Abortion = Social JUSTICE?

[Avatar4321]

*doubling the amount of my donation to PP due to increased awareness of crazy fanatics out there in the world.*

Course, cant engage in any sort of intellectual discussion with anyone so you label them crazy and pretend as though no one else exists. Great method when you know youve got nothing to argue.

 

[JBeukema]

Yes, blatant eugenetics were at play with the Republicans as well....they supported planned parenthood...for the purpose of reducing pregnancies in the Black communities.

Any group stupid enough to wipe themselves out by killing their own babies deserves to go extinct. It's kinda like China killing their baby girls...

The elimination of unwanted children is assumed to be a social good, of course.
The Romans practiced it, as well. A child was nothing until accepted by a family, and many an infant starved for lack of want by the father.

Today, unwanted children are a net drag on both our social safety nets and our crime fighting agencies. Thus, it is a social good to prevent such children from being born.

Quod Erat Demonstratum

You must be a collectivist.

When the perceived benefit of the masses is placed above the protections of the individual, each and every individual faces the reality that they have no truly protected rights. This means that every individual is then at risk, and it breeds hostility between subsets of the population. The group is merely a collection of individuals. Therefore, that which is bad for the individual, if it is bad for all individuals, is bad for the collective. If the right to life itself is not protected, then no rights can be defended at all. After all, ho can you have a right to liberty or property if a human right ti exist is not even recognized? You can merely be removed.

Extending your argument, the entire Lower Tenth is to be removed, as this would greatly benefit the remaining collective.You can also apply the same argument, wholesale and without changing it, to any individual who is born with an inheritable defect, collects welfare, fails to achieve in any way, holds views that are considered contrary to popular opinion and slows the 'progress' of society in any given direction deemed desirable...

Now, who is to determine what is 'deemed good' or considered to be in the best interest of the greater collective? Democracy is an utter failure when it comes to anything requiring large-scale concurrence between large numbers of people, so a council or party in needed to make such decision. Now, whether they gain their position democratically or by force, human nature has always been to retain power, and what greater power is there than to decide who is worthy of lief?Any who challange your authority are deemed detrimental to the 'social good; or welfare of the greater collective. Such a system would be the absolute worst of imaginable tyrannies, for the individuals very right to even exist at all is to be determined by either the whims of the majority with their ruthless swords of opinion and the heartless machinations of the 'social good' or the controlling elite who gains power with the the most powerful means of control imaginable laid at their feet.

Society cannot afford to once again allow for even their own lives to be deemed worthy or unworthy of being allowed to continue by hose who seek merely to serve their own interests. Nor do I expect thy readily will, if any traces of their memory remain, for whether they are conscious of the processes of their own social contracts or not, all can imagine being on the wrong side of just such a system, and this will be the strongest barrier against continued adoption of or expansion upon any such argument as you make.

A family consists of a mother and a father. Therefore if the father is absent or unknown, the woman should have an abortion.

This is generally supported by pro-choicers, yes.

Do not the same Leftists also tend to support homosexual adoption and 'strang single women who need no man'? Is this not self-contradiction?

A single-parent home is not considered stable, no. Statistics on children from single-parent homes highlight this fact.

Please provide such statistics for consideration.

spoken like a true nazi

How 'bout addressing his arguments instead of relying on such moronic ad hims...

We're supposed to protect our children, not prostitute them.

That must be the most moronic red herring in the thread, up to page 5

. In particular, note their warnings against anti-abortion crisis centers.

These centers

• may not give you complete and correct information...
• may try to frighten you ...
• may lie to you about the medical and emotional effects of abortion
• may tell you that you are not pregnant even if you are...

That's some serious projection...

Rape victims represent almost zero percent of all abortion clinic victims.

While I do not doubt that, would you care to present your statistics?

 

[JBeukema]

Tell me, do women spontaneously become pregnant? Like magic? If so, that must suck.

In theory, it is possible...

You should know about parthenogenesis, i would think

 

[JBeukema]

I'm no angel...by all means. But infanticide, and its cousin, abortion, just feels so wrong,

And I'll fight against anyone trying to force me to pay for them, through the tax system.

Fight against organizations like Planned Parenthood. You want an abortion? Pay for it yourself.

A step in the right direction...

When you start calling fetuses children you lose your argument.
.

S: (n) child, kid (a human offspring (son or daughter) of any age)


By definition to call a fetus someone's child is accurate

We will see artificial womb technology in our lifetimes.

What advances have you seen that lead to this prediction?

Look at the bright side of artificial womb technology...it truly frees the woman!

Instead of sexual education, we can surgically harvest the ovaries of all young women and freeze down their eggs. Then, they can have sex as much as they want without fear of pregnancy.

When the woman decides to have a child, she can defrost an egg, mix it with the sperm of her choice, and plop it into an artificial womb for 9 months. Voila! No labor pains, no risk of mother's death, no hindrance to career, and no restrictions on sex.

perhaps...

 

[Care4all]

Men need to stop having sex out of marriage or be ready to be a husband and father....

Let's see how you do....

protection doesn't give you permission either.... so boys, zip up- or shut up.

 

[editec]

Not me.

Once again, I pose the question..how is abortion "social justice"?

It's really so simply I would expect even you to get it.

If affluent women are legally given the right to choose, less affluent women who cannot afford that procedure need to have the government assist them in covering the cost of it.

Seriously, this is too complex a theory for you to grasp?

 

[JBeukema]

I find it interesting that none of the "conservatives" commented on the fact that eugenics and population control enjoyed Republican support.

and the Democrats were supported by and their ranks filled by the KKK. One let them wipe themselves out, the other lynched ******* by night. Remember that before you start mouthing off with your partisan bullshit

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Abortion = Social JUSTICE?

I dunno. Does he believe that the minority population should be kept in check? That's what companies like Planned Parenthood do. Margaret Sanger wanted it that way.

It is even in written historical archives that they wanted abortion to be legal to eliminate the black population. I dunno if its in the PP docs, but it does exist. Just the facts maam,,,

 

[Ravi]

I find it interesting that none of the "conservatives" commented on the fact that eugenics and population control enjoyed Republican support.

and the Democrats were supported by and their ranks filled by the KKK. One let them wipe themselves out, the other lynched ******* by night. Remember that before you start mouthing off with your partisan bullshit

What's partisan about what I said, Buttema?

 

[Care4all]

so, if planned parenthood only has a couple of hundred thousand abortions a year done at their clinics, then where are the other million done, in individual gyno's offices?

 

[Care4all]

Women and men of today have to thank margaret sanger for her work on educating the populous on birth control and the evil person that repugs now make her out to be is a false claim.

There would be no birth control of any sort, if it wasn't for her....and women would still be having 11 children a marriage.

If having a dozen kids in poverty is what you think was healthy for our society, then i don't know what to tell ya?

There was no birth' control pill and there was no legal abortion in her time and she did not even promote abortion so she is getting a bad wrap from the conservatives.

Born: September 14, 1884
Corning, New York
Died: September 6, 1966
Tucson, Arizona
American author, nurse, and activist

The pioneering work of Margaret Sanger, an American crusader for scientific contraception (birth control), family planning, and population control, made her a world-renowned figure.
Influenced in childhood

Margaret Higgins Sanger was born Margaret Higgins on September 14, 1884, in Corning, New York. Her father was a fun-loving freethinker. Her mother was a devoted Roman Catholic who had eleven children before dying of tuberculosis, a deadly disease that attacks the lungs and bones. Margaret was greatly influenced by her father's political views in support of women's suffrage (the right to vote) and tax reform (improvements), although these and other beliefs caused the family to be seen as radical (extreme) in the eyes of their neighbors.

After graduating from the local high school and from Claverack College at Hudson, New York, Margaret took a teaching position in New Jersey, until she was forced to return home to care for her dying mother. Her mother's death in 1896 left her with a deep sense of dissatisfaction concerning her own and society's medical ignorance. Soon afterwards Margaret moved to White Plains, New York, where she took nurse's training. She then moved to New York City and served in the extremely poor conditions in the slums of its Lower East Side. In 1902 she married William Sanger. Although Margaret herself was plagued by tuberculosis, she had her first child, a son, the next year. The couple had another son, as well as a daughter who died in childhood.
Begins work in birth control

Margaret Sanger's experiences with slum mothers who begged for information about how to avoid more pregnancies transformed her into a social radical. She joined the Socialist Party, a political party that believes the government should own and distribute all goods, began attending radical rallies, and read everything she could about birth control practices. She became convinced that oversized families were the basic cause of poverty. In 1913 she began publishing a monthly newspaper, the Woman Rebel, in which she passionately urged family limitation and first used the term "birth control." After only six issues, she was arrested and charged with distributing "obscene" literature through the mails. She fled to Europe, where she continued her birth control studies, visiting clinics and talking with medical researchers.

Sanger returned to the United States in 1916 and, after charges against her were dropped, she began nationwide lecturing. In New York City she and her partners opened a birth control clinic in a slum area to give out materials and information about birth control. This time she was arrested under state law. She spent a month in prison, as did her sister. Leaving prison in 1917, Sanger intensified her activities, lecturing and raising money from a group of wealthy patrons (supporters) in New York, and launching the Birth Control Review, which became the voice of her movement for twenty-three years. Encouraged by a state court decision that loosened New York's anticontraceptive law, she shifted her movement's emphasis from direct action and open resistance to efforts to secure more flexible state and federal laws. Although regularly in trouble with New York City authorities, she continued lecturing to large crowds and keeping in touch with European contraceptive research. Her visit to Japan in 1922 was the first of several Asian trips. A year later she and her friends opened clinical research bureaus to gather medical histories and dispense birth control information in New York City and Chicago, Illinois. By 1930 there were fifty-five clinics across the United States. Meanwhile Sanger divorced her husband and married J. Noah H. Slee.
Later work

Margaret Sanger's fame became worldwide in 1927, when she helped organize and spoke before the first World Population Conference at Geneva, Switzerland. She and her followers continued to lobby for freer state and federal laws on contraception and for the distribution of birth control knowledge through welfare programs. By 1940 the American birth control movement was operating a thriving clinic program and enjoying general acceptance by the medical profession and an increasingly favorable public attitude.

For most Americans, Margaret Sanger was the birth control movement. During World War II (1939–45), when European forces and the United States clashed with Germany, Italy, and Japan, her popularity continued to grow, despite her opposition to American participation in the war. (Sanger strongly believed that wars were the result of excess national population growth.) In 1946 she helped found the International Planned Parenthood Federation. This was one of her last great moments. She was troubled by a weak heart during her last twenty years, but she
continued traveling, lecturing, and issuing frequent statements. She died in Tucson, Arizona, on September 6, 1966.

 

[Care4all]

racist congressmen may have used her for evil doing, but this was not her intent

 

[JBeukema]

racist congressmen may have used her for evil doing, but this was not her intent

Her own words, quoted earlier, refute you and prove your assertions false. Any good that might have come from her efforts still came from someone who wanted wipe out the Blacks, just as much of modern medicine got a jumpstart in the Third Reich. As for having 11 kids: you contend that women are too stupid to not have sex or to learn about the condoms that have been in use for centuries?

 

[Care4all]

racist congressmen may have used her for evil doing, but this was not her intent

Her own words, quoted earlier, refute you and prove your assertions false. Any good that might have come from her efforts still came from someone who wanted wipe out the Blacks, just as much of modern medicine got a jumpstart in the Third Reich. As for having 11 kids: you contend that women are too stupid to not have sex or to learn about the condoms that have been in use for centuries?

you mean, these words?

Her mother's death in 1896 left her with a deep sense of dissatisfaction concerning her own and society's medical ignorance. Soon afterwards Margaret moved to White Plains, New York, where she took nurse's training. She then moved to New York City and served in the extremely poor conditions in the slums of its Lower East Side. In 1902 she married William Sanger. Although Margaret herself was plagued by tuberculosis, she had her first child, a son, the next year. The couple had another son, as well as a daughter who died in childhood.
Begins work in birth control

Margaret Sanger's experiences with slum mothers who begged for information about how to avoid more pregnancies transformed her into a social radical.

 

[Ravi]

She didn't want to wipe out blacks. She wanted to limit poverty and unwanted children. She also wanted to close the border to keep out immigrants that she felt would spread disease. She wasn't perfect and some of her ideas were controversial...she didn't agree with those that wanted to breed the upper classes to create a better group of people. Your comparing her to Hitler is ridiculous, Buttema...your views are actually closer to Hitler's than hers were.

btw, women back then had little or no access to condoms and were for the most part not allowed to refuse sex from their husbands.

Idiot.

 

[editec]

Allies objections are to giving any woman the right to control her womb.

It isn't about eugeneics or social justice, her arguments are directed toward abortion under any circumstances.

Hers is a moral argument to which there are no responses other than on a moral plane.

 

[Care4all]

She didn't want to wipe out blacks. She wanted to limit poverty and unwanted children. She also wanted to close the border to keep out immigrants that she felt would spread disease. She wasn't perfect and some of her ideas were controversial...she didn't agree with those that wanted to breed the upper classes to create a better group of people. Your comparing her to Hitler is ridiculous, Buttema...your views are actually closer to Hitler's than hers were.

btw, women back then had little or no access to condoms and were for the most part not allowed to refuse sex from their husbands.

Idiot.

It's called rewriting History for their own political advancement....you gotta have someone to HATE, ya know?

 

[tigerbob]

it is not surprising that socialists see 50 million dead as a "social justics" for them it is, for everyone else it is barbarity and inhumannity

And how about the government bureaucrat who is in favor of forced abortion and sterilization:

"a. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

b. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

c. Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

Perhaps I should mention that the author of these views, John P. Holdren has these official titles: Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; Assistant to the President for Science and Technology; and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. That’s right, the Obama Science Czar.

'Science Czar' John P. Holdren's disturbing beliefs about America, capitalism and humanity

Perhaps it's just me being cynical, but I read the 3 points noted above as statements regarding legality and feasibility, not as recommendations.

The article is written by a Conservative mouthpiece, so perhaps not surprising that it's critical of him.

All the dates in the article seem to reference writings from 30 or more years ago.

I have no idea whether he favors the practices described or not, but as usual with politically motivated stories perhaps there is more to this than initially meets the eye.

 

[tigerbob]

it is not surprising that socialists see 50 million dead as a "social justics" for them it is, for everyone else it is barbarity and inhumannity

Along the same lines, did you see the Justice Ginsburg quote, implying that the Roe v. Wade decision was aimed at keeping the size of the black population in check?

"In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."
Her remarks, set to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday but viewable online now, came in an in-depth interview with Emily Bazelon titled, "The Place of Women on the Court."

And how about the government bureaucrat who is in favor of forced abortion and sterilization:

"a. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

b. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

c. Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

Perhaps I should mention that the author of these views, John P. Holdren has these official titles: Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; Assistant to the President for Science and Technology; and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. That’s right, the Obama Science Czar.

'Science Czar' John P. Holdren's disturbing beliefs about America, capitalism and humanity

obamas health care scam will no doubt at some point contain forced abortions to control population in an attempt to sustain a regulated slave state

Oh for fuck's sake.

Welcome to the board, I guess.

 

[tigerbob]

That was a popular stance among Republicans for years, remember?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/73750-republicans-population-control-and-abortion.html

fail

Tissue? You can deny it all you want but conservatives were very into population control before they were infiltrated by the religious right. It's very amusing, really.

That's news to me.

I'd be happy to read up on this if you can provide anything to back it up. Thanks.