• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rape Does Not Justify Abortion. Or... [W:593]

ObamacareFail said:
No lack of ability here, sport. I am just not going to waste my time when you make up your own interpretations of what I post. Have a nice evening.
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
This is the normal stance here....avoidance...when personal beliefs and opinions cant be justified when the value of the born and unborn are compared...and the pro-life people almost invariably demonstrate that they place the unborn above women. I said 'almost.' Not all. However your lack of ability to verbalize your position makes it much easier to guess that you are one of those that places the unborn above women.

Again: it's a discussion board so dont get all self-righteous when people 'discuss' and you dont like it.
Click to expand...

Like I said, many pro-life people dont actually understand what real life practical application of restricting elective abortion means to the legal system, women's civil rights, etc. and defensively, dont seem to be able to manage to realize that. Nor want to.

So that's fine....elective abortion isnt going anywhere and you dont have to.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Read up on the history of Planned Parenthood's founder.
Click to expand...

YOu mean her real history, or the out of context twisted history that the anti-abortion crowd uses? And, why should that matter in the current time frame?
 
RAMOSS said:
YOu mean her real history, or the out of context twisted history that the anti-abortion crowd uses? And, why should that matter in the current time frame?
Click to expand...

I agree Sanger founded the American Birth Control League in 1921 to help legalize the use of contraceptives.
She was strongly against abortion. She died in 1966 at the age of 82.
The American Birth Control League (ABCL) was founded by Margaret Sanger in 1921[1] at the First American Birth Control Conference in New York City. The League was incorporated under the laws of New York State on April 5, 1922. Its headquarters were located at 104 Fifth Avenue, New York City from 1921–30 and at various offices on Madison Avenue from 1931–39. It was not associated with the National Birth Control League, founded in 1915 by Mary Coffin Ware Dennett, or the later Voluntary Parenthood League.[2] The organization promoted the founding of birth control clinics, primarily for the Black and Latino population, and encouraged women to control their own fertility.[1]
Click to expand...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Birth_Control_League
 
Last edited:
ObamacareFail said:
Not so sure of that: Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, In Her Own Words
Click to expand...


False Quotes and quotes taken out of context.

From this article:


Margaret Sanger and the African American Community
Compiled by Anna Holley, SisterSong Intern – July 2010

Sanger’s opponents use quotes taken out of context, exaggerations and outright falsehoods to paint a grim and racist picture of Sanger. It is important that we, as African American women, examine the historical evidence for ourselves to avoid the pitfalls of historical revisionism. While some falsify the evidence, others attempt to whitewash uncomfortable facts. We consulted with experts on Sanger’s life, reviewed primary historical source documents, and received valuable assistance from the archivists at Smith College and New York University.

<SNIP>

Published Statements that Distort or Misquote Margaret Sanger

Through the years, a number of alleged Sanger quotations, or allegations about her, have surfaced with regularity in anti-family planning publications:

“Blacks, soldiers, and Jews are a menace to the race.”

This fabricated quotation, falsely attributed to Sanger, was concocted in the late 1980s. The alleged source is the April 1933 Birth Control Review (Sanger ceased editing the Review in 1929). That issue contains no article or letter by Sanger.

------------------


“We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” Sanger was aware of African-American concerns, passionately argued by Marcus Garvey in the 1920s, that birth control was a threat to the survival of the Black race. This statement, which acknowledges those fears, is taken from a letter to Clarence J. Gamble, M.D., a champion of the birth control movement. In that letter, Sanger describes her strategy to allay such apprehensions. A larger portion of the letter makes Sanger’s meaning clear:

It seems to me from my experience…in North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas, that while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table…They do not do this with the white people, and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and with knowledge, which I believe, will have far-reaching results…His work, in my opinion, should be entirely with the Negro progression and the nurses, hospital, social workers, as well as the County’s white doctors. His success will depend upon his personality and his training by us.

The minister’s work is also important, and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation, as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs (Sanger, 1939, December).

---------------------------

“As early as 1914 Margaret Sanger was promoting abortion, not for white middle-class women, but against ‘inferior race’—black people, poor people, Slavs, Latins, and Hebrews were ‘human weeds.’”

