Post Reply
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
Switch to Forum Live View How do pro-choice people generally look at a person like Margaret Sanger?
3 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2011 - 12:03AM #1
Holly3278
Posts: 35
Hello everyone.  First of all, for those of you who don't know me, I am a former hardcore Catholic.  I used to be extremely **********/pro-life.  I was so against abortion at one point that I felt that it was sinful to even use certain types of birth control because these certain types can be what is called "abortifacient".  I tell you this so that way you can know what kind of background I am coming from when I ask this question:

How do pro-choice people in general look at a person like Margaret Sanger?  In case you don't know, many pro-life/against-abortion people claim that she was for Eugenics.  According to Wiktionary, Eugenics is:

The science of improving stock, whether human or animal; A social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary qualities through selective breeding

In other words, a pro-life/against-abortion person would claim that Margaret Sanger advocated abortion and birth control as a way to get rid of certain populations of people such as the poor or even entire races and ethnicities of people, such as African-Americans.

Most people who have heard of Margaret Sanger also know that she is considered to be the founder of Planned Parenthood.  Margaret Sanger founded the American Birth Control League which was incorporated in 1923 and became Planned Parenthood in 1942.

Therefore, I ask, what would your average pro-choice person think of Margaret Sanger and the idea that she advocated eugenics?  Do pro-choice people in general look up to her or is she looked down upon for this?

Thank you for your time.


********
Edited terms/labels to conform to Local Board Guidelines
Moderated by MSaraTemp on Feb 08, 2011 - 11:10AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 08, 2011 - 1:55AM #2
karbie
Posts: 3,329
Personally, I consider her an advocate of planned parenthood rather than being for eugenics. It takes time for a woman to recover from pregnancy if her body is going to be in condition for the next child to be healthy. My great-grandma was the 2nd wife; the first died in childbirth, along with the child. On my father's side, one great-grandmother raised the son from her husband's first marriage who died in childbirth...along with the 8 children she had, my grandmother being the youngest. Two of her older brothers served in WWI.
  It is also a question of the chances these children had of survival as well. The grandmother who i mentioned last was shipped off to live with at least 2 of her older married sisters for the simple fact there wasn't enough food at home to feed her. She never forgot her first "new" dress from her sister taking apart one of her own dresses to turn it into one for her.
  I would rather that a woman was able  to control her own reproductive system--let's face it, if you can avoid getting pregnant in the first place, then an abortion is unecessary. If you aren't able to take care of the children you have, the last thing you need is another child a year, and during Sanger's beginning efforts, there were no antibiotics if you or your children became ill.
  Did you know that Frank Sinatra's mother went to prison when he was young for performing abortions? She helped more married women who knew another child would kill them than just rape and ended love affairs.
  I think that Sanger's idea of "improving' the races was to allow parents to be able to provide for their children if they had a smaller number of children to raise. That would have been true regardless of the race using her methods. the latest addition to the family gene pool was Irish--and they were considered as being worth less than the blacks in some places.
  This country practiced eugenics on blacks, those considered mentally ill, or even the poor who couldn't support their families. Then of course there were all of the nice, smallpox infected blankets that were given to the Native Americans...it's why this is such a tricky subject to discuss. In an ideal situation, all children would be loved and welcome. We just aren't there yet.
"You are letting your opinion be colored by facts again."
'When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."
these are both from my father.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 13, 2011 - 4:31AM #3
Holly3278
Posts: 35

Hi Karbie.  I strongly agree that birth control is needed for women.  It is better to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than to have to end one.  That said, I definitely do not look down upon a woman for ending an unwanted pregnancy.  I say it is better to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than to end one simply because ending one is much more expensive than preventing one.


Unfortunately, birth control costs money as well.  If it wasn't for organizations like Planned Parenthood, many people wouldn't be able to afford birth control.  I never would have been able to afford my Mirena IUD without my Medicaid.  Before I had Medicaid, I relied on a local family planning clinic (it is unaffiliated with Planned Parenthood but is subsidized by the government) for my birth control.  Before I went on the IUD, I regularly received the Depo Provera injection.  Thankfully, I have never had an unwanted pregnancy.


