Wrong the nations debt is our new form of slavery. We were signed onto a debt based system that will have our great grand kids enslaved just like we are. We already work over a half a year to pay this our masters.
There IS an analogy between slavery and abortion.... If Roe was overturned and states made abortion illegal? WOMEN would be escaping to the Free States where they would still have their reproductive rights. You'd see a Pro-Choice Underground Railway open between (ironically) much of the same states that Harriet Tubman led people out of....to (ironically) much of the same states where they found freedom.
A perfect description for your "quotes," as most quotes attributed to her have been found to be distorted, misattributed, and taken out of context. Regardless, Sanger was opposed to abortion. "Sanger was opposed to abortions, both because they were dangerous for the mother in the early 20th century and because she believed that life should not be terminated after conception." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger She was pro-life, like you.
More TYPICAL...of "pro-lifers" when faced with reality, facts, or the worst thing you can throw at them.... logic.
This will be like talking to a ghost that just posts and can't face the music but: Why do you have to wait 50 years? Abortion has been around for centuries which SHOULD give you a big clue that A. It will always be around. B.There were more people for it than against it. Abortion didn't end any lives.
I really appreciate you guys making my photo's go viral by continuing to respond to the post.. Nothing could get the word out better than that. They speak for themselves and cannot be disputed. They are pictures that speak louder than any words ever could.
It's been around for centuries just like abortion. That's my point. So since it's been around that long it must be OK. Ya know there are lots of things that have been around for centuries, such as murder which abortion is, prostitution, stealing, etc. but that does not make it right.
I hardly think "viral" after a few posts in here ... The photos speak for the ignorant people who believe that they prove anything...and they WERE disputed...
Right or wrong depends on the individuals view on abortion...YOU don't get to foist your view off on every other woman.. Abortion is murder only in your mind. I think prostitution should be legal. Stealing is wrong because it affects others and creates chaos if not controlled.
Oh no...if it's been around for centuries it must be OK. That's what you said. Or does that only apply to what YOU want it to apply to??? - - - Updated - - - Once again...good night. Have to much to do to take this any further. Enjoy telling each other how wonderful killing babies is.
Sure, tell a blatant lie about what I posted and then run...LOL, do you think you're any different than any other Anti-Choicer in here ... If you are brave enough to read the PROOF above it was YOU who said it's been around for centuries so it must be OK. Reading the posts honest people would see that I never said that, you did.
Really then let us look at each of the 'quotes' you have provided and actually read them in the entirety and in context. I shal highlight the cherry picked words you have used in the actual text. and the actual text If education, technical assistance, and public opinion fail to limit the number of babies within certain groups of the population to the country's capacity for taking care of them, then it may be advisable to adopt more drastic procedure. I hesitate to suggest when this might be, because so many of us Americans are afraid of any new forms of regimentation. It will probably always be said that sex relations and parenthood are matters too intimate for any interference by public authorities. Of course, there is already a considerable amount of interference, or, if you prefer the term, regulation through marriage and divorce laws. I wonder if it will also become necessary to establish a system of birth permits. At present a marriage license is a birth permit, as well a a permit for a man and a woman to maintain a common household. Suppose, for purposes of discussion of something that may not prove to be practicable, we add the following clauses to the proposed Baby Code: Article 3. A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood. Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood. Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples, providing they are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and, on the woman's part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health. Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth. All that sounds highly revolutionary, and it might be impossible to put the scheme into practice. But for purposes of discussion let the clauses stand. Suppose that we had such regulations, and suppose that couples went ahead and had children without permits and regardless of the law. Well, we should be no worse off in the matter of births than we are now - https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=101807.xml and this was NEVER even proposed as becoming law. This statement is taken out of context from Sanger's Woman and the New Race (Sanger, 1920). Sanger was making an ironic comment not a prescriptive one about the horrifying rate of infant mortality among large families of early 20th-century urban America. The statement, as grim as the conditions that prompted Sanger to make it, accompanied a chart, illustrating the infant death rate in 1920: The direct relationship between the size of the wage-earners family and the death of children less than one year old has been revealed by a number of studies of the infant death rate. One of the clearest of these was that made by Arthur Geissler among miners and cited by Dr. Alfred Ploetz before the First International Eugenic Congress. 1 Taking 26,000 births from unselected marriages, and omitting families having one and two children, Geissler got this result: Deaths During First Year 1st born children 23% 2nd " " 20% 3rd " " 21% 4th " " 23% 5th " " 26% 6th " " 29% 7th " " 31% 8th " " 33% 9th " " 36% 10th " " 41% 11th " " 51% 12th " " 60% Thus we see that the second and third children have a very good chance to live through the first year. Children arriving later have less and less chance, until the twelfth has hardly any chance at all to live twelve months. 8 This does not complete the case, however, for those who care to go farther into the subject will find that many of those who live for a year die before they reach the age of five. 9 Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. The same factors which create the terrible infant mortality rate, and which swell the death rate of children between the ages of one and five, operate even more extensively to lower the health rate of the surviving members. Moreover, the overcrowded homes of large families reared in poverty further contribute to this condition. Lack of medical attention is still another factor, so that the child who must struggle for health in competition with other members of a closely packed family has still great difficulties to meet after its poor constitution and malnutrition have been accounted for. - http://www.aren.org/prison/documents/women/6/6.pdf - page 15 of the pdf. I can find not a single copy of this book available to look at and as such must treat the quote with suspicion as there is no way to validate it it's correctness. Again another quote taken out of context (and misquoted as well), as can be plainly seen from a scan of the actual letter itself. - http://smithlibraries.org/digital/files/original/d6358bc3053c93183295bf2df1c0c931.pdf not even written by Sanger, it was in fact written by Prof. Dr. Ernst Rudin - page 22 of the following pdf of the actual paper - http://birthcontrolreview.net/Birth Control Review/1933-04 April.pdf and yet again a misquoted, out of context cherry pick Seemingly every new approach to the great problem of the human race must manifest its vitality by running the gauntlet of prejudice, ridicule and misinterpretation. Eugenists may remember that not many years ago this program for race regeneration was subjected to the cruel ridicule of stupidity and ignorance. Today Eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems. The most intransigent and daring teachers and scientists have lent their support to this great biological interpretation of the human race. The war has emphasized its necessity. - http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=238946.xml notice the omitted word 'suggested', do you even know what suggested means? and when seen in the full text the context changes Why is all this true of the lower species yet not true of human beings? The secret is revealed by one significant factthe females functions in these animal species are not limited to motherhood alone. Every organ and faculty is fully employed and perfected. Through the development of the individual mother, better and higher types of animals are produced and carried forward. In a word, natural law makes the female the expression and the conveyor of racial efficiency. 7 Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives. So, in compliance with natures working plan, we must permit womanhood its full development before we can expect of it efficient motherhood. If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman. Then and then only can the mother cease to be an incubator and be a mother indeed. Then only can she transmit to her sons and daughters the qualities which make strong individuals and, collectively, a strong race. no idea why you couldn't find a source for this as a 30 second google search provided one - http://www.bartleby.com/1013/18.html I suspect it is because you have lifted your entire post straight from a pro-life source without even bothering to check the accuracy of it. and again in full and in context. Birth Control propaganda is thus the entering wedge for the Eugenic educator. In answering the needs of these thousands upon thousands of submerged mothers, it is possible to use this interest as the foundation for education in prophylaxis, sexual hygiene, and infant welfare. The potential mother is to be shown that maternity need not be slavery but the most effective avenue toward self-development and self-realization. Upon this basis only may we improve the quality of the race. As an advocate of Birth Control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit", admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective. - http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=238946.xml amazing how a few missed punctuation marks and words can change the context of the actual text. in context In the limited space of the present paper, I have time only to touch upon some of the fundamental convictions that form the basis of our Birth Control propaganda, and which, as I think you must agree, indicate that the campaign for Birth Control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical in ideal, with the final aims of Eugenics. First: we are convinced that racial regeneration like individual regeneration, must come "from within." That is, it must be autonomous, self-directive, and not imposed from without. In other words, every potential parent, and especially every potential mother, must be brought to an acute realization of the primary and central importance of bringing children into this world. Secondly: Not until the parents of the world are thus given control over their reproductive faculties will it ever be possible not alone to improve the quality of the generations of the future, but even to maintain civilization even at its present level. Only by self-control of this type, only by intelligent mastery of the procreative powers can the great mass of humanity be awakened to the great responsibility of parenthood. Making all due allowances for the errors and discrepancies of the psychological examination, we are nevertheless face to face with a serious and destructive practice. Our "overhead" expense in segregating the delinquent, the defective and the dependent, in prisons, asylums and permanent homes, our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplyingI have sufficiently indicated, though in truth I have merely scratched the surface of this international menacedemonstrate our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism. No industrial corporation could maintain its existence upon such a foundation. Yet hardheaded "captains of industry," financiers who pride themselves upon their cool-headed and keen-sighted business ability are dropping millions into rosewater philanthropies and charities that are silly at best and vicious at worst. In our dealings with such elements there is a bland maladministration and misuse of huge sums that should in all righteousness be used for the development and education of the healthy elements of the community. Such philanthropy, as Dean Inge has so unanswerably pointed out, is kind only to be cruel, and unwittingly promotes precisely the results most deprecated. It encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant. - Note 'Philanthropists' is not even mentioned in the actual text Eugenics is chiefly valuable in its negative aspects. It is "negative Eugenics" that has studied the histories of such families as the Jukeses and the Kallikaks, that has pointed out the network of imbecility and feeble-mindedness that has been sedulously spread through all strata of society. On its so-called positive or constructive side, it fails to awaken any permanent interest. "Constructive" Eugenics aims to arouse the enthusiasm or the interest of the people in the welfare of the world fifteen or twenty generations in the future. On its negative side it shows us that we are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at allthat the wealth of individuals and of states is being diverted from the development and the progress of human expression and civilization. - http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1689/1689-h/1689-h.htm#link2HCH0005 Pearson has done invaluable work in pointing out the fallacies and the false conclusions of the ordinary statisticians. But when he attempts to show by the methods of biometrics that not only the first child but also the second, are especially liable to suffer from transmissible pathological defects, such as insanity, criminality and tuberculosis, he fails to recognize that this tendency is counterbalanced by the high mortality rate among later children. If first and second children reveal a greater percentage of heritable defect, it is because the later born children are less liable to survive the conditions produced by a large family. In passing, we should here recognize the difficulties presented by the idea of ``fit'' and ``unfit.'' Who is to decide this question? The grosser, the more obvious, the undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind. But among the writings of the representative Eugenists one cannot ignore the distinct middle-class bias that prevails. As that penetrating critic, F. W. Stella Browne, has said in another connection, ``The Eugenics Education Society has among its numbers many most open-minded and truly progressive individuals but the official policy it has pursued for years has been inspired by class- bias and sex bias. - http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/abortion_eugenics/sanger/sanger_08.html By adding in words you change the meaning of the actual quote .. that is dishonest, the actual quote is as follows to gve certain dysgenlc groups in our population them choice of segregation or sterllizatlon - http://birthcontrolreview.net/Birth Control Review/1932-04 April.pdf now finally, please do point out where ANY of your so called quotes state that Sanger was for abortion? In fact here are a few of her quotes concerning abortion, and I can provide the links to her actual words, unlike your copy and paste from some pro-life site. While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization. - http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=232534.xml So, too, with womans struggle for emancipation. Women in all lands and all ages have instinctively desired family limitation. Usually this desire has been laid to economic pressure. Frequently the pressure has existed, but the driving force behind womans aspiration toward freedom has lain deeper. It has asserted itself among the rich and among the poor, among the intelligent and the unintelligent. It has been manifested in such horrors as infanticide, child abandonment and abortion. - http://www.bartleby.com/1013/2.html - Chapter 2 Human society must protect its childrenyes, but prenatal care is most essential! The child-to-be, as yet not called into being, has rights no less imperative. - http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=303355.xml The real alternative to birth control is abortion, wrote Dean Inge, in his article already quoted. It is an alternative that I cannot too strongly condemn. Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious. I bring up the subject here only because some ill-informed persons have the notion that when we speak of birth control we include abortion as a method. We certainly do not. Abortion destroys the already fertilized ovum or the embryo; contraception, as I have carefully explained, prevents the fertilizing of the ovum by keeping the male cells away. Thus it prevents the beginning of life. - http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=236637.xml To each group we explained simply what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong wayno matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer wayit took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not begun. - https://archive.org/stream/margaretsangerau1938sang/margaretsangerau1938sang_djvu.txt So while she may have had extreme views concerning the use of Eugenics, I can find NOTHING that makes her a racist and for one sure thing she was 100% AGAINST abortion.
Did your English teacher fail you at high school, or have you not reached that level yet .. the word is stupid BTW, and I replied simply to debunk everyone of them, which I notice you evaded in answering instead choosing to attempt to blow your own trumpet .. never mind, growing up can be a hard thing for a pro-lifer. Just in case you missed my responses here they are again Apart fro the emotional BS of all the above, you do realize that Sanger was anti-abortion don't you .. in fact she would fit quite well into the ranks of pro-lifers. Now lets look at your nice pictures one by one. 1. No one is disputing that a single cell zygote is life, just as every single cell in our bodies is alive, so your first picture is just the usual crap 2. Couldn't careless about the number of guns you have, it is after all a right you have to keep and bear arms, just as it is a right for a woman to have body autonomy, so one has to question your arbitrary decisions when it comes to rights. 3. See above 4. Ah yes the old slavery analogy, fails every time, a pitiful attempt to align an act that most people find abhorrent with a medical procedure after all no one really wants to be associated with something as wrong as slavery do they .. they have names for this kind of thing, appeal to emotions - http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...o-emotion.html appeal to fear - http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...l-to-fear.html Strawman - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html and then of course we have many black authorities who totally disagree with you - ignored by pro-lifers http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/20...aring-the-two/
Uhh ya, that's what everyone in PF is in here for...to COMMENT......just becasue you're embarrassed that no sane pesron would fall for that phony crap doesn't mean you have to lash out...
Slavery was not the slightest bit based on science. It was based on money, power, and arrogance just as much then and throughout history as it is today in the places where it still happens. The slavery=abortion argument is so bloody stupid that you might as well be sitting here arguing that the moon is a trojan horse of clowns waiting for us to not be looking before it opens up and they attack. The clowns are coming the clowns are coming! Wait, they're already here posting this nonsense!!!!!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
