|
|
 |
|
#21
10-28-2007, 05:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
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 
|
|
#23
10-31-2007, 05:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
(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...  )
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#24
11-01-2007, 03:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
#25
11-01-2007, 03:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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!
|
|
#26
11-01-2007, 03:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#27
11-01-2007, 03:44 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#28
11-01-2007, 03:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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. )
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#29
11-01-2007, 04:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 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?
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#30
11-01-2007, 04:06 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
#31
11-01-2007, 04:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
|
#32
11-01-2007, 04:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#33
11-01-2007, 04:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#34
11-01-2007, 04:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#35
11-01-2007, 05:30 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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!
|
|
#36
11-01-2007, 06:49 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#37
11-02-2007, 04:29 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#38
11-02-2007, 07:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
Linear Mode
