Margaret Sanger--Halo tipping a bit?
 

Dear Folks: As I was perusing my usual haunts,as y'all were sleeping,I ran aross this article about the infamous Margaret Sanger
http://www.scholarscorner.com/ethics/Anti-Semitism.html The last line is particularly appalling!

This info is from a black group....name says it all! Margie and PP are mentioned! Wow...links!
http://www.blackgenocide.org/planned.html

Timm, if you look deeply enough into most things, past and present, you will find many are not what they appear to be, in fact, the exact opposite of what they claim to stand for.

Golfer: you could be correct,but Planned Parenthood made record profits last year...and her praises were sung strongly on this forum last week!

We would not need Planned Parenthood if people who were against abortion would step up to the plate and adopt. Talk is cheap. Go save a life. Adopt.

What I find interesting is that males can deny a woman her right to choose because they are not having the child. So for males to have a solid moral foundation, go talk a woman out of an abortion and promise to adopt her child. Otherwise, you are talking the talk, but not walking the walk. And ranting is dirt cheap if you dont live it.

So lets start a list of people who are against a woman's right to choose, and have adopted a child that was going to be aborted... I will start the numbering. These will be the people who really hold the moral high ground.

1.
2.
3.

[quote=pgardn]We would not need Planned Parenthood if people who were against abortion would step up to the plate and adopt. Talk is cheap. Go save a life. Adopt.

What I find interesting is that males can deny a woman her right to choose because they are not having the child. So for males to have a solid moral foundation, go talk a woman out of an abortion and promise to adopt her child. Otherwise, you are talking the talk, but not walking the walk. And ranting is dirt cheap if you dont live it.

So lets start a list of people who are against a woman's right to choose, and have adopted a child that was going to be aborted... I will start the numbering. These will be the people who really hold the moral high ground.

1.
2.
3.[/QUOTE
Pgardn: Peculiar post from you,I think! I wasn't talking about a womans' right to choose. How does it become the right to lifers responsiblity to adopt every unwanted child? You suppose much about what I think. If you bothered to read the links, you'd see that Margaret Sanger was hardly the "Clarion of Light and Family Values" that she's been made out to be!

timm,
Let's be honest for just a minute.
1) I don't know much about Sanger, so I'll not comment.
2) The context in which her name came up on this forum was one that was dealing with Bush's second veto concerned with expansion of stem cell lines harvested from unused (no longer viable) embryos at fertility clinics.
3) One person's trash (medical waste) is another one's treasure (genetic reserchers seeking remedies for genetic diseases, and those that would benefit from same).
4) The "Snowflake Project" has brought 120-140 of those embyos to term.

So...what do you suggest doing with the other 499,880?
Dumpster or lab?

Well...since my whole post was about Sanger, get back to me when you know something about her!

Sorry Pgardn, I can't let that slide...whether abortion is right or wrong isn't determined by the actions of either side, it is determined by whether it is right or wrong! Attacking the messenger won't fly....if Hitler came out and said genocide was wrong...the fact that he was a monster wouldn't make that statement false. I agree that folks should adopt more, I agree that young women shouldn't be reduced to slavery by their womb but I oppose abortion and...contrary to the vast majority of my feminist friends, I think that is the correct position for a feminist but that's another subject.

Somer,
I know your position, and I applaud you for not equivocating.
As you know, I also believe there should be more adoptions, better care for children, resoultion of endless foster care for so many abandoned children, and harsher laws for those that abuse and prey on them.
That said, and I only ask this because I differ with you on the topic of "when life begins", do you think the "state" should be the determinant regarding what any human being does with their own body, or should that decision be left to the individual?
In my humble view, decisions of that magnitude are best left to the person that makes them, not the "state".

What I am basically saying is a male that says he is against a womans right to choose, yet has not adopted a child that was to be aborted, does not hold the moral high ground in a discussion. If you really believe a life is being taken then go save it... Thats what I am saying.

If you have done so, I have the ultimate respect for your position as I think abortion is horrible, but a very difficult ethical problem quite obviously. I cannot possibly go up to a woman and say to her face, you must have that child, I will adopt the child. I am not in a position to say that. Therefore I will not attempt to interject my personal feelings on her more dire decision. I would feel like I had absolutely no right to speak to the woman face to face, or yell at her and call her a killer. Thats chicken sh it.

Walk the walk. Its very simple. One can oppose a position. Thats easy. But could you actually take the step and adopt a child that was to be aborted. I could not. Therefore I can oppose anything I want, but my standing I believe would be way down the scale as I have not taken action. I would be all talk with no walk.

