SCOTUS Abortion Decision: Two Views
Margret Sanger was the worst kind of pro-abortionist there ever walked the face of the earth. She was a eugenicist (think selective breeding, master race, super human, etc) all the while attempting to get lesser humans to not reproduce at all( think racist, think genocide). Read some of her writings and you will be amazed at how she felt about ‘inferior’ humans reproducing.
you ought to be happy. Most of those aborted would have grown up to be liberals.Think “President Algore”.
Posted by Fiftycal
04/22/2007 at 11:56 AM
Now i have moved here to the USA im finding cheap laboure hard to come by why is that?
allso is there a law aganist shooting the gardener, it was just a hand gun and it went BANG , i wont be fooling around with that anymore, the police officer was very nice.
I love Amrica
you ought to be happy. Most of those aborted would have grown up to be liberals.Think “President Algore”.
That’s fucking sick. Eugenics was associated with nazis and by default liberals who support racism through selective breeding.
Eugenics is older than Naziism; it’s the child of Darwinism. And while .50’s snark may be “sick”, there’s more than a grain of truth in it. The “lesser races” targeted by eugenics were (and still are) the ones receiving the largest part of the social services pie. Actually, I think that’s what the whole thing was about in the first place. Not necessarily building a “master race” but lightening the “white man’s burden”. The big problem with their theory was that stupid and lazy comes in all colors.
Hello Drew458,
I recall reading somewhere where the majority of the recipients of government aid are whites. Other minorities are represented out of proportion to their numbers within our country. It just seems like minorities get a ‘bigger’ slice of the pie.
Margret Sanger preached eugenics to the world and if memory serves me correctly, she even met with pre-WWII nazis to discuss implementing a eugenics program into Germany. Sad thing is that USA liberals bought into her ‘planned parenthood’ without doing their homework.
The real ‘obstacle’ to feminists and the ERA is not men, it is children - why do you think that the feminazis have made abortion their sacrement.
The only renewable resource a culture, society or nation has is it’s children - they are the future. We abort too many, indoctrinate and ignore the majority of the rest - and hence we have the situations that plague this Nation.
It is time to get back to the basics and the only thing that will guarantee an America in the future - healthy, well cared for, educated children.
Margret Sanger was a danger and continues to be so to this very day.
Yeah, while y’all worry about “margaret sanger” and whether “babies souls go to heaven when aborted”, you might look around and discover the most popular name for a newborn in the U.S. last year was “Jose”. I’m older and hopefully won’t see it, but the U.S. is going to be “northern Mexico” if we don’t stop the INVASION of illegals into this country. The birth rate is down and those that have a baby are mostly unmarried. Tax and immigration POLICY is what drives this.
I suggest you stop worrying about your imaginary super-best friend and start worrying about the FUTURE OF AMERICA!
Posted by Fiftycal
04/22/2007 at 07:40 PM
I suggest you stop worrying about your imaginary super-best friend and start worrying about the FUTURE OF AMERICA!
WTF are you talking about?
As to the US I would like to preserve it for our grandchildren’s grandchildren. I favor LEGAL immigration, preferably from countries that share the same values as we do.
Fiftycal is a great liberal - one grain of truth (hispanic birth rate)in a mass of drival. His hat must be on too tight this week.
Come on folks, this has virtually nothing to do with eugenics, pro choice or anti abortion positions. The law you disagree with is about abortion as a form or birth control, not abortion as a medical procedure to deal with threats to the mother’s health or the lack of viability of the fetus.
The so called “partial birth abortion” was rarely used before the law was passed, and then almost exclusively for purely medical purposes. Outlawing it did virtually nothing to end abortion as a form of birth control, but it did limit doctor’s choices in their treatment of patients. In the mid 1960’s, a friend and neighbor gave birth to an anencephalic baby. The physical toll on her was awful and she nearly died. The baby died shortly after birth as most such do. Had 3rd trimester abortions been available back then, her health wouldn’t have been so severely compromised and the baby wouldn’t have been any more dead.
This law was nothing but political grandstanding. I don’t like it any better when a Republican lowers to this sort of low any better than I like it when a Democrat does it.
Yah, I’m a “liberal”, in the old fashioned sense. ONe that believes in the Constitution and everyones RIGHT to be free from government intrusion into their personal lives. Now some fascists want to ban abortions for their own superstitious reasons. Mainly because they want to control OTHER PEOPLES LIVES. I guess because their own are so boring.
Posted by Fiftycal
04/23/2007 at 04:42 PM
...and here you have an interesting divide. In general, liberals prefer an intrusive government and conservatives don’t. Then we come to the issue of allowing citizens the right to make a choice (not in favor of abortion mind, just the right to have it as an option) and the roles switch.
The most telling statement I ever heard in the pro vs. anti choice debate came on a bumper sticker: “How can you trust me with a baby, when you won’t trust me with a choice?”
I cannot imagine allowing any government to intrude in such a personal situation. To me this is the sort of thing that should be purely between; the woman, the baby’s father, the doctor, a spiritual adviser and our creator. No one else.
Eugenics came in with the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margret Sanger. As to the ban on partial birth abortion please tell me how it could ‘save’ the life of the mother since a C-section was much faster than attempting a partial breech birth.
In either case, I assume that we are not talking about a viable fetus. The C-Section is much more invasive (for the mother), with higher risks and some (minor) long term consequences.
As far a eugenics, it’s a twitchy area at best. The first question is what sort of genes do you select out and the second question is what exceptions do you make. I’m not sure that we could or should, ever come to a comfortable decision in that area. Genetic research and manipulation will hopefully render all such debates moot in the future.
Kirk, imaginary super best friend is one of the terms atheists use to refer to God.
OH ALLAH, er, BUDDA, no-no, kaliepf, uh yahew? Anyway, you religionists have found us out. Yes, we really do worship cartman on SOUTH PARK. They are the only true gods. Or HOMER SIMPSON! Yah, that’s really a............. (religionists don’t read this or your heads will turn to salt, oh, that’s right, they already are, nevermind)HOMER SIMPSON IS GOD!
There you go. Now if your one “true god” is really powerful I will be stru......
END OF MESSAGE.
Posted by Fiftycal
04/23/2007 at 10:50 PM
It really bugs the crap out of you that people believe in God. Hopefully you’ve never read the Declaration of Independence as you would probably go ballistic.
Well, if the Christians are wrong, all that they’ve lost was some time and money. If the atheists are wrong then they’ve lost themselves for all of eternity.
See y’all on the other side.
04/22/2007 at 04:15 PM
Next entry: Performance Review: Poor Communication Skills
Previous entry: Frogs Choose Head Toad