Tell your story to the NY Times...not exactly a paper friendly to the Bush administration and in favor of the Iraq war.
Again, we didn't go to war over expired cans of mustard gas the Iraqis buried in 1991 because they didn't know how to dispose of it.. We went to war over nukes and anthrax, which Saddam didn't have.
Bush (and the National Review) Lied.
People died.
But they weren't fetuses or white, so fuck 'em. Pro-Life doesn't apply to people who live in countries that have resources we want.
It just doesn't make sense, does it? Think about what these new laws mean.....Think!
Then the brand new abortion legislation in New York and coming to Vermont, Virginia, etc. is absolutely pointless IF what you say is true, which it definitely isn't. Think about what you are saying. I've provided several citations explaining precisely how and why you are wrong but you cannot read or choose not to read.
This issue is closed as far as I'm concerned. You just aren't honestly being fair. I don't think you know how.
I have thought about it. NO WOMAN IS GOING TO WAIT NINE MONTHS TO ABORT A HEALTHY FETUS. There simply is no woman THAT psychotic, but even if there was, no doctor would perform the procedure, most doctors won't even let a woman refuse a Cesarean.
The problem is , you anti-choice nutters really think there are women out there that would do this.
Great. Read my link about the adopted black children of white parents sometime. You obviously haven't seen it.
As a rule, I don't waste time reading links by Bible Thumping morons... life's too fucking short. I provided a link showing that THOUSANDS of black babies are languishing in foster care. Probably going to be worse when you nuts make it harder to get abortions in the red states.
Oh...Kathy Tran said no such thing but she did? More selective information input and dishonesty. I'm not surprised.
Yes, she should have explained that better... Probably should have called the Republican delegate a fucking retard for even asking such a stupid question.
I've asked you at least four or five times now to show me exactly where and how my quote of Margaret Sanger herself was taken out of context.
And I explained it to you. Did you need me to use smaller words? She repeated what anthropologists believed AT THE TIME.
By the way that Darwin quote comes from 1871, clearly forty-one years before you claimed that view was held by every anthropologist in the world. You fucked up in multiple ways.
Forty-one years of scientific thinking and discovery can make quite a difference.
Actually, in the 41 years that followed, White Christian Folks drove the Aborigines damned well near to extinction... put the survivors on reservations. The funny thing is that this genocide is never mentioned all that much, because it was carried out by Christian Capitalist people.
So to recap, Sanger repeated bad science that was at it's height when she wrote it. Which has nothing to do with very valid points about why birth control was a good idea.
The other point you keep avoiding is that Sanger herself opposed legalizing abortion. He views were probably more in line with yours than mine. Even the most right wing person doesn't openly call for an end to contraception, just abortion.
Of course, in 1912, before we invented antibiotics and other surgical advantages, getting an abortion was still a pretty dangerous proposition.