Each of us has the ultimate decision regarding our own bodies but if that is a human being inside a woman, does he/she not have the same right? We talk about a woman's right to choose, but we deny that right to the fetus/baby...statistically speaking, half of which are female. To me, what the abortionists are saying is that some people have rights and some don't and society gets to choose which lives are more valuable. If that is a living being inside a woman, what makes his/her life less valuable, less sacred? The debate has never been about a woman's rights, it's about life...when does it begin and, more importantly to me, when does it have a soul?

[quote=timmgirvanPgardn: Peculiar post from you,I think! I wasn't talking about a womans' right to choose. How does it become the right to lifers responsiblity to adopt every unwanted child? You suppose much about what I think. If you bothered to read the links, you'd see that Margaret Sanger was hardly the "Clarion of Light and Family Values" that she's been made out to be![/QUOTE]

Peculiar quote from me? I go off topic all the time.

I read the link. It was interesting as I had never heard the white people dont like black people so they want abortion arguement before.

So do we have any anti-abortion/death folks (or against a woman's right to choose;keeping all parties happy) that have adopted a child that was to be aborted?

Any?

I know of two families. They walk the walk, and strangely... they dont talk about it much. Dont hold up signs and shout people down. They will tell you if asked, but no advertising.

Pgardn: you have supplanted your arguement for my links to MS! What kind of a standard is that you hold? You seem too harsh on yourself...as I see you as morally correct in what you contribute. The subject was how the family planning group that was so helpful(?)in the beginning is now a Billion dollar abortion mill(for their own purposes)not for the unfortunate young women who seek their guidance!

I've adopted three horses to save them from slaughter, dozens of cats and dogs over the years...never was in position to adopt a child...sorry that I don't meet your standard!

i find it odd that the democrats generally support the right to choose--but then get on their high horse about the war overseas, and about capital punishment. it seems they, and the republicans in turn, don't always use logic. if a soldiers life is precious, why not a fetus? if one is sacrosanct, why not the other?
as for the ruling by the supreme court, i disagree that the right to an abortion is granted by the constitution. the right to privacy--yes, i agree that is.

as for pro-choice/pro-life, i think they are both misnomers. everyone obviously believes we should all be free to make choices in our lives--on the other hand, who here is anti-life?!

the right to an abortion has been granted. to make it (as hillary said--and on this point i agree) safe, legal and rare is what i would say. if you don't feel it is right, well don't go get one. in that regard, it's much like the right to keep and bear arms--doesn't mean you HAVE to own a gun.


but as for the statement that you can't be against abortion if you have never adopted, i don't think that's a fair statement. people take stands every day on issues that have never affected them personally.

I believe that the basic flaw in the argument that you're both making (and I'm mostly just speaking for myself here) is that most people who talk about a woman's right to choose vs. a fetus's or soldiers dying while fetuses are "dying" is that those people don't believe that a fetus is a person deserving of the same rights that a pregnant woman or a soldier deserves.

It's not hypocritical to be pro-choice and still cry about dead soldiers in a stupid war. One is life that is being taken, and one is not a life so therefore cannot be taken.

That obviously brings it to that place where nobody ever budges on where exactly life starts and when an embryo/fetus/womb inhabiter earns its rights as a human being. But if you don't believe that it's a life in there, then it's not really a problem to advocate for safe and legal abortion while decrying the loss of life in a war.

my point was more towards the fact that our soldiers volunteer for their duty, and a fetus doesn't. yet they decry a volunteer losing that which he willingly gave.


but to clarify, i am pro-choice. but i think that it is a huge issue, and yet another that has plenty of shouting on both sides, with no real solution--like so many things, there is no pleasing everyone. or maybe anyone.

I read that. And as I said I found the most interesting arguement that I had never seen used was that white people who are pro choice are basically so because of black people having too many babies.

I had never ever read that before. Interesting.

As far as people making money off of abortions I find that utterly disgusting. I dont like the whole thing. It is a very difficult problem for me.

But I will continue in my quest to find a pro-life adopter as a side order to your main dish.

Do we have any?

I of course have always admired somer as a horse person taking in older race horses. My wife did the same with only one horse. 3 is a huge undertaking and I appreciate the humanity in this.

I just find it odd that so many people are looking to adopt human babies through agencies in Eastern Europe, yet right here in the US we have woman (mostly minorities) that might be talked into saving a life if someone was willing to adopt. I am not in a position to do so.

Margaret Sanger, The Negro Project
 

Thought I'd resurrect this as I came across this article today. It is quite long, and admittedly I only got through a portion of it myself. For anyone who may be interested:
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/s...ro_project.htm

Who is the only person to have ever excelled at gelf in the PGA and bb in the NBA?

















Golf Schayes.

