CDZ Ginsburg was right , it was about population control.

[Turtlesoup]

those of us who actually have to pay to clean up the messes that the druggies/alcoholics/ and others who should not be having kids create.

We can make it simple---if you abuse drugs or alcohol while pregnant or your infant is born on these chemicals--simple blood test and immediate sterilization
If you have an iq of less than 70 and a welfare queen------------------immediate sterilization
this alone would save billions every year and cut down on everything from prisons to foster homes to medical costs and clean up the environment and cutting down on carbon emissions as an added bonus.

Sanger was a Racist who ... wanted to wipe Black people off the face of this planet.

This lie is truly Orwellian in scope. Even the slightest acquaintance with Margaret Sanger’s life history would show this to be false and slanderous:


W. E. B. Du Bois served on the board of Sanger's Harlem clinic

Sanger worked with African American leaders and professionals who saw a need for birth control in their communities. In 1929, James H. Hubert, a black social worker and the leader of New York's Urban League, asked Sanger to open a clinic in Harlem. Sanger secured funding ... and opened the clinic, staffed with black doctors, in 1930. The clinic was directed by a 15-member advisory board consisting of black doctors, nurses, clergy, journalists, and social workers. The clinic was publicized in the African-American press as well as in black churches, and it received the approval of W. E. B. Du Bois, the co-founder of the NAACP and the editor of its magazine, The Crisis. Sanger did not tolerate bigotry among her staff, nor would she tolerate any refusal to work within interracial projects. Sanger's work with minorities earned praise from Martin Luther King, Jr., in his 1966 acceptance speech for the Margaret Sanger award.[79]

Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Even her wiki page talks about her links to the KKK and eugenics. But Dims lie....it's what you do.

Eugenics isn't based on race--

Eugenics is based more on birth defects----like not allowing the mentally handicapped to have children because their kids would be at higher risk for being mentally handicapped.

Who should be playing god?

tho

So people you feel are undesirable should be killed or sterilized. Cool. Thank you Dr. Hitler. That must be your final solution to all the World's ills.

Of course I feel this way---I am a rational not emotional thinker.

Maybe you should volunteer to work in a neonatal unit at a hospital preferably one that deals with a lot of homeless and druggies after the covid thing is cleared up.............take a good long long look at the babies that the meth and crack heads have along with the alcholics------------and you may figure out why there are women out there that should never ever be allowed to have children-----

I worked over 25 years in hospitals, The last 7 in a major inner city ER. Don't lecture me. I believe only God should make the judgments you propose to make. I don't want anyone sterilized or babies killed without consent. What you propose is barbaric.

If that is the case, then you fricking know why the nursing staff doesn't share your sentiments. Generally, their primary care is for the poor babies that these self centered addicts have and all the suffering that these poor little creatures must endure to try to survive and usually then face life long suffering because of their mothers abuse. Sterilize the addicts-----it really is the only rational thing to do. If you actually cared about the poor babies---you would support sterilizing the addict mothers.

 

[WelfareQueen]

" Procreation Determines An After Life "

* Reality Of Survival *

So who lives and who dies? Simple question. Why no Dim takers?

The meaning of an afterlife is to literally pass on ones genetic identity , one haploid at a time , into the future ; and , individuals are accountable for their own self ownership .

Until birth the fetus is the private property of the mother ; and it can be inferred by the roe v wade decision that post natural viability a standard of parturition was relative , as roe v wade directed that states could proscribe abortion in the third trimester except to save the life of the mother .

Human life is never the property of another. We fought a Civil War over that, I support Roe v Wade but I find the idea of abortion repugnant. But I do not want to deny women that option. Maybe I'm a hypocrite.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Feeding The Beast "

* Disproportionately Affected *

Nope.,. Again TurtleSoup has this correctly.. "The Pill" created Planned Parenthood.. Turned eugenicists into preventionists and later abortionists. The RACIST part of this is when you TARGET the poor and unfit --- STATISTICS makes it "racist"... Because by statistical cohort -- blacks are over-represented. Entirely possible that eugenicists either were math challenged or didn't care...

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is a United States federal law passed by the 104th United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The bill implemented major changes to U.S. social welfare policy, replacing the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

The law was a cornerstone of the Republican Party's "Contract with America," and also fulfilled Clinton's campaign promise to "end welfare as we know it." AFDC had come under increasing criticism in the 1980s, especially from conservatives who argued that welfare recipients were "trapped in a cycle of poverty." After the 1994 elections, the Republican-controlled Congress passed two major bills designed to reform welfare, but they were vetoed by Clinton. After negotiations between Clinton and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Congress passed PRWORA and Clinton signed the bill into law on August 22, 1996.

PRWORA granted states greater latitude in administering social welfare programs, and implemented new requirements on welfare recipients, including a five-year lifetime limit on benefits. After the passage of the law, the number of individuals receiving federal welfare dramatically declined. The law was heralded as a "reassertion of America's work ethic" by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, largely in response to the bill's workfare component.

 

[WelfareQueen]

those of us who actually have to pay to clean up the messes that the druggies/alcoholics/ and others who should not be having kids create.

We can make it simple---if you abuse drugs or alcohol while pregnant or your infant is born on these chemicals--simple blood test and immediate sterilization
If you have an iq of less than 70 and a welfare queen------------------immediate sterilization
this alone would save billions every year and cut down on everything from prisons to foster homes to medical costs and clean up the environment and cutting down on carbon emissions as an added bonus.

