Do you Support Planned Parenthood?

[Coyote]

No, I don't approve of Margaret Sanger and what she has done to America. What she was involved in is utterly evil.

Giving women the ability to control their fertility is utterly evil?

Do you realize what life was like for women - especially poor women - before there was birth control?

No, it wasn't evil. It was finally, we had the ability to choose whether or not we wanted to be pregnant.

You are misstating this of course.

Women have always had the ability to control their fertility and practice birth control. PRIOR to getting pregnant. Afterwards, its amounts to a difference of opinion on the killing of innocent life for no more than convenience.

Spare Me the details about back alley abortions. They were not as prevalent as stated, and no more horrible than the tragedies that have occurred under legal, medical abortion. In truth, given the barbarian in Philly, abortion has done little more than make us more cavalier about the cheapness of life just to save us from being inconvenienced.

That's actually not true and you are creating a strawman fallacy, one, I might add that the OP sought to perpetrate by attempting to associate Sangor with abortion.

On the first - women did not always had the ability to control their fertility and practice birth control.

Let's set aside the unmarried women for now, because Sangor's movement was really about married women. She was a product of her era and sex outside marriage was not what she was promoting. Married women women had no rights to refuse sex with their husband, sex on demand was considered a peragative of marriage and a woman's duty. Birth control was illegal. Education about birth control was illegal. Advertising birth control was illegal. Women relied on highly faulty methods in an attempt to reduce pregnancies - those methods were seldom very effective. The damage done to a woman's body from repeated pregancies can have terrible consequences - fistulas, internal damage to ligaments, not to mention increasing mortality as a woman gets older. In addition, the poorest suffered the most as they were least able to support large families. Women had no control legally or culturally over pregnancies until fairly recently and especially not until the pill. Prior to that - the only birth control was condoms for men and they were pretty ineffective and men disliked them.

That's the historical reality that Margaret Sangor experienced and what led to her crusade to make the pill legal and birth control education legal.

The strawman you tossed up is that of abortion. This isn't about abortion. Margaret Sangor actually opposed abortion. This is about birth control and the right of a woman to be able to control whether or not be become pregnant.

 

[Flopper]

Giving women the ability to control their fertility is utterly evil?

Do you realize what life was like for women - especially poor women - before there was birth control?

No, it wasn't evil. It was finally, we had the ability to choose whether or not we wanted to be pregnant.

You are misstating this of course.

Women have always had the ability to control their fertility and practice birth control. PRIOR to getting pregnant. Afterwards, its amounts to a difference of opinion on the killing of innocent life for no more than convenience.

Spare Me the details about back alley abortions. They were not as prevalent as stated, and no more horrible than the tragedies that have occurred under legal, medical abortion. In truth, given the barbarian in Philly, abortion has done little more than make us more cavalier about the cheapness of life just to save us from being inconvenienced.

That's actually not true and you are creating a strawman fallacy, one, I might add that the OP sought to perpetrate by attempting to associate Sangor with abortion.

On the first - women did not always had the ability to control their fertility and practice birth control.

Let's set aside the unmarried women for now, because Sangor's movement was really about married women. She was a product of her era and sex outside marriage was not what she was promoting. Married women women had no rights to refuse sex with their husband, sex on demand was considered a peragative of marriage and a woman's duty. Birth control was illegal. Education about birth control was illegal. Advertising birth control was illegal. Women relied on highly faulty methods in an attempt to reduce pregnancies - those methods were seldom very effective. The damage done to a woman's body from repeated pregancies can have terrible consequences - fistulas, internal damage to ligaments, not to mention increasing mortality as a woman gets older. In addition, the poorest suffered the most as they were least able to support large families. Women had no control legally or culturally over pregnancies until fairly recently and especially not until the pill. Prior to that - the only birth control was condoms for men and they were pretty ineffective and men disliked them.

That's the historical reality that Margaret Sangor experienced and what led to her crusade to make the pill legal and birth control education legal.

The strawman you tossed up is that of abortion. This isn't about abortion. Margaret Sangor actually opposed abortion. This is about birth control and the right of a woman to be able to control whether or not be become pregnant.

Yes, she opposed abortion and saw birth control as the only cure for abortion.

In her book Woman and the New Race, she wrote: "while there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.

And in her book Family Limitation, Sanger wrote that "no one can doubt that there are times when an abortion is justifiable but they will become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception. This is the only cure for abortions."

Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Avatar4321]

No. I have problems with eugenics.

 

[Smilebong]

Well, here's something Margaret Sanger, its founder, didn't want you to know.

Still support them?

Read more @ Found it on Facebook: Margaret Sanger?s ultimate goal with a link to this 79% of Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinics Target Blacks, Hispanics | LifeNews.com

I have known this for years. Never supported PP, never will.

 

[thanatos144]

Why would anyone support infanticide????? That is just sick.

 

[Flopper]

Why would anyone support infanticide????? That is just sick.

Infanticide is the killing of an infant not a fetus. Generally speaking an infant is from birth to one year old.

 

[KNB]

Infanticide took place in Iraq, and right-wing Conservatives cheered for it.

 

[thanatos144]

Why would anyone support infanticide????? That is just sick.

Infanticide is the killing of an infant not a fetus. Generally speaking an infant is from birth to one year old.

Killing babies is still killing babies you sick fuck.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why would anyone support infanticide????? That is just sick.

Infanticide is the killing of an infant not a fetus. Generally speaking an infant is from birth to one year old.

Killing babies is still killing babies you sick fuck.

Ignorant nonsense.

It is a fact of Constitutional law that prior to birth the embryo/fetus is not a person, not a ‘baby,’ and not an entity entitled to Constitutional protections.

If you believe a fetus is a ‘baby’ prior to birth, you have every right to that subjective opinion, and you shouldn’t have an abortion accordingly; but you have no right to seek to codify your subjective beliefs into secular law in violation of the Constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No. I have problems with eugenics.

Everyone has a problem with ‘eugenics,’ which has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood or privacy rights, and everything to do with demagoguery on your part.

And you should be among Planned Parenthood’s most avid supporters, given their efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancy and consequently abortion.

 

[thanatos144]

Infanticide is the killing of an infant not a fetus. Generally speaking an infant is from birth to one year old.

Killing babies is still killing babies you sick fuck.

Ignorant nonsense.

It is a fact of Constitutional law that prior to birth the embryo/fetus is not a person, not a ‘baby,’ and not an entity entitled to Constitutional protections.

If you believe a fetus is a ‘baby’ prior to birth, you have every right to that subjective opinion, and you shouldn’t have an abortion accordingly; but you have no right to seek to codify your subjective beliefs into secular law in violation of the Constitution.

Idiot where does it say in the constitution that government cant make laws against killing innocent babies?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Killing babies is still killing babies you sick fuck.

Ignorant nonsense.

It is a fact of Constitutional law that prior to birth the embryo/fetus is not a person, not a ‘baby,’ and not an entity entitled to Constitutional protections.

If you believe a fetus is a ‘baby’ prior to birth, you have every right to that subjective opinion, and you shouldn’t have an abortion accordingly; but you have no right to seek to codify your subjective beliefs into secular law in violation of the Constitution.

Idiot where does it say in the constitution that government cant make laws against killing innocent babies?

Again, an embryo/fetus is not a "baby," thus your question is ignorant nonsense.

 

[asterism]

Ignorant nonsense.

It is a fact of Constitutional law that prior to birth the embryo/fetus is not a person, not a ‘baby,’ and not an entity entitled to Constitutional protections.

If you believe a fetus is a ‘baby’ prior to birth, you have every right to that subjective opinion, and you shouldn’t have an abortion accordingly; but you have no right to seek to codify your subjective beliefs into secular law in violation of the Constitution.

Idiot where does it say in the constitution that government cant make laws against killing innocent babies?

Again, an embryo/fetus is not a "baby," thus your question is ignorant nonsense.

There's some case law that disagrees.

SJC upholds murder convictions of two men who shot and killed unborn baby on Orange Line train in 2003 - Metro - The Boston Globe
Look for the words "unborn baby" and "murder."


Man Found Guilty in Murder of Pregnant Teen Girlfriend, Unborn Baby | NBC 7 San Diego
Double murder conviction for killing a pregnant woman.


BULLOCK v. STATE, No.?CR 01-884., June 12, 2003 - AR Supreme Court | FindLaw
Appeal denied by court for man who hired someone to kill the baby.


Man convicted for killing unborn child - East Valley Local News - EVTNow
Another murder conviction for killing an unborn child.

murder
n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority.

more at the link

 

[thanatos144]

Ignorant nonsense.

It is a fact of Constitutional law that prior to birth the embryo/fetus is not a person, not a ‘baby,’ and not an entity entitled to Constitutional protections.

If you believe a fetus is a ‘baby’ prior to birth, you have every right to that subjective opinion, and you shouldn’t have an abortion accordingly; but you have no right to seek to codify your subjective beliefs into secular law in violation of the Constitution.

Idiot where does it say in the constitution that government cant make laws against killing innocent babies?

Again, an embryo/fetus is not a "baby," thus your question is ignorant nonsense.

Your kind also said that about black people.

 

[thanatos144]

I just saw on Glenn Beck that you can deduct your abortions on your taxes.....Isnt that tax funded abortions?????? Why should OUR government fund people killing innocent babies?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Idiot where does it say in the constitution that government cant make laws against killing innocent babies?

Again, an embryo/fetus is not a "baby," thus your question is ignorant nonsense.

There's some case law that disagrees.

Incorrect.

You’re confusing criminal law with civil law.

The criminal cases you cite concern procedural due process, and have nothing to do with the civil law that addresses privacy rights in the context of substantive due process, where the state is forbidden from violating a woman’s right to privacy by placing an undue burden on her ability to decide whether to have a child or not (Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)).

Consequently, abortion is not ‘murder,’ as murder exists in the realm of criminal law only.

 

[thanatos144]

Again, an embryo/fetus is not a "baby," thus your question is ignorant nonsense.

There's some case law that disagrees.

Incorrect.

You’re confusing criminal law with civil law.

The criminal cases you cite concern procedural due process, and have nothing to do with the civil law that addresses privacy rights in the context of substantive due process, where the state is forbidden from violating a woman’s right to privacy by placing an undue burden on her ability to decide whether to have a child or not (Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)).

Consequently, abortion is not ‘murder,’ as murder exists in the realm of criminal law only.

Your kind also said killing blacks was not murder because they were not people.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Idiot where does it say in the constitution that government cant make laws against killing innocent babies?

Again, an embryo/fetus is not a "baby," thus your question is ignorant nonsense.

Your kind also said that about black people.

Actually not.

It was conservatives who for years fought against civil rights for African-Americans, just as you and others on the right today fight to deny women and gay Americans their civil liberties.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I just saw on Glenn Beck...

That’s a big part of your problem, right there…

 

[thanatos144]

Again, an embryo/fetus is not a "baby," thus your question is ignorant nonsense.

Your kind also said that about black people.

Actually not.

It was conservatives who for years fought against civil rights for African-Americans, just as you and others on the right today fight to deny women and gay Americans their civil liberties.

It wasn't conservatives it was DEMOCRATS just like you.