Margaret Sanger--Halo tipping a bit?

[quote=timmgirvanPgardn: Peculiar post from you,I think! I wasn't talking about a womans' right to choose. How does it become the right to lifers responsiblity to adopt every unwanted child? You suppose much about what I think. If you bothered to read the links, you'd see that Margaret Sanger was hardly the "Clarion of Light and Family Values" that she's been made out to be![/QUOTE]

Peculiar quote from me? I go off topic all the time.

I read the link. It was interesting as I had never heard the white people dont like black people so they want abortion arguement before.

So do we have any anti-abortion/death folks (or against a woman's right to choose;keeping all parties happy) that have adopted a child that was to be aborted?

Any?

I know of two families. They walk the walk, and strangely... they dont talk about it much. Dont hold up signs and shout people down. They will tell you if asked, but no advertising.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by pgardn

So do we have any anti-abortion/death folks (or against a woman's right to choose;keeping all parties happy) that have adopted a child that was to be aborted?

Any?

I know of two families. They walk the walk, and strangely... they dont talk about it much. Dont hold up signs and shout people down. They will tell you if asked, but no advertising.

Pgardn: you have supplanted your arguement for my links to MS! What kind of a standard is that you hold? You seem too harsh on yourself...as I see you as morally correct in what you contribute. The subject was how the family planning group that was so helpful(?)in the beginning is now a Billion dollar abortion mill(for their own purposes)not for the unfortunate young women who seek their guidance!

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Pgardn: you have supplanted your arguement for my links to MS! What kind of a standard is that you hold? You seem too harsh on yourself...as I see you as morally correct in what you contribute. The subject was how the family planning group that was so helpful(?)in the beginning is now a Billion dollar abortion mill(for their own purposes)not for the unfortunate young women who seek their guidance!

I read that. And as I said I found the most interesting arguement that I had never seen used was that white people who are pro choice are basically so because of black people having too many babies.

I had never ever read that before. Interesting.

As far as people making money off of abortions I find that utterly disgusting. I dont like the whole thing. It is a very difficult problem for me.

But I will continue in my quest to find a pro-life adopter as a side order to your main dish.

Do we have any?

I of course have always admired somer as a horse person taking in older race horses. My wife did the same with only one horse. 3 is a huge undertaking and I appreciate the humanity in this.

I just find it odd that so many people are looking to adopt human babies through agencies in Eastern Europe, yet right here in the US we have woman (mostly minorities) that might be talked into saving a life if someone was willing to adopt. I am not in a position to do so.

[golfer]

Thought I'd resurrect this as I came across this article today. It is quite long, and admittedly I only got through a portion of it myself. For anyone who may be interested:
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/s...ro_project.htm

[Mortimer]

Who is the only person to have ever excelled at gelf in the PGA and bb in the NBA?

















Golf Schayes.

[GenuineRisk]

(pause while I put my head on the desk and take a deep breath)

Because Margaret Sanger advocated for birth control for the poor does not make her a racist. Why? Because what she advocated was women having a CHOICE. A choice to have kids or a choice to not. And she recognized that poor women, many of whom were are are minorities, are the ones most desperately in need of that choice. She wasn't marching into ghettos with a gun and forcing women to submit to insertion of IUDs, you know. She was setting up birth control clinics in poor neighborhoods and letting poor women decide whether they wanted to go to the clinic. Because poor women have always had fewer options than rich women. Giving the poor options makes her racist, because those poor women choose to improve their economic lot by having fewer kids? What? On what planet does that make sense?

In fact, Sanger was quoted as finding abortion repellent- her big thing was avoiding unwanted pregnancy in the first place. But the right-wingers who are convinced things would be perfect if only all women could live in dread fear of getting pregnant every time women have sex, will twist and turn and ignore the complicated person she was, in order to evade the issue of poor women not having choices when it comes to their reproductive health.

How many anti-abortion advocates are out there pushing for mandatory contraceptive education? Or guaranteed health care for kids? Day care, for working moms? Oh right, none of them. They aren't interested in saving babies; they're interested in pregnancy being a punishment, a very financially challenging punishment, for sexually active women. Real pro-life, huh?

And for the record, abortions make up a very, very small part of Planned Parenthood's business. Most of it is providing health care, including contraception, to women. And they do a good job of it, and I had friends in high school who avoided becoming pregnant at 15 thanks to PP's only charging them what they could afford for birth control. The one I'm still in touch with is now a happy mother at 37- having had a kid when she was ready.

Which is not to say Sanger didn't have some pretty harsh ideas about the severely disabled and their rights to reproduce, but that's like saying Faulkner's personal feelings about African-Americans (someone who, it can be argued, did have racial issues) means his books sucked. People are products of their times and you can't throw out great achievements because the person wasn't perfect, or believed in some ideas, popular at the time, which we now know were incorrect.

Read the woman's own words (in context)- not quotes from a completely different writer she was said to have agreed with.

(Aww... I've spent so much time getting my political fix from balloon-juice.com I forgot how much I missed you guys... )

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by pgardn

So do we have any anti-abortion/death folks (or against a woman's right to choose;keeping all parties happy) that have adopted a child that was to be aborted?

Any?

I know of two families. They walk the walk, and strangely... they dont talk about it much. Dont hold up signs and shout people down. They will tell you if asked, but no advertising.

I've adopted three horses to save them from slaughter, dozens of cats and dogs over the years...never was in position to adopt a child...sorry that I don't meet your standard!

[Danzig]

i find it odd that the democrats generally support the right to choose--but then get on their high horse about the war overseas, and about capital punishment. it seems they, and the republicans in turn, don't always use logic. if a soldiers life is precious, why not a fetus? if one is sacrosanct, why not the other?
as for the ruling by the supreme court, i disagree that the right to an abortion is granted by the constitution. the right to privacy--yes, i agree that is.

as for pro-choice/pro-life, i think they are both misnomers. everyone obviously believes we should all be free to make choices in our lives--on the other hand, who here is anti-life?!

the right to an abortion has been granted. to make it (as hillary said--and on this point i agree) safe, legal and rare is what i would say. if you don't feel it is right, well don't go get one. in that regard, it's much like the right to keep and bear arms--doesn't mean you HAVE to own a gun.


but as for the statement that you can't be against abortion if you have never adopted, i don't think that's a fair statement. people take stands every day on issues that have never affected them personally.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i find it odd that the democrats generally support the right to choose--but then get on their high horse about the war overseas, and about capital punishment. it seems they, and the republicans in turn, don't always use logic. if a soldiers life is precious, why not a fetus? if one is sacrosanct, why not the other?

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Each of us has the ultimate decision regarding our own bodies but if that is a human being inside a woman, does he/she not have the same right? We talk about a woman's right to choose, but we deny that right to the fetus/baby...statistically speaking, half of which are female. To me, what the abortionists are saying is that some people have rights and some don't and society gets to choose which lives are more valuable.

I believe that the basic flaw in the argument that you're both making (and I'm mostly just speaking for myself here) is that most people who talk about a woman's right to choose vs. a fetus's or soldiers dying while fetuses are "dying" is that those people don't believe that a fetus is a person deserving of the same rights that a pregnant woman or a soldier deserves.

It's not hypocritical to be pro-choice and still cry about dead soldiers in a stupid war. One is life that is being taken, and one is not a life so therefore cannot be taken.

That obviously brings it to that place where nobody ever budges on where exactly life starts and when an embryo/fetus/womb inhabiter earns its rights as a human being. But if you don't believe that it's a life in there, then it's not really a problem to advocate for safe and legal abortion while decrying the loss of life in a war.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I believe that the basic flaw in the argument that you're both making (and I'm mostly just speaking for myself here) is that most people who talk about a woman's right to choose vs. a fetus's or soldiers dying while fetuses are "dying" is that those people don't believe that a fetus is a person deserving of the same rights that a pregnant woman or a soldier deserves.

It's not hypocritical to be pro-choice and still cry about dead soldiers in a stupid war. One is life that is being taken, and one is not a life so therefore cannot be taken.

That obviously brings it to that place where nobody ever budges on where exactly life starts and when an embryo/fetus/womb inhabiter earns its rights as a human being. But if you don't believe that it's a life in there, then it's not really a problem to advocate for safe and legal abortion while decrying the loss of life in a war.

my point was more towards the fact that our soldiers volunteer for their duty, and a fetus doesn't. yet they decry a volunteer losing that which he willingly gave.


but to clarify, i am pro-choice. but i think that it is a huge issue, and yet another that has plenty of shouting on both sides, with no real solution--like so many things, there is no pleasing everyone. or maybe anyone.