Sanger was a Racist who ... wanted to wipe Black people off the face of this planet.

This lie is truly Orwellian in scope. Even the slightest acquaintance with Margaret Sanger’s life history would show this to be false and slanderous:


W. E. B. Du Bois served on the board of Sanger's Harlem clinic

Sanger worked with African American leaders and professionals who saw a need for birth control in their communities. In 1929, James H. Hubert, a black social worker and the leader of New York's Urban League, asked Sanger to open a clinic in Harlem. Sanger secured funding ... and opened the clinic, staffed with black doctors, in 1930. The clinic was directed by a 15-member advisory board consisting of black doctors, nurses, clergy, journalists, and social workers. The clinic was publicized in the African-American press as well as in black churches, and it received the approval of W. E. B. Du Bois, the co-founder of the NAACP and the editor of its magazine, The Crisis. Sanger did not tolerate bigotry among her staff, nor would she tolerate any refusal to work within interracial projects. Sanger's work with minorities earned praise from Martin Luther King, Jr., in his 1966 acceptance speech for the Margaret Sanger award.[79]

Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Even her wiki page talks about her links to the KKK and eugenics. But Dims lie....it's what you do.

Eugenics isn't based on race--

Eugenics is based more on birth defects----like not allowing the mentally handicapped to have children because their kids would be at higher risk for being mentally handicapped.

Who should be playing god?

tho

So people you feel are undesirable should be killed or sterilized. Cool. Thank you Dr. Hitler. That must be your final solution to all the World's ills.

Of course I feel this way---I am a rational not emotional thinker.

Maybe you should volunteer to work in a neonatal unit at a hospital preferably one that deals with a lot of homeless and druggies after the covid thing is cleared up.............take a good long long look at the babies that the meth and crack heads have along with the alcholics------------and you may figure out why there are women out there that should never ever be allowed to have children-----

I worked over 25 years in hospitals, The last 7 in a major inner city ER. Don't lecture me. I believe only God should make the judgments you propose to make. I don't want anyone sterilized or babies killed without consent. What you propose is barbaric.

If that is the case, then you fricking know why the nursing staff doesn't share your sentiments. Generally, their primary care is for the poor babies that these self centered addicts have and all the suffering that these poor little creatures must endure to try to survive and usually then face life long suffering because of their mothers abuse. Sterilize the addicts-----it really is the only rational thing to do. If you actually cared about the poor babies---you would support sterilizing the addict mothers.

You have no idea what nursing and medical staff think. The most upset I have ever seen ER nurses (and all ER staff are some of the most mentally tough people you will ever meet) was when a premature baby died after the mother was in a car accident,

You are entitled to your opinion. I don't happen to like it.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Sanger was a Racist who ... wanted to wipe Black people off the face of this planet.

This lie is truly Orwellian in scope. Even the slightest acquaintance with Margaret Sanger’s life history would show this to be false and slanderous:


W. E. B. Du Bois served on the board of Sanger's Harlem clinic

Sanger worked with African American leaders and professionals who saw a need for birth control in their communities. In 1929, James H. Hubert, a black social worker and the leader of New York's Urban League, asked Sanger to open a clinic in Harlem. Sanger secured funding ... and opened the clinic, staffed with black doctors, in 1930. The clinic was directed by a 15-member advisory board consisting of black doctors, nurses, clergy, journalists, and social workers. The clinic was publicized in the African-American press as well as in black churches, and it received the approval of W. E. B. Du Bois, the co-founder of the NAACP and the editor of its magazine, The Crisis. Sanger did not tolerate bigotry among her staff, nor would she tolerate any refusal to work within interracial projects. Sanger's work with minorities earned praise from Martin Luther King, Jr., in his 1966 acceptance speech for the Margaret Sanger award.[79]

Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Do you think this means that Sanger DIDN'T want to kill off black people? Because you have made an excellent case that she DID

 

[flacaltenn]

The abortion-rights movement did work with population controllers and borrow from their argumentative strategies. Some population controllers did have ties to the eugenic legal reform movement, and population programs at times focused on the fertility of poor, non-white individuals. Nonetheless, arguments conflating the movements for legal abortion, population control, and eugenics are misleading. Indeed, as we shall see, Zero Population Growth, Inc. (ZPG), the only major population-control organization to lobby for abortion reform before Roe, tended to focus on population control within the white American middle class.

Snip

Similar claims found favor with a broad spectrum of politicians, judges, and members of the public, and influential members in the population-control movement endorsed the repeal of abortion bans.78

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1336&context=yjlf

------------------------------------------------------------
The crime rate was again blamed on the blacks and less of them would seem to be ok.

You got the timeline ALL WRONG for your assertions.. Sanger DIED before ZPGrowth was started. Sanger was deep Progressive in the 30s to 50s style.. All of HER influence on eugenics was hosted by the Progressive movement. So NO.. The "only org" calling for pop. control (prior to PP) was NOT ZPG and they didn't care either worldwide about the color of people they NEEDED to control... The idea of "pop control" and eugenics goes back in an ORGANIZED WAY about 3 decades BEFORE PP came into existence..

 

[Monk-Eye]

" More Valid Perspectives Not Always Enforced "

* Literal And Figurative *

Human life is never the property of another. We fought a Civil War over that, I support Roe v Wade but I find the idea of abortion repugnant. But I do not want to deny women that option. Maybe I'm a hypocrite.

