Legitimate Rape and Abortion- Republicans back-pedal

[Juan_Bottom]

Not exactly.
Is Sperm Human?
When does a cluster of empty cells become a person? When can it theoretically even feel pain?
Is aborting a chimpanzee baby murder because their infant's biology is nearly identical to ours?
Is killing a Chimpanzee Murder?
Will outlawing Abortion do anything to curb abortion?


Is killing a cell cluster with a mutation Murder?

No one in this thread ever even tried to define where the red line of abortion is. This is copy-post 3.

[Night Strike]

btw, with regards to those who think those who oppose abortion are "anti-woman":

if you believed that a fetus was human, wouldn't YOU be against killing fetuses, even in cases of rape, despite the fact that you are totally pro-woman and love gender equality?

quit pretending that our position is based on our so-called "misogyny". that's a fucking cop-out. the debate is and always has been about whether a fetus is human and whether killing it is an act of murder... it has NEVER been about trying to find clever ways to punish women because we just hate them so very much

i suppose i should have expected it from the same people who call anyone who dislikes obama a "racist".

how the hell can you take yourselves seriously... i sometimes wonder how many of you are trolling, as opposed to simply being ignorant or stupid.

Says the guy ignorant of what a fetus is and wants to call abortion murder without considering the ramifications of the charge.

And yes, those who oppose abortion are anti-women. There's simply no justification for, to take an extreme stance, opposing the abortion of an ectopic pregnancy. There will be no child born, and it's highly dangerous for the woman.

I'm sorry if this again troubles your bumper sticker rhetoric, but if you're opposed to abortion in that case, then you're either ignorant or stupid. If you're ok with that kind of abortion, then you don't oppose abortion.

Killing other people is wrong, yet when it comes to self-defense, it's considered justified. There's nothing different between self-defense and an abortion that is for saving the mother's life. That does not mean a person supports abortion any more than supporting self-defense means a person supports going around killing others.

[john9blue]

And yes, those who oppose abortion are anti-women. There's simply no justification for, to take an extreme stance, opposing the abortion of an ectopic pregnancy. There will be no child born, and it's highly dangerous for the woman.

you're right, there isn't. which is why i consider pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother to be the only ones where abortion can be justified.

oh and... sorry about my "misuse" of the queen's english. don't get your panties in a bunch [edit].

[Symmetry]

And yes, those who oppose abortion are anti-women. There's simply no justification for, to take an extreme stance, opposing the abortion of an ectopic pregnancy. There will be no child born, and it's highly dangerous for the woman.

you're right, there isn't. which is why i consider pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother to be the only ones where abortion can be justified.

oh and... sorry about my "misuse" of the queen's english. don't get your panties in a bunch, britfag.

Charming, how could anyone think you might be hateful of anyone, let alone women.

So anyway- we've established that you don't oppose abortion. You oppose it sometimes, like most people who support abortion.

[GreecePwns]

We've been through this before, and I don't think it was address

The burden of proof is on those seeking restrictions to prove that the thing is a human being deserving of the right to life. On top of it, those seeking restrictions on abortions must address the relation between this position and others on other issues which come about by viewing humans as individuals not dependent on a parasitic relationship to continue its "life."

An aside: it's funny how religious thought (which seeks to reward people for their behavior in a later life) and capitalist thought (which seeks to reward people for their behavior in this life) are fused into a single ideology, generic conservatism. Perhaps the capitalists do this using the overtly religious as pawns in their bid for power. I'd like to see whether the richest men in the nation are more or less religious than the national average.

[john9blue]

Charming, how could anyone think you might be hateful of anyone, let alone women.

So anyway- we've established that you don't oppose abortion. You oppose it sometimes, like most people who support abortion.

of course. my approach is not idealistic. it's not black and white. the world isn't black and white.

it's simply about choosing which course of action has the most desirable effects. we have rules of thumb to help us out with this, rules like "don't kill another human". if an abortion would cause one death instead of two, then the choice should be obvious.

We've been through this before, and I don't think it was address

The burden of proof is on those seeking restrictions to prove that the thing is a human being deserving of the right to life. On top of it, those seeking restrictions on abortions must address the relation between this position and others on other issues which come about by viewing humans as individuals not dependent on a parasitic relationship to continue its "life."

Ahh, when you fuse religious thought (which seeks to reward people for their behavior in a later life) and capitalist thought (which seeks to reward people for their behavior in this life), you get plenty of contradictions, don't you?

my opposition to abortion isn't based on religious grounds.

also, what kind of "other issues" are you talking about?

[GreecePwns]

Any issue that regards humans as individual beings, really.

[Night Strike]

The burden of proof is on those seeking restrictions to prove that the thing is a human being deserving of the right to life. On top of it, those seeking restrictions on abortions must address the relation between this position and others on other issues which come about by viewing humans as individuals not dependent on a parasitic relationship to continue its "life."

Kind of like how Jews had to prove that they weren't the actual cause of Germany's problems pre-WWII?

[Symmetry]

don't get your panties in a bunch, britfag.

Charming, how could anyone think you might be hateful of anyone, let alone women.

So anyway- we've established that you don't oppose abortion. You oppose it sometimes, like most people who support abortion.

of course. my approach is not idealistic. it's not black and white. the world isn't black and white.

So where do you place the "britfags"? Is that black or whte? It sort of sounded like there was some venom in the that comment.

[GreecePwns]

Yep, just like that Night Strike. Exactly like that.

Except the Jews were not telling everyone else how to live and restricting their behavior, the Nazis were telling the Jews how to live (or die) and restricting their behavior.

And that this isn't the Holocaust and your comment has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote and is really ridiculous.

[Symmetry]

The burden of proof is on those seeking restrictions to prove that the thing is a human being deserving of the right to life. On top of it, those seeking restrictions on abortions must address the relation between this position and others on other issues which come about by viewing humans as individuals not dependent on a parasitic relationship to continue its "life."

Kind of like how Jews had to prove that they weren't the actual cause of Germany's problems pre-WWII?

Ah, the inevitable Holocaust analogy from the right wing, calling abortion essentially the same as anti-Semitism and the Shoah. Of course, very closely linked to the right's attempts to diminish the Holocaust.

After all- if an abortion clinic is just like a death camp, then death camps are no worse than your local hospital, and the Holocaust is mundane.

[tzor]

Words have meaning. Using them improperly simply to get an emotional reaction is a dishonest argument.

Words do have meanings. So given that, yield the floor to someone who says what they mean and means what they say: The Truth About MARGRET SANGER

At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."

Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted.

So quit with the touchy feely shit Woodruff and stick to logic and facts. Margaret Sanger was a eugenist, one who wanted the unfit races EXTERMINATED. Unlike Hitler, she didn't have an army, so she worked towards that goal indirectly.

Birth control was presented both as an economic betterment vehicle and as a health measure that could lower the incidence of infant mortality. At the 1942 BCFA annual meeting, BCFA Negro Council board member Dr. Dorothy B. Ferebee–a cum laude graduate of Tufts and also president of Alpha Kappa Alpha, the nation's largest black sorority–addressed the delegates regarding Planned Parenthood's minority outreach efforts : With the Negro group some of the most difficult obstacles . . . to overcome are: (1) the concept that when birth control is proposed to them, it is motivated by a clever bit of machination to persuade them to commit race suicide; (2) the so-called "husband rejection" . . . (3) the fact that birth control is confused with abortion, and (4) the belief that is inherently immoral. However, as formidable as these objections may seem, when thrown against the total picture of the awareness on the part of the Negro leaders of the improved condition under Planned Parenthood, or the genuine interest and eagerness of the families themselves to secure the services which will give them a fair chance for health and happiness, the obstacles to the program are greatly outweighed.

In a 1921 article in the Birth Control Review, Sanger wrote, "The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective." Reviewers of one of her 1919 articles interpreted her objectives as "More children from the fit, less from the unfit." Again, the question of who decides fitness is important, and it was an issue that Sanger only partly addressed. "The undeniably feebleminded should indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind," she wrote.

Many African American women have been subject to nonconsensual forced sterilization. Some did not even know that they were sterilized until they tried, unsuccessfully, to have children. In 1973, Essence Magazine published an expose of forced sterilization practices in the rural South, where racist physicians felt they were performing a service by sterilizing black women without telling them. While one cannot blame Margaret Sanger for the actions of these physician, one can certainly see why Sanger's words are especially repugnant in a racial context.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has been protective of Margaret Sanger's reputation and defensive of allegations that she was a racist. They correctly point out that many of the attacks on Sanger come from anti-choice activists who have an interest in distorting both Sanger's work and that of Planned Parenthood. While it is understandable that Planned Parenthood would be protective of their founder's reputation, it cannot ignore the fact that Sanger edited the Birth Control review from its inception until 1929. Under her leadership, the magazine featured articles that embraced the eugenicist position. If Sanger were as anti-eugenics as Planned Parenthood says she was, she would not have printed as many articles sympathetic to eugenics as she did.

[Symmetry]

Words have meaning. Using them improperly simply to get an emotional reaction is a dishonest argument.

Words do have meanings. So given that, yield the floor to someone who says what they mean and means what they say: The Truth About MARGRET SANGER

show

Yeah, crazy right wing nut jobs ain't really a source- are you seriously reading this stuff?

[Woodruff]

so, woody, instead of using the word "genocide", i could have used the more pleasant-sounding (?) alternative, "mass homicide".

It would at least be closer to the truth, yes.

so tell me, what makes "genocide" worse than "mass homicide"?

Usually, the reasons behind them. But I wouldn't want you to have to think too hard about that.

props to funkyterrance for once again calling out the intellectual dishonesty and cowardice of those who disagree with me.

It must be so difficult to commend someone for agreeing with you. How impressive.

[Woodruff]

btw, with regards to those who think those who oppose abortion are "anti-woman":
if you believed that a fetus was human, wouldn't YOU be against killing fetuses, even in cases of rape, despite the fact that you are totally pro-woman and love gender equality?
quit pretending that our position is based on our so-called "misogyny". that's a fucking cop-out. the debate is and always has been about whether a fetus is human and whether killing it is an act of murder... it has NEVER been about trying to find clever ways to punish women because we just hate them so very much

I think for most people, your statements here are true. But I don't think they're necessarily true.

i suppose i should have expected it from the same people who call anyone who dislikes obama a "racist".

Prove it, Phatscotty.

how the hell can you take yourselves seriously... i sometimes wonder how many of you are trolling, as opposed to simply being ignorant or stupid.

Irony...it's not just a mineral!

[Woodruff]

The burden of proof is on those seeking restrictions to prove that the thing is a human being deserving of the right to life. On top of it, those seeking restrictions on abortions must address the relation between this position and others on other issues which come about by viewing humans as individuals not dependent on a parasitic relationship to continue its "life."

Kind of like how Jews had to prove that they weren't the actual cause of Germany's problems pre-WWII?

Non-sequitarianism at it's finest.

[Woodruff]

Words have meaning. Using them improperly simply to get an emotional reaction is a dishonest argument.

Words do have meanings. So given that, yield the floor to someone who says what they mean and means what they say: The Truth About MARGRET SANGER

Holy "trying to get an emotional reaction from a dishonest argument", Batman!

First of all, I would seriously question your source. Got anything rational for a source?

But hey, at least you tried to tie abortion to one crazy racist from the 1920s, in an attempt to tie the abortion movement of today to such things...well done!

So quit with the touchy feely shit Woodruff and stick to logic and facts. Margaret Sanger was a eugenist, one who wanted the unfit races EXTERMINATED. Unlike Hitler, she didn't have an army, so she worked towards that goal indirectly.

So is it actually your position that if there is one individual within a movement's history, then that movement is clearly wrong? I suspect that's not a position you want to stick to...but I'll let you answer that.

[BigBallinStalin]

We've been through this before, and I don't think it was address

The burden of proof is on those seeking restrictions to prove that the thing is a human being deserving of the right to life. On top of it, those seeking restrictions on abortions must address the relation between this position and others on other issues which come about by viewing humans as individuals not dependent on a parasitic relationship to continue its "life."

An aside: it's funny how religious thought (which seeks to reward people for their behavior in a later life) and capitalist thought (which seeks to reward people for their behavior in this life) are fused into a single ideology, generic conservatism. Perhaps the capitalists do this using the overtly religious as pawns in their bid for power. I'd like to see whether the richest men in the nation are more or less religious than the national average.

The bogey man, The Capitalist, and his other Capitalist Friends, are out to get you, GP.

Lurking in the shadows is the Capitalist....

[BigBallinStalin]

At JB got one thing right this past month: 'fetus/insert whatever technical term Sym desires = human? How so?'

[Funkyterrance]

At JB got one thing right this past month: 'fetus/insert whatever technical term Sym desires = human? How so?'

Ok BBS, would you mind putting down that bottle of scotch, dunking your head in a cold barrel of water and coming back to the computer to re-write that last post?

Tzor, the only problem with your analogy is that it only applies to people who are encouraging abortion of particular races/classes from what I can see? It seems like a sidetrack at best? I mean, don't all classes of people get abortions?

[BigBallinStalin]

At JB got one thing right this past month: 'fetus/insert whatever technical term Sym desires = human? How so?'

Ok BBS, would you mind putting down that bottle of scotch, dunking your head in a cold barrel of water and coming back to the computer to re-write that last post?[/quotes]

<dunks head in barrel of scotch>

But isn't that the fundamental hinge upon this abortion issue? When does life begin? What constitutes as human, so that I may kill/preserve whatever?

[PLAYER57832]

[ Margaret Sanger was a eugenist, one who wanted the unfit races EXTERMINATED. Unlike Hitler, she didn't have an army, so she worked towards that goal indirectly.

we have addressed this several times before. You are wrong .
Now, how about getting back to some of the earlier challenges you continue to ignore in favor of yet more tangents.

[PLAYER57832]

I know you will never go back and read the earlier bits about this, so here, again:

Words have meaning. Using them improperly simply to get an emotional reaction is a dishonest argument.

Words do have meanings. So given that, yield the floor to someone who says what they mean and means what they say: The Truth About MARGRET SANGER

At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."

Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted.

So quit with the touchy feely shit Woodruff and stick to logic and facts. Margaret Sanger was a eugenist, one who wanted the unfit races EXTERMINATED. Unlike Hitler, she didn't have an army, so she worked towards that goal indirectly.

I see, so she associated with 2 avowed racists, at a time when you still had KKK members on the Supreme court, when Jews were not allowed to enter fancy clubs and the like... and blacks, well, many people did consider them inferior... and you consider that to mean she wants the extermination of all non-whites? (or at least blacks and asians?).

Some leap there...
The TRUTH is that at the time, women having too many babies was a major factor in keeping families in poverty. And, women had very litte say in the matter. They only real choice they had was to get married or not, and even that was not much of a choice in many cases.

So, yes, she said and has been quoted as saying that birth control would save America, and poor people in general. (not specifically blacks, though, of course, blacks were largely poor back then, since they were not paid what whites were).

Birth control was presented both as an economic betterment vehicle and as a health measure that could lower the incidence of infant mortality. At the 1942 BCFA annual meeting, BCFA Negro Council board member Dr. Dorothy B. Ferebee–a cum laude graduate of Tufts and also president of Alpha Kappa Alpha, the nation's largest black sorority–addressed the delegates regarding Planned Parenthood's minority outreach efforts : With the Negro group some of the most difficult obstacles . . . to overcome are: (1) the concept that when birth control is proposed to them, it is motivated by a clever bit of machination to persuade them to commit race suicide; (2) the so-called "husband rejection" . . . (3) the fact that birth control is confused with abortion, and (4) the belief that is inherently immoral. However, as formidable as these objections may seem, when thrown against the total picture of the awareness on the part of the Negro leaders of the improved condition under Planned Parenthood, or the genuine interest and eagerness of the families themselves to secure the services which will give them a fair chance for health and happiness, the obstacles to the program are greatly outweighed.

What is described there is not what was being promoted, its the distorted beliefs that kept people from using the planning services. In other words, many blacks DID believe that birth control was a means of getting them to eliminate their race. And, I am sure you will find a few leaders who actually espoused that view.. before they were ousted. You have jerks in every group. That doesn't mean it really was the motivation of most people or any real basis for the actions.

In a 1921 article in the Birth Control Review, Sanger wrote, "The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective." Reviewers of one of her 1919 articles interpreted her objectives as "More children from the fit, less from the unfit." Again, the question of who decides fitness is important, and it was an issue that Sanger only partly addressed. "The undeniably feebleminded should indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind," she wrote.

Ah yes... and yet, this was a prevalent view of the day. In fact, although Hitler showed us the very bad side of that type of idea, the idea of eugenics when it came to mentally deficient or certain other abnormalities was well accepted. She was a woman of her time. If you had a magic bullet to eliminate all mental retardation... might you consider it? The issue, today is that A. we know there is no such thing, because the causes are complicated. B. we have "room" for people with varied abilities in our current society. Being mentally retarded doesn't mean a life in a box-institution. C. Most of these issue are not genetically based anyway.

BUT... the idea of eugenics, very, very carefully considered is re-entering the field. Some people are choosing voluntary sterilization or to just not have kids. Of coruse, voluntary is the key, there. BUT science is now reaching the point when we can make these decisions, long before abortion becomes and issue.

Many African American women have been subject to nonconsensual forced sterilization. Some did not even know that they were sterilized until they tried, unsuccessfully, to have children. In 1973, Essence Magazine published an expose of forced sterilization practices in the rural South, where racist physicians felt they were performing a service by sterilizing black women without telling them. While one cannot blame Margaret Sanger for the actions of these physician, one can certainly see why Sanger's words are especially repugnant in a racial context.

The key there is "one cannot blame Sanger"

... and this was the south. Because some racist idiots decide to use her words in ways that are repugnant does not mean she is guilty of those same thoughts or of the actions they took.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has been protective of Margaret Sanger's reputation and defensive of allegations that she was a racist.

Correct, and rightfully. She was not a racist, not in the context of her time.

They correctly point out that many of the attacks on Sanger come from anti-choice activists who have an interest in distorting both Sanger's work and that of Planned Parenthood. While it is understandable that Planned Parenthood would be protective of their founder's reputation, it cannot ignore the fact that Sanger edited the Birth Control review from its inception until 1929. Under her leadership, the magazine featured articles that embraced the eugenicist position. If Sanger were as anti-eugenics as Planned Parenthood says she was, she would not have printed as many articles sympathetic to eugenics as she did.

Being pro eugenics in the 1920's in no way, shape or form means she was a racist. It means she saw the potential for using genes and planning to enhance the human race. This was before a lot of knowledge we have today about genes, before even the idea of women being true thinking human beings capable of things like higher mathematics, was widely accepted. In fact, a lot of the attack on her was notably to declare her an aberration as a woman.. precisely because she could think and did come out against powerful men.


AND... its all pretty besides the point, anyway. Claiming that Margaret Sanger's thinking contis the "end all" of thinking TODAY on birth control and its use makes as much sense as claiming that because Darwin got some facts wrong, the whole idea of evolution is wrong.

Once someone creates and idea, spread it, it instantly changes. Everyone hearing alters the basic idea, builds upon it, to make something else out of it.


And yes.. seems the same people believe both ideas are fully logical!

[tzor]

we have addressed this several times before. You are wrong .

I am sorry that I tarnished the holy name of your saint with THE TRUTH. I know that normally blasphemy against the holy prophet founder of Planned Parenthood is punishable by death by silly ridicule but such is the way with radical abortionists.

But then again, that's typical of your viewing the world though progressive polarizing glasses that keeps out any fact not in accord with your worldview.

[tzor]

Being pro eugenics in the 1920's in no way, shape or form means she was a racist. It means she saw the potential for using genes and planning to enhance the human race.

I realize that you are completely and deliberately ignorant about the eugenics movement. The Nazi party was inspired by the eugenics movement in the United States. It was not limited to backs and was basically extended to all inferior non WASP races, especially immigrants fleeing oppression and coming into the country. Over the decades white non WASP races, especially Catholic Europeans were able to integrate through wealth to the acceptance level and thus avoid the planned elimination of their part of the genetic pool. Eventually the only major race left to eliminate for the sake of the gene pool was that of the African American whom the progressive had managed to return back to a dependency status thanks to the “New Deal.” (This was, of course after kicking them in the groin with laws that included the minimum wage laws, in an era where the unions were filled with predominantly white males.)