• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacyhs said:
Planned Parenthood in New York only, not Planned Parenthood. Looks to me like they've fallen for the same Sanger "Nazi-style" eugenics nonsense that the anti-choice have put out there. They are putting today's morals on the eugenics movement of a hundred years ago which was not race based and misrepresenting what Sanger's position on eugenics was. This is a classic example of overreacting to be politically correct but factually wrong.
[/B]
Click to expand...

Think again. At what point do people open their eyes, and stop being apologists?

Planned Parenthood CEO calls out founder for her 'association with white supremacist groups and eugenics'

Planned Parenthood CEO Alexis McGill Johnson called out the organization's founder in a New York Times op-ed, saying she had ties to "white supremacist groups and eugenics."
Click to expand...

https://www.businessinsider.com/pla...founder-white-supremacist-associations-2021-4
 
Stacyhs said:
Galileo had science and fact on his side. Your post does not.
Click to expand...

The arbitrary abortion line also doesn't have science on its side. And the fact is that Joe's "we abort things we don't want" argument extends far, far beyond that arbitrary line.

Tell me where humanity begins, and I'll tell you where abortion ends and murder begins. And then you'll tell me that's not what you meant.

ETA: Also, seriously? We're talking about essential humanity and murder, and the best you can come up with is an empty meme? Human life hangs in the balance, and that's what you bring to the table?
 
Last edited:
Fringe reset, start the whole discussion over. *Takes a shot*
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
Think again. At what point do people open their eyes, and stop being apologists?

Planned Parenthood CEO calls out founder for her 'association with white supremacist groups and eugenics'



https://www.businessinsider.com/pla...founder-white-supremacist-associations-2021-4
Click to expand...

Instead of reading one person's opinion, try reading the actual historical facts that I've provided.

Sanger didn't have an 'association with white supremacist groups". She spoke about birth control to ONE women's group who happened to be part of the KKK ONE TIME. That does not give her an 'association' with them. But leave it to the anti-choice people to PHOTOSHOP her into a KKK rally. And also to misattribute racist remarks to her that were made by other people!

Anti-choicers wield misattributed and often outright false quotes about Sanger as weapons to shame Black women for exercising their right to choose, and even more nonsensically, to shame them for supporting Planned Parenthood.

And since anti-choice fanatics seem utterly incapable of making an honest argument in support of their position that Black women should be forced into childbirth rather than permitted to make their own decisions about what to do with their bodies, they resort to lies, misinformation, and half-truths about Sanger and the organization she founded.
Click to expand...
https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article...tives-margaret-sanger-used-shame-black-women/

Why don't you attack Henry Ford for his overt antisemitism rather than a woman who spent her life trying to help women of all colors?

What part of Sanger's eugenics beliefs were not related to race or ethnic groups but to getting rid of genetic disorders through birth control of all races are you not understanding? Do I need to use words with less syllables?
 
Stacyhs said:
Instead of reading one person's opinion, try reading the actual historical facts that I've provided.

Sanger didn't have an 'association with white supremacist groups". She spoke about birth control to ONE women's group who happened to be part of the KKK ONE TIME. That does not give her an 'association' with them. But leave it to the anti-choice people to PHOTOSHOP her into a KKK rally. And also to misattribute racist remarks to her that were made by other people!


https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article...tives-margaret-sanger-used-shame-black-women/

Why don't you attack Henry Ford for his overt antisemitism rather than a woman who spent her life trying to help women of all colors?

What part of Sanger's eugenics beliefs were not related to race or ethnic groups but to getting rid of genetic disorders through birth control of all races are you not understanding? Do I need to use words with less syllables?
Click to expand...
What part of Sanger's beliefs don't justify getting rid of disorders post partum?
 
theprestige said:
That and because it's essentially an argument for post partum abortions, and the forcible euthanization of "useless mouths" generally.

The whole reason abortion plays is because of an entirely arbitrary line. The moment you start arguing that the line isn't arbitrary, you open a whole new can of worms. "We get rid of people we don't want" erases the line entirely.
Click to expand...

What a load of crap. America has had as you described it, that "arbitrary line" since January 22nd 1973. That is a few months short of 49 years. I haven't seen any clamoring for getting rid of people we don't want in that half century.

