Junkieturtle said, Why don't you like Sanger? Wow was that rude and against the rules. Watch out people might report you for saying less than that. LOL I believe you said you were a moral relativist. There might be shades of gray and degrees…but right is always right and wrong is always wrong. Stealing is wrong for what ever reason. Murder is wrong no matter what reason. Rape is always wrong. But different people and cultures do not agree. So who are you as a relativist to tell them they are wrong? If that which is in the womb is a living human being…just small and unable to communicate its desires….then how can you justify its being killed? Is it human? Science says so. Is it living? Yes…or no abortionist would be needed to kill it. Science says life starts at conception that is fact. And millions of people rely on what science says to form their belief that abortion is wrong on every level. Why do you turn your back on science? You say you have morals? Where are they on this? If you say every situation should be considered on an individual basis….then rape could be right in some circumstances right? Abortion was once considered immoral and punishable by the law. What happened? Were all the judges and people who stood on the laws then wrong? What made abortion all of a sudden acceptable? Its not acceptable even though its legal….you never hear women talking openly about the abortions they had…for all the obvious reasons. People know its immoral….but this is the thing…they don't care. They are content to sit back like you, like the people in Germany did when the ovens were operating…and look away as the slaughter continues. You just don't care…even when you know that its human and deserves personhood. And I believe most people believe this…just want that option to kill if they screw up. Well we have Muslims in this country. Do you think we should allow Sharia law for the Muslims? Also allow honor killings? They have a right to worship their religion don't they? No God stepped back to allow freedom to choose. If He didn't we would all be robots. We are responsible for our own individual actions. People can vow to live a good moral life…and then others don't. Let me explain something. I am a Christian first above everything else. It colors my world. I choose to live by the scriptures and what Christ commanded me to do. Christ comes before my family before my devotion to country….everything. My morals come from the scriptures…that God has set forth for His people. So it is easy for me to gauge what i right and wrong. For the unbeliever it is harder because then morality is subjective. People make up their own individual morals…and those can vary. Pornography for many …nothing wrong with it. For some it is wrong. So who gets to decide? I am not going to get into this discussion…here its not the topic. I will say that I believe and the facts back up that this country was based on Judeo Christianity. Our laws have always reflected that. I know you will totally disagree…so no point going there. I just wanted to explain where I am coming from. Today we are no longer Christian and God is not blessing our country because of it. People today worship idols…money, fame, material possessions…they are living like God does not and never exited. And look at the state we are in….it shows. So today we are take sides….those with a God worldview againt…those who reject him. Democrats hate Republicans…and vice versa. Socialism…Capitalism It is a fight for power….that much is evident. We are on different sides…thus the clash of ideals. You can't compromise on basic human values. Life….Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. We would not have the later two without life. With this issue there can be no compromise. Were do your morals come from? How do you decide what is right and wrong? You have rejected a God….so how do ya do it? And if what you say is true…..then rape could be right to someone who thinks its right.
Well, if they have no valid arguments, why the need to resort to the ad hominems? Surely even those on this thread could effectively counter invalid arguments, no?
