Post Reply
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
Switch to Forum Live View How do pro-choice people generally look at a person like Margaret Sanger?
3 years ago  ::  Feb 21, 2011 - 11:58PM #11
Rosie-Toes
Posts: 675

Some good can come out of bad philosophies. I drove a VW for years. That doesn't make me a nazi, nor a supporter of what the nazi party did to the German people.


Alexander Graham Bell was also a supporter of eugenics. Does that mean I shouldn't use a telephone?


Obviously, planned parenthood is not used for the practice of eugenics, so its a moot point.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 22, 2011 - 9:50AM #12
MysticWanderer
Posts: 1,328

Feb 20, 2011 -- 3:58PM, faith713 wrote:


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.




First, that is not what I said.  Second, I did not realize that blindness, congestive heart failure, pulmonary embolus, liver damage and/ or failure were "temporary" inconvenience While most pregnancies are not fraught with these risks in high degree they are still present.  It was not the degree of risk though that I was pointing out, but the fact that your facile comparison of the fetus especially before viability to an neonate is simply not accurate.  If you feel abortion to be the equivalent of infanticide then use rational argument not inaccurate analogy.  As I have said before I find the current pro-choice stand on elective abortion disturbing but the pro-life stand equally disturbing and unworkable.

"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 23, 2011 - 2:45AM #13
Bairre
Posts: 122

Feb 7, 2011 -- 12:03AM, Holly3278 wrote:

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




This has been a hotly debated topic for a long time.  The truth is, abortion was around long before Sanger was.  She wasn't the only person to promote abortion rights, or sexual freedom.  However, she was a racist and eugenist, and I think her own words prove that.


I feel like abortion should remain legal, and should in fact be free (as all health care should be).  I also feel that these laws prohibiting teenage females from getting abortions without getting parental consent is a pathetic attempt to pretend that America is some traditional society where girls remain virgins, which never existed.


There are many countries where abortion is free and legal, and the rates are considerably lower than the abortion rates here.  Want to know what the difference is?  Its not because people are less sexually active.  As it turns out, those places teach comprehensive sexual education in schools, mandatory. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2011 - 2:51AM #14
Bairre
Posts: 122

Feb 21, 2011 -- 11:58PM, Rosie-Toes wrote:


Some good can come out of bad philosophies. I drove a VW for years. That doesn't make me a nazi, nor a supporter of what the nazi party did to the German people.


Alexander Graham Bell was also a supporter of eugenics. Does that mean I shouldn't use a telephone?


Obviously, planned parenthood is not used for the practice of eugenics, so its a moot point.





Actually, it wasn't the German people who suffered under the Nazis. 


Bell is irrelevant to this topic as it focuses on the use of Planned Parenthood within a eugenics framework. 


However, the fact that the majority of PP sites are located within neighborhoods that are predominately people of color and poor the argument does have merrit.  There own records show that the per capita they preform more abortions on women of color than white women, and that they also perform more abortions for poor people too (which fits into the eugenics framework as well).

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 24, 2011 - 6:10PM #15
Rosie-Toes
Posts: 675

Feb 23, 2011 -- 2:51AM, Bairre wrote:


Feb 21, 2011 -- 11:58PM, Rosie-Toes wrote:


Some good can come out of bad philosophies. I drove a VW for years. That doesn't make me a nazi, nor a supporter of what the nazi party did to the German people.


Alexander Graham Bell was also a supporter of eugenics. Does that mean I shouldn't use a telephone?


Obviously, planned parenthood is not used for the practice of eugenics, so its a moot point.





Actually, it wasn't the German people who suffered under the Nazis. 


Bell is irrelevant to this topic as it focuses on the use of Planned Parenthood within a eugenics framework. 


However, the fact that the majority of PP sites are located within neighborhoods that are predominately people of color and poor the argument does have merrit.  There own records show that the per capita they preform more abortions on women of color than white women, and that they also perform more abortions for poor people too (which fits into the eugenics framework as well).




Funny. My grandmother was German, born and Germany, and was in a concentration camp. But, as you said, that's not the topic at hand.

I was simply stating that just because something starts out with a poor philosophy does not mean it has to end up that way.


