War On Women Big Fail

Ummm, you might wwnt to research a little more. Start with CC Little and Lothrop Stoddard. The other 2 founders, along with Margaret Sanger. And a tidbit for you, Sanger was a guest speaker at the KKK rally in Silverlake, NJ, in 1926.
From her Negro Project-"(we propose to) hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." 2Sanger also viewed welfare as a detriment to society because it increased the number of poor blacks and foreigners. "Organized charity (modern welfare) is the symptom of a malignant social disease… increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents, and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the 'failure' of philanthropy, but rather at its success."3 The urban poor, and their increasing numbers, she called, "an ever widening margin of biological waste."4 Welfare, she believed, encouraged the breeding of the poor, or "human waste," as she called them. She feared that welfare would encourage the urban poor to give birth to those "stocks that are the most detrimental to the future of the race…"5 Therefore, she believed the government should actively encourage the sterilization of those who are unfit to propagate the race, using as her motto: "More (children) from the fit, less from the unfit."6

nope, you are wrong. I'm sorry if that busts your bubble of liberal love, but its a fact. Its also a fact the PP has aborted many more black than white fetuses.

No. You're claiming that black genocide was the original purpose of planned parenthood. You are lying. What you are referencing is taken from Sanger. You are lying.

You do realize that Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood, right?


Yes, I do. I am also aware that the pro life crowd has attempted on multiple occasions to take her out of context. You wish to do the same?

Um........actually, could you read a little more into her instead of copy pasta from right wing sites? Thanks. You can find her writings in the link I gave to TK.

Or you can read my link, to a letter Sanger wrote to Dr. C.J. Gamble regarding the "Negro Project in the South."

You're finished.
 
Ummm, you might wwnt to research a little more. Start with CC Little and Lothrop Stoddard. The other 2 founders, along with Margaret Sanger. And a tidbit for you, Sanger was a guest speaker at the KKK rally in Silverlake, NJ, in 1926

Where she risked her life to talk to women about birth control. It's shockingly dishonest of you to imply she was supporting KKK racism.

From her Negro Project-

A statement telling people to watch out for lying liars who will manufacture phony accusations of racism for political gain. People like your masters, that is. Sanger was obviously correct to give that warning.

There's a big pro-life industry devoted to lying about Sanger. If the supposed Sanger quotes aren't outright fabricated, they're ripped screaming out of context. And instead of calling to task their leaders for lying to them, most pro-lifers choose to attack those who point out the lies. They've grown to love the lies, showing how their true allegiance is to Satan, the Lord of Lies.
 
Republicans are using quotes someone made almost a century ago to take away women's rights, but is unfair to argue that they are waging a war against women.

The fact Democrats use women to wage war is all to clear. No woman is created equal. Cue the chants of racism...
 
Last edited:
First, if I han't quoted her words, you would have stated, once again, taken out of context. Secondly, I have read her, many years ago. And third, ummm, care to actually talk about the other 2 founders history or her being a guest speaker at a kkk event in 1926?
Ummm, you might wwnt to research a little more. Start with CC Little and Lothrop Stoddard. The other 2 founders, along with Margaret Sanger. And a tidbit for you, Sanger was a guest speaker at the KKK rally in Silverlake, NJ, in 1926.
From her Negro Project-"(we propose to) hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." 2Sanger also viewed welfare as a detriment to society because it increased the number of poor blacks and foreigners. "Organized charity (modern welfare) is the symptom of a malignant social disease… increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents, and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the 'failure' of philanthropy, but rather at its success."3 The urban poor, and their increasing numbers, she called, "an ever widening margin of biological waste."4 Welfare, she believed, encouraged the breeding of the poor, or "human waste," as she called them. She feared that welfare would encourage the urban poor to give birth to those "stocks that are the most detrimental to the future of the race…"5 Therefore, she believed the government should actively encourage the sterilization of those who are unfit to propagate the race, using as her motto: "More (children) from the fit, less from the unfit."6

nope, you are wrong. I'm sorry if that busts your bubble of liberal love, but its a fact. Its also a fact the PP has aborted many more black than white fetuses.

No. You're claiming that black genocide was the original purpose of planned parenthood. You are lying. What you are referencing is taken from Sanger. You are lying.

You do realize that Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood, right?


Yes, I do. I am also aware that the pro life crowd has attempted on multiple occasions to take her out of context. You wish to do the same?

Um........actually, could you read a little more into her instead of copy pasta from right wing sites? Thanks. You can find her writings in the link I gave to TK.
 
If we exclude equal pay, violence against women and the right to health care, there is no Republican war on women.
 
If we exclude equal pay, violence against women and the right to health care, there is no Republican war on women.


Ted Kennedy had a war on women, so did Bubba Clinton. But-------they were democrats.

WTF do you mean by "right to healthcare" ? Where is that in the bill of rights?
 
If we exclude equal pay, violence against women and the right to health care, there is no Republican war on women.

Thing is, we have applicable law to all of those things you mentioned. If we exclude the way Sarah Palin, Mia Love and Deneen Borelli were treated, then there is no Democrat war on women. If we excuse the racism against folks like Herman Cain, Thomas Sowell and Ben Carson, then the Democrats aren't racist.

And violence towards women? Wasn't it a Democrat who abandoned a helpless woman in the Chappaquiddick?
 
Ummm, you might wwnt to research a little more. Start with CC Little and Lothrop Stoddard. The other 2 founders, along with Margaret Sanger. And a tidbit for you, Sanger was a guest speaker at the KKK rally in Silverlake, NJ, in 1926.
From her Negro Project-"(we propose to) hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." 2Sanger also viewed welfare as a detriment to society because it increased the number of poor blacks and foreigners. "Organized charity (modern welfare) is the symptom of a malignant social disease… increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents, and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the 'failure' of philanthropy, but rather at its success."3 The urban poor, and their increasing numbers, she called, "an ever widening margin of biological waste."4 Welfare, she believed, encouraged the breeding of the poor, or "human waste," as she called them. She feared that welfare would encourage the urban poor to give birth to those "stocks that are the most detrimental to the future of the race…"5 Therefore, she believed the government should actively encourage the sterilization of those who are unfit to propagate the race, using as her motto: "More (children) from the fit, less from the unfit."6

No. You're claiming that black genocide was the original purpose of planned parenthood. You are lying. What you are referencing is taken from Sanger. You are lying.

You do realize that Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood, right?


Yes, I do. I am also aware that the pro life crowd has attempted on multiple occasions to take her out of context. You wish to do the same?

Um........actually, could you read a little more into her instead of copy pasta from right wing sites? Thanks. You can find her writings in the link I gave to TK.


are you claiming that she did not say the things she is quoted as saying?

"if you like your policy, you can keep it, period"

I maintain my stance: You have taken Sanger out of context.
 
No. You're claiming that black genocide was the original purpose of planned parenthood. You are lying. What you are referencing is taken from Sanger. You are lying.

You do realize that Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood, right?


Yes, I do. I am also aware that the pro life crowd has attempted on multiple occasions to take her out of context. You wish to do the same?

The stated goal of Planned Parenthood according to her was to "prevent the multiplication of the unfit," this she continues would be "the most important and greatest step towards race betterment."
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/documents/speech_no_healthy_race_without_bc.html

And?

"The ministers work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Sanger commenting on the 'Negro Project' in a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, December 10, 1939.

http://smithlibraries.org/digital/files/original/d6358bc3053c93183295bf2df1c0c931.pdf

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/newsletter/articles/bc_or_race_control.html

Try again.
 
Ummm, you might wwnt to research a little more. Start with CC Little and Lothrop Stoddard. The other 2 founders, along with Margaret Sanger. And a tidbit for you, Sanger was a guest speaker at the KKK rally in Silverlake, NJ, in 1926.
From her Negro Project-"(we propose to) hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." 2Sanger also viewed welfare as a detriment to society because it increased the number of poor blacks and foreigners. "Organized charity (modern welfare) is the symptom of a malignant social disease… increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents, and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the 'failure' of philanthropy, but rather at its success."3 The urban poor, and their increasing numbers, she called, "an ever widening margin of biological waste."4 Welfare, she believed, encouraged the breeding of the poor, or "human waste," as she called them. She feared that welfare would encourage the urban poor to give birth to those "stocks that are the most detrimental to the future of the race…"5 Therefore, she believed the government should actively encourage the sterilization of those who are unfit to propagate the race, using as her motto: "More (children) from the fit, less from the unfit."6

No. You're claiming that black genocide was the original purpose of planned parenthood. You are lying. What you are referencing is taken from Sanger. You are lying.

You do realize that Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood, right?


Yes, I do. I am also aware that the pro life crowd has attempted on multiple occasions to take her out of context. You wish to do the same?

Um........actually, could you read a little more into her instead of copy pasta from right wing sites? Thanks. You can find her writings in the link I gave to TK.

Or you can read my link, to a letter Sanger wrote to Dr. C.J. Gamble regarding the "Negro Project in the South."

You're finished.

Try again.
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/newsletter/articles/bc_or_race_control.html
 
"The ministers work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

Why do you have such a problem with standard English? She's not calling for extermination. She's pointing out that dishonest race-baiters like you are out there, people willing to fling vile fabricated accusations of racism for political gain. She warning people to guard against race-baiters like you and so many modern pro-lifers.

Look, Sanger didn't like poor people, and thought they shouldn't breed. She'd make a fine Republican with that attitude, but she was quite color-blind with that attitude.
 
First, if I han't quoted her words, you would have stated, once again, taken out of context. Secondly, I have read her, many years ago. And third, ummm, care to actually talk about the other 2 founders history or her being a guest speaker at a kkk event in 1926?
Ummm, you might wwnt to research a little more. Start with CC Little and Lothrop Stoddard. The other 2 founders, along with Margaret Sanger. And a tidbit for you, Sanger was a guest speaker at the KKK rally in Silverlake, NJ, in 1926.
From her Negro Project-"(we propose to) hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." 2Sanger also viewed welfare as a detriment to society because it increased the number of poor blacks and foreigners. "Organized charity (modern welfare) is the symptom of a malignant social disease… increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents, and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the 'failure' of philanthropy, but rather at its success."3 The urban poor, and their increasing numbers, she called, "an ever widening margin of biological waste."4 Welfare, she believed, encouraged the breeding of the poor, or "human waste," as she called them. She feared that welfare would encourage the urban poor to give birth to those "stocks that are the most detrimental to the future of the race…"5 Therefore, she believed the government should actively encourage the sterilization of those who are unfit to propagate the race, using as her motto: "More (children) from the fit, less from the unfit."6

No. You're claiming that black genocide was the original purpose of planned parenthood. You are lying. What you are referencing is taken from Sanger. You are lying.

You do realize that Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood, right?


Yes, I do. I am also aware that the pro life crowd has attempted on multiple occasions to take her out of context. You wish to do the same?

Um........actually, could you read a little more into her instead of copy pasta from right wing sites? Thanks. You can find her writings in the link I gave to TK.
What about the KKK meeting?

Planned Parenthood originally started in 1916.
Planned Parenthood - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

But, sure, we can talk about the other two cats on the board of directors as long as we can talk about Charlotte Delafield, Juliet Barrett Rublee, Frances B. Ackerman, Ann Kennedy.

Oh, and W.E.B. DuBois.
 
When a woman is pregnant, the man who got her pregnant totally loses his reproductive freedom. Is that not clear?

And? He doesn't. But, and?

Oh, he absolutely does. At that point, the woman can either deny him fatherhood or force him into servitude for the next 18 years, and there is nothing he can do about it.

That is because he defaulted on his rights when he made the decision to impregnate the female, or risk impregnating the female without making a formal agreement as to the options the female could or would take if pregnancy occurred. It is the males decision at the time of impregnating the female to enter such agreement or accept the consequences of the already established laws and customs of society.

Oh, so HE is expected to be responsible for himself and the results of his sexual actions, but she is not?

Isn't she?

Apparently, it is appropriate for a man to lose his reproductive freedom because he's supposed to be responsible for his sexual activity, yet a women is NEVER supposed to lose hers, regardless of her level of responsibility.
 
When a woman is pregnant, the man who got her pregnant totally loses his reproductive freedom. Is that not clear?

And? He doesn't. But, and?

Oh, he absolutely does. At that point, the woman can either deny him fatherhood or force him into servitude for the next 18 years, and there is nothing he can do about it.

How unfortunate. Last time I checked, men don't have a uterus.

But they do have a pair of testes. Last time I checked, there would be no child without his sperm, thus the uterus and the egg contained within are useless. Meaning no abortion, and no reason to be outraged. There is a reason human sexual reproduction requires a male and a female, that's how we mammals were designed through evolution or what have you. Unless humans reproduce asexually, I think the man has just as much a right to decide the fate of the child, seeing as how he contributes one half of the genetic code for the child in the first place. A willing father and an unwilling mother will more than guarantee the child's fate.

Human Biology says both males and females share equal roles in reproduction. Therefore, it is easy to say that the woman shouldn't have all of the authority. Spare me the "it's her body" garbage. She chose to have unprotected sex, resulting in the subsequent abortion. So, both of them should be equal in the decision making process. But here's the fiat... if they don't wish to go through the rigors of that process, they need only not have sex (or have it with a condom) until they are fully prepared to handle the implications.

It's not rocket science.

Males have a role in the production of a zygote. They have no role in the development of the zygote into a fetus or the development of the fetus.

But they CAN for forced into indentured servitude for the next 18 years, on the whim of the woman.
 
And? He doesn't. But, and?

Oh, he absolutely does. At that point, the woman can either deny him fatherhood or force him into servitude for the next 18 years, and there is nothing he can do about it.

That is because he defaulted on his rights when he made the decision to impregnate the female, or risk impregnating the female without making a formal agreement as to the options the female could or would take if pregnancy occurred. It is the males decision at the time of impregnating the female to enter such agreement or accept the consequences of the already established laws and customs of society.

Oh, so HE is expected to be responsible for himself and the results of his sexual actions, but she is not?

Isn't she?

Apparently, it is appropriate for a man to lose his reproductive freedom because he's supposed to be responsible for his sexual activity, yet a women is NEVER supposed to lose hers, regardless of her level of responsibility.

Ya.....not seeing it.
 
And? He doesn't. But, and?

Oh, he absolutely does. At that point, the woman can either deny him fatherhood or force him into servitude for the next 18 years, and there is nothing he can do about it.

How unfortunate. Last time I checked, men don't have a uterus.

But they do have a pair of testes. Last time I checked, there would be no child without his sperm, thus the uterus and the egg contained within are useless. Meaning no abortion, and no reason to be outraged. There is a reason human sexual reproduction requires a male and a female, that's how we mammals were designed through evolution or what have you. Unless humans reproduce asexually, I think the man has just as much a right to decide the fate of the child, seeing as how he contributes one half of the genetic code for the child in the first place. A willing father and an unwilling mother will more than guarantee the child's fate.

Human Biology says both males and females share equal roles in reproduction. Therefore, it is easy to say that the woman shouldn't have all of the authority. Spare me the "it's her body" garbage. She chose to have unprotected sex, resulting in the subsequent abortion. So, both of them should be equal in the decision making process. But here's the fiat... if they don't wish to go through the rigors of that process, they need only not have sex (or have it with a condom) until they are fully prepared to handle the implications.

It's not rocket science.

Males have a role in the production of a zygote. They have no role in the development of the zygote into a fetus or the development of the fetus.

But they CAN for forced into indentured servitude for the next 18 years, on the whim of the woman.
Ya, a lot of men think like you. That's why tax payers have to pay for the kids of irresponsible fathers. And very few would agree that contributing to the cost of raising a child is indentured servitude. Most fathers in this country who pay child support pay a pitiful small amount. The medicaid and food stamp rolls are loaded with kids whose fathers pay only a fraction of what it cost to maintain them in shelter, health care, food and clothing. If fathers were made to pay the actual cost of those things the welfare rolls would be reduced by huge numbers.
 
Part of the war on women, a big part, is the constant assault on women's reproduction rights, while legislatures do little to force men into paying there fair share when the women produces a child instead of obtaining an abortion. Republicans want to pressure the women into having the child not only don't want to pay for the child when it is born, they continue to protect the fathers from having to be more responsible. They don't want to pay for abortions, but they are willing to subsidize the fathers.
 
Oh, he absolutely does. At that point, the woman can either deny him fatherhood or force him into servitude for the next 18 years, and there is nothing he can do about it.

How unfortunate. Last time I checked, men don't have a uterus.

But they do have a pair of testes. Last time I checked, there would be no child without his sperm, thus the uterus and the egg contained within are useless. Meaning no abortion, and no reason to be outraged. There is a reason human sexual reproduction requires a male and a female, that's how we mammals were designed through evolution or what have you. Unless humans reproduce asexually, I think the man has just as much a right to decide the fate of the child, seeing as how he contributes one half of the genetic code for the child in the first place. A willing father and an unwilling mother will more than guarantee the child's fate.

Human Biology says both males and females share equal roles in reproduction. Therefore, it is easy to say that the woman shouldn't have all of the authority. Spare me the "it's her body" garbage. She chose to have unprotected sex, resulting in the subsequent abortion. So, both of them should be equal in the decision making process. But here's the fiat... if they don't wish to go through the rigors of that process, they need only not have sex (or have it with a condom) until they are fully prepared to handle the implications.

It's not rocket science.

Males have a role in the production of a zygote. They have no role in the development of the zygote into a fetus or the development of the fetus.

But they CAN for forced into indentured servitude for the next 18 years, on the whim of the woman.
Ya, a lot of men think like you. That's why tax payers have to pay for the kids of irresponsible fathers. And very few would agree that contributing to the cost of raising a child is indentured servitude. Most fathers in this country who pay child support pay a pitiful small amount. The medicaid and food stamp rolls are loaded with kids whose fathers pay only a fraction of what it cost to maintain them in shelter, health care, food and clothing. If fathers were made to pay the actual cost of those things the welfare rolls would be reduced by huge numbers.

Therein lies the rub. Yes, raising a child IS terrifically expensive. I know, I've raised two. In addition, any man who walks, runs, or slithers away from a child that he helped create is at best a contemptible human being. I champion efforts to make men assume their responsibilities in regard to their children. That being said, I believe that both the man AND the woman should lose their reproductive freedom if their sexual activity results in a pregnancy. At that point, there is a third human in the equation whose right to life should be accounted for.

The problem is, however, that as the law stands today, a man not only loses his reproductive freedom, but the woman can legally deny him fatherhood or legally force him to pay for the child's support until he/she reaches independence. That's not right.
 
Part of the war on women, a big part, is the constant assault on women's reproduction rights, while legislatures do little to force men into paying there fair share when the women produces a child instead of obtaining an abortion. Republicans want to pressure the women into having the child not only don't want to pay for the child when it is born, they continue to protect the fathers from having to be more responsible. They don't want to pay for abortions, but they are willing to subsidize the fathers.

Not at all. Deadbeat Dads are contemptible. I don't know of anyone who's trying to protect them.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top