And when did you become anti-choice?
 
theprestige said:
The arbitrary abortion line also doesn't have science on its side. And the fact is that Joe's "we abort things we don't want" argument extends far, far beyond that arbitrary line.

Tell me where humanity begins, and I'll tell you where abortion ends and murder begins. And then you'll tell me that's not what you meant.
Click to expand...

You are telling me what I meant? LOL! Show me a single post of mine where I've advocated for any "post partum abortion"...despite the fact that no such thing exists.

ETA: Also, seriously? We're talking about essential humanity and murder, and the best you can come up with is an empty meme? Human life hangs in the balance, and that's what you bring to the table?
Click to expand...

Exactly what "meme" did I post?
 
Stacyhs said:
Instead of reading one person's opinion, try reading the actual historical facts that I've provided.
Click to expand...

If you are saying that the CEO of Planned Parenthood has no credibility, that is a different topic.

It is clearly not just the opinion of "one person", when it comes to Sanger.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
If you are saying that the CEO of Planned Parenthood has no credibility, that is a different topic.

It is clearly not just the opinion of "one person", when it comes to Sanger.
Click to expand...

Just stop it. I didn't say she has no credibility but she is just plain wrong when it comes to the FACTS as Sanger's own writings show.

You have failed to disprove one thing I've posted about Sanger with evidence. It's just all one unsupported claim after another from you.
 
Stacyhs said:
Just stop it. I didn't say she has no credibility but she is just plain wrong when it comes to the FACTS as Sanger's own writings show.

You have failed to disprove one thing I've posted about Sanger with evidence. It's just all one unsupported claim after another from you.
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous. I don't believe a word Warp is saying about Sangor.

But it's entirely irrelevant to abortion law. This is a classic ad hominem fallacy. As if Sangor had to be perfect otherwise all her work was awful.
 
I couldn't say it better:

Canceling Margaret Sanger Only Helps Abortion Opponents
When Planned Parenthood took the name of the organization’s founder off its flagship clinic in Manhattan, they bought into anti-choice propaganda.
Some news reports made it sound as if the change was related to internal struggles over racism; staffers of color have complained that they were disrespected and passed over for promotion, and around the time that Sanger’s name was removed, Laura McQuade, the CEO of the New York affiliate, was fired amid accusations of racism. These were legitimate concerns. Of the 22 members of the PPGNY board, according to The New York Times, only one is Black. (Two are Asian, and two are Hispanic.) Especially given that Black women make up a large proportion of Planned Parenthood patients, that’s pretty shocking.

Whether erasing Sanger was an olive branch to Black staffers or part of a deeper self-investigation, there’s no question that the main winners here are abortion opponents. For decades, they’ve claimed that Sanger was a racist bent on Black genocide and that Planned Parenthood is carrying out that mission today. In 2016, Planned Parenthood released a historically accurate, fair, and complex statement refuting that absurd claim, but why would anyone pay attention to that now?*

Never mind that the anti-choice movement has never done a thing for Black people and, like Sanger’s old enemy the Catholic hierarchy, is closely allied with racist institutions like the Republican Party and white evangelical Protestantism. The bogus anti-racism of the self-described pro-life movement was on full display in 2011, when billboards appeared picturing an adorable Black child with the caption “The most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb.” In other words: The biggest danger to Black people is pregnant Black women. It is truly painful that this canard about Sanger has now been given a stamp of approval by the very organization she founded.
For the record, Margaret Sanger was not a racist, as PPGNY board chairman Karen Seltzer asserts. As her biographer Ellen Chesler told me, she was a progressive who believed in racial integration. She voted for Norman Thomas. She worked with progressive Black people—W.E.B. Du Bois, for example, who along with Mary McCleod Bethune and Adam Clayton Powell Sr. served on the board of the Negro Project, a network of birth control and maternal health clinics Sanger established in Harlem and the South. In 1966, Martin Luther King accepted Planned Parenthood’s first Margaret Sanger Award, and in his statement offered a vigorous endorsement of voluntary birth control.
Click to expand...

Avowed socialists 
like H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, and even Helen Keller were eugenicists. So were liberal reformers like Havelock Ellis and John Maynard Keynes and traditionalists like Winston Churchill. Gunnar and Alva Myrdal, the architects of the Swedish welfare state (she was a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, too), supported measures to help mothers and children, but they also enthusiastically supported sterilization of the “unfit.”Buck v. Bell, the infamous Supreme Court decision that validated forced sterilization, was written by one liberal hero, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and approved by another, Louis Brandeis. As Chesler tartly observed, Sanger’s name is more closely associated with this case than the men who decided it. Nobody is demanding that Brandeis University change its name.
Click to expand...
I’ll just come right out and say it: Margaret Sanger did more good for American women than any other individual in the entire 20th century. She is the person who connected birth control not just to women’s health—something the Catholic Church has yet to grasp, although it controls one in seven US hospital beds—but also to our self-determination and sexual freedom. She was the key leader who really grasped the fact that without the ability to control our own bodies, women would never be free or equal or even just happy and well. She was more than a writer, an activist, a health provider, and an organizer, though she was all those things. She was a whirlwind of energy who changed our understanding of womanhood, sex, and marriage so fundamentally, we can barely picture what life was like before her.

There are so many ways of forgetting where we have been. Planned Parenthood has just made doing so a little easier.
Click to expand...
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/canceling-margaret-sanger/


*This is the article I originally quoted at length from.
 
Stacyhs said:
"I would like to think that they are in heaven, back in full health both physically and mentally, living happily with their Lord."

And this is the reason people want a heaven, with a paternalistic "Father" figure to guide them and comfort them. The psychology behind theism isn't difficult to figure out.
Click to expand...

It is one reason why people want a heaven, it is certainly not the only reason people believe in a heaven.

Even if it were so, what is so wrong with wanting to believe your loved that have died went to eternal paradise are happy and healthy and together, where you will see them again?


Stacyhs said:
Several years ago we had been reading "The DaVinci Code" in my book club. We had then talked about "what ifs" as in "what if Jesus was just a man and had, indeed, had children with Mary Magdalene and there were descendants, etc". One of our members had been very quiet and then suddenly erupted in tears with 'I don't care what you say, you can't take Jesus away from me!" She had a melt down because she simply could not even hypothetically consider the idea of Jesus not being the Son of God, etc. As Marx said, "Religion is the opiate of the masses".
Click to expand...

I suspect more was going on with her than meets the eye. She may have been having other difficulties in her life and blood club was wear it all came to the surface. As for me, it would take more than a book club's hypothetical "what if" to take my faith in Christ away, if anyone could.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
This is ridiculous. I don't believe a word Warp is saying about Sangor.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying too much about her, compared to the press. I linked some articles. Even the CEO of Planned Parenthood is lobbing criticism at Sanger. I mean, as I say, at what point do people stop being apologists?
 
Warbler said:
It is one reason why people want a heaven, it is certainly not the only reason people believe in a heaven.

If you so, what is so wrong with wanting to believe your loved that have died went to eternal paradise are happy and healthy and together, where you will see them again?
Click to expand...

Why else would they believe in a Heaven? What evidence is there of one?
None.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to believe in that. I'd love to believe that we'll all be together again, young, healthy etc. But I also realize that is a 'want' and nothing more. But I also want to believe that I'm never going to grow old even in the facing of doing exactly that.

But what is wrong is when people try and force their religious beliefs on others who don't agree as in the anti-choice people who are largely basing it on their religious beliefs.


I suspect more was going on with her than meets the eye. She may have been having other difficulties in her life and blood club was wear it all came to the surface. As for me, it would take more than a book club's hypothetical "what if" to take my faith in Christ away, if anyone could.
Click to expand...

She was having marital problems and would later divorce. But the hysterical reaction to anyone even questioning Jesus' divinity sent her into a tail spin. Her 'crutch' was being undermined and she couldn't handle it.
 
Warp12 said:
I'm not saying too much about her, compared to the press. I linked some articles. Even the CEO of Planned Parenthood is lobbing criticism at Sanger. I mean, as I say, at what point do people stop being apologists?
Click to expand...

At what point do people stop pot stirring by making claims they can't support with actual evidence?

I've given many, many pieces of evidence that support that the CEO of PP is just plain wrong. What have you provided?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom