever and ever because they swore before God that they would do so." Of course, considering how few of those families there are now, I'm not sure how much difference this would make. I actually think that divorce is far more harmful to families than not having marriage in the first place would be; people may be angry at each other for leaving, but it's divorce that ruins lives. This would certainly eliminate that.
As for children, there would simply have to be new ways to deal with the issue. Maybe we could have shared custody between the birth parents, whether they are actually together as a couple or not -- sound familiar? Maybe everyone could share in the raising of children; hell, I don't know. Do you have a suggestion for solving our society's family problems? Beyond "Everybody get married and have kids, whether they like it or not?"

 

[talloulou]

It was just an idea; perhaps it's a bad one. I was thinking that it might allow both men and women to change partners as they wished, without feelings of guilt or irresponsibility; why would men be the only ones to take advantage of that?

Most likely they wouldn't. However if you factor children in to the situation you begin to see why we hold up "families" like we do. What are the women supposed to with their children? Assuming a man has no responsibility towards any woman why would he stand by a pregnant women? Why should she be pregnant alone while he's off getting tons of sex from a variety of people? How much sex is she gonna get when she is pregnant? Nursing? Has a two year old screaming and attached to her legs? Assuming she is working she doesn't see her kids all day while they're in daycare. When is she supposed to go out and pick up all the men for all the sex she wants to have? Is she gonna hire a sitter for the kid who was in daycare all day? Are men gonna do their fair share of the "kid work"? Do you think men do their fair share now? From what I hear even when both couples work the women still tends to get stuck doing more of the kids stuff, the school stuff, and the cleaning. Are men gonna stick around to help out with that crap when society suggests they can abandon all that to go run around with a variety of women? How many more unexpected pregnancies are there gonna be if our society adopts this sleep around without ever comitting policy?

Isn't that what you see now, with our 50% divorce rate? How has the sacrament of marriage helped us?

The divorce rates are really high. However most divorced people tend to eventually remarry and raise their kids in a commited and loving home.

I actually think that divorce is far more harmful to families than not having marriage in the first place would be; people may be angry at each other for leaving, but it's divorce that ruins lives. This would certainly eliminate that.

I don't know about that. Who's worse off the kid whose parents divorced and remarried other people or the kid who doesn't even know who his daddy is 'cause his mom hasn't a freaking clue?

I don't think everyone needs to get married and have kids. However I do think the best way to raise kids is within the construct of a commited couple that lives together and supports one another. I also think kids benefit greatly from having a parent at home when they return home from school. If you destroy the family you're gonna destroy the child.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Most likely they wouldn't. However if you factor children in to the situation you begin to see why we hold up "families" like we do. What are the women supposed to with their children? Assuming a man has no responsibility towards any woman why would he stand by a pregnant women? Why should she be pregnant alone while he's off getting tons of sex from a variety of people? How much sex is she gonna get when she is pregnant? Nursing? Has a two year old screaming and attached to her legs? Assuming she is working she doesn't see her kids all day while they're in daycare. When is she supposed to go out and pick up all the men for all the sex she wants to have? Is she gonna hire a sitter for the kid who was in daycare all day? Are men gonna do their fair share of the "kid work"? Do you think men do their fair share now? From what I hear even when both couples work the women still tends to get stuck doing more of the kids stuff, the school stuff, and the cleaning. Are men gonna stick around to help out with that crap when society suggests they can abandon all that to go run around with a variety of women? How many more unexpected pregnancies are there gonna be if our society adopts this sleep around without ever comitting policy?

You realize that marriage does not ever make this situation better? Men who are not interested in sticking by the mother of their children, men who are only after sex, leave the women whom they impregnate. I suppose I shouldn't say marriage never makes this situation better -- but it certainly isn't true in the vast majority of cases. Men stay with their pregnant wives because they love their wives and they love their children, not because they said "I do."
If I had never married my wife, I would still be with her. If for some reason I stopped loving her (impossible, but let's pretend) I would leave her despite the fact that I married her.

The divorce rates are really high. However most divorced people tend to eventually remarry and raise their kids in a commited and loving home.