Because, I don't really know much about her. She's completely irrelevant to my life, regardless of any good or bad she may have done in her life. I can't say I have anything against her, I just quite simply don't care about her at all. Why would I? Because she was pro-choice too? I don't consider someone being pro-choice as a prerequisite for my liking them. I have pro-life friends. It's just one opinion on one issue in a sea of infinite issues. Nope. If you have 999,999,999 people who all agree that stealing is wrong, and one person says it's not, you cannot say that stealing is ALWAYS wrong. It's just always wrong to people who think it's always wrong. On abortion? We've spoken of this quite a bit. Considering that you think I'm two mustache hairs away from being Hitler, I would think my position is quite well known to you. Science says it's biologically a human being. Science does not tell you it's a person. My sperm is biologically a human being. Your embryos, the same. Are they deserving of rights too? I don't believe it could be, no. Rape, by definition, is forcefully making a person have sexual intercourse with you against their will. I don't see how that could be right ever. The woman, or man, has not given the rapist consent to have sex with them. I don't think it deserves personhood. They do have the right to worship their religion, as long as it's within the laws we have, just like every other person of every other religion. If a person chooses to live their life according to Sharia law, that's fine with me, but it stops being fine the second they try to extend that to someone who has not chosen to live their life according to that principle. Actually, you are a moral relativist, because you've still chosen to adopt the morals of Christianity. You had a choice and you made it. Did God force you to be a Christian? Did he force you to have the morals and beliefs you have? Did anyone? I actually believe in a lot of the Christian morals such as not to steal, not to murder, not to commit adultery, and most importantly, Christ's golden rule. I simply do it without the need of the backstory and the voodoo. I've made a choice, just like you, and just like every other Christian in the world has. Not having a belief in God cannot be taken to mean I have to develop my own separate unique set of morals. I'm a grown man, with a capable mind and conscience. I don't need a book to tell me what's right or what's wrong. I believe in respect and human decency, which is basically what Christ taught anyway, minus all the praying and superstition.
Sanger has an interesting story. She became interested in women's health issues when her mother died at 49 after giving birth to 11 children. As a nurse she began teaching women about venereal disease and birth control. Those topics were considered obscene at the time and she was censored and spent time in jail for writing about them. Ironically, eugenics was a popular and well respected topic, so she tried to enlist eugenists in her campaign to promote birth control education. She was opposed to abortion because it was dangerous for women at that time. http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/aboutms/index.html
That's funny then, because the little information I thought I knew turns out to be wrong. I admit, the only thing I really knew about her was that she had a connection to abortion. I can't say I agree with her views on eugenics, but it completely surprises me that married people weren't legally allowed to use contraception until the 60s? What the boink is that? In any case, I have a feeling my being asked about her was a weighted question, and since I was not pounced upon, I must not have given the desired answer. Thanks for the quick history lesson though.
Play the victim .it becomes you. You said you knew nothing about Sanger now you say you disagree with her views on eugenics. LOL What is it you know about her or you don't? I think you know all about her thats what I think. And Cady likes her views on eugenics so I guess some pro-aborts can see things differently. I ask you an honest question why make more of it than what it is? At least you try to answer them that is more than I can say for some people.
That would be because I followed the link Cady put in her message and read about her. So, when I wrote that message and stated I knew next to nothing about her, it was 100% accurate at the time.
Whatever poll you want to accept, it doesn't matter. My point remains. You claim that "very few" of those who support defunding PP are pro-choice. The information shows a substantial number of Democrats and Independents, many of whom are pro-choice, support defunding. There are many reasons one might support the defunding of PP, none of which have anything to do with the fact that they perform abortions. Read it again. THAT'S WHAT HE'S REFERRING TO. "GET RID OF" THE SUBSIDY FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD. "ELIMINATE" THE SUBSIDY FOR AMTRAK. What part are you missing here? NO YOU HAVEN'T. You put forth one quote, out of context, where one pro-lifer supports defunding PP. And he is clearly arguing that it should be done in order to decrease spending. Do pro-lifers want to defund PP because they perform abortions? Of course they do, that's obvious. But you have still not shown how defunding a program that one disagrees with amounts to "vengeance". You're using the word merely as a character attack. Was Bill Clinton being vengeful when he signed the Brady Bill? Was he just seeking retribution against the owners/manufacturers of semi-automatic rifles? And if you believe pro-lifers have offered unproven allegations and vicious propaganda, fine. Quote them and rebut them. But be intellectually honest about it. Anyone can be a name-caller.
Even worse, there are those who want to take us back again to that time when women were hostage to their own reproductive systems.
How can it be that a woman is "held hostage" by a life which--by causality--she willed into her womb? She is half responsible, the man is responsible for the other half. The man is held responsible for financial support when the child is born, why shouldn't she be accountable for her part in the creation of offspring? So what if it's her womb? She engaged in actions which forced the creation of a life in her womb. By causality, her decisions resulted in the creation of that life in her womb and she was well aware of that as a possible outcome, as was the man. Why should one party be able to duck out of being held accountable, but the other is not? Your argument continues to hold men hostage for their "mistakes" while allowing women ultimate control over whether or not to be accountable for theirs. That's ludicrous, that's the hypocrisy here.
Lets analyze the contributions to pregnancy from both sexes, before and after the child is born. Feel free to point out anything I've left out. Man: Has sexual intercourse which results in conception Child is born Must help support child Woman: Has sexual intercourse which results in conception Becomes pregnant which takes over her body for 9 months putting her at risk of health complications and the after effects of child birth. Child is born Must help support child(and are usually the ones who end up actually raising the child and supporting it. Census bureau statistics from 2007 show that 82% of single parent households are headed by women. Stats linked at the bottom) What becomes obvious here is that the two positions aren't equal. The same is expected of the woman after the child is born as is expected of the man, except the man bears none of the physical and direct emotional consequences of carrying that child to term. There's an extra step there, one that involves a lengthy period of time as well as physical and emotional changes. It's inherently unequal. Because of that, I feel it's only right that the woman get to make a choice about whether she wants that child to occupy her body for 9 months. Saying that by having sex she is consenting to the possibility of pregnancy, and must automatically subject herself to that consequence is silly, and logically unsound. She made a choice about having the sex and in the event that she gets an abortion, makes a choice about keeping the child. They are two distinct choices, choosing one does not lock you into the other. http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-237.pdf
Yes it matters what poll, because now you are down to 30% opposing. You said ALL Libertarians oppose funding PP, and they account for about 15% of Americans. That only leaves 15% for "a substantial number of Democrats and Independents," plus all those who want to destroy PP. Read the Republican candidate statements that I linked to. They clearly want to defund PP because it performs abortions. There is no doubt about it. Newt Gingrich: You had a great speaker last year in Mike Pence and I want to say I strongly endorse his cutting out all funding for Planned Parenthood which has become a major source of abortion in America. http://www.sba-list.org/suzy-b-blog...efuls-tell-sba-list-defund-planned-parenthood That is your interpretation; it is not what he said. Cutting funds for birth control does not decrease spending in the long run. Every dollar spent for birth control saves $4 in eventual social costs. Every economist knows this, so if that is Romney's or any Republican's claim, it is disingenuous. Here's what happened in Texas... http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/organizations/planned-parenthood Texas legislators were willing to lose 90% of its federal health care funding and deny 130,000 women access to health care in order to defund PP. How could you say they are not acting out of vengeance? They have been rebutted, repeatedly. There are many examples, but here are two. If you read the Margaret Sanger thread, you will see tons of examples of misattributed and fabricated quotes, debunked and sourced. Here's more about that: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/aboutms/index.html There are also the Lila Rose hoax videos (which GOP candidates have referred to) debunked here: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102040026 Dont' accuse me of being intellectually dishonest. You have to know the abortion debate is a very emotional one. You have to know that pro-lifers think Planned Parenthood kills babies, especially black ones. You have to know they hate PP with a vengeance. So why would you deny that they are acting out of vengeance? Unless you are in denial...
Virtually everything that you've offered thus far has been intellectually dishonest, Cady, and anyone can see that. I don't want to be condescending to you, but you wouldn't last a week on a junior high debate team. Of course the abortion issue is an emotional one, and a difficult one. And people like yourself have turned the debate into "The Murderers vs. The Woman-Haters." If both sides would stop shrieking and finger-pointing, we all might gain a little more understanding from each. That's been my point from the beginning; one you still seem to be missing. But please forgive me; it's my fault, not yours. I mistakenly assumed that I was dealing with posters who understood what the word "vengeance" actually means. Who could extropolate basic data from polls. Who understand the difference between public agencies and publicly-funded private organizations. Who can comprehend the difference between logic and fallacy, legitimate debate of an issue versus name-calling. So you don't really need to respond. I concede I was wrong. Very wrong. Can someone point me to the adult forum, please?
