Planned Parenthood 2.0

[ArcadiaGP]

But here's my facts I wikied Mrs Sanger and copyed a paragraph of names, I erased the page numbers next to each name and that's it.. Go and fact check me, double dog Dare you.

That's a great way to have a discussion. Do you know nothing of her, yourself?

And with that I am done here, Squirrel.
Nanny nanny boo- boo.

We know that's not true. Still waiting to see how I'm misguided.

We should apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

Give dysgenic groups (people with “bad genes”) in our population their choice of segregation or (compulsory) sterilization.

Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.

Just a couple. There are others with words I'm not sure are INGO-friendly.

Edit: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/abortions-racial-gap/380251/

 

[Dead Duck]

Originally Posted by sanger

We should apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

Originally Posted by sanger

Give dysgenic groups (people with “bad genes”) in our population their choice of segregation or (compulsory) sterilization.

Originally Posted by sanger

Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.

Just a couple. There are others with words I'm not sure are INGO-friendly.

Looks like this Sanger person just wants to keep the mutant population down. I think I saw a series of movies on this the last few years.
What's the problem again?

 

[BugI02]

Yes I know who she is, I believe I was given a quality education.
And I know I'm old but I vaguely remember that she was against abortions. But apparently there was a need for it, otherwise most likely it never would have happened. Image a safe place for a woman to have her legal reproductive needs met, way back when it was certainly unpopular.
She believed what alot of people of that time period in America and quite a few other country's believed back then. Eugenics tended to fall out of favor after WW 2. But certainly lots of people long before Hitler and after had beliefs that certain eugenics could be beneficial to society. Its what alot of scienctist believed then.
Now let's look at some notable other well known members of the world and see if there personal beliefs are bashed on a daily basis.


At its peak of popularity, eugenics was supported by a wide variety of prominent people, including Winston Churchill, Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Norman Haire, Havelock Ellis, Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Robert Andrews Millikan, Linus Pauling Sidney Webb, and W. E. B. Du Bois.

Hummmmm, you just don't hear Post Cereals tossing it out there that good old Mr Kellogg believed in eugenics now do we ?
So think about that next time you pour bowl of Corn Flakes.

Winston Churchill, I'm agast.. The fat man all gun folks love. That wonderful picture of Winston holding the Tommy Gun.. We all know of that picture.
You just don't hear about good old gun shooting Winstons personal beliefs out there. Yep he believed in eugenics also.

Me Roosevelt just say its not so...

And the so called gay Mr Hoover, maybe he believed in eugenics so he could cure the world of homosexuals ????? We will never know,,

And to be truthfull, I could care less what someone's personal beliefs are.
.

Maybe we all should just look at Margaret's positive points, she put in place a organization that is the 7th largest Charity in the USA. And helps a huge amount of women, children and men on a daily basis.

On a ending note,
It's what someone does with their life is more important to me than their personal beliefs.




Oh yea, I still hate these threads. Later.

I believe you are confusing Herbert Hoover and J. Edgar Hoover

 

[17 squirrel]

I believe you are confusing Herbert Hoover and J. Edgar Hoover

You're correct sir. Thanks.

You would have thought with the name Herbert he would have been gay..

 

[deal me in]

Here is how I confront a pro choice person.

Ask them if NASA found a single cell living on Mars would that mean there is life on Mars?

Now you have them cornered. Ask them why a single cell on earth is any different than on Mars.

Another way to play head games with a pro choice individual. Ask them if they believe in the Death Penalty. When they say no, ask why they won't kill a person but will kill a single cell that splits into 2 then 4 then 8.

I love when this subject comes up. You can see their heads exploding when confronted with the dichotomy.

Not all life is equal...Stepping on an ant is not the same as torturing a dog to death. Discovery of a single cell organism on another
planet would be amazing, yet that doesn't make it equal to a human life. The pro choice people you are confronting must not be very bright, because my head didn't even bulge.

PS: Some great posting in this thread. "you must spread some reputation..Jamil PaulF"

 

[deal me in]

I don't know why religion is a necessary discussion in the abortion debate. A good secular humanist should be in favor of not killing humans. The atheists, secular humanists, agnostics, I know all value human life. Every one of them. The logical (not supernaturally revealed, but logical) end to valuing human life is that every human life is worth protecting. What is magical about the moment of birth that the full force of the law will now protect a life that all science agrees was present months before? Balancing the value of one human life versus another? Sounds like a dangerous road. I wonder what human lives will be deemed of less value next. No religion- humanism.

While you don't know me and I certainly believe that I value life, I'm an atheist who supports limited abortion rights. I don't know exactly where the line should be drawn, but I think that should be the discussion. I'll admit that emotions play a part in my beliefs. I find late term abortions vile, disgusting, and whatever other appropriate descriptive comes to mind, but a six week abortion doesn't really bother me. I don't value the "life" of a 6-8 week old fetus enough to override a mother's decision to terminate a pregnancy.