That really isn't true. It may be true amongst the people you know, but if you talked to my students, and found out how many of them have stepparents they don't get along with, or joint custody between two single parents, or a single parent who raises tham and a remarried parent they never see, you'd know that what you said is not the case. I don't have any solid statistics, of course, only my own anecdotal evidence -- but I don't believe that stepparents necessarily equal a loving home, or that the wounds inflicted by divorce are healed by stepparents.

I don't know about that. Who's worse off the kid whose parents divorced and remarried other people or the kid who doesn't even know who his daddy is 'cause his mom hasn't a freaking clue?

I don't think everyone needs to get married and have kids. However I do think the best way to raise kids is within the construct of a commited couple that lives together and supports one another. I also think kids benefit greatly from having a parent at home when they return home from school. If you destroy the family you're gonna destroy the child.

I think the kid whose parent(s) don't love them and care for them as parents should is worse off. I don't think the child of married parents is better off than the child of unmarried loving parents.

But this isn't the topic, so I'll withdraw the argument. You probably are right, and the elimination of marriage was a stupid idea. Just because it doesn't fix our problems doesn't mean we should kill the institution entirely. My apologies.


Edit to add: man, what a lame post to be my Number of the Beast. Oh, well. Maybe that will help teach me not to shoot my mouth off.

Probably not, though.

 

[rathi]

I think you are extrapolating too far from the data on the poll.

The poll shows that women are about 3-4% more likely to be more opposed to abortion. That certainly falls within the amount of error that the poll claims to have. Your claim is certainly possible, but have an almost equal amount of doubt.

 

[1069]

As a perfect illustration of my theory, I'd like to point out this thread, pages 8-10:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...s-ask-how-oreilly-got-abortion-records-8.html

This is from a male prolifer on the thread:

"People who get abortions should be in jail and then executed.They should be reminded on a daily basis for the rest of their lives what rat nazi scum they are."

"If you want control over your reproductive functions then close your legs,get your tubes tied,use birth control pills,female condoms and the have the guy use a damn condom or two.That is how you control your own reproductive functions not go to hitler in a doctor's uniform to kill a innocent helpless human being.... Hell has a special place for baby murderers like you."

Asked whether such proposed executions of women might not harm their existing children, the prolifer replies:

"No I do not think it would harm them more if you were arrested jailed tried in a a court of law and then executed for killing your baby.Showing them that there are consequences for killing innocent children will give them the impression that killing innocent children is not okay.Letting them stay with a baby killer would send the message to them that it is alright to kill babies,thus impairing their ability to know what is right from wrong,thus making them a danger to the rest of society and to themselves."


"Hopefully rat nazi abortionist have more run ins with the likes of me to remind them what vermin and scum you are for killing their baby.baby murderers should be reminded on a daily basis what scum,what degenerate subhuman scum they are for killing their baby and the hitlers in doctor's clothes should be also reminded what degenerate subhuman scum they are."


Comically enough, in the same breath, the assailant then suggests:

"If a woman does not wish to keep her child there is thing called adoption,it where a child is given up at birth to a couple who wants a child to raise and call their own." :rofl

Meanwhile, so-called moderates blithely defend the assailant, suggesting that:

"...I know women who are emotional wrecks over their abortion and it has nothing to do with me so I find it funny that you would try to put their guilt on others.

If you know you did nothing wrong you don't feel guilt no matter what others say. When I feel guilt it's cause I don't like what I did. Sure nitwits with signs hanging outside the clinic may make people feel worse but if you know what you are doing is right than their pointing out what you are doing shouldn't upset you. Pictures shouldn't upset you... It's annoying but for the sake of free speech we tolerate it."

And:

"Mothers who have had an abortion are mothers who have killed their baby... I've never said that having an abortion makes you a bad parent to your living children. And it's not something I've heard even our most ardent prolifers say here.... "

At the suggestion that an uneducated, underprivileged young single mother might possibly feel intimidated be prolife threats, the "moderate" response is:

"Now here I think you're being overly dramatic. That s-hite don't fly here nor in the real word. There are freaks who want to kill abortion drs. But there are also freaks that want to kill Jodi Foster and John Lennon for no apparent reason. You can't do much about the freaks 'cept keep locking them up as they come out of the woodwork. But the majority of prolifers have no intention of wanting to hurt anyone. That would be counterproductive to the whole "prolife" mentality so to speak. Surely you agree?"

