Hillary and Margaret Sanger

[HappyJoy]

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.

access to BC is good, access to abortion on demand aimed at limiting the birth rate of those classified as "undesirable" is not. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Then why are you attacking Sanger?

She advocated birth control for women.

She didn't advocate for abortion.

she was a racist, Hillary thinks she was wonderful. She founded PP, PP is an abortion mill aimed at minorities.

If Sanger lived today she would be an abortion advocate. Virtually no one advocated for abortion when she lived,,,,,,, those were much saner times in many ways.

So, regardless of your idiotic vies on Planned Parenthood, when it comes down to Margaret Sanger your big problem with her is her advocacy for abortion?

Who is feeding you "facts"?

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

access to BC is good, access to abortion on demand aimed at limiting the birth rate of those classified as "undesirable" is not. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Then why are you attacking Sanger?

She advocated birth control for women.

She didn't advocate for abortion.

she was a racist, Hillary thinks she was wonderful. She founded PP, PP is an abortion mill aimed at minorities.

If Sanger lived today she would be an abortion advocate. Virtually no one advocated for abortion when she lived,,,,,,, those were much saner times in many ways.

Yep, it was illegal, she could not say she was a proponent of illegal activity. That is way she was careful with her words about sterilization after WWII. She was Hillary like.

 

[paperview]

Q: Why were there pro-eugenic laws in every state in the country at the time?

Why does this question always get ignored?

Every state?

Yes.

 

[Papageorgio]

Q: Why were there pro-eugenic laws in every state in the country at the time?

Why does this question always get ignored?

Every state?

Yes.

Why do you think it was?

 

[HappyJoy]

Q: Why were there pro-eugenic laws in every state in the country at the time?

Why does this question always get ignored?

That's an excellent question for boy georgio.

You are the fuckin expert asswipe, you answer him, oh wait...you are an imbecile and can't.

I'm not the one who who holds Margaret Sanger to a higher standard than our forefathers.

I don't hold Sanger to any standard. Nutters think she is a God and love Hillary for admiring her eugenics.

Oh? Who thinks Sanger is a god? Quite the hyperbole. Margaret Sanger is admired for bringing affordable birth control to women. Like our forefathers are remembered for establishing at least some amount of freedom to our system of government. However, by far, due to the times they live in felt much differently about minorities than we do today (or at least most of us). We remember and celebrate them for what they got right. The same is true with Sanger, but why explain this to you? You're clearly feeding off of right wing bullshit and nothing else is going to matter.

 

[paperview]

Q: Why were there pro-eugenic laws in every state in the country at the time?

Why does this question always get ignored?

Every state?

Yes.

Why do you think it was?

I asked you first.

Can't answer?

Don't know?

 

[HappyJoy]

Q: Why were there pro-eugenic laws in every state in the country at the time?

Why does this question always get ignored?

Every state?

Yes.

Why do you think it was?

I asked you first.

Can't answer?

Don't know?

He's stalling until his brain kicks in, it appears to be a pattern.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

access to BC is good, access to abortion on demand aimed at limiting the birth rate of those classified as "undesirable" is not. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Then why are you attacking Sanger?

She advocated birth control for women.

She didn't advocate for abortion.

she was a racist, Hillary thinks she was wonderful. She founded PP, PP is an abortion mill aimed at minorities.

If Sanger lived today she would be an abortion advocate. Virtually no one advocated for abortion when she lived,,,,,,, those were much saner times in many ways.

Yep, it was illegal, she could not say she was a proponent of illegal activity. That is way she was careful with her words about sterilization after WWII. She was Hillary like.

Sure she could- Margaret Sanger advocated for contraception when contraception was illegal-

On October 16, 1916 Sanger opened a family planning and birth control clinic at 46 Amboy Street in the Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn, the first of its kind in the United States.[35] Nine days after the clinic opened, Sanger was arrested. Sanger's bail was set at $500 and she went back home. Sanger continued seeing some women in the clinic until the police came a second time. This time Sanger and her sister, Ethel Byrne, were arrested for breaking a New York state law that prohibited distribution of contraceptives, Sanger was also charged with running a public nuisance

When will you stop just making crap up about Sanger and actually back up any of your many claims?

 

[Syriusly]

Q: Why were there pro-eugenic laws in every state in the country at the time?

Why does this question always get ignored?

That's an excellent question for boy georgio.

You are the fuckin expert asswipe, you answer him, oh wait...you are an imbecile and can't.

I'm not the one who who holds Margaret Sanger to a higher standard than our forefathers.

I don't hold Sanger to any standard. Nutters think she is a God and love Hillary for admiring her eugenics.

Who are these 'nutters'?

I have yet to see anyone take that position.

The nutters are the ones who keep making up crap about Sanger- a woman who promoted woman's rights and the rights of Americans to control their own procreation.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

access to BC is good, access to abortion on demand aimed at limiting the birth rate of those classified as "undesirable" is not. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Then why are you attacking Sanger?

She advocated birth control for women.

She didn't advocate for abortion.

she was a racist, Hillary thinks she was wonderful. She founded PP, PP is an abortion mill aimed at minorities.\.

Martin Luther King Jr. admired her the same way that Clinton does.
She founded Planned Parenthood- an organization that has provided free contraceptives and healthcare to millions of women.

No wonder you despise her.

 

[Syriusly]

She endorsed sterilizing retards and morons and while I really want to agree with her because of people like you, I can't and nobody is interested in creating policies like that, let alone that Sanger never endorsed mandatory sterilization.

But let's get back to you. You specifically said that Sanger wanted to sterilize blacks. Stop derailing and back up your point for a change. Or, just admit you were wrong, it's not that hard.

Article 8. Feeble-minded persons, habitual congenital criminals, those afflicted with inheritable disease, and others found biologically unfit by authorities qualified to judge should be sterilized or, in cases of doubt, should be so isolated as to prevent the perpetuation of their afflictions by breeding. I do not pretend in the above suggestions to have arrived at the formulation of a workable baby code, but my puzzling over the problem has convinced me that America needs such a code. I should be very much interested in hearing the suggestions of others.

The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition

Where are the blacks? You mentioned blacks, back it up, dude.

So no feeble-minded, habitual congenital criminals or those considered morons were black? Black as you stated earlier in this thread were look down upon by Wilson and Sanger. They were considered imbeciles. Good grief, Sanger would force sterilization on you if she could you fit her criteria perfectly.

Oh, I see, you're just going to make shit up. First you claim that Sanger called for the sterilization of blacks, then you denied saying it and now you are claiming that when Sanger was talking about congenital criminals and the feeble minded that she meant blacks.

Way to be consistently inconsistent and proof you are a liar. Good job, buddy!

So are you saying I am correct on everything about Sanger except that she was for the sterilization of blacks?

No- he is saying that you were the one who claimed Sanger wanted to sterilize blacks.

You were challenged repeatedly about that specific claim and refused to address it.

Were you wrong- or lying?

 

[Syriusly]

The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition

Notice part d: (d) apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.\

Her second step: The second step would be to take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection and segregate on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct..

Why are you afraid to quote her?

(d) apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.


(e) to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feeble-minded parents, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

Note: voluntarily consent

d. Says nothing about voluntary.

You also are now saying she wasn't a negative eugenist? She said she was one.

I neither know what you think a 'negative eugenist' is- nor do I care.

You have made claims about Margaret Sanger- claims you have so far been totally unable to back up.

I have pointed out actual quotes by Margaret Sanger noting:
- her commitment to women's health
- that she specifically wrote she believe sterlization should be voluntary

, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

Do you really want to argue about the definition of 'voluntary' versus 'voluntarily'?

Margaret Sanger was praised by both Clinton- and Martin Luther King Jr.

Looking at what she accomplished for women, I am not surprised.

If you knew what a negative eugenist is, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

In her works; The Pivot of Civilization, she wrote this:
The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately. Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous. Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem. Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.

"we prefer the policy of immediate sterlization of the feeble minded- 'of the heriditary type.