A fetus does not have constitutional protections until birth , and until birth the fetus falls within the self ownership element of individualism and the responsibility of the mother , hence the fetus is the private property of the mother .

It does not seem to be hypocrisy to me to disagree with behavior of others when it does not violate non violence principles ; which therefore implies that , to me , abortion does not violate non violence principles .

 

[Turtlesoup]

" Procreation Determines An After Life "

* Reality Of Survival *

So who lives and who dies? Simple question. Why no Dim takers?

The meaning of an afterlife is to literally pass on ones genetic identity , one haploid at a time , into the future ; and , individuals are accountable for their own self ownership .

Until birth the fetus is the private property of the mother ; and it can be inferred by the roe v wade decision that post natural viability a standard of parturition was relative , as roe v wade directed that states could proscribe abortion in the third trimester except to save the life of the mother .

Human life is never the property of another. We fought a Civil War over that, I support Roe v Wade but I find the idea of abortion repugnant. But I do not want to deny women that option. Maybe I'm a hypocrite.

It's not about owning another human life---its about the damage and pain and suffering that addicts inflict on others including both their born and unborn offspring. Its about fixing the problem----and stopping the insanity that we allow and even encourage by paying and allowing addicts to have kids.

 

[flacaltenn]

those of us who actually have to pay to clean up the messes that the druggies/alcoholics/ and others who should not be having kids create.

We can make it simple---if you abuse drugs or alcohol while pregnant or your infant is born on these chemicals--simple blood test and immediate sterilization
If you have an iq of less than 70 and a welfare queen------------------immediate sterilization
this alone would save billions every year and cut down on everything from prisons to foster homes to medical costs and clean up the environment and cutting down on carbon emissions as an added bonus.

Sanger was a Racist who ... wanted to wipe Black people off the face of this planet.

This lie is truly Orwellian in scope. Even the slightest acquaintance with Margaret Sanger’s life history would show this to be false and slanderous:


W. E. B. Du Bois served on the board of Sanger's Harlem clinic

Sanger worked with African American leaders and professionals who saw a need for birth control in their communities. In 1929, James H. Hubert, a black social worker and the leader of New York's Urban League, asked Sanger to open a clinic in Harlem. Sanger secured funding ... and opened the clinic, staffed with black doctors, in 1930. The clinic was directed by a 15-member advisory board consisting of black doctors, nurses, clergy, journalists, and social workers. The clinic was publicized in the African-American press as well as in black churches, and it received the approval of W. E. B. Du Bois, the co-founder of the NAACP and the editor of its magazine, The Crisis. Sanger did not tolerate bigotry among her staff, nor would she tolerate any refusal to work within interracial projects. Sanger's work with minorities earned praise from Martin Luther King, Jr., in his 1966 acceptance speech for the Margaret Sanger award.[79]

Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Even her wiki page talks about her links to the KKK and eugenics. But Dims lie....it's what you do.

Eugenics isn't based on race--

Eugenics is based more on birth defects----like not allowing the mentally handicapped to have children because their kids would be at higher risk for being mentally handicapped.

Who should be playing god?

tho

So people you feel are undesirable should be killed or sterilized. Cool. Thank you Dr. Hitler. That must be your final solution to all the World's ills.

Of course I feel this way---I am a rational not emotional thinker.

Maybe you should volunteer to work in a neonatal unit at a hospital preferably one that deals with a lot of homeless and druggies after the covid thing is cleared up.............take a good long long look at the babies that the meth and crack heads have along with the alcholics------------and you may figure out why there are women out there that should never ever be allowed to have children-----

I worked over 25 years in hospitals, The last 7 in a major inner city ER. Don't lecture me. I believe only God should make the judgments you propose to make. I don't want anyone sterilized or babies killed without consent. What you propose is barbaric.

If that is the case, then you fricking know why the nursing staff doesn't share your sentiments. Generally, their primary care is for the poor babies that these self centered addicts have and all the suffering that these poor little creatures must endure to try to survive and usually then face life long suffering because of their mothers abuse. Sterilize the addicts-----it really is the only rational thing to do. If you actually cared about the poor babies---you would support sterilizing the addict mothers.

I might grudgingly buy into that if I didn't know addiction was a MEDICAL ISSUE not a legal or political issue... Call me a dreamer, but forcing evil sterilization procedures on folks wouldn't be necessary if they were in treatment for it.. Sounds like the easy way out of paying for treatment vs public assistance.

Forced COMMITMENT is more palatable to me..

 

[Coyote]

Not quite sure what the SCOPE of this discussion is from the OPost.. But I know -- it's getting too personally contentious to moderate in the CDZ.. Several of you are about to kicked out..

If you get a post deletion warning -- note that mod staff will be SITTING on this thread to MAKE it CDZ compliant.. So stay close to topic and away from personal exchanges while I figur

Children who are unwanted, unloved, whose mothers are not prepared to mentally or materially raise a child, obviously have a greater tendency to fall into crime. The statistics demonstrate this. (Often such children have no fathers as they also did not want the child.) Of course that is not the reason the women’s movement fought for control over their reproductive life, any more than it is a reasonit fought for the vote. After abortions, women often have loved and wanted children later, when they are ready.

Bottom line, can't feed them don't breed them, can't accept responsibility taking care of them then be be responsible before conceiving them It's REALLY that simple

It may be that simple today for you, but it certainly wasn’t true for poor Irish women before the sale of birth control was legalized and made widely available. Poor working-class women in those days, whether in marriage or not, were regularly raped and/or forced to bear children, whether they wanted them or not.

This may be too personal a question, in which case I apologize beforehand, but have you or your female friends ever used birth control? Are you opposed to their sale? If not, you (like all of us) should show a little appreciation for the struggles and sacrifices of women like Margaret Sanger.

Birth control ≠ abortion on demand.

Sanger was a fucking eugenicist ghoul.

Sanger did not support abortion.

I don't see a lesser evil here vis a vis "forced sterilization" and abortion targeted at the poor and unfit. In fact, sterilization is a far GREATER pre-emptive and EVIL plan...

Part of the hissing and booing here is separating EUGENICS from RACISM.. ENTIRELY possible that Sanger was NOT a racist.. Might be quite color blind in fact.. But focused like a laser on "purifying the gene pool" like all the eugenicists around the world were..

So -- to get that subtle distinction, I went to my reliable leftist progressive source "The Nation" for a read on this.. Piece was written in response to taking Sanger's name off of a couple PP large clinics in NY...

Canceling Margaret Sanger Only Helps Abortion Opponents

When Planned Parenthood took the name of the organization’s founder off its flagship clinic in Manhattan, they bought into anti-choice propaganda.

www.thenation.com

Although she did not single out Black people, Sanger was, yes, a eugenicist. She thought people, especially poor people, often had too many kids to care for properly and that too many of those kids were born physically disabled (or in the language of the day, “feeble-minded”). She did not oppose forced sterilization.

In these views, she had a lot of company. Many intellectuals in the early 20th century—left, right, and center—went even further. That is, they traced social ills like crime and poverty to there being too many of the wrong sort of people, a calamity that modern society, through science and social control, could prevent. Because of the Nazis, we think of eugenics as based on racism and pseudoscientific notions of breeding a racial genetic elite, but it was more about ableism, based on the belief that poverty, crime, prostitution, and promiscuity were the result of inferior genes.

Avowed socialists 
like H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, and even Helen Keller were eugenicists. So were liberal reformers like Havelock Ellis and John Maynard Keynes and traditionalists like Winston Churchill. Gunnar and Alva Myrdal, the architects of the Swedish welfare state (she was a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, too), supported measures to help mothers and children, but they also enthusiastically supported sterilization of the “unfit.” Buck v. Bell, the infamous Supreme Court decision that validated forced sterilization, was written by one liberal hero, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and approved by another, Louis Brandeis. As Chesler tartly observed, Sanger’s name is more closely associated with this case than the men who decided it. Nobody is demanding that Brandeis University change its name.

Dont know what arguing the diff between forced sterilization and abortion targeted at poor communities are gonna get ya... Also don't see a future in arguing over PP was founded in "racism"... The FACTS about eugenics are evil enough.. But SOMEHOW -- "Progressive" is the new left mantle.. The Dems have an AWFUL habit of branding themselves with names out of the hell section of history...

Progressive has nothing to do with eugenics...not sure how that was derived. Sanger was a product of her era, who personally saw what many poor women with too many children had to suffer. In many ways, the demonizing of her is a lot like the demonizing of some our founding figures because they were also slave owners. Demonizing might not be the right word, but it will do. You have to judge the person in the context of their times, and what tbey contributed. Sanger saw birth control as a way for poor women to get themselves out of poverty by limiting the number of children they had.

Didn't read the article from The Nation.. Progressivism in the 30s to 50s was the millieu that PRODUCED Margaret Sanger and Margaret Sanger WAS a eugenicist and Progressive...

Fair point, and point taken. Just read it. Good article and good explanations.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Not quite sure what the SCOPE of this discussion is from the OPost.. But I know -- it's getting too personally contentious to moderate in the CDZ.. Several of you are about to kicked out..

If you get a post deletion warning -- note that mod staff will be SITTING on this thread to MAKE it CDZ compliant.. So stay close to topic and away from personal exchanges while I figur

Children who are unwanted, unloved, whose mothers are not prepared to mentally or materially raise a child, obviously have a greater tendency to fall into crime. The statistics demonstrate this. (Often such children have no fathers as they also did not want the child.) Of course that is not the reason the women’s movement fought for control over their reproductive life, any more than it is a reasonit fought for the vote. After abortions, women often have loved and wanted children later, when they are ready.

Bottom line, can't feed them don't breed them, can't accept responsibility taking care of them then be be responsible before conceiving them It's REALLY that simple

It may be that simple today for you, but it certainly wasn’t true for poor Irish women before the sale of birth control was legalized and made widely available. Poor working-class women in those days, whether in marriage or not, were regularly raped and/or forced to bear children, whether they wanted them or not.

This may be too personal a question, in which case I apologize beforehand, but have you or your female friends ever used birth control? Are you opposed to their sale? If not, you (like all of us) should show a little appreciation for the struggles and sacrifices of women like Margaret Sanger.

Birth control ≠ abortion on demand.

Sanger was a fucking eugenicist ghoul.

Sanger did not support abortion.

I don't see a lesser evil here vis a vis "forced sterilization" and abortion targeted at the poor and unfit. In fact, sterilization is a far GREATER pre-emptive and EVIL plan...

Part of the hissing and booing here is separating EUGENICS from RACISM.. ENTIRELY possible that Sanger was NOT a racist.. Might be quite color blind in fact.. But focused like a laser on "purifying the gene pool" like all the eugenicists around the world were..

So -- to get that subtle distinction, I went to my reliable leftist progressive source "The Nation" for a read on this.. Piece was written in response to taking Sanger's name off of a couple PP large clinics in NY...

Canceling Margaret Sanger Only Helps Abortion Opponents

When Planned Parenthood took the name of the organization’s founder off its flagship clinic in Manhattan, they bought into anti-choice propaganda.

www.thenation.com

Although she did not single out Black people, Sanger was, yes, a eugenicist. She thought people, especially poor people, often had too many kids to care for properly and that too many of those kids were born physically disabled (or in the language of the day, “feeble-minded”). She did not oppose forced sterilization.

In these views, she had a lot of company. Many intellectuals in the early 20th century—left, right, and center—went even further. That is, they traced social ills like crime and poverty to there being too many of the wrong sort of people, a calamity that modern society, through science and social control, could prevent. Because of the Nazis, we think of eugenics as based on racism and pseudoscientific notions of breeding a racial genetic elite, but it was more about ableism, based on the belief that poverty, crime, prostitution, and promiscuity were the result of inferior genes.

Avowed socialists 
like H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, and even Helen Keller were eugenicists. So were liberal reformers like Havelock Ellis and John Maynard Keynes and traditionalists like Winston Churchill. Gunnar and Alva Myrdal, the architects of the Swedish welfare state (she was a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, too), supported measures to help mothers and children, but they also enthusiastically supported sterilization of the “unfit.” Buck v. Bell, the infamous Supreme Court decision that validated forced sterilization, was written by one liberal hero, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and approved by another, Louis Brandeis. As Chesler tartly observed, Sanger’s name is more closely associated with this case than the men who decided it. Nobody is demanding that Brandeis University change its name.

Dont know what arguing the diff between forced sterilization and abortion targeted at poor communities are gonna get ya... Also don't see a future in arguing over PP was founded in "racism"... The FACTS about eugenics are evil enough.. But SOMEHOW -- "Progressive" is the new left mantle.. The Dems have an AWFUL habit of branding themselves with names out of the hell section of history...

Progressive has nothing to do with eugenics...not sure how that was derived. Sanger was a product of her era, who personally saw what many poor women with too many children had to suffer. In many ways, the demonizing of her is a lot like the demonizing of some our founding figures because they were also slave owners. Demonizing might not be the right word, but it will do. You have to judge the person in the context of their times, and what tbey contributed. Sanger saw birth control as a way for poor women to get themselves out of poverty by limiting the number of children they had.

Eugenics was very prevalent in her era. But since the Left has sought to cancel the Founders by tearing down their statutes and diminishing their legacy, the Right is now canceling Margaret Sanger using the same tactics.

You can say it's unfair, and it probably is, but once the Left went down that road, this is what follows.

 

[WelfareQueen]

those of us who actually have to pay to clean up the messes that the druggies/alcoholics/ and others who should not be having kids create.

We can make it simple---if you abuse drugs or alcohol while pregnant or your infant is born on these chemicals--simple blood test and immediate sterilization
If you have an iq of less than 70 and a welfare queen------------------immediate sterilization
this alone would save billions every year and cut down on everything from prisons to foster homes to medical costs and clean up the environment and cutting down on carbon emissions as an added bonus.

Sanger was a Racist who ... wanted to wipe Black people off the face of this planet.

This lie is truly Orwellian in scope. Even the slightest acquaintance with Margaret Sanger’s life history would show this to be false and slanderous:


W. E. B. Du Bois served on the board of Sanger's Harlem clinic

Sanger worked with African American leaders and professionals who saw a need for birth control in their communities. In 1929, James H. Hubert, a black social worker and the leader of New York's Urban League, asked Sanger to open a clinic in Harlem. Sanger secured funding ... and opened the clinic, staffed with black doctors, in 1930. The clinic was directed by a 15-member advisory board consisting of black doctors, nurses, clergy, journalists, and social workers. The clinic was publicized in the African-American press as well as in black churches, and it received the approval of W. E. B. Du Bois, the co-founder of the NAACP and the editor of its magazine, The Crisis. Sanger did not tolerate bigotry among her staff, nor would she tolerate any refusal to work within interracial projects. Sanger's work with minorities earned praise from Martin Luther King, Jr., in his 1966 acceptance speech for the Margaret Sanger award.[79]

Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Even her wiki page talks about her links to the KKK and eugenics. But Dims lie....it's what you do.

Eugenics isn't based on race--

Eugenics is based more on birth defects----like not allowing the mentally handicapped to have children because their kids would be at higher risk for being mentally handicapped.

Who should be playing god?

tho

So people you feel are undesirable should be killed or sterilized. Cool. Thank you Dr. Hitler. That must be your final solution to all the World's ills.

Of course I feel this way---I am a rational not emotional thinker.

Maybe you should volunteer to work in a neonatal unit at a hospital preferably one that deals with a lot of homeless and druggies after the covid thing is cleared up.............take a good long long look at the babies that the meth and crack heads have along with the alcholics------------and you may figure out why there are women out there that should never ever be allowed to have children-----

I worked over 25 years in hospitals, The last 7 in a major inner city ER. Don't lecture me. I believe only God should make the judgments you propose to make. I don't want anyone sterilized or babies killed without consent. What you propose is barbaric.

If that is the case, then you fricking know why the nursing staff doesn't share your sentiments. Generally, their primary care is for the poor babies that these self centered addicts have and all the suffering that these poor little creatures must endure to try to survive and usually then face life long suffering because of their mothers abuse. Sterilize the addicts-----it really is the only rational thing to do. If you actually cared about the poor babies---you would support sterilizing the addict mothers.

I might grudgingly buy into that if I didn't know addiction was a MEDICAL ISSUE not a legal or political issue... Call me a dreamer, but forcing evil sterilization procedures on folks wouldn't be necessary if they were in treatment for it.. Sounds like the easy way out of paying for treatment vs public assistance.

Forced COMMITMENT is more palatable to me..

I mentioned earlier I worked in hospitals for years. I was an LCSW and did mental health emergency services early in my career, and then worked in hospitals doing psychiatric evaluations in the ER and throughout the hospital.
I have literally seen thousands of drug addicts and alcoholics. Very few that I saw had any desire to get clean when I saw them. They came to the ER because their family or spouse was fed up with them, or because they felt so shitty it was interfering with their getting high, or to get three hots and a cot for a few days, or to avoid arrest.

Best case data says over 90% of rehab attempts fail. If you are homeless or mentally ill it is closer to 100%.

Rehab is an easy answer, but without client buy in it is both expensive and usually worthless.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

The discussion here about forced sterilization under certain conditions shows that this issue is not so easy as some pretend. I am strongly and almost always against it, but the objective situation (and values) in earlier times before birth control was readily available was quite different in many respects.

We are rightly highly sensitive to any such state action, especially after the Nazis took eugenics to such extreme ends. We also know how sterilization was abused in many famous cases in the U.S.

But this discussion is really not centrally related to “Ginsburg and population control.” Eugenics, as flacaltenn has implied, was not necessarily racist and came in many forms. It had enthusiastic supporters in every political party and part of our country. Margaret Sanger’s support of it was unfortunate, but she was a woman of her own times. In any case, she was far more enlightened about working with African American women and addressing their real needs than others, and she was wholeheartedly dedicated to giving ALL women agency and power through family planning.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The discussion here about forced sterilization under certain conditions shows that this issue is not so easy as some pretend. I am strongly and almost always against it, but the objective situation (and values) in earlier times before birth control was readily available was quite different in many respects.

We are rightly highly sensitive to any such state action, especially after the Nazis took eugenics to such extreme ends. We also know how sterilization was abused in many famous cases in the U.S.

But this discussion is really not centrally related to “Ginsburg and population control.” Eugenics, as flacaltenn has implied, was not necessarily racist and came in many forms. Margaret Sanger’s support of it was unfortunate, but she was a woman of her own times. In any case, she was far more enlightened about working with African American women and addressing their real needs than others, and she was wholeheartedly dedicated to giving ALL women agency and power through family planning.

She was in part a product of her times. It sounds like you object to her being cancelled. Do you feel the same way about the Founding Fathers? Should we use current concepts of morality or political correctness to cancel historic people from the past we do not like?

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

The discussion here about forced sterilization under certain conditions shows that this issue is not so easy as some pretend. I am strongly and almost always against it, but the objective situation (and values) in earlier times before birth control was readily available was quite different in many respects.

We are rightly highly sensitive to any such state action, especially after the Nazis took eugenics to such extreme ends. We also know how sterilization was abused in many famous cases in the U.S.

But this discussion is really not centrally related to “Ginsburg and population control.” Eugenics, as flacaltenn has implied, was not necessarily racist and came in many forms. Margaret Sanger’s support of it was unfortunate, but she was a woman of her own times. In any case, she was far more enlightened about working with African American women and addressing their real needs than others, and she was wholeheartedly dedicated to giving ALL women agency and power through family planning.

She was in part a product of her times. It sounds like you object to her being cancelled. Do you feel the same way about the Founding Fathers? Should we use current concepts of morality or political correctness to cancel historic people from the past we do not like?

Absolutely agree about defending (in context) the Founding Fathers! I said as much many times in this thread. I just don’t like to use the politically charged and voguish term “canceled” — which is popular with Conservatives but isn’t very clearly definable outside of partisan venues. What exactly would “canceling” George Washington mean to a serious historian, anyway? For that matter, what would “canceling” Hitler or Stalin mean? Is the Confederacy being “cancelled” just because military bases get renamed? But I get your point. All this statue stuff needs to be handled democratically.

By the way, the demonization of Sanger has been going on for ages, from the Catholic Church and from the anti-abortion movement.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The discussion here about forced sterilization under certain conditions shows that this issue is not so easy as some pretend. I am strongly and almost always against it, but the objective situation (and values) in earlier times before birth control was readily available was quite different in many respects.

We are rightly highly sensitive to any such state action, especially after the Nazis took eugenics to such extreme ends. We also know how sterilization was abused in many famous cases in the U.S.

But this discussion is really not centrally related to “Ginsburg and population control.” Eugenics, as flacaltenn has implied, was not necessarily racist and came in many forms. Margaret Sanger’s support of it was unfortunate, but she was a woman of her own times. In any case, she was far more enlightened about working with African American women and addressing their real needs than others, and she was wholeheartedly dedicated to giving ALL women agency and power through family planning.

She was in part a product of her times. It sounds like you object to her being cancelled. Do you feel the same way about the Founding Fathers? Should we use current concepts of morality or political correctness to cancel historic people from the past we do not like?