The moderate also dismisses the idea that prolifers wish to separate mothers from their extant children, claiming that "abortion drs", not patients, are the targets of extremist prolife ire:

"Actually that has been discussed numerous times on this board as well and the majority of prolifers don't want to see women go to jail. There are a few who believe that if abortion became illegal than drs. performing them should be sent to jail but most don't want to put the mother in jail."

The moderate then concludes:

"I think you are the one who is overly dramatic. And now I'm in a position where I could lay into you or let it go as it's obviously a sensitive subject for you.

I'll just let it go."

Meanwhile, another moderate steps in, dismissing claims that abortion is not, in fact, a "sensitive subject", despite the fact that your humble narrator has just been threatened by a fanatic with death and with the removal of her children:

"Clearly it is... I'm curious. When in your pregnancy did you have the abortion? How many days/weeks/months?"

When moderates clearly see nothing wrong with extremists threatening helpless girls and young women with death, imprisonment, and the loss of their families for exercising their constitutionally protected reproductive rights, it's very difficult not to lump the entire antichoice contingency into one category.

This is my problem with so-called "moderate prolifers".
Because of their own insecurities, they deliberately facilitate misogyny and hate crime against females.

I hope this illustration (and there will be others) helps illuminate where I'm coming from with my theory "Prolife's Prurient Interest, etc".
I did not just pull this theory out of my arse, folks.
I've been researching this firsthand for my entire adult life.

 

[talloulou]

As a perfect illustration of my theory, I'd like to point out this thread, pages 8-10:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...s-ask-how-oreilly-got-abortion-records-8.html

This is from a male prolifer on the thread:

"People who get abortions should be in jail and then executed.They should be reminded on a daily basis for the rest of their lives what rat nazi scum they are."

"If you want control over your reproductive functions then close your legs,get your tubes tied,use birth control pills,female condoms and the have the guy use a damn condom or two.That is how you control your own reproductive functions not go to hitler in a doctor's uniform to kill a innocent helpless human being.... Hell has a special place for baby murderers like you."

Asked whether such proposed executions of women might not harm their existing children, the prolifer replies:

"No I do not think it would harm them more if you were arrested jailed tried in a a court of law and then executed for killing your baby.Showing them that there are consequences for killing innocent children will give them the impression that killing innocent children is not okay.Letting them stay with a baby killer would send the message to them that it is alright to kill babies,thus impairing their ability to know what is right from wrong,thus making them a danger to the rest of society and to themselves."


"Hopefully rat nazi abortionist have more run ins with the likes of me to remind them what vermin and scum you are for killing their baby.baby murderers should be reminded on a daily basis what scum,what degenerate subhuman scum they are for killing their baby and the hitlers in doctor's clothes should be also reminded what degenerate subhuman scum they are."


Comically enough, in the same breath, the assailant then suggests:

"If a woman does not wish to keep her child there is thing called adoption,it where a child is given up at birth to a couple who wants a child to raise and call their own." :rofl

Meanwhile, so-called moderates blithely defend the assailant, suggesting that:

"...I know women who are emotional wrecks over their abortion and it has nothing to do with me so I find it funny that you would try to put their guilt on others.

If you know you did nothing wrong you don't feel guilt no matter what others say. When I feel guilt it's cause I don't like what I did. Sure nitwits with signs hanging outside the clinic may make people feel worse but if you know what you are doing is right than their pointing out what you are doing shouldn't upset you. Pictures shouldn't upset you... It's annoying but for the sake of free speech we tolerate it."

And:

"Mothers who have had an abortion are mothers who have killed their baby... I've never said that having an abortion makes you a bad parent to your living children. And it's not something I've heard even our most ardent prolifers say here.... "

At the suggestion that an uneducated, underprivileged young single mother might possibly feel intimidated be prolife threats, the "moderate" response is:

"Now here I think you're being overly dramatic. That s-hite don't fly here nor in the real word. There are freaks who want to kill abortion drs. But there are also freaks that want to kill Jodi Foster and John Lennon for no apparent reason. You can't do much about the freaks 'cept keep locking them up as they come out of the woodwork. But the majority of prolifers have no intention of wanting to hurt anyone. That would be counterproductive to the whole "prolife" mentality so to speak. Surely you agree?"