Part of the reason I support limited abortion rights is practicality. The last thing we need is more poor people who don't want to be parents having children. It's ironic that so many Republicans advocate policies that will result in more Democrats, criminals, and welfare babies. I understand that pro-choice convictions are deeply held and I'm not making light.

I think religion is important when it comes to the intrinsic value of life at conception. The belief that human life is blessed by God at conception certainly affects ones ability to value life objectively. Every day thousands of strangers die horrible deaths from violence and disease and we don't blink an eye because they are strangers. Emotionally, death only really affects us when we know the person who died. People are more emotionally distraught by the death of a pet than that of an acquaintance. Without the artificial presence of a "soul" blessed by God, I think the potential life loses value if we're being honest about our nature.

 

[MisterChester]

Here is how I confront a pro choice person.

Ask them if NASA found a single cell living on Mars would that mean there is life on Mars?

Now you have them cornered. Ask them why a single cell on earth is any different than on Mars.

Another way to play head games with a pro choice individual. Ask them if they believe in the Death Penalty. When they say no, ask why they won't kill a person but will kill a single cell that splits into 2 then 4 then 8.

I love when this subject comes up. You can see their heads exploding when confronted with the dichotomy.

Depends on how you define "life", seems many people have their own definitions. Some organisms aren't scientifically considered to be alive, like viruses.

I'm pro-choice and pro-death penalty. What do I do now?

 

[Woobie]

RIF,, reading is fundamental there Woobie, I most certainly mentioned Adolf and the second WW. And it fell out of favor after WW2. And unless i missed you when you tellaported yourself to my front porch and i missed you,
your not sitting here with me so you don't know what I did or did- not exclude.
But good try. But here's my facts I wikied Mrs Sanger and copyed a paragraph of names, I erased the page numbers next to each name and that's it.. Go and fact check me, double dog Dare you.

Thanks for making my point on my last post. No matter what the other side of the topic says or posts, the opposition will say its a lie or not truthfull.

And with that I am done here, Squirrel.
Nanny nanny boo- boo.

You are right, you did mention Hitler. But there were s lot of other nasty folks besides him. But the question goes unanswered: does the belief of a critical mass of famous people render that belief acceptable? I don't question that those people held thise beliefs. Most I already knew of anyway. But just because Churchill thought it was a good idea doesn't justify the practitioners.

 

[Woobie]

Depends on how you define "life", seems many people have their own definitions. Some organisms aren't scientifically considered to be alive, like viruses.

I'm pro-choice and pro-death penalty. What do I do now?

But that fetus is genetically human, at any stage. You have to torture logic to think it morphs into a human from a virus or some such at an arbitrary point during gestation.

As to your question, here's a thought: let all people live until they commit an act so heinous they no longer have a right to that life.

 

[2A_Tom]

The human being has nothing to do with the form of the body it resides in black, white, conception, 70 years old, maimed, or whatever the person-hood is the important part.

The life accomplishment of that individual must be taken into account.

Has the inventor of actual cold fusion, the finder of the cure for cancer and the Nations greatest leader been been aborted.

There was a time when a miscarriage was a cause for serious grief. The devaluing of life is a slippery slope.

 

[Dosproduction]

Is Obama trying to target the people who filmed these encounters? Seems like snowden all over again. See something wrong say something the u get persecuted instead of the guys doing wrong

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Planned Parenthood Yanks Corporate Sponsor List After Coca-Cola Drops Support - Breitbart

 

[17 squirrel]

You are right, you did mention Hitler. But there were s lot of other nasty folks besides him. But the question goes unanswered: does the belief of a critical mass of famous people render that belief acceptable? I don't question that those people held thise beliefs. Most I already knew of anyway. But just because Churchill thought it was a good idea doesn't justify the practitioners.

I never said I agree with it in any way shape or form.
Woopie, you have to remember what science thought and what lots of people believed back in the late 1800's. Lots of things have been learned by society in the last 130 years. Keep it in context with 75 to 130 years ago.

 

[MisterChester]

But that fetus is genetically human, at any stage. You have to torture logic to think it morphs into a human from a virus or some such at an arbitrary point during gestation.

As to your question, here's a thought: let all people live until they commit an act so heinous they no longer have a right to that life.

An organ is genetically human too, that doesn't mean anything.

I see the woman's right to her body is bigger than any "right" we can attribute to something that doesn't even have a heartbeat or can't feel pain. After that stage I believe abortions should be banned unless it threatens the life of the mother or rape/incest cases, then it's fair game. Not to mention the great majority of abortions occur before 6 weeks, when there is no heartbeat, no brain, no pain, nothing resembling a human. It has the potential to be human later. If it's got nothing, it's just an organ biologically, and should be treated as such.