(pause while I put my head on the desk and take a deep breath)

Because Margaret Sanger advocated for birth control for the poor does not make her a racist. Why? Because what she advocated was women having a CHOICE. A choice to have kids or a choice to not. And she recognized that poor women, many of whom were are are minorities, are the ones most desperately in need of that choice. She wasn't marching into ghettos with a gun and forcing women to submit to insertion of IUDs, you know. She was setting up birth control clinics in poor neighborhoods and letting poor women decide whether they wanted to go to the clinic. Because poor women have always had fewer options than rich women. Giving the poor options makes her racist, because those poor women choose to improve their economic lot by having fewer kids? What? On what planet does that make sense?

In fact, Sanger was quoted as finding abortion repellent- her big thing was avoiding unwanted pregnancy in the first place. But the right-wingers who are convinced things would be perfect if only all women could live in dread fear of getting pregnant every time women have sex, will twist and turn and ignore the complicated person she was, in order to evade the issue of poor women not having choices when it comes to their reproductive health.

How many anti-abortion advocates are out there pushing for mandatory contraceptive education? Or guaranteed health care for kids? Day care, for working moms? Oh right, none of them. They aren't interested in saving babies; they're interested in pregnancy being a punishment, a very financially challenging punishment, for sexually active women. Real pro-life, huh?

And for the record, abortions make up a very, very small part of Planned Parenthood's business. Most of it is providing health care, including contraception, to women. And they do a good job of it, and I had friends in high school who avoided becoming pregnant at 15 thanks to PP's only charging them what they could afford for birth control. The one I'm still in touch with is now a happy mother at 37- having had a kid when she was ready.

Which is not to say Sanger didn't have some pretty harsh ideas about the severely disabled and their rights to reproduce, but that's like saying Faulkner's personal feelings about African-Americans (someone who, it can be argued, did have racial issues) means his books sucked. People are products of their times and you can't throw out great achievements because the person wasn't perfect, or believed in some ideas, popular at the time, which we now know were incorrect.

Read the woman's own words (in context)- not quotes from a completely different writer she was said to have agreed with.

(Aww... I've spent so much time getting my political fix from balloon-juice.com I forgot how much I missed you guys... :) )

No surprise then that most of the top states in infant mortality rates are also the same very red states that would outlaw abortion if they had the chance. The majority of "pro-life" advocates, like you said, care very little about actual life once it begins. Instead, it's all about waging a war on saving "babies" at their various developmental stages in utero.

Once a baby is born, nobody cares anymore -- they're too busy carrying signs outside of Planned Parenthood trying to save the next zygote they can do their best to let die once it's born.

Bull-pucky Brian! and the same liberal prattle from GR! To suggest that these people don't care about the children once they're out of the womb is wrong and disengenuous. I am strongly pro-life but...it is a womans right to choose. My problem is they choose whatever solution without enough info...thereby making an un-informed choice. Not to forget about personal responsibility!

Maybe they "care," as in they have really warm and fuzzy feelings towards babies, but their policies sure don't reflect that -- and infant mortality rates in traditionally "pro-life" states show a remarkable and undeniable correlation between the policies of "pro-lifers" regarding actual, living children and an increase in dead ones.

This is really not a conversation I want to belabor ....but post some FACTS and their correlation to what you say,please. I'm going to be in and out today, so it will be hit and miss for this thread. btw...the warm and fuzzy thing is projection on your part.

So, Timm, then where are your posts advocating guaranteed paid pre-natal care and maternity leave? Or day care? Or health insurance for every child? What about your passionate posts demanding mandatory birth control education for all kids, so they know how to reduce risk of pregnancy and disease? Please post links to those (actually) pro-life posts of yours, proving that you care about kids once they're out of the womb. I must have missed them.

This may surprise you, my favorite Dittohead, but no woman wants to ever, ever be in the position of having to have an abortion. Not one. They choose it when they feel they have no other choice, and the majority of the time it's a financial decision (and abortion itself is expensive, which is why you see more 2nd-term abortions that there should be). Because raising kids in this country is very expensive- as I'm sure you can tell stories about, being a parent yourself. Unless you feel that only rich people should have sex? If that's your position, please say so. Because right now you're accusing other people of misunderstanding you and "prattling" but I don't see you posting anything to back up your assertion that you care about kids.

So, what's your position on our obligation to the nation's children? What are you willing to do to reduce the number of abortions? Are you willing to see your taxes raised to pay for the unplanned kids' health care, day care, schooling? How do you propose reducing the number of abortions without punishing poor women by keeping them in poverty, raising kids they couldn't afford (which punishes the kids, too)? What's your solution? in all seriousness, I'd like to know what you think is the best course to reducing abortions- really, truly- what do you think is best?

(For the record, I'd pay higher taxes for better care of our nation's kids and I don't even have any. Though I think the best, first, stand should be for mandatory birth control education of every public school student and easy access to contraception for all Americans.)

Please know though, Timm, I give you HUGE props for saying it's the woman's decision. In a perfect world, both parties would be involved equally, but in the real world, only one of them takes on the physical risks and truthfully, most of the financial ones as well. A lot of men don't grasp that- it's nice that you do.

(On a happy note, yay for my 42-year-old friend who just found out she's pregnant, for the first time in her life. Not that she'd been trying- in fact, she figured her fertile years were over but life is full of surprises. :) )

Timm, here's a very long, very dry article on why women have induced abortions. Not nearly as entertaining, I'm sure, as the right-wing polemics you like to read, but at least it has your requested "FACTS." ;)

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

The thing I took away from it is that huge numbers of abortions are results of unplanned pregnancies. Which makes me bang the "access to contraceptive" drum again. Which was also Margaret Sanger's drum. Isn't it nice how these threads can come around full circle again?

FACTS
Top ten states by infant mortality rate

2000: Mississippi, Delaware, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, South Carolina, North Carolina, Illinois, Georgia, Oklahoma

2001: Delaware, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, North Dakota, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, Arkansas

2002: Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, West Virginia, Delaware, Missouri, Arkansas

2003: Mississippi, Delaware, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Michigan, Georgia, South Carolina, Maryland.

I could go on. Notice any trends? Other than the obvious that Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Georgia all make multiple appearances and would all be likely to prohibit abortion entirely the day following a Roe v. Wade reversal?

Lots of yammering about "saving babies," but not a whole lot of actual baby saving going on.

Notable exceptions:
Delaware (appears on all four years): Unlikely to outlaw abortion in the event Roe v. Wade is overturned

Illinois (one appearance): Unlikely to outlaw abortion in the event Roe v. Wade is overturned

Missouri (one appearance): Battleground state if Roe v. Wade were overturned. Would likely prohibit abortion to the point of making it almost completely inaccessible.

Michigan (one appearance): Battleground state if Roe v. Wade were overturned. Would likely be less restrictive than Missouri, but could go either way.

And just for comparison...the ten states each year with the lowest infant mortality rates....

2000: Massachusetts, Maine, Washington, South Dakota, Utah, California, Oregon, Texas, Minnesota, New Hampshire

2001: New Hampshire, Utah, Massachusetts, California, Oregon, Minnesota, Nevada, Vermont, Iowa, Washington

2002: Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Iowa, Minnesota, California, Utah, Alaska, Oregon

2003: New Hampshire, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Utah, Maine, Vermont, California, Connecticut, Wyoming, Nebraska



I'm not inventing a pattern here.

And more fun "FACTS." (Know the teasing is in good humor, Timm. :), but this is stuff you should know if you're going to argue these things well)

From the CDC website, backing up brian's post about infant mortality- it's highest in the South:

<<Infant mortality rates were higher for infants whose mothers had no prenatal care, were teenagers, had less education, or were unmarried.

Infant mortality rates are higher for infants of women who were born in the United States, compared with women born outside the United States.

Infant mortality rates also varied greatly by State. Rates are generally higher for States in the South and lowest for States in the West and Northeast. Infant mortality rates for 2000-2002 among States ranged from 10.5 for Mississippi to 4.8 for Massachusetts.

Non-Hispanic black women had the highest infant mortality rate in the United States in 2004 – 13.60 per 1,000 live births compared to 5.66 per 1,000 births among non-Hispanic white women. Women of Cuban ethnicity in the United States had the lowest infant mortality rate – 4.55 per 1,000 live births.>>

And this happy headline from CNN:

"U.S. has second worst newborn death rate in modern world, report says"

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/paren...dex/index.html

Brian, didn't you know latte-drinking and Volvo-driving are proven to be of enormous benefit to the health of infants? ;)

Sure worked for Oregon. :D

Actually I'm tired of the rhetoric on the whole! I'm not a Dittohead...I haven't listened to the Master since 2003 when the palletjack crushed my leg!
At some time in the future, I'll PM you two and, for the record, state my postions. I don't 'xactly know what a 'polemic' is ...but I WAS reading about
Aztec and Anasazi peoples last nite!:)

Timm, you're adorable. :)

I'm happy for a PM from you anytime, but I'd hope you'd feel free to post your positions I asked for here in the thread. As vociferous as I can get (did I spell that right?), I really don't take any of the political stuff too personally- it should be all in fun, and maybe with the chance to learn something.

But if you're uncomfortable doing that, by all means, PM me. Happy to debate in private, too. It'll give me an excuse to clean out the inbox. :)

Huh-- I just realized it'll be a "three-way" with you, me and brian. In what world would THAT ever happen? Gotta love DT.

SEC Conference, basically.