Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Margaret Sanger belonged to an organization called the American Eugenics Society, organized in the early 1900's. Members from the American Eugenics Society actually formed Sanger's original group whose name was changed to Planned Parenthood, but even the latter's first three presidents were officers or members in the AES, including Alan Guttmacher. Sanger is listed as a member in 1956 under her then-married name, Mrs. Noah Slee.You call planned parenthood evil. You toss around that word like it doesn't have a meaning. That is terrible. Planned parenthood do a lot. They are also trying to clean up a lot of the mess caused by religion -your version of Christianity in particular. Mayhap if your guys were a little more circumspect and used common sense you might have a leg to stand on. But you don't, so your argument is just lip service....
Yeah, pointing out the truth and history of it, Sanger herself wrote about it.Not that the author of those Denver Post articles has an agenda. Right?
Messall und "rebecca" - Person / Info zu Name - Personensuche Yasni.com
Rebecca R. Messall — Catholicism.org - Saint Benedict Center, The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary
Sophisticated marketing hides eugenics background of the Pill, writer says :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)
Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents."Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent "dysgenic" children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and dismissed "positive eugenics" (which promoted greater fertility for the "fitter" upper classes) as impractical. Though many leaders in the negative eugenics movement were calling for active euthanasia of the "unfit," Sanger spoke out against such methods. She believed that women with the power and knowledge of birth control were in the best position to produce "fit" children. She rejected any type of eugenics that would take control out of the hands of those actually giving birth."
Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.
would these children have been any less viable had this piece of human trash cut them up in utero as opposed to after birth? If Roe is the standard, and the standard it sets is "viability", how is a fetus, any fetus, unviable after about 4 1/2 months of pregnancy? All of them are viable given proper medical care, so what is the difference between murdering them in utero or out?Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, faces eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman following a botched abortion at his office, along with the deaths of seven other babies who, prosecutors allege, were born alive following illegal late-term abortions and then were killed by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.
Philly Abortion Doctor Facing 8 Counts Of Murder CBS Philly News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of Philadelphia
you should yes, the story also sates he's killed possibly 100's of live born babies some as young as 4 1/2 month. So maybe instead of raising false kinards you might actually answer the question and enlighten us all as to what exactly is the difference is between chopping up a viable fetus in utero or out? The fetus is no less viable and using Roe being viable cannot be aborted. Given current medical science all fetus' in any normal pregnancy are viable after about 4 1/2 months, so even using Roe's criteria all are persons deserving of protection from the state.hey dipshit
at least presents the whole facts...
The key word is Live BORN babies. When a baby/fetus/it is born from the mother it becomes a "person" in the eyes of the law.
the difference is one is still inside the mother, and the other is not. I know this is really sad to see people like you struggle with such a simple concept.
The simple fact unless tax payer money is being used to cover said costs, its none of your business. its up to the Mother, father and doctor in private to decide.
If you and others can't understand this simple concept, well then there is no hope for you.
In the eyes of the law the theory is untested in court given current medical science. And sadly, not likely to be tested any time soon. But do keep spewing from your mouth whatever shit backs up from your ass.hey fucktard the fetus is nothing more than a parasite.
You are a wad of cells you moron, and given your name and post here, you are worth about as much as jizz rag.
i dont care if you want to call it killing. In the eyes of the law its not, and in my eyes its none of your stupid fucks business.
I am not seeing your education here....Must be missing like an aborted fetus.
then change the law, till then shut the fuck up and mind your own business.
Im sure the theory has been tested, but i dont care enough to go looking.....its not that important to me, nothing is going to change anyways.
Ill strike a deal with you, You can call tell women what to do with their bodies, so long as those women in return get to hit you in the face with a baseball bat each time you decide if they should have the kid or not.
That seems fair.
Is everyone who doesn't support abortion ok with people dropping those babies off at their houses once their born? we will see how long they stay anti abortion when they have to come out of pocket to support those kids.
Is everyone who doesn't support abortion ok with people dropping those babies off at their houses once their born? we will see how long they stay anti abortion when they have to come out of pocket to support those kids.
Nice argument. Now murder is okay if someone is a financial burden to you. Got it.
Lets see how long you keep up that rhetoric when people are dropping off babies on your doorstep.
Have any of you anti abortion people even adopted an orphan? or even have a foster kid? I doubt it.
Lets see how long you keep up that rhetoric when people are dropping off babies on your doorstep.
It isn't rhetoric. That is the reality of the argument you are making. That if you don't want something because it's a financial burden, even if that something happens to be your child, it's okay for you to kill it. Further those people who are oppossed to killing innocent children who would not choose to have your child forced on them need to shut up, right?
The difference is those people you are telling to shut up would not have a choice in having an unwanted child forced on them in your scenario. The woman who got pregnant did make a choice and had the opportunity to make a lot of choices that would have kept her from committing murder.
Alot of women get abortions because they can not afford to provide for another mouth, are you or any of the other anti abortion crowd willing to step up and do it? who is supposed to care for these kids?
Who else would be adopting children then the group who is trying to save them?Have any of you anti abortion people even adopted an orphan? or even have a foster kid? I doubt it.
Thats the point, all these anti abortion fanatics like frazzlegear for instance are against abortion but have done nothing to save any children, if someone dropped a baby on their door step they would flip the fuck out and not know what to do, and probably just drop the baby off at a hospital and be done with it, their fucking hypocrites.
Thats the point, all these anti abortion fanatics like frazzlegear for instance are against abortion but have done nothing to save any children, if someone dropped a baby on their door step they would flip the fuck out and not know what to do, and probably just drop the baby off at a hospital and be done with it, their fucking hypocrites.
No they're not. A person opposed to abortion who doesn't want another child is different than a person getting an abortion because they don't want another child. One person took the necesary steps to keep a pregnancy from happening, the other did not.
Yes they are hypocrites, because if an anti abortion fanatic moron like frazzlegreed was in a situation where a woman refused to get an abortion but needed help raising the child, he would refuse to help, because in reality he is a selfish little cock who doesn't care about anyone outside of himself and maybe his family. No one really cares about these babies that are being aborted, I don't see any of you volunteering to take them.
In the eyes of the law the theory is untested in court given current medical science. And sadly, not likely to be tested any time soon. But do keep spewing from your mouth whatever shit backs up from your ass.
then change the law, till then shut the fuck up and mind your own business.
Im sure the theory has been tested, but i dont care enough to go looking.....its not that important to me, nothing is going to change anyways.
Ill strike a deal with you, You can call tell women what to do with their bodies, so long as those women in return get to hit you in the face with a baseball bat each time you decide if they should have the kid or not.
That seems fair.
I happen to be a Woman and a Mother, Grandmother and Great Grandmother. You actually want to state that the murder of an unborn child equates to you having "power and control" over your own body?? Really??
It sure ain't YOUR body you advocate killing, is it?
Now you listen to me. If you want to play screwing monkey you are stupid to the max if you think sex does not produce babies -- and stupid to the max in other ways as well. Furthermore, you can use birth control. Murdering an unborn baby is NOT ok. You got that?
Who in their right mind would even consider any such female as a wife or even a girlfriend, if she is one who supports and accepts abortions? Such a female does not have good reasoning abilities. Nor is she hardly warm and fuzzy. Such a female is ONLY a screwing monkey. ONLY a screwing monkey, a disgusting excuse of a woman who is irresponsible to the max and is led only by what is in her underwear.
There is WAY more to being a woman than just being a female, and YOU are still stuck in the female.
And finally, your idea about baseball bats? You might want to rethink that one, kiddo. You play screwing monkey you are going to get screwing monkey treatment.
You are clearly not Mother material. Or Woman material.
are you a fucking retard?You're going to have a little trouble posting that "law" since the congress has never passed one. You also have no understanding of Roe whatsoever, the test is not birth, it's viability. Whether or not the fetus is in utero or not is irrelevant.
I said in the eyes of the law, a fetus is not living and therefore you can not be brought up for murder. Otherwise a whole lot of women would be going to jail.
nevermind strike that, you are a fucking retard.
If the fetus is a wad of cells like you suggest, then the fetus is alive considering that HUMAN CELLS ARE LIVING ORGANISMS........They're actually considered by science to be the smallest unit of living organisms... Not saying I am on anyone's side, but your wad of cell argument is kind of retarded as well.
You are such a fucking hypocrite, I hope someone drops a baby off on your doorstep so you can put your money where your mouth is bitch. I'm willing to bet you take the baby to the nearest hospital and be done it with it, your such a fucking bitch and a liar look at you all this tough talk but you haven't lifted a finger to help any orphans.
High Gravity, that's all the biological mother had to do also. Leave the baby at the hospital.
I understand that but if there were no abortions and all these women left their babies at the hospital, social services and orphanages would be flooded. My point is these anti abortion goons themselves want nothing to do with the babies they supposedly want to save.