That said, I am personally a strong advocate for a government-funded health plan that would cover birth control as well as abortion.  I feel that it is very wrong for the government to try and say that abortion is only moral in cases of rape, incest, or possibly health problems with the mother.  A woman should never be forced to carry a pregnancy to term simply because she cannot afford an abortion.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2011 - 11:51AM #4
faith713
Posts: 3,892

devil's advocate says:


 


Women shouldn't be forced to carry neonates either. The government should extend and pay for abortion until the neonate can walk for himself.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."--John14:6

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.-- John 3:16

"We love Him because He first loved us."--1 John 4:9-10

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear ... "
1 John 4:18
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2011 - 12:30PM #5
MysticWanderer
Posts: 1,328

Feb 15, 2011 -- 11:51AM, faith713 wrote:


devil's advocate says:


 


Women shouldn't be forced to carry neonates either. The government should extend and pay for abortion until the neonate can walk for himself.




Devil is brighter than his advocate obviously. 


A woman is NOT forced to carry her neonate ... she can buy a stroller.  But to answer the real question of a woman burdened with an unwanted child, in all of the states there are asylum laws that allow a woman to drop an infant or young child at a hospital or even a fire station as long as there is no evidence of abuse.  Now to ask you can you think of any way to do that for a fetus??

"Not all who wander are lost" J.R.R.Tolkein
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. ~Anne Lamott
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
Friedrich von Schiller
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2011 - 2:36PM #6
faith713
Posts: 3,892

Feb 15, 2011 -- 12:30PM, MysticWanderer wrote:


Feb 15, 2011 -- 11:51AM, faith713 wrote:


devil's advocate says:


 


Women shouldn't be forced to carry neonates either. The government should extend and pay for abortion until the neonate can walk for himself.




Devil is brighter than his advocate obviously. 


A woman is NOT forced to carry her neonate ... she can buy a stroller.  But to answer the real question of a woman burdened with an unwanted child, in all of the states there are asylum laws that allow a woman to drop an infant or young child at a hospital or even a fire station as long as there is no evidence of abuse.  Now to ask you can you think of any way to do that for a fetus??




Are you saying that it's OK to kill someone (your own child) if they are temporarily attached to you? 

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."--John14:6

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.-- John 3:16

"We love Him because He first loved us."--1 John 4:9-10

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear ... "
1 John 4:18
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2011 - 3:27PM #7
MysticWanderer
Posts: 1,328

Feb 15, 2011 -- 2:36PM, faith713 wrote:


Feb 15, 2011 -- 12:30PM, MysticWanderer wrote:


Feb 15, 2011 -- 11:51AM, faith713 wrote:


devil's advocate says:


 


Women shouldn't be forced to carry neonates either. The government should extend and pay for abortion until the neonate can walk for himself.




Devil is brighter than his advocate obviously. 


A woman is NOT forced to carry her neonate ... she can buy a stroller.  But to answer the real question of a woman burdened with an unwanted child, in all of the states there are asylum laws that allow a woman to drop an infant or young child at a hospital or even a fire station as long as there is no evidence of abuse.  Now to ask you can you think of any way to do that for a fetus??




Are you saying that it's OK to kill someone (your own child) if they are temporarily attached to you? 




Actually, no, but I am pointing out that there is NO comparison between a pregnant woman and a new (or old) mother.  Please be aware that the pregnancy alters the physiology of the mother to the benefit of the fetus but in ways that may or may not be deleterious to a given woman.  Given that circumstance pregnancy represents a unique human relationship.  The fetus is much more than "attached" to the woman.

"Not all who wander are lost" J.R.R.Tolkein
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. ~Anne Lamott
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
Friedrich von Schiller
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2011 - 10:45AM #8
faith713
Posts: 3,892

Feb 15, 2011 -- 3:27PM, MysticWanderer wrote:


Feb 15, 2011 -- 2:36PM, faith713 wrote:


Feb 15, 2011 -- 12:30PM, MysticWanderer wrote:


Feb 15, 2011 -- 11:51AM, faith713 wrote:


devil's advocate says:


 


Women shouldn't be forced to carry neonates either. The government should extend and pay for abortion until the neonate can walk for himself.




Devil is brighter than his advocate obviously. 


A woman is NOT forced to carry her neonate ... she can buy a stroller.  But to answer the real question of a woman burdened with an unwanted child, in all of the states there are asylum laws that allow a woman to drop an infant or young child at a hospital or even a fire station as long as there is no evidence of abuse.  Now to ask you can you think of any way to do that for a fetus??