The moderate also dismisses the idea that prolifers wish to separate mothers from their extant children, claiming that "abortion drs", not patients, are the targets of extremist prolife ire:

"Actually that has been discussed numerous times on this board as well and the majority of prolifers don't want to see women go to jail. There are a few who believe that if abortion became illegal than drs. performing them should be sent to jail but most don't want to put the mother in jail."

The moderate then concludes:

"I think you are the one who is overly dramatic. And now I'm in a position where I could lay into you or let it go as it's obviously a sensitive subject for you.

I'll just let it go."

Meanwhile, another moderate steps in, dismissing claims that abortion is not, in fact, a "sensitive subject", despite the fact that your humble narrator has just been threatened by a fanatic with death and with the removal of her children:

"Clearly it is... I'm curious. When in your pregnancy did you have the abortion? How many days/weeks/months?"

When moderates clearly see nothing wrong with extremists threatening helpless girls and young women with death, imprisonment, and the loss of their families for exercising their constitutionally protected reproductive rights, it's very difficult not to lump the entire antichoice contingency into one category.

This is my problem with so-called "moderate prolifers".
Because of their own insecurities, they deliberately facilitate misogyny and hate crime against females.

I hope this illustration (and there will be others) helps illuminate where I'm coming from with my theory "Prolife's Prurient Interest, etc".
I did not just pull this theory out of my arse, folks.
I've been researching this firsthand for my entire adult life.

I'm not some evil villain and neither are you. I could be really mean right now but since you seem to be an "emotional wreck yourself" I'll just discontinue discussing any of this with you.

 

[1069]

I could be really mean right now but since you seem to be an "emotional wreck yourself" I'll just discontinue discussing any of this with you.

I'm hardly an "emotional wreck"; I'm watching cartoons, drinking latte, and making a grocery list. Whether you wish to discontinue discussion for the time being, or in fact forever, is immaterial to the fact that I will continue to discuss issues which are important to me.

 

[Felicity]

Statistically speaking, there are more female prolifers than male prolifers, according to CBS's latest poll.
How can this be? It is so perplexing.
Why would so many females choose to be complicit- to be willing accomplices- in their own progressive genderwide dehumanization?
Here's a telling little factoid that might provide a clue:

(I'm recycling some stuff I wrote about in http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/6987-born-racism-misogyny.html?highlight=sanger that I think is pertinent to what you believe concerning the two sides of this debate)

The abortion/Contraception movement in the US is born primarily of one woman's ANTI-woman beliefs. Margaret Sanger is the founder of Planned Parenthood--the entity at the core of nearly every abortion related litigation and by FAR the biggest abortion provider in the US.

Sanger's views--which are at the genesis of Planned Parenthood and the modern feminist movement--CLAIM to be pro-woman while actually diminish and disparage a unique gift of womanhood while at the same time promoting a clearly elitist, self-aggrandizing agenda.

How can a movement built on such a foundation, and an organization that still embraces the memory and the fundamental tenets of such a founder, be anything but flawed in their conclusions and their activities?

If you support Planned Parenthood--you should know that they support Ms. Sanger--they even have a "Margaret Sanger Award"

Here's a link to what PP says about their beloved heroine...and an example of the LYING and manipulation of FACTS that organization engages in....


http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2...ret-sanger.xml


Here is a section that deals with ONE (of many!) of Ms. Sanger's RACIST comments:

Quote:

"We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."

Sanger was aware of African-American concerns, passionately argued by Marcus Garvey in the 1920s, that birth control was a threat to the survival of the black race. This statement, which acknowledges those fears, is taken from a letter to Clarence J. Gamble, M.D., a champion of the birth control movement. In that letter, Sanger describes her strategy to allay such apprehensions. A larger portion of the letter makes Sanger's meaning clear:

It seems to me from my experience . . . in North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas, that while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table. . . . They do not do this with the white people, and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and with knowledge, which, I believe, will have far-reaching results. . . . His work, in my opinion, should be entirely with the Negro profession and the nurses, hospital, social workers, as well as the County's white doctors. His success will depend upon his personality and his training by us.

The minister's work is also important, and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation, as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. 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 (1939).


Please note the very last sentence....It appears like that was the last word of her sentence...HOWEVER....

THIS is what she ACTUALLY said:

" the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
http://tcrnews2.com/gentcr.html
http://blackgenocide.org/negro03.html


Interesting that PP conveniently left off that last bit, eh? (deleted my expletive) what do you think of the dishonesty and obviously lacking integrity of the Planned Parenthood Organization? How can anyone support such a manipulating and dishonest organization and still claim to be "pro-woman" and not "racist?"

 

[Felicity]

Heh...heh...TYPICAL...I checked on the link I provided and LO AND BEHOLD! PP has changed the info on Margaret Sanger and have a new attempt to put their heroine in a shiney light. They eliminated the quote that was so soooooooo obviously a lame attempt to mislead the public. Well, good for them for correcting their own bias...I guess they finally figured it was too obvious an expression of her racism and there was no way to explain it away. Still, they continue to support her and make excuses. The new article attempts to both distance themselves AND embrace her...:roll:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/margaret-sanger-planned-parenthood-founder.htm

 

[1069]

I've already stated, in what I believe was my first post on this forum, that I believe everything that ever happened in human history, prior to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, is pretty much a big pile of goat excrement (this was in response to some comment about "the accumulated wisdom of the ages").
Margaret Sanger is significant only in that she ultimately gave birth to Planned Parenthood, just as my slave-owning troglodyte of a great-great-grandfather is significant only in that he ultimately produced me.
I'm more of a "look to the future" type of person, mainly because I find the past repulsive.

 

[Felicity]

Margaret Sanger is significant only in that she ultimately gave birth to Planned Parenthood, just as my slave-owning troglodyte of a great-great-grandfather is significant only in that he ultimately produced me.
.

See, but there is a difference between you and PP--you ADMIT your G-G-Grandfather was a "troglodyte" while PP is giving out their most prestigious honor named after their troglodite and defending her as an icon of truth, justice, and the American way. PP doesn't say they've CHANGED--they claim it's ALWAYS BEEN for the good of woman-kind and those poor savages and "mental defectives."

Denying (or ignoring) the past is irresponsible for the future. And if you think there is no merit in understanding the past and its influence on the present, that sheds a lot of light on the veracity of your positions.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

See, but there is a difference between you and PP--you ADMIT your G-G-Grandfather was a "troglodyte" while PP is giving out their most prestigious honor named after their troglodite and defending her as an icon of truth, justice, and the American way. PP doesn't say they've CHANGED--they claim it's ALWAYS BEEN for the good of woman-kind and those poor savages and "mental defectives."

Denying (or ignoring) the past is irresponsible for the future. And if you think there is no merit in understanding the past and its influence on the present, that sheds a lot of light on the veracity of your positions.

Oo! Oo! Can we rehash the entire Margaret Sanger thread? Can we please?

Here, Ill just bust out a representative sample of one of the recurring themes from my posts in that thread:

Planned Parenthood is no longer Margaret Sanger's organization, and hasn't been for a long time. If the questionable morality/acts of the founder of the organization were enough to make every future act of the organization tarnished, then we would all be as bad as the slave owners who wrote our Constitution. (I could also point out that this argument is counter to the pro-life argument concerning rape, i.e., the child is not guilty of the father's sins . . .)

 

[1069]

Oo! Oo! Can we rehash the entire Margaret Sanger thread? Can we please?

Should we do a Maggie Sanger redux thread?
I went to reply to that previous one, but it was archived and so I couldn't.
My response would've been something along the lines of: the founding fathers were racists, xenophobes, classists, sexists and slave-owners, and at least one of them was a rapist- a child rapist who impregnated one of his slaves when she was only fifteen (that would be the slave Sally Hemings, by whom Thomas Jefferson eventually had several children, the descendants of which have just claimed a substantial sum of money from his estate via a lawsuit involving DNA testing).
Does that mean the Constitution sucks and we should throw it out?
Does America suck because of the brutality and cruelty it was founded on? Because it was built at the cost of millions of African-American and Native American lives? Does humanity in general suck?

I mean, up until the human rights movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s, people seriously just didn't know that women, minorities, the handicapped, and the poor, were human.
There was literally no thought to affording them equality or human rights.

IMO, we should just be grateful things are different now, and move on, and try to dwell on it as little as possible. What can we do about it? We can't change any of it.
We need to focus on the future.

 

[ngdawg]

Funny, but I didn't see a word about the 'poor savages and mental defectives'...I did see the quotes that have been floating around the internet and who they were actually made by. And continuously backlinking lead to one and ONLY one article written and claiming Sanger was some sort of American Nazi out to destroy minorities. Claims that Sanger said things are answered in Felicity's link, yet she continues to go right over all that and argue that Sanger was a racially motivated elitist out the eradicate the black race. Let's see...stressing education, incorporating more minority doctors where they're needed most, taking control of their birthrate to help eliminate their impoverished lives...yep, racist.:roll:
The CBS poll may or may not be indicative, but within the confines of this forum and probably others, the antichoice women are by far more radical, prone to more emotional chastising and less stoic commentary; the posts are textbased equivalents to poking repeatedly their opponents' breastplates.
The above comment about being an 'emotional wreck' is a prime example-where on earth is there any indication of such a thought? This total misreading of what's being said seems to happen much more from the feminine side of discussions(sometimes men just don't understand what's been said at all, but that's all over )... The antichoice men, while just as impassioned, I'm sure, seem a bit more 'perplexed' as to the why's and hows any woman could make such a choice(but without the finger pokes, save for a sparse few) and use their own moral standings or beliefs more than merely attacking those of any who disagree, even snipping 'facts', changing them or out and out calling said facts 'wrong', hoping to back them into a corner for some imaginary KO.

 

[1069]

The CBS poll may or may not be indicative, but within the confines of this forum and probably others, the antichoice women are by far more radical, prone to more emotional chastising and less stoic commentary; the posts are textbased equivalents to poking repeatedly their opponents' breastplates.
The above comment about being an 'emotional wreck' is a prime example-where on earth is there any indication of such a thought? This total misreading of what's being said seems to happen much more from the feminine side of discussions(sometimes men just don't understand what's been said at all, but that's all over )... The antichoice men, while just as impassioned, I'm sure, seem a bit more 'perplexed' as to the why's and hows any woman could make such a choice(but without the finger pokes, save for a sparse few) and use their own moral standings or beliefs more than merely attacking those of any who disagree, even snipping 'facts', changing them or out and out calling said facts 'wrong', hoping to back them into a corner for some imaginary KO.

Astute observations, all.

 

[Felicity]

Claims that Sanger said things are answered in Felicity's link, yet she continues to go right over all that and argue that Sanger was a racially motivated elitist out the eradicate the black race. Let's see...stressing education, incorporating more minority doctors where they're needed most, taking control of their birthrate to help eliminate their impoverished lives...yep, racist.:roll: .

Read her books. http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/pvcvl10.txt http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/~rauch/abortion_eugenics/sanger/sanger_04.html It's a no-brainer. And anyway--the point was about Planned Parenthood's lack of integrity by continuing to put this woman on a pedestal and revising history to make it palatable.

The Sanger thread of old was offered in CONTRAST to the original post and and the claims made concerning pro-life's interests. The history and genesis of the nations most prolific abortion provider and the main proponant of the abortion movement IS relevant to what that movement is today.

 

[Felicity]

I mean, up until the human rights movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s, people seriously just didn't know that women, minorities, the handicapped, and the poor, were human.
There was literally no thought to affording them equality or human rights.
.

I see why you don't like to bother with history.....it's not your best subject, obviously.

 

[ngdawg]

Read her books. http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/pvcvl10.txt http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/~rauch/abortion_eugenics/sanger/sanger_04.html It's a no-brainer. And anyway--the point was about Planned Parenthood's lack of integrity by continuing to put this woman on a pedestal and revising history to make it palatable.

The Sanger thread of old was offered in CONTRAST to the original post and and the claims made concerning pro-life's interests. The history and genesis of the nations most prolific abortion provider and the main proponant of the abortion movement IS relevant to what that movement is today.

