8mm
Posted on 07/06/2007 2:23:04 PM PDT by Diago
.
The evildoers who want abortion would have done it with or without Sanger
>>>>>But Margaret Sanger wanted more for the privileged and less for the poor. How did someone who was so obviously biased and lacking in compassion become the heroine of today’s liberals? It is a strange reversal of political direction. It is as if the Democratic Party suddenly turned around and supported David Duke for Supreme Court Justice.
OPINION
The political elite love the welfare programs because it gives them more federal monies to line their pockets. Not all the monies are spent on the ‘poor’. It has nothing to do with compassion. it is just a useful piggy bank.
I find many Democrats don't seem to put gun control as an effort to disarm THEM and deny them the right to hunt or defend themselves. They don't seem to associate the Dem party with being anti God until you ask which Dems want to bring back prayer in school or which party wants to take phrases off of our money, etc. They don't seem to realize it isn't Republicans that burn flags until you ask them to name a Republican that has burned a flag. Then you name off about 20 well known Dems that have.
These are subjects that should be discussed in public school, or tax money should be withheld until they do. Margret Sanger is just the tip of the iceberg of liberalism that threatens our country.
BTW, that's another thing,....NAZI's are socialists. It's the left wingers that specialize in murder. Ask a Dem and they will swear NAZI's are "right wingers". You have to hold their hand and walk them through Hitler nationalizing all the industries and other socialist dogma to even get them to wonder about it. Volkswagon= The People's car. This is why they wear Che's T shirts because He was so kind and gentile.
She is advocating infanticide isn't she?
So what is your point?
All of this stems from the evolution philosophy.
No. If you read her comment in context she is projecting how poor and desperate families justify infantacide. She advocated birth control to pre-empt their having to make that choice.
There is no point in making Sanger out to be more evil than she was. Many in her day were eugenicists, including leading politicians ... it was sort of a fad among the intelligensia at the time. They felt they were being humane. Even so, they did not hide their classism and racism as the ‘elite’ do today because PC hadn’t been invented yet. The eugenicists advocated sterilization and birth control on humanitarian grounds, much as the Humane Society does today to forego suffering in animals who overbreed. They were very matter-of-fact about it.
But Sanger never advocated abortion. In at least two places in her writing she spoke against abortion (and infanticide) ... not out of concern for the unborn or infants, but on behalf of women. In her day abortion was a very dangerous procedure which she called “barbaric”.
She also implied it was inefficient to handle overpopulation among the underclass in an after-the-fact fashion. She was convinced sterilization and contraception were the way to go to achieve eugenicist goals.
Finally, if Sanger had advocated abortion Planned Parenthood would proudly quote her in their literature. They don’t because she didn’t, a fact they don’t want people to know.
Yes, and today, with improvements in Abortion techniques, I am sure she would not hesitate to support it.
I do not regard Abortion any more terrible then infanticide, just another way of doing it.
I think Planned Parenthood avoids Sanger because of her racist and eugenic background and they do not want to be exposed for what they are-baby killers.
I agree, she probably would. But that is speculation, not fact.
I agree that no self respecting conservative would hold such views.
All I can tell you that on a many a summer night as a child at Lake Tahoe,I sat around as adults sipped gin and tonics and warned of racially”inferior”people taking over.Almost all of these folks were good Republicans.
I agree with you these views are repugnant.But they were commonplace in my upbringing.
Best example is probably the reference to the book Tom Buchanan is reading in The Great Gatzby about the dark race population explosion. It is very subtle - but true.
Actually, on their website, they defend her and try to refute most of the claims in the original post by saying that they are fake, that ABC was meant to lift blacks from poverty, and they point out a lot of awards she got from Black groups. I’m not really aware of the accuracy on either side on the quotes of who said what - but the EFFECTS of abortion are clearly a eugenicist dream come true, and it is the EFFECTS that matter.
Would the Justice Brothers suffice for ol' Maggie?
Right. That is the important nad necessarydistinction. I could see this coming from country-club Republicans, Rockefeller Republicans, that type. But it's absoultely contrary to conservative principles.
Riverman, see the post below yours. That makes the necessary distinction. As you yourself said, these people were true-blue Republicans. That doesn’t mean they were conservatives. They are different animals — increasingly so everyday, I’m afraid.
Sounds to me like the 'arguments' of Holocaust deniers.
Very true but I think the liquor flow also had something to do with the extreme nature of their comments.
I have noticed that sometimes”conservatives” who have had a little too much sauce can get pretty nasty in race related matters.
Same with liberals who when sober are Roosevelt old school Democrats but sound like Marx and Mao after a few glasses of Chardonnay.
Alcohol releases the Id,thats for sure.
A recent scientific study has disproved your anecdote - so you should not use your anecdote as an example in discussion as a type of 'Conservatives are / but liberals are' argument.
Dems racist? Can't be true ... Robert KKK Byrd told me so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.