The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition

Notice part d: (d) apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.\

Her second step: The second step would be to take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection and segregate on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct..

Why are you afraid to quote her?

(d) apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.


(e) to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feeble-minded parents, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

Note: voluntarily consent

d. Says nothing about voluntary.

You also are now saying she wasn't a negative eugenist? She said she was one.

I neither know what you think a 'negative eugenist' is- nor do I care.

You have made claims about Margaret Sanger- claims you have so far been totally unable to back up.

I have pointed out actual quotes by Margaret Sanger noting:
- her commitment to women's health
- that she specifically wrote she believe sterlization should be voluntary

, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

Do you really want to argue about the definition of 'voluntary' versus 'voluntarily'?

Margaret Sanger was praised by both Clinton- and Martin Luther King Jr.

Looking at what she accomplished for women, I am not surprised.

If you knew what a negative eugenist is, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

In her works; The Pivot of Civilization, she wrote this:
The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately. Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous. Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem. Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.

Oh you mean the same chapter of the same book where she says Eugenists don't have the answer?

But in its so-called "constructive" aspect, in seeking to reestablish the dominance of healthy strain over the unhealthy, by urging an increased birth-rate among the fit, the Eugenists really offer nothing more farsighted than a "cradle competition" between the fit and the unfit. They suggest in very truth, that all intelligent and respectable parents should take as their example in this grave matter of child-bearing the most irresponsible elements in the community.

 

[Redfish]

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.

access to BC is good, access to abortion on demand aimed at limiting the birth rate of those classified as "undesirable" is not. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Then why are you attacking Sanger?

She advocated birth control for women.

She didn't advocate for abortion.

she was a racist, Hillary thinks she was wonderful. She founded PP, PP is an abortion mill aimed at minorities.

If Sanger lived today she would be an abortion advocate. Virtually no one advocated for abortion when she lived,,,,,,, those were much saner times in many ways.

So, regardless of your idiotic vies on Planned Parenthood, when it comes down to Margaret Sanger your big problem with her is her advocacy for abortion?

Who is feeding you "facts"?

wrong, its her racial eugenics and her beliefs that some people should not be ALLOWED to reproduce. The Nazis held the same beliefs.

 

[Redfish]

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.

access to BC is good, access to abortion on demand aimed at limiting the birth rate of those classified as "undesirable" is not. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Then why are you attacking Sanger?

She advocated birth control for women.

She didn't advocate for abortion.

she was a racist, Hillary thinks she was wonderful. She founded PP, PP is an abortion mill aimed at minorities.\.

Martin Luther King Jr. admired her the same way that Clinton does.
She founded Planned Parenthood- an organization that has provided free contraceptives and healthcare to millions of women.

No wonder you despise her.

MLK was mistaken or mislead about Sanger and PP. Sanger was a racist and a eugenicist. She, and Hillary, think that certain populations must be controlled by the government. Slave owners and Nazis held those same beliefs, as do today's radical muslims.

 

[Papageorgio]

The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition

Notice part d: (d) apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.\

Her second step: The second step would be to take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection and segregate on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct..

Why are you afraid to quote her?

(d) apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.


(e) to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feeble-minded parents, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

Note: voluntarily consent

d. Says nothing about voluntary.

You also are now saying she wasn't a negative eugenist? She said she was one.

I neither know what you think a 'negative eugenist' is- nor do I care.

You have made claims about Margaret Sanger- claims you have so far been totally unable to back up.

I have pointed out actual quotes by Margaret Sanger noting:
- her commitment to women's health
- that she specifically wrote she believe sterlization should be voluntary

, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

Do you really want to argue about the definition of 'voluntary' versus 'voluntarily'?

Margaret Sanger was praised by both Clinton- and Martin Luther King Jr.

Looking at what she accomplished for women, I am not surprised.

If you knew what a negative eugenist is, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

In her works; The Pivot of Civilization, she wrote this:
The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately. Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous. Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem. Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.

"we prefer the policy of immediate sterlization of the feeble minded- 'of the heriditary type.

The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition

Notice part d: (d) apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.\

Her second step: The second step would be to take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection and segregate on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct..

Why are you afraid to quote her?

(d) apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.


(e) to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feeble-minded parents, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

Note: voluntarily consent

d. Says nothing about voluntary.

You also are now saying she wasn't a negative eugenist? She said she was one.

I neither know what you think a 'negative eugenist' is- nor do I care.

You have made claims about Margaret Sanger- claims you have so far been totally unable to back up.

I have pointed out actual quotes by Margaret Sanger noting:
- her commitment to women's health
- that she specifically wrote she believe sterlization should be voluntary

, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

Do you really want to argue about the definition of 'voluntary' versus 'voluntarily'?

Margaret Sanger was praised by both Clinton- and Martin Luther King Jr.

Looking at what she accomplished for women, I am not surprised.

If you knew what a negative eugenist is, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

In her works; The Pivot of Civilization, she wrote this:
The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately. Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous. Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem. Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.

Oh you mean the same chapter of the same book where she says Eugenists don't have the answer?

But in its so-called "constructive" aspect, in seeking to reestablish the dominance of healthy strain over the unhealthy, by urging an increased birth-rate among the fit, the Eugenists really offer nothing more farsighted than a "cradle competition" between the fit and the unfit. They suggest in very truth, that all intelligent and respectable parents should take as their example in this grave matter of child-bearing the most irresponsible elements in the community.

Article 8. Feeble-minded persons, habitual congenital criminals, those afflicted with inheritable disease, and others found biologically unfit by authorities qualified to judge should be sterilized or, in cases of doubt, should be so isolated as to prevent the perpetuation of their afflictions by breeding. I do not pretend in the above suggestions to have arrived at the formulation of a workable baby code, but my puzzling over the problem has convinced me that America needs such a code. I should be very much interested in hearing the suggestions of others.

The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition

The chapter eugenics wasn't the answer is very correct. She believed in negative eugenics, just as I have stated. That is eugenics by controlling the breeding.

 

[Redfish]

Why are you afraid to quote her?

(d) apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.


(e) to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feeble-minded parents, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

Note: voluntarily consent

d. Says nothing about voluntary.

You also are now saying she wasn't a negative eugenist? She said she was one.

I neither know what you think a 'negative eugenist' is- nor do I care.

You have made claims about Margaret Sanger- claims you have so far been totally unable to back up.

I have pointed out actual quotes by Margaret Sanger noting:
- her commitment to women's health
- that she specifically wrote she believe sterlization should be voluntary

, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

Do you really want to argue about the definition of 'voluntary' versus 'voluntarily'?

Margaret Sanger was praised by both Clinton- and Martin Luther King Jr.

Looking at what she accomplished for women, I am not surprised.

If you knew what a negative eugenist is, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

In her works; The Pivot of Civilization, she wrote this:
The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately. Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous. Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem. Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.

"we prefer the policy of immediate sterlization of the feeble minded- 'of the heriditary type.

Why are you afraid to quote her?

(d) apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.


(e) to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feeble-minded parents, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

Note: voluntarily consent

d. Says nothing about voluntary.

You also are now saying she wasn't a negative eugenist? She said she was one.

I neither know what you think a 'negative eugenist' is- nor do I care.

You have made claims about Margaret Sanger- claims you have so far been totally unable to back up.

I have pointed out actual quotes by Margaret Sanger noting:
- her commitment to women's health
- that she specifically wrote she believe sterlization should be voluntary

, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

Do you really want to argue about the definition of 'voluntary' versus 'voluntarily'?

Margaret Sanger was praised by both Clinton- and Martin Luther King Jr.

Looking at what she accomplished for women, I am not surprised.

If you knew what a negative eugenist is, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

In her works; The Pivot of Civilization, she wrote this:
The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately. Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous. Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem. Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.

Oh you mean the same chapter of the same book where she says Eugenists don't have the answer?

But in its so-called "constructive" aspect, in seeking to reestablish the dominance of healthy strain over the unhealthy, by urging an increased birth-rate among the fit, the Eugenists really offer nothing more farsighted than a "cradle competition" between the fit and the unfit. They suggest in very truth, that all intelligent and respectable parents should take as their example in this grave matter of child-bearing the most irresponsible elements in the community.

Article 8. Feeble-minded persons, habitual congenital criminals, those afflicted with inheritable disease, and others found biologically unfit by authorities qualified to judge should be sterilized or, in cases of doubt, should be so isolated as to prevent the perpetuation of their afflictions by breeding. I do not pretend in the above suggestions to have arrived at the formulation of a workable baby code, but my puzzling over the problem has convinced me that America needs such a code. I should be very much interested in hearing the suggestions of others.

The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition[/Q

I wonder if our liberal posters realize that many of them would never have been born if Sanger's policies had been adopted.

 

[HappyJoy]

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

access to BC is good, access to abortion on demand aimed at limiting the birth rate of those classified as "undesirable" is not. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Then why are you attacking Sanger?

She advocated birth control for women.

She didn't advocate for abortion.

she was a racist, Hillary thinks she was wonderful. She founded PP, PP is an abortion mill aimed at minorities.

If Sanger lived today she would be an abortion advocate. Virtually no one advocated for abortion when she lived,,,,,,, those were much saner times in many ways.

So, regardless of your idiotic vies on Planned Parenthood, when it comes down to Margaret Sanger your big problem with her is her advocacy for abortion?

Who is feeding you "facts"?

wrong, its her racial eugenics and her beliefs that some people should not be ALLOWED to reproduce. The Nazis held the same beliefs.

Once again, where is all this racism? How did Sanger victimize blacks?

 

[Syriusly]

d. Says nothing about voluntary.

You also are now saying she wasn't a negative eugenist? She said she was one.

I neither know what you think a 'negative eugenist' is- nor do I care.

You have made claims about Margaret Sanger- claims you have so far been totally unable to back up.

I have pointed out actual quotes by Margaret Sanger noting:
- her commitment to women's health
- that she specifically wrote she believe sterlization should be voluntary

, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

Do you really want to argue about the definition of 'voluntary' versus 'voluntarily'?

Margaret Sanger was praised by both Clinton- and Martin Luther King Jr.

Looking at what she accomplished for women, I am not surprised.

If you knew what a negative eugenist is, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

In her works; The Pivot of Civilization, she wrote this:
The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately. Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous. Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem. Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.

"we prefer the policy of immediate sterlization of the feeble minded- 'of the heriditary type.

d. Says nothing about voluntary.

You also are now saying she wasn't a negative eugenist? She said she was one.

I neither know what you think a 'negative eugenist' is- nor do I care.

You have made claims about Margaret Sanger- claims you have so far been totally unable to back up.

I have pointed out actual quotes by Margaret Sanger noting:
- her commitment to women's health
- that she specifically wrote she believe sterlization should be voluntary

, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

Do you really want to argue about the definition of 'voluntary' versus 'voluntarily'?

Margaret Sanger was praised by both Clinton- and Martin Luther King Jr.

Looking at what she accomplished for women, I am not surprised.

If you knew what a negative eugenist is, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

In her works; The Pivot of Civilization, she wrote this:
The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately. Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous. Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem. Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.

Oh you mean the same chapter of the same book where she says Eugenists don't have the answer?

But in its so-called "constructive" aspect, in seeking to reestablish the dominance of healthy strain over the unhealthy, by urging an increased birth-rate among the fit, the Eugenists really offer nothing more farsighted than a "cradle competition" between the fit and the unfit. They suggest in very truth, that all intelligent and respectable parents should take as their example in this grave matter of child-bearing the most irresponsible elements in the community.

Article 8. Feeble-minded persons, habitual congenital criminals, those afflicted with inheritable disease, and others found biologically unfit by authorities qualified to judge should be sterilized or, in cases of doubt, should be so isolated as to prevent the perpetuation of their afflictions by breeding. I do not pretend in the above suggestions to have arrived at the formulation of a workable baby code, but my puzzling over the problem has convinced me that America needs such a code. I should be very much interested in hearing the suggestions of others.

The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition[/Q

I wonder if our liberal posters realize that many of them would never have been born if Sanger's policies had been adopted.

Many of Sanger's policies were adopted.

Which is why women have access to birth control today, and free or reduced healthcare costs at Planned Parenthood.

 

[Syriusly]

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

access to BC is good, access to abortion on demand aimed at limiting the birth rate of those classified as "undesirable" is not. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Then why are you attacking Sanger?

She advocated birth control for women.

She didn't advocate for abortion.

she was a racist, Hillary thinks she was wonderful. She founded PP, PP is an abortion mill aimed at minorities.\.

Martin Luther King Jr. admired her the same way that Clinton does.
She founded Planned Parenthood- an organization that has provided free contraceptives and healthcare to millions of women.

No wonder you despise her.

MLK was mistaken or mislead about Sanger and PP. Sanger was a racist and a eugenicist. She, and Hillary, think that certain populations must be controlled by the government. Slave owners and Nazis held those same beliefs, as do today's radical muslims.

So you think you are just smarter than Martin Luther King Jr?

That he was just another one of those black people that are so much more ignorant than you are?

Please- continue to try to sell your message to the African American community that you know more than Martin Luther King Jr.- nothing could help the rejection of the Conservative anti-woman agenda more.

Meanwhile- MLK Jr. comments again


There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist - a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.

 

[Redfish]

I neither know what you think a 'negative eugenist' is- nor do I care.

You have made claims about Margaret Sanger- claims you have so far been totally unable to back up.

I have pointed out actual quotes by Margaret Sanger noting:
- her commitment to women's health
- that she specifically wrote she believe sterlization should be voluntary

, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

Do you really want to argue about the definition of 'voluntary' versus 'voluntarily'?

Margaret Sanger was praised by both Clinton- and Martin Luther King Jr.

Looking at what she accomplished for women, I am not surprised.

If you knew what a negative eugenist is, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

In her works; The Pivot of Civilization, she wrote this:
The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately. Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous. Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem. Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.

"we prefer the policy of immediate sterlization of the feeble minded- 'of the heriditary type.

I neither know what you think a 'negative eugenist' is- nor do I care.

You have made claims about Margaret Sanger- claims you have so far been totally unable to back up.

I have pointed out actual quotes by Margaret Sanger noting:
- her commitment to women's health
- that she specifically wrote she believe sterlization should be voluntary

, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

Do you really want to argue about the definition of 'voluntary' versus 'voluntarily'?

Margaret Sanger was praised by both Clinton- and Martin Luther King Jr.

Looking at what she accomplished for women, I am not surprised.

If you knew what a negative eugenist is, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

In her works; The Pivot of Civilization, she wrote this:
The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately. Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous. Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem. Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.

Oh you mean the same chapter of the same book where she says Eugenists don't have the answer?

But in its so-called "constructive" aspect, in seeking to reestablish the dominance of healthy strain over the unhealthy, by urging an increased birth-rate among the fit, the Eugenists really offer nothing more farsighted than a "cradle competition" between the fit and the unfit. They suggest in very truth, that all intelligent and respectable parents should take as their example in this grave matter of child-bearing the most irresponsible elements in the community.

Article 8. Feeble-minded persons, habitual congenital criminals, those afflicted with inheritable disease, and others found biologically unfit by authorities qualified to judge should be sterilized or, in cases of doubt, should be so isolated as to prevent the perpetuation of their afflictions by breeding. I do not pretend in the above suggestions to have arrived at the formulation of a workable baby code, but my puzzling over the problem has convinced me that America needs such a code. I should be very much interested in hearing the suggestions of others.

The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition[/Q

I wonder if our liberal posters realize that many of them would never have been born if Sanger's policies had been adopted.

Many of Sanger's policies were adopted.

Which is why women have access to birth control today, and free or reduced healthcare costs at Planned Parenthood.

so, you are saying that the people that PP gives BC pills and free abortions to are undesirables who should not be allowed to reproduce?