If you're pro-life, you are against abortion and the death penalty. If you're for the death penalty but against abortion then you're just anti-abortion.

 

[Woobie]

I never said I agree with it in any way shape or form.
Woopie, you have to remember what science thought and what lots of people believed back in the late 1800's. Lots of things have been learned by society in the last 130 years. Keep it in context with 75 to 130 years ago.

I never said you did agree with her. But you made an argument that Sanger held beliefs similar to many in her time. My rhetorical question expressed the statement that the beliefs she held In the eay days of PP are abhorrent, no matter who shared them.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

If you're pro-life, you are against abortion and the death penalty. If you're for the death penalty but against abortion then you're just anti-abortion.

What capital offense did the baby commit?

 

[Woobie]

An organ is genetically human too, that doesn't mean anything.

I see the woman's right to her body is bigger than any "right" we can attribute to something that doesn't even have a heartbeat or can't feel pain. After that stage I believe abortions should be banned unless it threatens the life of the mother or rape/incest cases, then it's fair game. Not to mention the great majority of abortions occur before 6 weeks, when there is no heartbeat, no brain, no pain, nothing resembling a human. It has the potential to be human later. If it's got nothing, it's just an organ biologically, and should be treated as such.

If you're pro-life, you are against abortion and the death penalty. If you're for the death penalty but against abortion then you're just anti-abortion.

You can't grow a kidney into an entire human being. In that fetus exists all the genetics and building blocks to grow into an adult human. This argument compares apples to oranges.

I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. I just don't limit my stance only to women who are capable of having intercourse and carrying a child. I also believe in a man's right to choose. Foremost among the choices one has over his or her own body is the right to stay alive. As far as threatening a woman's life, I'm not sure how many of these instances could be solved by an abortion that could not also be solved by a c-section or other procedure that did not have as its stated aim the death of the baby. Rape and incest? While incest is illegal and disgusting, if it was consensual, I'm not sure why we need to protect mom from her own choices. If it is rape, then I don't know why a third party should be punished for that crime. Let's kill the rapist, not the baby. The previous arguments notwithstanding, if we could limit abortions to cases proved to be the result of rape or incest, or those with the aim of saving the life of the mother, I would be ecstatic. They are but a very small portion of the abortions committed.

As far as being pro-life goes, you assume too much. I am for the life of the innocent. Those who have taken a life have forfeited their own. The Justice in these cases is also the purview of a legal structure set in place by elected representatives, overseen by legal scholars, and decided by a jury of peers. Abortion is the sole decision of a woman who is influenced by fear, regret, or both. Life should not be so easily extinguished in a civilized culture.

 

[MisterChester]

You can't grow a kidney into an entire human being. In that fetus exists all the genetics and building blocks to grow into an adult human. This argument compares apples to oranges.

I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. I just don't limit my stance only to women who are capable of having intercourse and carrying a child. I also believe in a man's right to choose. Foremost among the choices one has over his or her own body is the right to stay alive. As far as threatening a woman's life, I'm not sure how many of these instances could be solved by an abortion that could not also be solved by a c-section or other procedure that did not have as its stated aim the death of the baby. Rape and incest? While incest is illegal and disgusting, if it was consensual, I'm not sure why we need to protect mom from her own choices. If it is rape, then I don't know why a third party should be punished for that crime. Let's kill the rapist, not the baby. The previous arguments notwithstanding, if we could limit abortions to cases proved to be the result of rape or incest, or those with the aim of saving the life of the mother, I would be ecstatic. They are but a very small portion of the abortions committed.

As far as being pro-life goes, you assume too much. I am for the life of the innocent. Those who have taken a life have forfeited their own. The Justice in these cases is also the purview of a legal structure set in place by elected representatives, overseen by legal scholars, and decided by a jury of peers. Abortion is the sole decision of a woman who is influenced by fear, regret, or both. Life should not be so easily extinguished in a civilized culture.

That's why I said the fetus has the potential for life, even when at early stages it's not technically alive by any standards. Theoretically you can make humans out of stem cells with extremely advanced technology. You can get stem cells from human bodies.

Seems we disagree on what is actually alive or not. I just don't see how we can attribute rights to something that isn't alive. If you want to be super technical then if you're aborting a fetus early enough you're not killing it because you can't kill something that isn't alive. It has potential, but that's it. I am for the life of innocents too, but you can't attribute life characteristics to something that doesn't have it to begin with.

 

[rambone]

I see the woman's right to her body is bigger than any "right" we can attribute to something that doesn't even have a heartbeat or can't feel pain. After that stage I believe abortions should be banned unless it threatens the life of the mother or rape/incest cases, then it's fair game.

Just wondering, what is the logic for aborting babies produced through incest?

 

[Dead Duck]

Just wondering, what is the logic for aborting babies produced through incest?

Ya -
I agree with Rambone on this.
Hell, without incest, the south would be deserted and Brits would have straight teeth.