Absolutely agree about defending (in context) the Founding Fathers! I said as much many times in this thread. I just don’t like to use the politically charged and voguish term “canceled” — which is popular with Conservatives but isn’t very clearly definable outside of partisan venues. What exactly would “canceling” George Washington mean to a serious historian, anyway? For that matter, what would “canceling” Hitler or Stalin mean? Is the Confederacy being “cancelled” just because military bases get renamed? But I get your point. All this statue stuff needs to be handled democratically.

By the way, the demonization of Sanger has been goin
g on for ages, from the Catholic Church and from the anti-abortion movement.

Then I guess we've found common ground. I hate cancel culture. No human being is perfect. Sanger like all of us can be seen as a mass of contradictions. Birth control, which Sanger advocated for, has mostly been a good thing imho.

I am a huge fan of the Founding Generation and like Sanger their legacy is complicated. But no one should be cancelled including Margaret Sanger.

 

[mudwhistle]

Wow.... Now she opposed abortion. That's a good one.

Read the god-damn discussion! You are making a fool of yourself!

Not at all.
She's ignoring the woman's history.
She's like John Kerry, she was against abortion before she was for it.
The point should be that Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate the black race first by BC, then by abortion.

You know nothing of the woman-----------she and her family were Activists for both women and black rights.

She saw children before birth control as CHAINS that kept women trapped in bad marriages and in poverty unable to escape.

She rightly deduced that having a bunch of kids-----------------------leads to child abuse, POVERTY, and spousal abuse.

She correctly theorized that if a woman had fewer children--------that she could more easily leave an abusive relationship and could more easily find employment for herself enabling her to feed herself and her few children. Having one child and job may provide enough to support the child into adulthood -having 10 not so much

Black women even then were more likely to be in abusive relationships and live more in poverty with fewer job skills and prospects making escaping with a bunch of kids impossible.

Yep.....so she planned on murdering black babies because they just might turn out to be criminals.
Total friggen racist mentality.

Nope.,. Again TurtleSoup has this correctly.. "The Pill" created Planned Parenthood.. Turned eugenicists into preventionists and later abortionists. The RACIST part of this is when you TARGET the poor and unfit --- STATISTICS makes it "racist"... Because by statistical cohort -- blacks are over-represented. Entirely possible that eugenicists either were math challenged or didn't care...

So why the nope.....because apparently you and I both agree? It is racist to target a particular race with birth control or abortion.....which is what Democrats are doing.....and why Margaret Sanger was held in such high regard by folks like Hillary Clinton.

 

[Turtlesoup]

those of us who actually have to pay to clean up the messes that the druggies/alcoholics/ and others who should not be having kids create.

We can make it simple---if you abuse drugs or alcohol while pregnant or your infant is born on these chemicals--simple blood test and immediate sterilization
If you have an iq of less than 70 and a welfare queen------------------immediate sterilization
this alone would save billions every year and cut down on everything from prisons to foster homes to medical costs and clean up the environment and cutting down on carbon emissions as an added bonus.

Sanger was a Racist who ... wanted to wipe Black people off the face of this planet.

This lie is truly Orwellian in scope. Even the slightest acquaintance with Margaret Sanger’s life history would show this to be false and slanderous:


W. E. B. Du Bois served on the board of Sanger's Harlem clinic

Sanger worked with African American leaders and professionals who saw a need for birth control in their communities. In 1929, James H. Hubert, a black social worker and the leader of New York's Urban League, asked Sanger to open a clinic in Harlem. Sanger secured funding ... and opened the clinic, staffed with black doctors, in 1930. The clinic was directed by a 15-member advisory board consisting of black doctors, nurses, clergy, journalists, and social workers. The clinic was publicized in the African-American press as well as in black churches, and it received the approval of W. E. B. Du Bois, the co-founder of the NAACP and the editor of its magazine, The Crisis. Sanger did not tolerate bigotry among her staff, nor would she tolerate any refusal to work within interracial projects. Sanger's work with minorities earned praise from Martin Luther King, Jr., in his 1966 acceptance speech for the Margaret Sanger award.[79]

Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Even her wiki page talks about her links to the KKK and eugenics. But Dims lie....it's what you do.

Eugenics isn't based on race--

Eugenics is based more on birth defects----like not allowing the mentally handicapped to have children because their kids would be at higher risk for being mentally handicapped.

Who should be playing god?

tho

So people you feel are undesirable should be killed or sterilized. Cool. Thank you Dr. Hitler. That must be your final solution to all the World's ills.

Of course I feel this way---I am a rational not emotional thinker.

Maybe you should volunteer to work in a neonatal unit at a hospital preferably one that deals with a lot of homeless and druggies after the covid thing is cleared up.............take a good long long look at the babies that the meth and crack heads have along with the alcholics------------and you may figure out why there are women out there that should never ever be allowed to have children-----

I worked over 25 years in hospitals, The last 7 in a major inner city ER. Don't lecture me. I believe only God should make the judgments you propose to make. I don't want anyone sterilized or babies killed without consent. What you propose is barbaric.

If that is the case, then you fricking know why the nursing staff doesn't share your sentiments. Generally, their primary care is for the poor babies that these self centered addicts have and all the suffering that these poor little creatures must endure to try to survive and usually then face life long suffering because of their mothers abuse. Sterilize the addicts-----it really is the only rational thing to do. If you actually cared about the poor babies---you would support sterilizing the addict mothers.

I might grudgingly buy into that if I didn't know addiction was a MEDICAL ISSUE not a legal or political issue... Call me a dreamer, but forcing evil sterilization procedures on folks wouldn't be necessary if they were in treatment for it.. Sounds like the easy way out of paying for treatment vs public assistance.

Forced COMMITMENT is more palatable to me..

What Treatment for it do you think there actually is-----------addicts especially ones willing to sacrifice their offspring for to abuse their substance of choice don't normally ever get clean up or stop themselves--EVER----EVER---they just have kids and make their kids lives hell and then die of their own abuse eventually. Abusing ones kids with one's drug abuse should be an is a legal issue.

 

[John T. Ford]

I worked over 25 years in hospitals, The last 7 in a major inner city ER. Don't lecture me. I believe only God should make the judgments you propose to make. I don't want anyone sterilized or babies killed without consent. What you propose is barbaric.

There is a reason Leftism is referred to as a Mental Disorder.

 

[Coyote]

Not quite sure what the SCOPE of this discussion is from the OPost.. But I know -- it's getting too personally contentious to moderate in the CDZ.. Several of you are about to kicked out..

If you get a post deletion warning -- note that mod staff will be SITTING on this thread to MAKE it CDZ compliant.. So stay close to topic and away from personal exchanges while I figur

Children who are unwanted, unloved, whose mothers are not prepared to mentally or materially raise a child, obviously have a greater tendency to fall into crime. The statistics demonstrate this. (Often such children have no fathers as they also did not want the child.) Of course that is not the reason the women’s movement fought for control over their reproductive life, any more than it is a reasonit fought for the vote. After abortions, women often have loved and wanted children later, when they are ready.

Bottom line, can't feed them don't breed them, can't accept responsibility taking care of them then be be responsible before conceiving them It's REALLY that simple

It may be that simple today for you, but it certainly wasn’t true for poor Irish women before the sale of birth control was legalized and made widely available. Poor working-class women in those days, whether in marriage or not, were regularly raped and/or forced to bear children, whether they wanted them or not.

This may be too personal a question, in which case I apologize beforehand, but have you or your female friends ever used birth control? Are you opposed to their sale? If not, you (like all of us) should show a little appreciation for the struggles and sacrifices of women like Margaret Sanger.

Birth control ≠ abortion on demand.

Sanger was a fucking eugenicist ghoul.

Sanger did not support abortion.

I don't see a lesser evil here vis a vis "forced sterilization" and abortion targeted at the poor and unfit. In fact, sterilization is a far GREATER pre-emptive and EVIL plan...

Part of the hissing and booing here is separating EUGENICS from RACISM.. ENTIRELY possible that Sanger was NOT a racist.. Might be quite color blind in fact.. But focused like a laser on "purifying the gene pool" like all the eugenicists around the world were..

So -- to get that subtle distinction, I went to my reliable leftist progressive source "The Nation" for a read on this.. Piece was written in response to taking Sanger's name off of a couple PP large clinics in NY...

Canceling Margaret Sanger Only Helps Abortion Opponents

When Planned Parenthood took the name of the organization’s founder off its flagship clinic in Manhattan, they bought into anti-choice propaganda.

www.thenation.com

Although she did not single out Black people, Sanger was, yes, a eugenicist. She thought people, especially poor people, often had too many kids to care for properly and that too many of those kids were born physically disabled (or in the language of the day, “feeble-minded”). She did not oppose forced sterilization.

In these views, she had a lot of company. Many intellectuals in the early 20th century—left, right, and center—went even further. That is, they traced social ills like crime and poverty to there being too many of the wrong sort of people, a calamity that modern society, through science and social control, could prevent. Because of the Nazis, we think of eugenics as based on racism and pseudoscientific notions of breeding a racial genetic elite, but it was more about ableism, based on the belief that poverty, crime, prostitution, and promiscuity were the result of inferior genes.

Avowed socialists 
like H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, and even Helen Keller were eugenicists. So were liberal reformers like Havelock Ellis and John Maynard Keynes and traditionalists like Winston Churchill. Gunnar and Alva Myrdal, the architects of the Swedish welfare state (she was a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, too), supported measures to help mothers and children, but they also enthusiastically supported sterilization of the “unfit.” Buck v. Bell, the infamous Supreme Court decision that validated forced sterilization, was written by one liberal hero, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and approved by another, Louis Brandeis. As Chesler tartly observed, Sanger’s name is more closely associated with this case than the men who decided it. Nobody is demanding that Brandeis University change its name.

Dont know what arguing the diff between forced sterilization and abortion targeted at poor communities are gonna get ya... Also don't see a future in arguing over PP was founded in "racism"... The FACTS about eugenics are evil enough.. But SOMEHOW -- "Progressive" is the new left mantle.. The Dems have an AWFUL habit of branding themselves with names out of the hell section of history...

Progressive has nothing to do with eugenics...not sure how that was derived. Sanger was a product of her era, who personally saw what many poor women with too many children had to suffer. In many ways, the demonizing of her is a lot like the demonizing of some our founding figures because they were also slave owners. Demonizing might not be the right word, but it will do. You have to judge the person in the context of their times, and what tbey contributed. Sanger saw birth control as a way for poor women to get themselves out of poverty by limiting the number of children they had.

Eugenics was very prevalent in her era. But since the Left has sought to cancel the Founders by tearing down their statutes and diminishing their legacy, the Right is now canceling Margaret Sanger using the same tactics.

You can say it's unfair, and it probably is, but once the Left went down that road, this is what follows.

Your point would be valid...except for one thing. Timing. The right has been "canceling" Sanger for YEARS now. Long before the move to remove statues.