Are you saying that it's OK to kill someone (your own child) if they are temporarily attached to you? 




Actually, no, but I am pointing out that there is NO comparison between a pregnant woman and a new (or old) mother.  Please be aware that the pregnancy alters the physiology of the mother to the benefit of the fetus but in ways that may or may not be deleterious to a given woman.  Given that circumstance pregnancy represents a unique human relationship.  The fetus is much more than "attached" to the woman.




How does nine months of temporary discomfort justify the killing of one's child?

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."--John14:6

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.-- John 3:16

"We love Him because He first loved us."--1 John 4:9-10

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear ... "
1 John 4:18
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2011 - 7:38PM #9
MSaraTemp
Posts: 800

Feb 17, 2011 -- 10:45AM, faith713 wrote:


Feb 15, 2011 -- 3:27PM, MysticWanderer wrote:


Feb 15, 2011 -- 2:36PM, faith713 wrote:


Feb 15, 2011 -- 12:30PM, MysticWanderer wrote:


Feb 15, 2011 -- 11:51AM, faith713 wrote:

devil's advocate says:
Women shouldn't be forced to carry neonates either. The government should extend and pay for abortion until the neonate can walk for himself.


Devil is brighter than his advocate obviously. 


A woman is NOT forced to carry her neonate ... she can buy a stroller.  But to answer the real question of a woman burdened with an unwanted child, in all of the states there are asylum laws that allow a woman to drop an infant or young child at a hospital or even a fire station as long as there is no evidence of abuse.  Now to ask you can you think of any way to do that for a fetus??


Are you saying that it's OK to kill someone (your own child) if they are temporarily attached to you?


Actually, no, but I am pointing out that there is NO comparison between a pregnant woman and a new (or old) mother.  Please be aware that the pregnancy alters the physiology of the mother to the benefit of the fetus but in ways that may or may not be deleterious to a given woman.  Given that circumstance pregnancy represents a unique human relationship.  The fetus is much more than "attached" to the woman.


How does nine months of temporary discomfort justify the killing of one's child?


Er, it's not just a small time frame of a mire 9-months of her life.  It's a matter of her whole life for the rest of her life that's taken into consideration. 
And each woman should decide her own personal matters for her/them-selves and not have you, me or the next JoeBlow in the public sector in addition to government and/or religious leaders dictating women's reproductive issues/matters for us.

You can disregard the lives of women all you desire in favor of not-yet-even-conceived z/e/fs, or ones that are but yet don't belong to you [ergo you have no say in other's personal & private matters] but I'm not disregarding my life or health [or my sister's, my daughter's, my nieces, my female friends & family members] in favor of your personal beliefs, religious or otherwise over my own choices/wishes/hopes/dreams/desires thank you very much.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 20, 2011 - 3:58PM #10
faith713
Posts: 3,892

Feb 17, 2011 -- 10:45AM, faith713 wrote:


Feb 15, 2011 -- 3:27PM, MysticWanderer wrote:


Feb 15, 2011 -- 2:36PM, faith713 wrote:


Feb 15, 2011 -- 12:30PM, MysticWanderer wrote:


Feb 15, 2011 -- 11:51AM, faith713 wrote:


devil's advocate says:


 


Women shouldn't be forced to carry neonates either. The government should extend and pay for abortion until the neonate can walk for himself.




Devil is brighter than his advocate obviously. 


A woman is NOT forced to carry her neonate ... she can buy a stroller.  But to answer the real question of a woman burdened with an unwanted child, in all of the states there are asylum laws that allow a woman to drop an infant or young child at a hospital or even a fire station as long as there is no evidence of abuse.  Now to ask you can you think of any way to do that for a fetus??




Are you saying that it's OK to kill someone (your own child) if they are temporarily attached to you? 




Actually, no, but I am pointing out that there is NO comparison between a pregnant woman and a new (or old) mother.  Please be aware that the pregnancy alters the physiology of the mother to the benefit of the fetus but in ways that may or may not be deleterious to a given woman.  Given that circumstance pregnancy represents a unique human relationship.  The fetus is much more than "attached" to the woman.




How does nine months of temporary discomfort justify the killing of one's child?




Bump for MysticWanderer.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."--John14:6

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.-- John 3:16

"We love Him because He first loved us."--1 John 4:9-10

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear ... "
1 John 4:18
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook