Hillary and Margaret Sanger

[Papageorgio]

What does that have to do with anything redfish posted? He never stated that.

He must since he opposes Sanger's work.

you are delusional. Maybe a visit to a shrink is in order for you.

So now after all this you wish to admit that you find Sanger's work valuable and praiseworthy?

omg. Look at that!

What? have you completely lost what little mind you had?

You are desperately trying to avoid stating your position on the relevant issues. That's how you lose this debate.

What does his position have to do with the subject? The thread is about Clinton and her view of Sanger.

 

[NYcarbineer]

He must since he opposes Sanger's work.

you are delusional. Maybe a visit to a shrink is in order for you.

So now after all this you wish to admit that you find Sanger's work valuable and praiseworthy?

omg. Look at that!

What? have you completely lost what little mind you had?

You are desperately trying to avoid stating your position on the relevant issues. That's how you lose this debate.

What does his position have to do with the subject? The thread is about Clinton and her view of Sanger.

Hillary supports birth control being legal.

Do you wish to disagree with that?

 

[Papageorgio]

you are delusional. Maybe a visit to a shrink is in order for you.

So now after all this you wish to admit that you find Sanger's work valuable and praiseworthy?

omg. Look at that!

What? have you completely lost what little mind you had?

You are desperately trying to avoid stating your position on the relevant issues. That's how you lose this debate.

What does his position have to do with the subject? The thread is about Clinton and her view of Sanger.

Hillary supports birth control being legal.

Do you wish to disagree with that?

What does my opinion on birth control have to do with Hillary's view of Sanger, you aren't making much sense.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So now after all this you wish to admit that you find Sanger's work valuable and praiseworthy?

omg. Look at that!

What? have you completely lost what little mind you had?

You are desperately trying to avoid stating your position on the relevant issues. That's how you lose this debate.

What does his position have to do with the subject? The thread is about Clinton and her view of Sanger.

Hillary supports birth control being legal.

Do you wish to disagree with that?

What does my opinion on birth control have to do with Hillary's view of Sanger, you aren't making much sense.

Sanger fought for legal birth control.

If you disagree with her, you want birth control to be illegal.

 

[HappyJoy]

Do you believe that poor people having large families is a good thing?

What does that have to do with anything redfish posted? He never stated that.

He must since he opposes Sanger's work.

There you go, a stupid conclusion based on nothing but a false assumption.

Just because you disagree with a person's philosophy on a solving problem doesn't mean you don't think there is a problem.

Is like saying drug addicts shouldn't be locked up, it doesn't mean you are for drug abuse or if you are not against the death penalty you are for murder.

Just because you are against eugenics, doesn't mean you think the poor should have large families. Sanger was a negative eugenist. She believed and applauded state panels the enforced compulsory sterilization. She believed in population control through the weak, the poor, the retarded and so on. Not agreeing with her doesn't mean you think the weak, the poor and the retarded need to procreate and have large families.

Margaret Sanger believed that individuals should control their own fertility and that the poor and weak should be provided access to birth control.
She didn't 'applaud compulsory sterilization- she advocated voluntarily sterilization for those who desired it

The program in this country at least, does not involve compulsory features. No one here proposes that some official be endowed with the authority to order anyone to be sterilized. What we do contend for is the right of the individual to know what sterilization would mean to him or her, to have the facilities for: the operation if desired and to be protected in life afterwards

The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition

This was after WWII, before eugenics was so unpopular with its similarity to Hitler's superior race, which he took from progressives of the United States, her views were quite different. Many progressives modified their stand with the advent of WWII and Hitler.

Sanger, forced sterilization of minorities, go hun

Do you believe that poor people having large families is a good thing?

What does that have to do with anything redfish posted? He never stated that.

He must since he opposes Sanger's work.

There you go, a stupid conclusion based on nothing but a false assumption.

Just because you disagree with a person's philosophy on a solving problem doesn't mean you don't think there is a problem.

Is like saying drug addicts shouldn't be locked up, it doesn't mean you are for drug abuse or if you are not against the death penalty you are for murder.

Just because you are against eugenics, doesn't mean you think the poor should have large families. Sanger was a negative eugenist. She believed and applauded state panels the enforced compulsory sterilization. She believed in population control through the weak, the poor, the retarded and so on. Not agreeing with her doesn't mean you think the weak, the poor and the retarded need to procreate and have large families.

Are you for or against people who are least equipped to having many kids having easy access to birth control?

Who are the least equipped? I know some very rich people that are not equipped to have children.

What is easy access to birth control. Condoms machines on every street corner?

Financially for one. Where is the forced sterilization? Where did Sanger advocate for sterilizing minorities?

 

[Papageorgio]

What? have you completely lost what little mind you had?

You are desperately trying to avoid stating your position on the relevant issues. That's how you lose this debate.

What does his position have to do with the subject? The thread is about Clinton and her view of Sanger.

Hillary supports birth control being legal.

Do you wish to disagree with that?

What does my opinion on birth control have to do with Hillary's view of Sanger, you aren't making much sense.

Sanger fought for legal birth control.

If you disagree with her, you want birth control to be illegal.

I am wanting to know what my view has to do with the topic?

 

[Papageorgio]

What does that have to do with anything redfish posted? He never stated that.

He must since he opposes Sanger's work.

There you go, a stupid conclusion based on nothing but a false assumption.

Just because you disagree with a person's philosophy on a solving problem doesn't mean you don't think there is a problem.

Is like saying drug addicts shouldn't be locked up, it doesn't mean you are for drug abuse or if you are not against the death penalty you are for murder.

Just because you are against eugenics, doesn't mean you think the poor should have large families. Sanger was a negative eugenist. She believed and applauded state panels the enforced compulsory sterilization. She believed in population control through the weak, the poor, the retarded and so on. Not agreeing with her doesn't mean you think the weak, the poor and the retarded need to procreate and have large families.

Margaret Sanger believed that individuals should control their own fertility and that the poor and weak should be provided access to birth control.
She didn't 'applaud compulsory sterilization- she advocated voluntarily sterilization for those who desired it

The program in this country at least, does not involve compulsory features. No one here proposes that some official be endowed with the authority to order anyone to be sterilized. What we do contend for is the right of the individual to know what sterilization would mean to him or her, to have the facilities for: the operation if desired and to be protected in life afterwards

The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition

This was after WWII, before eugenics was so unpopular with its similarity to Hitler's superior race, which he took from progressives of the United States, her views were quite different. Many progressives modified their stand with the advent of WWII and Hitler.

Sanger, forced sterilization of minorities, go hun

What does that have to do with anything redfish posted? He never stated that.

He must since he opposes Sanger's work.

There you go, a stupid conclusion based on nothing but a false assumption.

Just because you disagree with a person's philosophy on a solving problem doesn't mean you don't think there is a problem.

Is like saying drug addicts shouldn't be locked up, it doesn't mean you are for drug abuse or if you are not against the death penalty you are for murder.

Just because you are against eugenics, doesn't mean you think the poor should have large families. Sanger was a negative eugenist. She believed and applauded state panels the enforced compulsory sterilization. She believed in population control through the weak, the poor, the retarded and so on. Not agreeing with her doesn't mean you think the weak, the poor and the retarded need to procreate and have large families.

Are you for or against people who are least equipped to having many kids having easy access to birth control?

Who are the least equipped? I know some very rich people that are not equipped to have children.

What is easy access to birth control. Condoms machines on every street corner?

Financially for one. Where is the forced sterilization? Where did Sanger advocate for sterilizing minorities?

Financially is least equipped?

 

[HappyJoy]

He must since he opposes Sanger's work.

There you go, a stupid conclusion based on nothing but a false assumption.

Just because you disagree with a person's philosophy on a solving problem doesn't mean you don't think there is a problem.

Is like saying drug addicts shouldn't be locked up, it doesn't mean you are for drug abuse or if you are not against the death penalty you are for murder.

Just because you are against eugenics, doesn't mean you think the poor should have large families. Sanger was a negative eugenist. She believed and applauded state panels the enforced compulsory sterilization. She believed in population control through the weak, the poor, the retarded and so on. Not agreeing with her doesn't mean you think the weak, the poor and the retarded need to procreate and have large families.

Margaret Sanger believed that individuals should control their own fertility and that the poor and weak should be provided access to birth control.
She didn't 'applaud compulsory sterilization- she advocated voluntarily sterilization for those who desired it

The program in this country at least, does not involve compulsory features. No one here proposes that some official be endowed with the authority to order anyone to be sterilized. What we do contend for is the right of the individual to know what sterilization would mean to him or her, to have the facilities for: the operation if desired and to be protected in life afterwards

The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition

This was after WWII, before eugenics was so unpopular with its similarity to Hitler's superior race, which he took from progressives of the United States, her views were quite different. Many progressives modified their stand with the advent of WWII and Hitler.

Sanger, forced sterilization of minorities, go hun

He must since he opposes Sanger's work.

There you go, a stupid conclusion based on nothing but a false assumption.

Just because you disagree with a person's philosophy on a solving problem doesn't mean you don't think there is a problem.

Is like saying drug addicts shouldn't be locked up, it doesn't mean you are for drug abuse or if you are not against the death penalty you are for murder.

Just because you are against eugenics, doesn't mean you think the poor should have large families. Sanger was a negative eugenist. She believed and applauded state panels the enforced compulsory sterilization. She believed in population control through the weak, the poor, the retarded and so on. Not agreeing with her doesn't mean you think the weak, the poor and the retarded need to procreate and have large families.

Are you for or against people who are least equipped to having many kids having easy access to birth control?

Who are the least equipped? I know some very rich people that are not equipped to have children.

What is easy access to birth control. Condoms machines on every street corner?

Financially for one. Where is the forced sterilization? Where did Sanger advocate for sterilizing minorities?

Financially is least equipped?

How about the "financially least equipped".

Back to you though, you mentioned something about Sanger supporting the sterilization of minorities, why so quiet on the subject now?

 

[Rambunctious]

liberalism is a mental disorder

 

[Papageorgio]

There you go, a stupid conclusion based on nothing but a false assumption.

Just because you disagree with a person's philosophy on a solving problem doesn't mean you don't think there is a problem.

Is like saying drug addicts shouldn't be locked up, it doesn't mean you are for drug abuse or if you are not against the death penalty you are for murder.

Just because you are against eugenics, doesn't mean you think the poor should have large families. Sanger was a negative eugenist. She believed and applauded state panels the enforced compulsory sterilization. She believed in population control through the weak, the poor, the retarded and so on. Not agreeing with her doesn't mean you think the weak, the poor and the retarded need to procreate and have large families.

Margaret Sanger believed that individuals should control their own fertility and that the poor and weak should be provided access to birth control.
She didn't 'applaud compulsory sterilization- she advocated voluntarily sterilization for those who desired it

The program in this country at least, does not involve compulsory features. No one here proposes that some official be endowed with the authority to order anyone to be sterilized. What we do contend for is the right of the individual to know what sterilization would mean to him or her, to have the facilities for: the operation if desired and to be protected in life afterwards

The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition

This was after WWII, before eugenics was so unpopular with its similarity to Hitler's superior race, which he took from progressives of the United States, her views were quite different. Many progressives modified their stand with the advent of WWII and Hitler.

Sanger, forced sterilization of minorities, go hun

There you go, a stupid conclusion based on nothing but a false assumption.

Just because you disagree with a person's philosophy on a solving problem doesn't mean you don't think there is a problem.

Is like saying drug addicts shouldn't be locked up, it doesn't mean you are for drug abuse or if you are not against the death penalty you are for murder.

Just because you are against eugenics, doesn't mean you think the poor should have large families. Sanger was a negative eugenist. She believed and applauded state panels the enforced compulsory sterilization. She believed in population control through the weak, the poor, the retarded and so on. Not agreeing with her doesn't mean you think the weak, the poor and the retarded need to procreate and have large families.

Are you for or against people who are least equipped to having many kids having easy access to birth control?

Who are the least equipped? I know some very rich people that are not equipped to have children.

What is easy access to birth control. Condoms machines on every street corner?

Financially for one. Where is the forced sterilization? Where did Sanger advocate for sterilizing minorities?

Financially is least equipped?

How about the "financially least equipped".

So people that have money can have as many as they want and not raise them properly. I think they are least equipped, wouldn't they be?

 

[HappyJoy]

Margaret Sanger believed that individuals should control their own fertility and that the poor and weak should be provided access to birth control.
She didn't 'applaud compulsory sterilization- she advocated voluntarily sterilization for those who desired it

The program in this country at least, does not involve compulsory features. No one here proposes that some official be endowed with the authority to order anyone to be sterilized. What we do contend for is the right of the individual to know what sterilization would mean to him or her, to have the facilities for: the operation if desired and to be protected in life afterwards

The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition

This was after WWII, before eugenics was so unpopular with its similarity to Hitler's superior race, which he took from progressives of the United States, her views were quite different. Many progressives modified their stand with the advent of WWII and Hitler.

Sanger, forced sterilization of minorities, go hun

Are you for or against people who are least equipped to having many kids having easy access to birth control?

Who are the least equipped? I know some very rich people that are not equipped to have children.

What is easy access to birth control. Condoms machines on every street corner?

Financially for one. Where is the forced sterilization? Where did Sanger advocate for sterilizing minorities?

Financially is least equipped?

How about the "financially least equipped".

So people that have money can have as many as they want and not raise them properly. I think they are least equipped, wouldn't they be?

I think anyone can have as many children as they want regardless of their finances.

I guess you no longer believe Sanger wanted to sterilize minorities.

 

[Juicin]

Sanger was way ahead of her time in understanding the significance of family planning

Great woman

Right, great woman, the ultimate racist.

So anyone who uses birth control or wants it to be legal and available is a racist?

Do you know what eugenics is son?

lol

Yes she was a racist, and a terrible human. You should always be suspicious of people trying to pass out birth control. It's not an action that historically has been with benevolent intentions.

Not saying poor women shouldn't be provided it for free, but if we went back to an age where children were an economic boon giving out birth control to poor women would be obviously suspect.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sanger was way ahead of her time in understanding the significance of family planning

Great woman

Right, great woman, the ultimate racist.

So anyone who uses birth control or wants it to be legal and available is a racist?

Do you know what eugenics is son?

lol

Yes she was a racist, and a terrible human. You should always be suspicious of people trying to pass out birth control. It's not an action that historically has been with benevolent intentions.

Not saying poor women shouldn't be provided it for free, but if we went back to an age where children were an economic boon giving out birth control to poor women would be obviously suspect.

I know that birth control should be legal and easily available.

Why don't you agree?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So now after all this you wish to admit that you find Sanger's work valuable and praiseworthy?

omg. Look at that!

What? have you completely lost what little mind you had?

You are desperately trying to avoid stating your position on the relevant issues. That's how you lose this debate.

What does his position have to do with the subject? The thread is about Clinton and her view of Sanger.

Hillary supports birth control being legal.

Do you wish to disagree with that?

What does my opinion on birth control have to do with Hillary's view of Sanger, you aren't making much sense.

Because you either agree with Sanger on the issue of birth control or you don't.

 

[Juicin]

Sanger was way ahead of her time in understanding the significance of family planning

Great woman

Right, great woman, the ultimate racist.

So anyone who uses birth control or wants it to be legal and available is a racist?

Do you know what eugenics is son?

lol

Yes she was a racist, and a terrible human. You should always be suspicious of people trying to pass out birth control. It's not an action that historically has been with benevolent intentions.

Not saying poor women shouldn't be provided it for free, but if we went back to an age where children were an economic boon giving out birth control to poor women would be obviously suspect.

I know that birth control should be legal and easily available.

Why don't you agree?

When Margaret Sanger was alive children were a boon almost universally, they were good for family mobility. The only reason to limit births would be to literally attempt to cull the population.

In an age where children aren't an economic boon it's not really clear where the correct moral stance should be. I'm not convinced promoting preventing births are a good idea though.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sanger was way ahead of her time in understanding the significance of family planning

Great woman

Right, great woman, the ultimate racist.

So anyone who uses birth control or wants it to be legal and available is a racist?

Do you know what eugenics is son?

lol

Yes she was a racist, and a terrible human. You should always be suspicious of people trying to pass out birth control. It's not an action that historically has been with benevolent intentions.

Not saying poor women shouldn't be provided it for free, but if we went back to an age where children were an economic boon giving out birth control to poor women would be obviously suspect.

I know that birth control should be legal and easily available.

Why don't you agree?

When Margaret Sanger was alive children were a boon almost universally, they were good for family mobility. The only reason to limit births would be to literally attempt to cull the population.

In an age where children aren't an economic boon it's not really clear where the correct moral stance should be. I'm not convinced promoting preventing births are a good idea though.

Really? Poor people having big families was a good thing? When was that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

He must since he opposes Sanger's work.

There you go, a stupid conclusion based on nothing but a false assumption.

Just because you disagree with a person's philosophy on a solving problem doesn't mean you don't think there is a problem.

Is like saying drug addicts shouldn't be locked up, it doesn't mean you are for drug abuse or if you are not against the death penalty you are for murder.

Just because you are against eugenics, doesn't mean you think the poor should have large families. Sanger was a negative eugenist. She believed and applauded state panels the enforced compulsory sterilization. She believed in population control through the weak, the poor, the retarded and so on. Not agreeing with her doesn't mean you think the weak, the poor and the retarded need to procreate and have large families.

Margaret Sanger believed that individuals should control their own fertility and that the poor and weak should be provided access to birth control.
She didn't 'applaud compulsory sterilization- she advocated voluntarily sterilization for those who desired it

The program in this country at least, does not involve compulsory features. No one here proposes that some official be endowed with the authority to order anyone to be sterilized. What we do contend for is the right of the individual to know what sterilization would mean to him or her, to have the facilities for: the operation if desired and to be protected in life afterwards

The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition

This was after WWII, before eugenics was so unpopular with its similarity to Hitler's superior race, which he took from progressives of the United States, her views were quite different. Many progressives modified their stand with the advent of WWII and Hitler.

Sanger, forced sterilization of minorities, go hun

He must since he opposes Sanger's work.

There you go, a stupid conclusion based on nothing but a false assumption.

Just because you disagree with a person's philosophy on a solving problem doesn't mean you don't think there is a problem.

Is like saying drug addicts shouldn't be locked up, it doesn't mean you are for drug abuse or if you are not against the death penalty you are for murder.

Just because you are against eugenics, doesn't mean you think the poor should have large families. Sanger was a negative eugenist. She believed and applauded state panels the enforced compulsory sterilization. She believed in population control through the weak, the poor, the retarded and so on. Not agreeing with her doesn't mean you think the weak, the poor and the retarded need to procreate and have large families.

Are you for or against people who are least equipped to having many kids having easy access to birth control?

Who are the least equipped? I know some very rich people that are not equipped to have children.

What is easy access to birth control. Condoms machines on every street corner?

Financially for one. Where is the forced sterilization? Where did Sanger advocate for sterilizing minorities?

Financially is least equipped?

What's the merit of poor people having 3 4 5 8 10 children,
when half or more of them 'just happened' accidentally>?

 

[Unkotare]

Sanger was way ahead of her time in understanding the significance of family planning

Great woman

Right, great woman, the ultimate racist.

So anyone who uses birth control or wants it to be legal and available is a racist?

Do you know what eugenics is son?

lol

Yes she was a racist, and a terrible human. You should always be suspicious of people trying to pass out birth control. It's not an action that historically has been with benevolent intentions.

Not saying poor women shouldn't be provided it for free, but if we went back to an age where children were an economic boon giving out birth control to poor women would be obviously suspect.

I know that birth control should be legal and easily available.

Why don't you agree?

When Margaret Sanger was alive children were a boon almost universally, they were good for family mobility. The only reason to limit births would be to literally attempt to cull the population.

In an age where children aren't an economic boon it's not really clear where the correct moral stance should be. I'm not convinced promoting preventing births are a good idea though.

Of course children are still a boon, economically, morally, spiritually, emotionally, and in so many other ways.

 

[bodecea]

liberalism is a mental disorder

Well, that sticks to the topic at hand.

 

[bucs90]

So.....Margaret Sanger was more racist than...any 50 KKK members combined.

And Hillary praises her.

Black folks....really? Just...really? Yall really are gonna vote for this bitch??

REALLY????