Yes, yes, of course....pro-choicers and Planned Parenthood in particular, really just want to eradicate minorities:roll:

see why you don't like to bother with history.....it's not your best subject, obviously

How is that statement wrong? Are you aware of the Jim Crow laws that were around before Civil Rights? Or that women did not get equal pay for equal work?( I had to sue an employer for hiriing a man to do the same job as I did for more money in 1974) Women were, if not outright barred, at least heavily discouraged from many jobs, including police, firefighters, even mail carriers.
Blacks did nothave the 'right' to vote and even after that was challenged, some states would charge them and make them take 'literacy tests'.
There might be history revisionism going on, but 1069 isn't the one doing it.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Read her books. http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/pvcvl10.txt http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/~rauch/abortion_eugenics/sanger/sanger_04.html It's a no-brainer. And anyway--the point was about Planned Parenthood's lack of integrity by continuing to put this woman on a pedestal and revising history to make it palatable.

The Sanger thread of old was offered in CONTRAST to the original post and and the claims made concerning pro-life's interests. The history and genesis of the nations most prolific abortion provider and the main proponant of the abortion movement IS relevant to what that movement is today.

Oh goody! We do get to rehash the entire thread.
Sanger was against "imbeciles," or people with mental retardation, having children that she thought would continue to be mentally handicapped and thus a drain on the state. It's a somewhat elitist viewpoint, but hardly the rampant Nazism you keep accusing her of. And calling this a "no-brainer" doesn't address my point: if the negative actions and ideas of past people are enough to taint anything they did that was positive, then we should have no heroes, at all, ever. The US Constitution was written by bad men, if you look at them in a certain light; that doesn't make their work less valuable. Even if Sanger were scum, it wouldn't make her positive impact on society any less valuable. And that positive impact is enough to earn her the honor of having an award named after her.

 

[ngdawg]

"The role of Gloria Steinem will be played today by NgDawg":mrgreen:

Why are the men of America history seen as heroes, but the women are picked apart like a turkey Sunday after Thanksgiving?
Let's see....all the founding fathers owned slaves, and reports have been made that Jefferson fathered children with his slave, Sally (the Jefferson descendants only recently somewhat acknowledged this but still, even with DNA testing, will not allow Sally's black descendants into the 'clan').
Lincoln, that great emancipator, never felt blacks were 'equal' and should be accorded all the rights of whites, only that they should not be owned.
President Kennedy messed around and it was known at the time, yet 'protected', but the minute his widow marries Onassis, she's a money-grubbing slut(the gossip columnists, etc. at the time were having a field day with that one).
Depending on one's viewpoint in reading even someone's book (and let's not forget the one mentioned was written almost a century ago), the message can be seen as either elitist racism or altruistic philosophies. A book owned by my family, printed at the turn of the century is entitled "The Science of Eugenics", a 'how-to" book of taking care of family, self and home. It's hysterical seeing what the thinking of that time was. But to blanketly think that every word in that book or Sanger's or anyone else's for that matter is completely relevant and needs to be used today is ludicrous. There's some actually pretty good hints in the old Eugenics book in regards to natural home remedies, but at the same time, some of the most assinine suggestions for hygiene and marriage. (ex: in the 'marriage bed', when women are of their monthly period, they must use a board to seperate them from their spouse. Another: This 'ungodly practice'(masturbation) renders one sickly, mentally deficient with sallow skin, poor eyes and little or no ambition. And another: to keep the hair healthy, wash once every two weeks and brush thoroughly:shock: )

 

[Felicity]

Even if Sanger were scum, it wouldn't make her positive impact on society any less valuable. And that positive impact is enough to earn her the honor of having an award named after her.

Machiavellian--"the ends justify the means."

And what exactly is the "ends" of Sanger's means? ...Legal killing of those that cannot defend themselves. ...Women who are in a battle against their own fertility--that which should empower them--through unnecessarily medicating healthy bodies and having surgery to kill a life when their body is merely demonstrating a healthy response to biological functions. ...Women with fertility issues once they decide they would like to have children because of damage done to their systems from the drugs or the surgeries. ...Families that have missing father figures because the union of man and woman is separated from the responsibility of their actions. ...Women who see children as a "burden" rather than a gift. I could go on...yeah...One hellava positive inpact! That award should only be the "honor" given serial killers and those convicted of crimes against humanity!