This allegation about Margaret Sanger appears in an anonymous flyer, “Facts about Planned Parenthood,” that is circulated by anti-family planning activists. Margaret Sanger, who passionately believed in a woman’s right to control her body, never “promoted” abortion because it was illegal and dangerous throughout her lifetime.She urged women to use contraceptives so that they would not be at risk for the dangers of illegal, back alley abortion. Sanger never described any ethnic community as an “inferior race” or as “human weeds.”

----------------------

In her lifetime, Sanger won the respect of international figures of all races, including the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.; Mahatma Ghandi; Shidzue Kato, the foremost family planning advocate in Japan; and Lady Dhanvanthi Rama Rau of India—all of whom were sensitive to issues of race.
Click to expand...

http://www.trustblackwomen.org/2011...et-sanger-and-the-african-american-community-
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
False Quotes and quotes taken out of context.

From this article:



Margaret Sanger and the African American Community
Click to expand...


One thing I always do is look to see how often someone uses quote mining, false quotes, and out of context quotes. Most often, that happens with the religious conservative. Sometimes, people can be careless with their source. However, there are certain groups that entirely rely on quote mining, forgeries, insinuations, and false flag doubts. When most of the groups arguments fall into that category, it makes me wonder about the mindset of that group. Not so amazing, if a person is attracted to one idea that uses those techniques to paint a false picture, they are more likely to be attracted to several of the areas where that kind of deceit is standard practice
 
ObamacareFail said:
Let's try this again. I am not the government. I have no desire to become a politician or make policy decisions. You have your stance, I have mine. My feelings on the abortion issue are my own. When it comes to abortion as a method of birth control for "Oops.....I did not mean to get pregnant", I think I do hold the moral high ground. Once again....take it or leave it.
Click to expand...

No disrespect but you claiming that your position is HOLDING THE HIGHER MORAL GROUND is subjective on your part. In fact it as much of a subjective belief as you have about abortion.

Women who must bear the risks of gestation and giving birth...their position is ALWAYS the higher moral ground...regardless of what their position is. And for what reasons.
 
joko104 said:
VERY interesting. Of course, anyone can disagree with government. However, my guess is the purpose of this statute, ie definitions, relates then to specific regulations.
At the end it clarifies that definition applies, however it does not negate any specific statutory right given prior to birth.
Click to expand...

Well, the Congressional Definitions reach wide and far in both federal and state statues. It's one of those statues that was created so there could be "uniformity" in both the creation of laws and the execution of laws.

If a fetus was added to that particular Federal Code...it would create chaos just related to the reprint of so many laws in every type of legal publication possible. It would have a legal impact that would cause state judicial systems to become almost bankrupt - there would be so many cases. And most state feticide laws mimic the language in Unborn Victim's Act. They have to in order to not infringe on Roe v Wade and other related decisions.

Actually prior to birth statues are really limited and again, most are related to the Unborn Victims Act, which set off most states to create their own type laws.

Planned Parenthood vs Casey is significant in that it scrubbed the concreteness of Roe v Wades decision on viability. If technology changes in which younger, more undeveloped fetuses can survive...well, need I say more?

But in the end, fetuses at any stage still don't technically have rights. What we're seeing is the reduction of rights of women.
 
Removable Mind said:
No disrespect but you claiming that your position is HOLDING THE HIGHER MORAL GROUND is subjective on your part. In fact it as much of a subjective belief as you have about abortion.

Women who must bear the risks of gestation and giving birth...their position is ALWAYS the higher moral ground...regardless of what their position is. And for what reasons.
Click to expand...

Bearing the risks is a matter of biology. It does not necessarily infer "high moral ground". Other then that....I repeat. I have given my stance....take it or leave it. And with that, I mean no disrespect to anyone who disagrees. I respect opposing opinions. I ask the same in return.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Bearing the risks is a matter of biology. It does not necessarily infer "high moral ground". Other then that....I repeat. I have given my stance....take it or leave it. And with that, I mean no disrespect to anyone who disagrees. I respect opposing opinions. I ask the same in return.
Click to expand...

So, bearing the risks of cancer, when treatment is possible...that's just 'a matter of biology?' Having surgery to repair internal bleeding after a car accident? Just "a matter of biology?'

Ah, we have medical science for a reason and ALL Americans are entitled to take advantage of it.
 
Lursa said:
So, bearing the risks of cancer, when treatment is possible...that's just 'a matter of biology?' Having surgery to repair internal bleeding after a car accident? Just "a matter of biology?'

Ah, we have medical science for a reason and ALL Americans are entitled to take advantage of it.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, pregnancy is in fact a matter of biology. You do understand that don't you? Why are you comparing it with cancer and motor vehicle accidents? Pregnancy is about reproduction......ummm....continuing the long term survival of the species...okay? Stay focused.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Bearing the risks is a matter of biology. It does not necessarily infer "high moral ground". Other then that....I repeat. I have given my stance....take it or leave it. And with that, I mean no disrespect to anyone who disagrees. I respect opposing opinions. I ask the same in return.
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
So, bearing the risks of cancer, when treatment is possible...that's just 'a matter of biology?' Having surgery to repair internal bleeding after a car accident? Just "a matter of biology?'

Ah, we have medical science for a reason and ALL Americans are entitled to take advantage of it.
Click to expand...

ObamacareFail said:
Last time I checked, pregnancy is in fact a matter of biology. You do understand that don't you? Why are you comparing it with cancer and motor vehicle accidents? Pregnancy is about reproduction......ummm....continuing the long term survival of the species...okay? Stay focused.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll spell it out for you: You talked about having to bear the risks of pregnancy. As if there's no way to avoid it :doh

I just pointed out that cancer and internal bleeding are also 'matters of biology' and people are not expected to 'accept the risks' of those ills...they are expected to get treatment so that they dont have to suffer those risks.

Is that clear now? I'm sure you understood it before too....are you 're-focused' now?


btw, reproductive numbers/survival of the species is a silly and incorrect argument....here in the US we constantly strive to get people to use birth control, come up with more effective birth control. It's pretty much a huge goal for both sides of this issue. So if everybody's using birth control when they dont want a kid....it's the same outcome...no kid.
 
Last edited:
I can only speak from experience and someone who has been raped. When I was raped, as with most 911 emergencies, I was immediately taken to a hospital. There they were able to obtain evidence that later helped to convicted the offender.So I didn't even have to show up in court. Also while I was there they were able to prevent conception. If the millions of tax payer dollars being spent on sex education has any value at all, then we should know that conception does not occur instantaneously. So from my experience, if a woman is raped, knowing that she could become pregnant, and not seek medical attention or report the perpetrator. She is intentionally putting other women in danger. Be glad that your daughters and loved ones will not be victimized by my lack of responsibility.
 
hwyangel said:
I can only speak from experience and someone who has been raped. When I was raped, as with most 911 emergencies, I was immediately taken to a hospital. There they were able to obtain evidence that later helped to convicted the offender.So I didn't even have to show up in court. Also while I was there they were able to prevent conception. If the millions of tax payer dollars being spent on sex education has any value at all, then we should know that conception does not occur instantaneously. So from my experience, if a woman is raped, knowing that she could become pregnant, and not seek medical attention or report the perpetrator. She is intentionally putting other women in danger. Be glad that your daughters and loved ones will not be victimized by my lack of responsibility.
Click to expand...

I'm very sorry that happened to you.

I'm also glad that they caught the person and I hope you have regained a sense of safety and peace again.
 
Thank you. There is help. We are fortunate enough to live in a country with zero tolerance for rape. Yes, I was poked, prodded and questioned repeatedly. But if your telling the truth there is nothing to fear.
 
hwyangel said:
Thank you. There is help. We are fortunate enough to live in a country with zero tolerance for rape. Yes, I was poked, prodded and questioned repeatedly. But if your telling the truth there is nothing to fear.
Click to expand...
Best wishes to you for the future, stay strong and never stay silent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom