Abortion as Murder.

[Dr Grump]

You call planned parenthood evil. You toss around that word like it doesn't have a meaning. That is terrible. Planned parenthood do a lot. They are also trying to clean up a lot of the mess caused by religion -your version of Christianity in particular. Mayhap if your guys were a little more circumspect and used common sense you might have a leg to stand on. But you don't, so your argument is just lip service....

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

You call planned parenthood evil. You toss around that word like it doesn't have a meaning. That is terrible. Planned parenthood do a lot. They are also trying to clean up a lot of the mess caused by religion -your version of Christianity in particular. Mayhap if your guys were a little more circumspect and used common sense you might have a leg to stand on. But you don't, so your argument is just lip service....

Margaret Sanger belonged to an organization called the American Eugenics Society, organized in the early 1900's. Members from the American Eugenics Society actually formed Sanger's original group whose name was changed to Planned Parenthood, but even the latter's first three presidents were officers or members in the AES, including Alan Guttmacher. Sanger is listed as a member in 1956 under her then-married name, Mrs. Noah Slee.

Later called social biology, genetics, and population control, eugenics was a "scientific" endeavor born from evolutionary biology. It was never confined to state-sponsorship under Communists and Socialist dictators. Eugenics operated quite openly in the United States, England and around the world. The efforts of the American Eugenics Society resulted in many states passing laws to sterilize more than 63,000 Americans. Several states passed official apologies in the 1990's. The eugenics movement, particularly Margaret Sanger, ranted against the Catholic Church for opposing eugenic legislation and ideology.

Read more: Margaret Sanger and the eugenics movement - The Denver Post Margaret Sanger and the eugenics movement - The Denver Post
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: Terms of Use - The Denver Post
Margaret Sanger and the eugenics movement - The Denver Post
Oh and this.
. They simply chose new words to describe eugenics. As recently as 1968, one of the leading evolutionary biologists and an officer in the American Eugenics Society, Theodosius Dobzhansky, said that the word "genetics" meant the same thing as "eugenics" and commended the goals of eugenics. The control of reproduction remained the primary goal of eugenics in order to improve the human gene pool. Throughout its existence Planned Parenthood has been a key tool to reduce or eliminate births among blacks, other minorities and the disabled.

Read more: Margaret Sanger and the eugenics movement - The Denver Post Margaret Sanger and the eugenics movement - The Denver Post
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: Terms of Use - The Denver Post

 

[Dr Grump]

Not that the author of those Denver Post articles has an agenda. Right?
Messall und "rebecca" - Person / Info zu Name - Personensuche Yasni.com

Rebecca R. Messall — Catholicism.org - Saint Benedict Center, The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary
‘Sophisticated marketing’ hides eugenics background of the Pill, writer says :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Not that the author of those Denver Post articles has an agenda. Right?
Messall und "rebecca" - Person / Info zu Name - Personensuche Yasni.com

Rebecca R. Messall — Catholicism.org - Saint Benedict Center, The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary
‘Sophisticated marketing’ hides eugenics background of the Pill, writer says :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

Yeah, pointing out the truth and history of it, Sanger herself wrote about it.

 

[Dr Grump]

"Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent "dysgenic" children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and dismissed "positive eugenics" (which promoted greater fertility for the "fitter" upper classes) as impractical. Though many leaders in the negative eugenics movement were calling for active euthanasia of the "unfit," Sanger spoke out against such methods. She believed that women with the power and knowledge of birth control were in the best position to produce "fit" children. She rejected any type of eugenics that would take control out of the hands of those actually giving birth."

Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

"Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent "dysgenic" children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and dismissed "positive eugenics" (which promoted greater fertility for the "fitter" upper classes) as impractical. Though many leaders in the negative eugenics movement were calling for active euthanasia of the "unfit," Sanger spoke out against such methods. She believed that women with the power and knowledge of birth control were in the best position to produce "fit" children. She rejected any type of eugenics that would take control out of the hands of those actually giving birth."

Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

” Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents.”

– Margaret Sanger’s early writings.
” It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant [emphasis added].”

– Margaret Sanger on ‘human waste’
” The most serious charge that can be brought against modern "benevolence" is that is encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression.”

– Margaret Sanger’s conclusion upon ‘human waste’
In "A Plan for Peace," Sanger suggested Congress set up a special department to study population problems and appoint a "Parliament of Population." One of the main objectives of the "Population Congress" would be "to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population." This would be accomplished by applying a "stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation [ in addition to tightening immigration laws] to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."

– Margaret Sanger, 1932
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."

– Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, on immigrants and the poor

 

[Cecilie1200]

For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, faces eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman following a botched abortion at his office, along with the deaths of seven other babies who, prosecutors allege, were born alive following illegal late-term abortions and then were killed by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.

would these children have been any less viable had this piece of human trash cut them up in utero as opposed to after birth? If Roe is the standard, and the standard it sets is "viability", how is a fetus, any fetus, unviable after about 4 1/2 months of pregnancy? All of them are viable given proper medical care, so what is the difference between murdering them in utero or out?

Philly Abortion Doctor Facing 8 Counts Of Murder CBS Philly – News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of Philadelphia

As near as I can figure, it's like real estate: location, location, location.

 

[Cecilie1200]

hey dipshit



at least presents the whole facts...

you should yes, the story also sates he's killed possibly 100's of live born babies some as young as 4 1/2 month. So maybe instead of raising false kinards you might actually answer the question and enlighten us all as to what exactly is the difference is between chopping up a viable fetus in utero or out? The fetus is no less viable and using Roe being viable cannot be aborted. Given current medical science all fetus' in any normal pregnancy are viable after about 4 1/2 months, so even using Roe's criteria all are persons deserving of protection from the state.

The key word is Live BORN babies. When a baby/fetus/it is born from the mother it becomes a "person" in the eyes of the law.
the difference is one is still inside the mother, and the other is not. I know this is really sad to see people like you struggle with such a simple concept.

The simple fact unless tax payer money is being used to cover said costs, its none of your business. its up to the Mother, father and doctor in private to decide.

If you and others can't understand this simple concept, well then there is no hope for you.

Ah, the ever-popular "morality follows legality" argument. It should be the law, because it's the law! When unable to think about the moral ramifications, hide behind legality.

Cowardice would be funny, if it weren't so damned pathetic.

 

[Dr Grump]

Yeah, those women who have abortions are cowards. That's the one!

 

[Cecilie1200]

hey fucktard the fetus is nothing more than a parasite.
You are a wad of cells you moron, and given your name and post here, you are worth about as much as jizz rag.

i dont care if you want to call it killing. In the eyes of the law its not, and in my eyes its none of your stupid ***** business.

I am not seeing your education here....Must be missing like an aborted fetus.

In the eyes of the law the theory is untested in court given current medical science. And sadly, not likely to be tested any time soon. But do keep spewing from your mouth whatever shit backs up from your ass.

then change the law, till then shut the **** up and mind your own business.
Im sure the theory has been tested, but i dont care enough to go looking.....its not that important to me, nothing is going to change anyways.
Ill strike a deal with you, You can call tell women what to do with their bodies, so long as those women in return get to hit you in the face with a baseball bat each time you decide if they should have the kid or not.

That seems fair.

Never mind the fact that the discussion was what SHOULD the law be from the beginning. YOU were the one arguing morality based on legality, while everyone else was arguing legality based on morality.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is everyone who doesn't support abortion ok with people dropping those babies off at their houses once their born? we will see how long they stay anti abortion when they have to come out of pocket to support those kids.

Yeah, THAT'S what it is. We're only against slaughtering infants because we haven't considered the necessity of paying for their care afterward. If we could just realize that the little ankle biters cost money, we'd switch right around and advocate infanticide in a heartbeat!