Eugenics is the intentional attempt to get rid of an entire race. Are the women going into these clinics thinking "I want to abort this baby because its black?" No. The abortion is ultimately the woman's decision, so to suggest that a woman would have an abortion because her offspring is to be a certain race is ridiculous. Just because a planned parenthood is made available does not mean a woman MUST utilize their services. No one is FORCING her to get an abortion. Therefore, it is not at all related to racial cleansing.


Abortions are probably more prominent in people of color due to the economic state of many of these neighborhoods, not simply because they are people of color. Racism and the economy is a separate issue entirely.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 24, 2011 - 7:35PM #16
faith713
Posts: 3,892

Feb 17, 2011 -- 7:38PM, MSaraTemp wrote:


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.




Devil's advocate says:


That's right, MS, in fact child sacrifice should be extended to the neonate level. If those lazy anti-choice prolifers aren't going to pay my bills then they should mind their own *bleep,bleep* business. My life,  my *bleep,bleep* choice. Thank you very much.

"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 24, 2011 - 11:32PM #17
MysticWanderer
Posts: 1,328

Feb 24, 2011 -- 7:35PM, faith713 wrote:


Feb 17, 2011 -- 7:38PM, MSaraTemp wrote:


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.




Devil's advocate says:


That's right, MS, in fact child sacrifice should be extended to the neonate level. If those lazy anti-choice prolifers aren't going to pay my bills then they should mind their own *bleep,bleep* business. My life,  my *bleep,bleep* choice. Thank you very much.




Here you go again Faith.  The two situations are NOT  analogous and so your attempt to conflate the concepts without other rational arguments is old and tired.  See the section above in green concerning the failure of the analogy.

"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 24, 2011 - 11:51PM #18
MysticWanderer
Posts: 1,328

Feb 24, 2011 -- 6:10PM, Rosie-Toes wrote:


Funny. My grandmother was German, born and Germany, and was in a concentration camp. But, as you said, that's not the topic at hand.

I was simply stating that just because something starts out with a poor philosophy does not mean it has to end up that way.


Eugenics is the intentional attempt to get rid of an entire race. Are the women going into these clinics thinking "I want to abort this baby because its black?" No. The abortion is ultimately the woman's decision, so to suggest that a woman would have an abortion because her offspring is to be a certain race is ridiculous. Just because a planned parenthood is made available does not mean a woman MUST utilize their services. No one is FORCING her to get an abortion. Therefore, it is not at all related to racial cleansing.


Abortions are probably more prominent in people of color due to the economic state of many of these neighborhoods, not simply because they are people of color. Racism and the economy is a separate issue entirely.




Actually, Rosie, Eugenics is the idea of improving the quality of the human species by selective breeding.  The type most common in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was negative eugenics where those with undesirable qualities were prevented from breeding.The interesting aspect was that someone else always seemed to be determining who should not reproduce, seldom the person themselves.  Ms. Sanger was very concerned about the plight of the children in the inner cities and their poor health and education; she objectivised her speeches with information from the US Army in WWI and the number of recruits turned way because they were too uneducated or too unfit for service.  Ms. Sanger's idea was to make contraception available to ALL not merely the poor and let the women decide when they had all the children they could handle.  This calumny about Ms. Sanger continues from pro-life sites on a regular basis.


Attempting to get rid of an entire race or ethnic group by either killing them or preventing their continued ethnic survival is not eugenics but genocide.  Hitler used both and even use positive eugenics in trying to encourage large families of those with the most "Aryan" characteristics.  Sadly he would not have recognized a true Aryan if he had tripped over one.

"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 25, 2011 - 10:09AM #19
MSaraTemp
Posts: 800

Feb 23, 2011 -- 2:45AM, Bairre wrote:

This has been a hotly debated topic for a long time.  The truth is, abortion was around long before Sanger was.  She wasn't the only person to promote abortion rights, or sexual freedom.  However, she was a racist and eugenist, and I think her own words prove that.


Since basically almost the last half of the 20th Century, abortion has been a religious ergo politcal football in these not so United States of America.
Abortion has been around since before the Days of the Ancients so to falsely single out Sanger is ridiculous.  The Ancients had knowledge of human biology and what is known today as Embryology with regards to the female human body.

And actually, no, to the contrary, she did not first & foremost, "promote abortion rights" nor was that her pov, nor her belief, nor her goal, nor her agenda if you will in light of the actual history of women's rights in total.
Her point was Family Planning thus that means birth control.  The control of women deciding for themselves, one- whether they want to have children or not, and two, if they do, that they decide when and how many. 
2ndly, her view of "sexual freedom" must be taken in the context of her time, her era, her society that she lived in and through which was vastly different with the atmosphere, attitudes, beliefs & norms as compared to today's society.  And the society she lived in during that era, treated women as "chattel" and women had no control over their own bodies down to never being able to "Say NO" to any man including their own husbands.  A husband had a right [back then] to have "marital relations" with his woman wife anytime he wished.  Even is she had just given birth a mire short 2-4 weeks prior.  That was but one of her reasons [desires] for women to have "Sexual Freedom" and she certainly wasn't cheerleading for men since they already had "Sexual Freedom."
Part 2 would be that there is no reason that women should not be able to enjoy having sexual relations instead of just being a cold dead fish laying there until the man was finished with his "slam, bamm, I'm satisfied so thank you mam" behavior.

Third.  No, she was not a "racist" either because for one, she married a Jewish man and had 3 children with him.  She worked with and treated women from all walks of life.  My own great-g-mother who was Jewish, had worked with her in order to help educate & wisen up her fellow Jewish women to give them knowledge & help them to understand women's health issues, etc. was her main point.  Second was to control their sexual relations [ha considering men's rights back when] and the number of children and spacing of their children.  Ever hear of the old adgage given to women?  If a woman takes good care of herself first, then she can care better for those who depend upon her.  A weak woman can't take care of herself let alone a household with 12 kids running amok whereas a strong women can handle mostly anything thrown her way.
The way for women to achieve that was to make use of the birth control that was available to them during that time frame which wasn't much really compared to today.

And therein lies the problem because during that era, there was a little big problem called Anthony Comstock who created what became known as The Comstock Act.  It wreaked havoc on that society and in fact there are still parts of that act that haven't been removed off of Federal Laws.  Interesting that.  Too lengthy to desribe here but this is a start.
law.jrank.org/pages/5508/Comstock-Law-18...

Next is the matter of Eugenics.  And once again, she was a product of her own time/society and FYI, there were Eugenics in America that were on both sides of the coin.  Sanger was on the milder side but she did not advocate Eugenics based on ethnictiy, race or class.  Again, her point was that unhealthy women whether white, black, yellow, blue or red [in body, mind & spirit] produce unhealthy children.  They produce sickly and diseased children.  Keep the women healthy in body & mind and they will produce healthy children in body & mind.
Really, is there any reason to want children to be born unhealthy in body and/or mind?
And besides, Sanger's view of Eugenics was nothing compared to what the various U.S. state governments resorted to.

The other accusation of Sanger being racist against Blacks is another lie produced by those in the PLM and made Sanger into their favorite whipping post demon.  She worked with the Black leaders of her time for the benefit of Black women.  They addressed the poverty & plights of the Black people in particular what the Black women endured via society and their goal was to educate those women in order to better themselves in order to better help their present children & future children.
What's so wrong about that, I can't fathom.

One of the zings the PLM loves to throw out there about Sanger in order to prove to us that yeah, she a racist, and of course they use one sound-byte comment, take it out of context to suit their agenda.  Which was the time that Sanger spoke before the wives of the KKK's [in New Jersey I believe was the location].
She did it because she felt that all women regardless of their view of or lack thereof on politics & religion, should still be educated about their bodies, health & reproducive issues.  She also thought that those women were a strange bunch of women and wondered if she helped to enlighten them or not.  Not for nothing, but knowing the history of the KKK, that doesn't surprise me none.

So yeah, many within the PLM just love to demonize Sanger.  She is their whipping girl.
She the devil-incarnate,the Anti-christ of her time.  They accuse her of being a racist yet they resort to racist tactis themselves when it suits their agenda [like the billboards down South & the one presently up in Mid-Town Manhattan.]   They accuse her of wanting to wipe out the Black population yet they do nothing to ask their elected politicians to help women at the low income levels with various social needs yet those same politicians vote to take away from the needy.
It's hypocrisy hard at work.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 10, 2011 - 11:13PM #20
Mwiggin
Posts: 1

So, Margaret Sanger was definitely opposed to abortion, as were most people in the early 20th century.  When Planned Parenthood began, it did not promote abortion rights.  Most people considered abortion abhorrent prior to the second half of the 20th century.  Roughly half of Americans are still opposed to most abortions.  It wasn't abortion rights that Sanger was championing, but family planning via birth control.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook