over 45 million babies murdered in the name of "choice".

Night_Ranger said:

(More from the trailblazer suicide socialist )

Click to expand...

Sanger was procontraception and antiabortion.

You are given a fail pail.

Did I mention Sanger was a socialist? And that she hated Christians?

year2late said:

Sanger was procontraception and antiabortion.

You are given a fail pail.

Click to expand...

I know that Here is the context,

But perhaps something might be done by seeking a definite ratio between the birth rate and an index of child welfare, this index to be the opposite of what we may call child illfare. I suggest the following clause:
Article 7. Every country shall be assisted administratively by the state in the effort to maintain a direct ratio between the county birth rate and its index of child welfare. Whenever the county records for any given year show an unfavorable variation from this ratio the county concerned shall be taxed by the state according to the degree of the variation. The revenues thus obtained shall be expended by the state within the given county either in giving financial support to birth control clinics or in other ways calculated to improve the situation involved.

Click to expand...

Night_Ranger said:

Did I mention Sanger was a socialist? And that she hated Christians?

Click to expand...

DO you see that as "hating Christians"...I see that as not wanting our nation to succumb to theocracy.

So a religion that does not allow for worshippers to use contraception...should not be allowed to inflict this mandate on Americans.

If that is your view of "hating Christians" that I on you.

Do you want to live in a theocracy?

A bigger picture

Night_Ranger said:

Did I mention Sanger was a socialist? And that she hated Christians?

…

Click to expand...

She was busy. If she was a Socialist, I missed it. I'll take a look around @ sources. As for Christians - she had running battles with the Roman Catholic hierarchy on the East Coast (& Comstock, & the US Postal Service, & against the political machines that ran on Catholic support). She was arrested, run out of town, issued gag orders, & so on. So no, she didn't think of the Roman Catholic Church as paragons of virtue - she thought the church's stance on birth control was wrong, & deadly to poor families. Given the evolution of Catholic adherence to the Papal decrees against birth control, she was quite accurate in describing what would become the future attitudes of the US Catholic laity in regards to birth control.

Here's Wikipedia's take:

"Margaret Higgins Sanger (born Margaret Louise Higgins, September 14, 1879 – September 6, 1966, also known as Margaret Sanger Slee) was an American birth control activist, sex educator, writer, and nurse. Sanger popularized the term "birth control", opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, and established organizations that evolved into the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.[2]

"Sanger used her writings and speeches primarily to promote her way of thinking. She was prosecuted for her book Family Limitation under the Comstock Act in 1914. She was afraid of what would happen, so she fled to Britain until she knew it was safe to return to the US.[3] Sanger's efforts contributed to several judicial cases that helped legalize contraception in the United States.[4] Due to her connection with Planned Parenthood, Sanger is a frequent target of criticism by opponents of abortion. However, Sanger drew a sharp distinction between birth control and abortion and was opposed to abortion through the bulk of her career. Sanger remains an admired figure in the American reproductive rights movement.[5] She has been criticized for supporting eugenics.[6]"

(My emphasis - more @ Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia)

As I recall, Sanger would go anywhere & talk to anyone to discuss birth control & raise funds. She would show up to speak on the same platform with eugenicists. But that wasn't her primary aim.

-- continued

Re: A bigger picture - part 2

"Eugenics[edit]

"After World War I, Sanger increasingly appealed to the societal need to limit births by those least able to afford children. The affluent and educated already limited their child-bearing, while the poor and uneducated lacked access to contraception and information about birth control.[110] Here she found an area of overlap with eugenicists.[110] She believed that they both sought to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit." They differed in that "eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her duty to the state."[111] Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aimed to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered unfit.[6]

"Sanger's view of eugenics was influenced by Havelock Ellis and other British eugenicists, who held that environmentally acquired traits were inherited by one's progeny.[112] She did not speak specifically to the idea of race or ethnicity being determining factors and "although Sanger articulated birth control in terms of racial betterment and, like most old-stock Americans, supported restricted immigration, she always defined fitness in individual rather than racial terms."[113][19]:195–6 Instead, she stressed limiting the number of births to live within one's economic ability to raise and support healthy children. This would lead to a betterment of society and the human race.[114] Sanger's view put her at odds with leading American eugenicists, such as Charles Davenport, who took a racist view of inherited traits. In A History of the Birth Control Movement in America, Engelman also noted that "Sanger quite effortlessly looked the other way when others spouted racist speech. She had no reservations about relying on flawed and overtly racist work to serve her own propaganda needs."[115]

"In "The Morality of Birth Control", a 1921 speech, she divided society into three groups: the "educated and informed" class that regulated the size of their families, the "intelligent and responsible" who desired to control their families in spite of lacking the means or the knowledge, and the "irresponsible and reckless people" whose religious scruples "prevent their exercising control over their numbers". Sanger concludes, "There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped."[116]

"Sanger's eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods, and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, as well as compulsory segregation or sterilization for the "profoundly retarded".[117][118] Sanger wrote, "we [do not] believe that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding."[119] In personal correspondence she expressed her sadness about the aggressive and lethal Nazi eugenics program, and donated to the American Council Against Nazi Propaganda.[118]"

(My emphasis - from the same Wiki article)

FKD19124 said:

so, thank you for wiping out a big segment of my generation and the ones after that.

Click to expand...

We figured that you would not be able to compete if we did not wipe out most of your competition... you are welcome.

FKD19124 said:

planned parent hood and the radical feminists have women believing that the unborn baby is not really a baby until it comes out of the mother.
so, thank you for wiping out a big segment of my generation and the ones after that.

Click to expand...

Here a the nonsensical claims in your post:

1. it is called planned parenthood, not planned parent hood
2. unborn baby is not a thing
3. nothing to do with radical feminism
4. In the past 9 years the US population has grown with at least 21 million. From 1963 to 2019 the US population has grown about 141 million people, so what the hell are you talking about, a big segment of your generation? The population has grown from 188 million to 329 million people. The population has grown by 75% since 1963. l

Bodhisattva said:

We figured that you would not be able to compete if we did not wipe out most of your competition... you are welcome.

Click to expand...

:lamo:lamo

"Now that's funny right thar, I dont care who you are!"

Re: Go back & check your sources

Night_Ranger said:

Sanger was a socialist who had this to say:

What's the takeaway here? Sanger's intent was always to eliminate children of America, NOT to help the mother in any meaningful capacity.
A permit to give birth to a child? Yup, sounds like socialism.

Be careful who you pick as your role models in this life. Everything you know about abortion is a lie.

Click to expand...

Not this again :roll:

Blaming Margaret Sanger's views on racism/eugenics for *today's* PP organization is like blaming the FF's like Jefferson, who kept slaves for how we interpret the Constitution *today*. Society evolves and moves on and institutions do so as well.

If you want to throw out PP because of Sanger's views, shall we throw out the Constitution as well because of slave-owning founders? :doh

I'm still waiting for an answer to this:

Night_Ranger said:

Abortion has devastating implications for society. It's time to stop towing the party line and stop killing our children, who are gifts from God.

Click to expand...

Lursa said:

Please list some of these 'devastating implications for society.' We've had legal elective abortion for more than 40 yrs now. What are the negative consequences so far? And what's going to 'get worse?'

There are no negative consequences of abortion on society. If there are, please list some. (I know we tried this once already, you didnt list any. But you are still repeating this crap, so...let's see some negative societal consequences.

Click to expand...

Re: Go back & check your sources

Lursa said:

Not this again :roll:

Blaming Margaret Sanger's views on racism/eugenics for *today's* PP organization is like blaming the FF's like Jefferson, who kept slaves for how we interpret the Constitution *today*. Society evolves and moves on and institutions do so as well.

If you want to throw out PP because of Sanger's views, shall we throw out the Constitution as well because of slave-owning founders? :doh

Click to expand...

Drop mike.

Re: Go back & check your sources

Lursa said:

Not this again :roll:

Blaming Margaret Sanger's views on racism/eugenics for *today's* PP organization is like blaming the FF's like Jefferson, who kept slaves for how we interpret the Constitution *today*. Society evolves and moves on and institutions do so as well.

If you want to throw out PP because of Sanger's views, shall we throw out the Constitution as well because of slave-owning founders? :doh

Click to expand...

That must be why Planned Parenthood has a very visible 18 page praise and worship article on their website dedicated to Sanger and her heroic accomplishments.

Yes, I am throwing the baby (PP) out with the bathwater (MS). Pardon the pun.

I just wanted everyone to know that Margeret Sanger was a socialist radical. A socialist radical started Planned Parenthood. Let that sink in for a minute.
Then maybe ask yourself is socialism is a traditional patriotic value held by our founding fathers. Who, by the way, voted overwhelmingly against slavery from the very beginning. It was once again the leftist radicals that broke tradition and started bringing slaves into our nation.

The term radical should NOT be taken lightly. Nor should the term socialism. Sanger was after a new race of superhumans and abortion has followed that path from the very beginning.

Re: Go back & check your sources

Night_Ranger said:

That must be why Planned Parenthood has a very visible 18 page praise and worship article on their website dedicated to Sanger and her heroic accomplishments.

Yes, I am throwing the baby (PP) out with the bathwater (MS). Pardon the pun.

I just wanted everyone to know that Margeret Sanger was a socialist radical. A socialist radical started Planned Parenthood. Let that sink in for a minute.
Then maybe ask yourself is socialism is a traditional patriotic value held by our founding fathers. Who, by the way, voted overwhelmingly against slavery from the very beginning. It was once again the leftist radicals that broke tradition and started bringing slaves into our nation.

The term radical should NOT be taken lightly. Nor should the term socialism. Sanger was after a new race of superhumans and abortion has followed that path from the very beginning.

Click to expand...

1. Sanger is celebrated for her work for women's rights when it comes to birth control. Nobody celebrates her for her political views as a whole

2. the rest of your post is the normal pro-life bilge/tripe/nonsense.

And I am not sure why you are against Sanger, she was more pro-life than pro-choice.

Re: Go back & check your sources

Night_Ranger said:

That must be why Planned Parenthood has a very visible 18 page praise and worship article on their website dedicated to Sanger and her heroic accomplishments.

Click to expand...

I hope you feel better venting about something irrelevant then. Her accomplishments still stand anyway, just like Jefferson's. Nobody said she was a saint. When's the last time you went on a rant about Jefferson's slave-owning and raping women?

Re: Go back & check your sources

Night_Ranger said:

That must be why Planned Parenthood has a very visible 18 page praise and worship article on their website dedicated to Sanger and her heroic accomplishments.

Yes, I am throwing the baby (PP) out with the bathwater (MS). Pardon the pun.

I just wanted everyone to know that Margeret Sanger was a socialist radical. A socialist radical started Planned Parenthood. Let that sink in for a minute.
Then maybe ask yourself is socialism is a traditional patriotic value held by our founding fathers. Who, by the way, voted overwhelmingly against slavery from the very beginning. It was once again the leftist radicals that broke tradition and started bringing slaves into our nation.

The term radical should NOT be taken lightly. Nor should the term socialism. Sanger was after a new race of superhumans and abortion has followed that path from the very beginning.

Click to expand...

Planned Parenthood wouldn't exist without Sanger's efforts. Reason enough for the organization to recognize her.

Sanger started out active in Socialist issues. But then she found her mission - birth control. After that, her focus was on birth control.

The founding fathers did not vote overwhelmingly against slavery. Jefferson had included the British King's introduction of slavery into the colonies as a reason for the break with Britain, but the charge was objectionable to the colonial Southern planters, & was removed as being a deal-breaker on Southern support for the Declaration of Independence.

So No, it wasn't radicals of any stripe - Were there even Leftists in the British colonies (that became the US) in 1776? It was the British king & administration that allowed slavery in the Colonies. & it was Spanish & Portuguese kings who allowed slavery in the Americas @ all. None of the lot of them can be considered to be any kind of Leftist @ all, let alone radical.

Sanger was after a new race of superhumans and abortion. That's wonderful rhetoric. Sanger wanted to improve humanity, sure enough. But she wasn't an eugenicist, she just showed up on stage with them & didn't object to their fantasies. & she was against abortion, as mentioned.

Re: Go back & check your sources

Night_Ranger said:

Sanger was a socialist who had this to say:

What's the takeaway here? Sanger's intent was always to eliminate children of America, NOT to help the mother in any meaningful capacity.
A permit to give birth to a child? Yup, sounds like socialism.

Be careful who you pick as your role models in this life. Everything you know about abortion is a lie.

Click to expand...

Sanger was vehemently anti abortion. She was on YOUR side.

Re: Go back & check your sources

southwest88 said:

Planned Parenthood wouldn't exist without Sanger's efforts. Reason enough for the organization to recognize her.

Sanger started out active in Socialist issues. But then she found her mission - birth control. After that, her focus was on birth control.

The founding fathers did not vote overwhelmingly against slavery. Jefferson had included the British King's introduction of slavery into the colonies as a reason for the break with Britain, but the charge was objectionable to the colonial Southern planters, & was removed as being a deal-breaker on Southern support for the Declaration of Independence.

So No, it wasn't radicals of any stripe - Were there even Leftists in the British colonies (that became the US) in 1776? It was the British king & administration that allowed slavery in the Colonies. & it was Spanish & Portuguese kings who allowed slavery in the Americas @ all. None of the lot of them can be considered to be any kind of Leftist @ all, let alone radical.

Sanger was after a new race of superhumans and abortion. That's wonderful rhetoric. Sanger wanted to improve humanity, sure enough. But she wasn't an eugenicist, she just showed up on stage with them & didn't object to their fantasies. & she was against abortion, as mentioned.

Click to expand...

This is from conservapedia:
Lincoln and his party were called radical and destructive, but he counted himself among the earliest defenders of conservative principles, which was in essence a defense of time-honored, traditional values. Lincoln said that out of the 39 framers of the Constitution, 23 of the 39 voted on whether to prevent the spread of slavery, and that 21 of the 23 voted in favor of doing so. Lincoln therefore said that it was the pro-slavery South that was radically breaking with the tradition begun by those that created the Constitution.


So in fact a majority of the founding fathers did in fact want to eliminate slavery. I hear you on the other issue, it was the king who started the practice and the democrats who embraced it. While the conservative north, right out of the gate, began to fight against slavery and formed a movement liberate them from bondage. As the saying goes, "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" was embraced by conservatives and rejected by liberals. (Go figure, the left doesnt view an unborn child as a person either)

Re: Go back & check your sources

Scrabaholic said:

Sanger was vehemently anti abortion. She was on YOUR side.

Click to expand...

Sanger was okay with killing children before they were born, you should know this.

Frankly, I'm stunned you would say she is on my side. Sanger was not a patriot. She despised capitalism and embraced socialism - those are not American values.

She was evil and Hitler deployed some of her social theories and practices in Nazi Germany.

She also introduced sex without consequences into American society. And is probably the sole catalyst for the proliferation of STDs in America.

Yes, what a role model she was... for the satanist. And I'm not joking.

Re: Go back & check your sources

Night_Ranger said:

This is from conservapedia:
Lincoln and his party were called radical and destructive, but he counted himself among the earliest defenders of conservative principles, which was in essence a defense of time-honored, traditional values. Lincoln said that out of the 39 framers of the Constitution, 23 of the 39 voted on whether to prevent the spread of slavery, and that 21 of the 23 voted in favor of doing so. Lincoln therefore said that it was the pro-slavery South that was radically breaking with the tradition begun by those that created the Constitution.


So in fact a majority of the founding fathers did in fact want to eliminate slavery. I hear you on the other issue, it was the king who started the practice and the democrats who embraced it. While the conservative north, right out of the gate, began to fight against slavery and formed a movement liberate them from bondage. As the saying goes, "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" was embraced by conservatives and rejected by liberals. (Go figure, the left doesnt view an unborn child as a person either)

Click to expand...

So? Not all, as you wrote. I spoke of Jefferson, one of the most highly 'regarded.'

Your post doesnt disprove a thing I wrote.

and if they had truly meant ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, then blacks would not have later needed to be declared equal by SCOTUS...which WAS necessary because they were discriminated against and didnt have equal rights.

Same for women...SCOTUS went thru the same process.

So, obviously we cannot take for granted that the FF's meant the unborn when even blacks and women WERE NOT.

And since then, more than once, the unborn have been considered to determine if they were equal...and SCOTUS decisions were no, they are not and so no rights were recognized for the unborn.

Is that enough of a history lesson for you?

Re: Go back & check your sources

Night_Ranger said:

This is from conservapedia:
Lincoln and his party were called radical and destructive, but he counted himself among the earliest defenders of conservative principles, which was in essence a defense of time-honored, traditional values. Lincoln said that out of the 39 framers of the Constitution, 23 of the 39 voted on whether to prevent the spread of slavery, and that 21 of the 23 voted in favor of doing so. Lincoln therefore said that it was the pro-slavery South that was radically breaking with the tradition begun by those that created the Constitution.


So in fact a majority of the founding fathers did in fact want to eliminate slavery. I hear you on the other issue, it was the king who started the practice and the democrats who embraced it. While the conservative north, right out of the gate, began to fight against slavery and formed a movement liberate them from bondage. As the saying goes, "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" was embraced by conservatives and rejected by liberals. (Go figure, the left doesnt view an unborn child as a person either)

Click to expand...

If the question is which party upheld time-honored, traditional values, this would surely have included loyalty to the sovereign, hm? So you're hoist either way - it's not a blind obedience to the ancient regime that was @ stake - the Founding Fathers tried to work with the King & ministers, who denied what the FF considered to be reasonable offers. & voting on preventing the spread of slavery is different from outlawing slavery altogether. In the US, the latter didn't happen until after the Civil War. The British managed the feat before the US, without convulsing the entire empire into the bargain.

The entire point to the South threatening to walk on the Declaration of Independence was that they saw their economic & political power as being dependent upon cotton, & thus upon slavery. Not to put too fine a point on it, the entire colonial economy was based upon cotton & tobacco, initially. The North built ships, offered financial services, eventually wove the raw cotton into thread, cloth, transported goods on the triangle trade, raised crews, insured the ships & cargoes, raised crops & other food & manufactured finished goods for the South, & on & on. The South produced the first step in the ladder to industrialization, but the South failed to develop the next steps in industrialization. That role fell to the North, in the US.

Lincoln did not fight the war to free the slaves - he would have fought regardless. It was only when denying slaves to the South would prove a blow to the CSA military & domestic economy, & the war stretched out beyond all expectation, that Lincoln began to reconsider war aims.

left doesnt view an unborn child as a person. & it's not just the Left, as you put it. Neither British nor US common law (nor the Bible, for that matter) regard the fetus as a person, legally. In the law, a person has to be present in the World, & not merely imminent. Roe v. Wade does recognize a fetus that is viable, but that's as far as US law goes, in this respect.

Nothing says loving ...

Night_Ranger said:

Sanger was okay with killing children before they were born, you should know this.

Frankly, I'm stunned you would say she is on my side. Sanger was not a patriot. She despised capitalism and embraced socialism - those are not American values.

She was evil and Hitler deployed some of her social theories and practices in Nazi Germany.

She also introduced sex without consequences into American society. And is probably the sole catalyst for the proliferation of STDs in America.

Yes, what a role model she was... for the satanist. And I'm not joking.

Click to expand...

Go back & look @ the history of Planned Parenthood. They had to wait until Sanger retired before they began to offer abortion referrals for other than the life of the woman.

Of course Sanger was not a patriot, that wasn't her mission. She simply didn't feel that working men & women should die in starvation, sickness & misery because they couldn't control their own fertility.

Hitler deployed some of her social theories and practices. There was a point that the US led the World in eugenic practices, but it wasn't because of Sanger. See War against the weak : eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race / Edwin Black, c2003, Four Walls Eight Windows, 363.97 Blac.
Subjects
• Eugenics -- United States -- History.
• Sterilization (Birth control) -- United States.

probably the sole catalyst for the proliferation of STDs. Yah, Europe was a bastion of virtue & purity (wasn't Sanger of Irish extraction, hm?) right up until Margaret drew breath. Wonderful fantasy. I remember reading that syphilis was a New World disease - & if that's true, then your beef is with Christopher Columbus & the rest of the explorers who brought Europe to the New World. Perhaps if they'd kept their codpieces securely in place, instead of taking home a little something extra for their loved ones back home?

Re: Go back & check your sources

Night_Ranger said:

Sanger was okay with killing children before they were born, you should know this.

Click to expand...

Incorrect.

One final misconception about Mrs. Sanger must also be addressed, it seems, and in this case the truth will terribly inconvenience the propaganda efforts all around. It is not right, pace Planned Parenthood, that Margaret Sanger declined to advocate abortion on grounds that it was then a dangerous and illegal surgery. “There are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician,” she wrote in 1920, and “we know that abortion, when performed by skilled hands, under right conditions, brings almost no danger to the life of the patient.” On the evidence in “The Woman Rebel,” the real reason Sanger declined to advocate abortion, notwithstanding the law’s flexibility and what she took to be the procedure’s safety, is that abortion appalled her.

She turned women seeking abortions away from her clinics: “I do not approve of abortion.” She called it “sordid,” “abhorrent,” “terrible,” “barbaric,” a “horror.” She called abortionists “blood-sucking men with MD after their names who perform operations for the price of so-and-so.” She called the results of abortion “an outrageous slaughter,” “infanticide,” “foeticide,” and “the killing of babies.” And Margaret Sanger, who knew a thing or two about contraception, said that birth control “has nothing to do with abortion, it has nothing to do with interfering with or disturbing life after conception has taken place.” Birth control stands alone: “It is the first, last, and final step we all are to take to have real human emancipation.”

What Did Margaret Sanger Think about Abortion?

Click to expand...

Frankly, I'm stunned you would say she is on my side.

Click to expand...

She was on your side of the abortion issue. FACT.

She was evil and Hitler deployed some of her social theories and practices in Nazi Germany.

Click to expand...

Godwin's Law.

She also introduced sex without consequences into American society. And is probably the sole catalyst for the proliferation of STDs in America.

Click to expand...

No, she fought for legal birth control, which has done a lot of good. It even prevents abortions.

Yes, what a role model she was... for the satanist. And I'm not joking.

Click to expand...

If you are calling me a Satanist, you are wrong. I am Christian. Though being a Satanist is not necessarily bad.

Re: Go back & check your sources

Night_Ranger said:

1. Sanger was okay with killing children before they were born, you should know this.

2. Frankly, I'm stunned you would say she is on my side. Sanger was not a patriot. She despised capitalism and embraced socialism - those are not American values.

3. She was evil and Hitler deployed some of her social theories and practices in Nazi Germany.

4. She also introduced sex without consequences into American society. And is probably the sole catalyst for the proliferation of STDs in America.

5. Yes, what a role model she was... for the satanist. And I'm not joking.

Click to expand...

1. a stupid ignorant lie, birth control is not killing before they are born, even someone devoid of facts should know that at least.

2. She was a hero for birth control, that is what she is remembered for

3. more fact free nonsense

4. :lamo some conservatives are really ridiculously anti-sex.

5. yes, she is a role model for women, not for conservatives like you. And satan does not exist, so pretty sure she is not a satanist. And you are not joking, that is true, what you posted however is a joke.

Re: Go back & check your sources

Scrabaholic said:

Incorrect.

She was on your side of the abortion issue. FACT.

If you are calling me a Satanist, you are wrong. I am Christian. Though being a Satanist is not necessarily bad.
View attachment 67273544

Click to expand...

That's what you keep telling me. But just because you say it 1000 times does not make it true.

As I explained before, Sanger had to lie to the general public about her view on abortion so as not to blow her cover as a god-hating radical socialist-leftist baby killer.

Get it now?

Alternatively, let's say you are correct for a minute (though you are most definitely not) and examine this quote by Sanger:

I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.

Click to expand...

Why did planned parenthood go against the wishes of their very founder? Sanger also said "contraceptives" would put an end to the horrors of abortion... why are you not following her lead?