Margaret Sanger--Halo tipping a bit?

[timmgirvan]

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!

[timmgirvan]

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

[golfer]

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.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by golfer

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.

[timmgirvan]

[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!

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

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

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?

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

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!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

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".

Originally Posted by somerfrost

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.

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.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

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".

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.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by pgardn

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!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by pgardn

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.

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!

[Danzig]

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.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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?

Originally Posted by somerfrost

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.

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

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.

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

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 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.