Abortions: Should Women be Allowed to Choose?

[LittleNipper]

Was Margaret Sanger around in the 1770s?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

It was in 1939 that Sanger's larger vision for dealing with the reproductive practices of black Americans emerged. After the January 1939 merger of her Clinical Research Bureau and the ABCL to form the Birth Control Federation of America, Dr. Clarence J. Gamble was selected to become the BCFA regional director for the South. Dr. Gamble, of the soap-manufacturing Procter and Gamble company, was no newcomer to Sanger's organization. He had previously served as director at large to the predecessor ABCL.

Gamble lost no time and drew up a memorandum in November 1939 entitled "Suggestion for Negro Project." Acknowledging that black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot, he suggested that black leaders be place in positions where it would appear that they were in chargeÑas it was at an Atlanta conference.

It is evident from the rest of the memo that Gamble conceived the project almost as a traveling road show. A charismatic black minister was to start a revival, with "contributions" to come from other local cooperating ministers. A "colored nurse" would follow, supported by a subsidized "colored doctor." Gamble even suggested that music might be a useful lure to bring the prospects to a meeting.

Sanger answered Gamble on Dec. 10. 1939, agreeing with the assessment. She wrote: "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

 

[JoeB131]

Do you have a source for that which isn't a whackadoodle Christian Website?

Fact is, the best anti-poverty program is taking control of your reproduction.

 

[koshergrl]

Ah, Sanger. The heroine of progressives everywhere...

"

In 1920, while still married to her first husband, William Sanger, Margaret began an extramarital affair with H. G. Wells. Wells was a student of Thomas Henry Huxley, Charles Darwin’s notorious “bulldog.” Early on Wells’s writing, notoriously exemplified in War of the Worlds, projected the prospect of racial dominance as displayed in the Martians whose technological advancement was the result of their superior intellectual evolution.13 Later, as he focused more on the idyllic promises of Social Darwinism, his novels became more utopian. Aldous Huxley’s haunting dystopia, Brave New World, was actually inspired by, and written as a parody of, Wells’s 1923 novel, Men Like Gods. Wells’s ties to the eugenics movement and his expectation that progressives should become “enlightened Nazis” clearly follow from these ideas.14 Sanger’s connection with Wells and the extent of their mutual influence cannot be overestimated. Wells later described her as “the greatest woman in the world; the movement she started will grow to be, a hundred years from now, the most influential of all time in controlling man’s destiny on earth.”15"

Margaret Sanger: ?No Gods, No Masters? | CRI​

 

[kaz]

Just the title of the tread makes it hard for me to think what kind of serious discussion could there possibly be. Do women own their bodies ... or does government? The party that claims to believe in small government includes as a government power ownership of our bodies. Government will decide what you put in your bodies, what you do with it, and command you to carry a fetus in it for 9 months. What's "small" about that kinds of government, I don't know.

 

[JoeB131]

Ah, Sanger. The heroine of progressives everywhere...

"

In 1920, while still married to her first husband, William Sanger, Margaret began an extramarital affair with H. G. Wells. Wells was a student of Thomas Henry Huxley, Charles Darwin’s notorious “bulldog.” Early on Wells’s writing, notoriously exemplified in War of the Worlds, projected the prospect of racial dominance as displayed in the Martians whose technological advancement was the result of their superior intellectual evolution.13 Later, as he focused more on the idyllic promises of Social Darwinism, his novels became more utopian. Aldous Huxley’s haunting dystopia, Brave New World, was actually inspired by, and written as a parody of, Wells’s 1923 novel, Men Like Gods. .”15"

Margaret Sanger: ?No Gods, No Masters? | CRI​

Wow. Sounds like she got to hang around with some awesome guys. Seriously, if I actually had a TARDIS, those would be the guys I'd hang with.

The rest is just Anti-choice bullshit. I guess not being a nutter on abortion, you have to be a nutter on evolution, too.

 

[Dragonlady]

Ah, so you think other people should kill their babies and you pay to make sure it takes place.

When you have an abortion, you are terminating a pregnancy, not killing a baby. As soon as you say "killing babies", nothing you say thereafter registers. As long as you call women who have abortions baby killers, you have no voice. We have turned you off. You have defeated your own oft-stated purpose.

It denotes you as a person who will not listen to facts, and a person who is incapable respect for the rights of another person.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

You keep saying that the unborn aren't babies, but every time I point out to you that the English language says you're wrong, you ignore it. How come???

 

[NoNukes]

You keep saying that the unborn aren't babies, but every time I point out to you that the English language says you're wrong, you ignore it. How come???

I missed it, how does the English language prove us wrong, and how is it a matter of vocabulary instead of biology?

 

[JustSomeGuy]

You keep saying that the unborn aren't babies, but every time I point out to you that the English language says you're wrong, you ignore it. How come???

I missed it, how does the English language prove us wrong, and how is it a matter of vocabulary instead of biology?

Because "baby" isn't a biological term; it's a colloquialism, if you will. The correct term for a newborn, which is what pro-choicers want to relegate the use of baby to, is "neonate"; a term, by the way, you never see them use ("It's not a baby; it's a neonate!" said no pro-choicer ever). You don't get to redefine the English language to suit your arguments. Either you accept the use of the term baby, which has both pre- and postnatal applications, or you don't use it at all.

 

[NoNukes]

You keep saying that the unborn aren't babies, but every time I point out to you that the English language says you're wrong, you ignore it. How come???

I missed it, how does the English language prove us wrong, and how is it a matter of vocabulary instead of biology?

Because "baby" isn't a biological term; it's a colloquialism, if you will. The correct term for a newborn, which is what pro-choicers want to relegate the use of baby to, is "neonate"; a term, by the way, you never see them use ("It's not a baby; it's a neonate!" said no pro-choicer ever). You don't get to redefine the English language to suit your arguments. Either you accept the use of the term baby, which has both pre- and postnatal applications, or you don't use it at all.

I thought it was a fetus. When it becomes a baby depends on your beliefs. Newborn has little to do with abortion b

 

[Gadawg73]

Just the title of the tread makes it hard for me to think what kind of serious discussion could there possibly be. Do women own their bodies ... or does government? The party that claims to believe in small government includes as a government power ownership of our bodies. Government will decide what you put in your bodies, what you do with it, and command you to carry a fetus in it for 9 months. What's "small" about that kinds of government, I don't know.

Or men?

 

[Spoonman]

life starts at conception. the argument a fetus couldn't survive on its own is meaningless. a newborn can't survive on its own. the redfinition of life is manmade in order to make abortion legal. to perform an abortion you have to perform an act that will terminate life. every abortion technique is something designed to stop a life. no matter how you try to spin it or at what month or what week it occurs a living creature is still being terminated.

 

[Dragonlady]

life starts at conception. the argument a fetus couldn't survive on its own is meaningless. a newborn can't survive on its own. the redfinition of life is manmade in order to make abortion legal. to perform an abortion you have to perform an act that will terminate life. every abortion technique is something designed to stop a life. no matter how you try to spin it or at what month or what week it occurs a living creature is still being terminated.

Abortions have been legal throughout history - right up to the point when women started demanding rights to own property and a vote. Only when women started demanding rights of their own, men voted to ban abortion.

The growth of cells starts at conception, but it's not a separate life which is fully formed and independent. And what the opponents of legalized abortion fail to comment on is that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage in any case. Clearly, God doesn't not consider every fetus to be as precious as kosher girl thinks they are.

Last but not least, if you believe that abortion is wrong, then don't have an abortion. But you don't get to tell me or anyone else that they must carry a child to term. That decision is mine and mine alone.

If you want to decrease the number of women getting abortions, then start providing maternity leave and job security to pregnant women.

 

[koshergrl]

Just the title of the tread makes it hard for me to think what kind of serious discussion could there possibly be. Do women own their bodies ... or does government? The party that claims to believe in small government includes as a government power ownership of our bodies. Government will decide what you put in your bodies, what you do with it, and command you to carry a fetus in it for 9 months. What's "small" about that kinds of government, I don't know.

Or men?

Pukes always think someone has to own a woman's body.

It isn't about owning. It's about killing. You don't have the right to kill another human being, even if that human is dependent upon you for life...ESPECIALLY then, in fact.

 

[koshergrl]

And keep in mind that for all the leftards whine about governmental interference in sex lives and the question of abortion..THEY are the ones who brought the government in, by using government to FORCE people to accept practices that are harmful and/or outright human rights violations.

We didn't make it a legal issue; the left did. And we didn't bring the government in..the left did when they insisted that the government not only condone harmful sexual practices and extra marital sex...but PAY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES.

So stop whining about how pro-lifers brought the government in. You fucking pieces of shit brought it in.

 

[Wicked Jester]

life starts at conception. the argument a fetus couldn't survive on its own is meaningless. a newborn can't survive on its own. the redfinition of life is manmade in order to make abortion legal. to perform an abortion you have to perform an act that will terminate life. every abortion technique is something designed to stop a life. no matter how you try to spin it or at what month or what week it occurs a living creature is still being terminated.

Abortions have been legal throughout history - right up to the point when women started demanding rights to own property and a vote. Only when women started demanding rights of their own, men voted to ban abortion.

The growth of cells starts at conception, but it's not a separate life which is fully formed and independent. And what the opponents of legalized abortion fail to comment on is that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage in any case. Clearly, God doesn't not consider every fetus to be as precious as kosher girl thinks they are.

Last but not least, if you believe that abortion is wrong, then don't have an abortion. But you don't get to tell me or anyone else that they must carry a child to term. That decision is mine and mine alone.

If you want to decrease the number of women getting abortions, then start providing maternity leave and job security to pregnant women.

Soooo, you're one of those who thinks a small business should be mandated to provide paid maternity leave, and guarantee they'll still have a job after they return?

Yeah, that's the ticket,....force businesses who can't afford it, to provide pay to an absent employee, while having to pay another employee to temporarily take their place....And then of course, you would have situations where the temporary employee is better at performing the job of the person they're filling in for, but the employer would be mandated to bring back the absentee employee, thereby forcing him/her to let the better employee go.

Christ, liberals are friggin' ignorant.

 

[koshergrl]

They're just out of touch with reality.

And stupid.

 

[Gadawg73]

Women kill their babies in all kinds of ways:
Smoking cigarettes and doing drugs, eating too much, driving wreckless and getting into accidents.
On and on and on and on and on.
But all we see are folks that want to pass laws against abortion.
The ONLY law that is 100% UNENFORCEABLE when the abortionist doctor proclaims "I did it for the health and safety of the mother".
Amazing the ignorance here of those that will not acknowledge that fact.

 

[koshergrl]

Nobody has suggested that doctors not be allowed to abort women for their health and safety.

We don't need PP abbatoirs for that.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Why do you guys entertain DragonLady? She's a straight up liar, and will repeat factually wrong information over and over again, even after you show her it's wrong. You'd have more success breaking a reinforced concrete block with your head, and it'd be less painful, too.