Methinks you should stop projecting your own coldbloodedness onto others.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is everyone who doesn't support abortion ok with people dropping those babies off at their houses once their born? we will see how long they stay anti abortion when they have to come out of pocket to support those kids.

Nice argument. Now murder is okay if someone is a financial burden to you. Got it.

Lets see how long you keep up that rhetoric when people are dropping off babies on your doorstep.

Are you Bern's accountant? Are you somehow privy to Bern's financial information, telling you that he/she does not contribute money to organizations devoted to the care of unwanted babies? Because if you aren't, you need to shut the **** up with your asinine assumptions that everyone is a heartless pisswad, just because that's the position YOU would take.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Have any of you anti abortion people even adopted an orphan? or even have a foster kid? I doubt it.

You doubt it based on what? The assumption that you represent the median standard in morality for others? Or just an overwhelming desire to believe that your position on the issue doesn't reek like month-old garbage? It looks remarkably to me like you want to tear people who disagree with you down so that you don't have to deal with how bad they make you look in comparison.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Lets see how long you keep up that rhetoric when people are dropping off babies on your doorstep.

It isn't rhetoric. That is the reality of the argument you are making. That if you don't want something because it's a financial burden, even if that something happens to be your child, it's okay for you to kill it. Further those people who are oppossed to killing innocent children who would not choose to have your child forced on them need to shut up, right?

The difference is those people you are telling to shut up would not have a choice in having an unwanted child forced on them in your scenario. The woman who got pregnant did make a choice and had the opportunity to make a lot of choices that would have kept her from committing murder.

Alot of women get abortions because they can not afford to provide for another mouth, are you or any of the other anti abortion crowd willing to step up and do it? who is supposed to care for these kids?

Well, if killing people is an acceptable alternative to having to support them when you're too poor to have another baby ::sob, sob:: why don't we just let her off one of her older kids? Maybe she's got a teenager who's being a bit mouthy. And hell, everyone knows how much THOSE little bastards cost for food and clothes. At least that way, you can say that EVERYONE got a turn at life before being flushed as an expensive nuisance to their slut mother who can't afford 'em but can't seem to stop *******.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Have any of you anti abortion people even adopted an orphan? or even have a foster kid? I doubt it.

Who else would be adopting children then the group who is trying to save them?

Thats the point, all these anti abortion fanatics like frazzlegear for instance are against abortion but have done nothing to save any children, if someone dropped a baby on their door step they would flip the **** out and not know what to do, and probably just drop the baby off at a hospital and be done with it, their ******* hypocrites.

Wow, thanks for that psychic reading, Mss Cleo. Always good to hear someone tell us definitively what another person on the ******* Internet has and has not done with their lives.

Do you even know FrazzledGear's real name? No? But you're going to tell us for a fact that he/she has never done anything regarding the care of unwanted infants?

Shut the **** up yourself, because you're really starting to look desperately defensive now.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Thats the point, all these anti abortion fanatics like frazzlegear for instance are against abortion but have done nothing to save any children, if someone dropped a baby on their door step they would flip the **** out and not know what to do, and probably just drop the baby off at a hospital and be done with it, their ******* hypocrites.

No they're not. A person opposed to abortion who doesn't want another child is different than a person getting an abortion because they don't want another child. One person took the necesary steps to keep a pregnancy from happening, the other did not.

Yes they are hypocrites, because if an anti abortion fanatic moron like frazzlegreed was in a situation where a woman refused to get an abortion but needed help raising the child, he would refuse to help, because in reality he is a selfish little cock who doesn't care about anyone outside of himself and maybe his family. No one really cares about these babies that are being aborted, I don't see any of you volunteering to take them.

Seems a bit hypocritical to ME for you to advocate killing infants on the basis of cost effectiveness, and then actually try to claim the moral high ground and lecture other people for not being up to YOUR moral standards.

Could you please tell me what qualifies YOU to demand that anyone justify the morality of their position to YOU? What is it that you have said in this thread that should make anyone WANT your good opinion? Frankly, I've found your remarks rather repulsive.

 

[Dr Grump]

now a zygote or foetus is an infant?

 

[Cecilie1200]

In the eyes of the law the theory is untested in court given current medical science. And sadly, not likely to be tested any time soon. But do keep spewing from your mouth whatever shit backs up from your ass.

then change the law, till then shut the **** up and mind your own business.
Im sure the theory has been tested, but i dont care enough to go looking.....its not that important to me, nothing is going to change anyways.
Ill strike a deal with you, You can call tell women what to do with their bodies, so long as those women in return get to hit you in the face with a baseball bat each time you decide if they should have the kid or not.

That seems fair.

I happen to be a Woman and a Mother, Grandmother and Great Grandmother. You actually want to state that the murder of an unborn child equates to you having "power and control" over your own body?? Really??

It sure ain't YOUR body you advocate killing, is it?

Now you listen to me. If you want to play screwing monkey you are stupid to the max if you think sex does not produce babies -- and stupid to the max in other ways as well. Furthermore, you can use birth control. Murdering an unborn baby is NOT ok. You got that?

Who in their right mind would even consider any such female as a wife or even a girlfriend, if she is one who supports and accepts abortions? Such a female does not have good reasoning abilities. Nor is she hardly warm and fuzzy. Such a female is ONLY a screwing monkey. ONLY a screwing monkey, a disgusting excuse of a woman who is irresponsible to the max and is led only by what is in her underwear.

There is WAY more to being a woman than just being a female, and YOU are still stuck in the female.

And finally, your idea about baseball bats? You might want to rethink that one, kiddo. You play screwing monkey you are going to get screwing monkey treatment.

You are clearly not Mother material. Or Woman material.

I do have to comment on one thing you said. A lot of men would love a woman for a girlfriend who was all about ******* and aborting. Those men used to be called "cads".

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're going to have a little trouble posting that "law" since the congress has never passed one. You also have no understanding of Roe whatsoever, the test is not birth, it's viability. Whether or not the fetus is in utero or not is irrelevant.

are you a ******* retard?
I said in the eyes of the law, a fetus is not living and therefore you can not be brought up for murder. Otherwise a whole lot of women would be going to jail.

nevermind strike that, you are a ******* retard.

If the fetus is a wad of cells like you suggest, then the fetus is alive considering that HUMAN CELLS ARE LIVING ORGANISMS........They're actually considered by science to be the smallest unit of living organisms... Not saying I am on anyone's side, but your wad of cell argument is kind of retarded as well.

Okay, in the interests of balance and even-handedness, I have to correct this.

Cells are not organisms. They are, as you said, UNITS of organisms. They are not themselves organisms. At least not in terms of human cells.

The problem with the "wad of cells" argument is that all organisms beyond single-celled ones are exactly that: wads of cells. So it's not mutually exclusive to being an organism.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are such a ******* hypocrite, I hope someone drops a baby off on your doorstep so you can put your money where your mouth is *****. I'm willing to bet you take the baby to the nearest hospital and be done it with it, your such a ******* ***** and a liar look at you all this tough talk but you haven't lifted a finger to help any orphans.

High Gravity, that's all the biological mother had to do also. Leave the baby at the hospital.

I understand that but if there were no abortions and all these women left their babies at the hospital, social services and orphanages would be flooded. My point is these anti abortion goons themselves want nothing to do with the babies they supposedly want to save.

This is a fallacy. If there were no legal abortion, there would be many, MANY fewer unwanted pregnancies.

Ask yourself this: why weren't social services and orphanages flooded prior to Roe v. Wade?

And again, your "point" has nothing to do with what "anti-abortion goons" do or do not want and everything to do with what YOU want to BELIEVE they want so you don't have to feel like support for abortion makes a person a coldhearted piece of shit.