You seem very confused about the meaning of "vengeance." Vengeance is exactly what right-wingers have in mind when they want to punish Planned Parenthood for providing abortion as 3% of their services. Defunding PP is not the same as withholding funding for abortion, since the Hyde Amendment already prevents any funding of abortion with federal funds. No federal funds have financed abortion for YEARS, yet fanatics want PP defunded, no, they want PP destroyed, despite the fact that PP helps men and women get health care they otherwise could not afford. That is exactly the meaning of "vengeance." So get off your high horse and start walking. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vengeance venge·ance   [ven-juhns] Show IPA noun 1. infliction of injury, harm, humiliation, or the like, on a person by another who has been harmed by that person; violent revenge: But have you the right to vengeance? 2. an act or opportunity of inflicting such trouble: to take one's vengeance. 3. the desire for revenge: a man full of vengeance. 4. Obsolete . hurt; injury. 5. Obsolete . curse; imprecation.
You make it seem like everyone thought about eugenics like she did. That was not the case at all. Sanger was looked at as a freak and a radical. Her views were much like that of Hitler. Eugenics was not a well respected topic except to people who supported abortion and slaves it was. Sanger has an affair on her husband .so of course she would want protection of some kind. She said the marriage bed was..."The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order." She also said, "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923) This view obviously came from her own personal life because her mother has so many pregnancies over twenty. Killing them would have been easier .than just obtaining from sex. Sanger used these terms to describe certain people that should be eliminated, who should be sterilized or segregated away from the general population. human weeds, reckless breeders, spawning human beings who never should have been born. Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization About blacks .after speaking to a KKK meeting of women had this to say. "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon The majority of the population at that time was not the same page as this racist and radical women.
I have no vengeance in my heart. And for you to say this shows just how out of touch you are with this topic. I want abortion made illegal to save the unborn. I do not condone any violence along the way. For someone like you to grasp that you just can't because your views like the position on abortion is violent. Violence is your answer to everything. Abortion is a violent act against an innocent human being and YOU AND ILK SUPPORT THAT. YOU THINK VIOLENCE IS OK COOK HEROIC. That says way more about your heart than mine. Planned Parenthoods doors stay open because of one service they provide. And that 3% ..abortion ..pays the bills pays the salaries. Without abortion and this service, they would close. How much do they charge for abortion as compared to an appointment to get birth control or to get an STD test? No you are totally wrong ..ABORTION IS WHAT KEEPS PP GOING THEY COUNT ON ABORTION AND REPEAT ABORTION. If all that birth control was working that they handed out .no one would need abortion. LOL THEY NEED AND LOVE ABORTION AND WILL DO ANYTHING TO PERFORM THEM EVEN TO UNDERAGED YOUNG GIRLS. And maybe that is why they are continually under investigation just one of the reasons Komen wanted to part ways with them. But they are a well oiled machine and they gave ultimatums ones that worked. They basically told Komen that they were their (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and Komen under the pressure caved. PP has an agenda and its to kill .this backs up everything Sanger was about.
Junkieturtle said, You forget a lot of things here in your analysis. The mans side should read INVITED TO HAVE SEX, DEPOSITED SPERM in sexual act done for pleasure. If it was to have children no abortion would be needed. He is not an issue in any pregnancy so says the government. Man is forced to provide child support whether he wants to or not and whether the child is his or not, if he is married. The woman's side should read .INVITED THE MAN INTO HER PERSONAL SPACE FOR PLEASURE TAKING THE RISK OF PREGNANCY. HER BODY HER DECISION, HER PREGNANCY. Government says the father is nothing. Her decision to kill or not to kill. FAther has no rights. Whatever happens to the woman she took the risk to experience. Most women know what birth control is and what pregnancy is. The risk is taken but this does not negate responsible behavior. Because of this conceptual sex act and because its the woman's body .total responsibility should be hers. The father should only support her if he wishes and should not be forced by any government that stripped him of fatherhood after the child was conceived. Your (*)(*)(*)(*) straight they aren't. The man has no rights to his child. If is not fair after stripping the father of rights to them force him to step up if he does not want ties with the woman or the child. It was her body .should be her responsibility. And if the pro-abort said had balls this would be their position .but they want their cake and eat it too. Lets enslave the man after taking his rights away. EVery woman knows how long pregnancy is they know about birth control but its their body so the responsibility should totally be the woman's. She took the risk .she did .no one else .she knows her body is involved the responsibility is hers. THE MAN, THE FATHER IS SCREWED .BY THE WOMAN WHO DOES NOT INVOLVE HIM IN THE DECISION AND BY OUR GOVERNMENT THAT DOES NOT SEE HIM AT ALL WHILE THE CHILD IS IN THE WOMB .BUT COMES AFTER HIM SHOULD THE WOMAN KEEP THE CHILD. THE MAN IS NOTHING BUT A POCKETBOOK FOR THE WOMAN. I would think every man in America would revolt because of this. They simply have no rights.
Well said. The father has no rights he is nothing but a walled should the mother want to tie him up. His rights are stripped and does not get a choice either to be involved or not. It was her body her risk .does not involve the father. Of course I find this sad and disagree. I believe it takes two to conceived and both should be responsible. I don't agree that because the pregnancy took place in the woman's body that she can kill. But our government does not see it this way. They have the woman's back in everyday .even financially. She calls every shot in the book and as I said .the father of the sperm has no rights.
No definition needed on this end, I hardly think it's me who's confused here. As I've already stated, there are many people who would like to defund PP. Some because they perform abortions, and some for a myriad of other reasons. But your post illustrates my point very well. It seems in your mind, it's not possible to be pro-life or wish to defund PP as a result of considered, reasoned analysis. All pro-lifers must just be vengeful "fanatics", right?
I'm pretty sure the right to own a gun will be outlawed before abortion, and the sad thing about this is the first one is actually in the constitution.
The second one is actually in the Constitution. What could be more private than a woman's personal inner workings?
Very ironic post. The pro-life long-standing goal to defund Planned Parenthood is not for the purpose of saving federal dollars. Studies have shown that government-funded birth control SAVES tax dollars. A Brookings Institute study found: http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2012/03_unplanned_pregnancy_thomas.aspx?p=1 I could have found dozens on this forum alone, but here are two examples of undeniable pro-life contempt for Planned Parenthood: FYI, the pro-lifers' coined term "abortion mill" is one of contempt. The fact that Texas legislators were willing to lose 90% of federal health care funding and deny 130,000 women access to health care in order to defund PP can only be a means of punishment for Planned Parenthood without regard for the families that are hurt by it. There is massive documentation of pro-life lies about Planned Parenthood for the purpose of destroying it. Now go find your mommy.
For PIERCE, Exhibit A: pro-lifers lie about Margaret Sanger/Planned Parenthood for the purpose of destroying it. This has been brought to your attention before, you ignored it and are now repeating your lie. Eugenics was not considered radical, that's why over 30 states passed laws for forced sterilization of inmates and the mentally ill. Those laws were on the books in some states until the 1960s and 70s. Margaret Sanger's views were not like Hitler. She never advocated sterilization of any group of people, let alone genocide. http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/newsletter/articles/sanger-hitler_equation.html Sanger had affairs after separation from her husband. The quote refers to the status of women as property of their husbands. Her campaign for bringing birth control to women began because her mother died at 49 after having 18 pregnancies. Debunked... http://www.trustblackwomen.org/2011...et-sanger-and-the-african-american-community- Sanger used these terms to describe certain people that should be eliminated, who should be sterilized or segregated away from the general population. human weeds, reckless breeders, spawning human beings who never should have been born. Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization I have shown proof that she never said "human weeds" or "reckless breeders." Search The Pivot of Civilization online at books.google.com. You won't find those terms. Very, very dishonest. Sanger spoke to KKK women about birth control, not about the Negro population. http://www.trustblackwomen.org/2011...et-sanger-and-the-african-american-community- Margaret Sanger worked tirelessly to promote the status of women. It is due to her efforts that birth control came to be accepted by virtually all women. She was not a racist; she helped black women and was praised by Martin Luther King, Jr and other black leaders. What do you hope to gain by your continuous posting of debunked lies?
