Orange County blues

Kissimmee, FL

#220416 May 7, 2012
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
Finally! Something that we can agree on. That's why I emphasized "pro-choicers" so you would notice it, and possibly become intersted enough to at least sign the petition. Sexual slavery exists everwhere in the world. Of course I still don't advocate for choice when it comes to killng innocent unborn babies.
Why would you think for even a second that ANYONE would support forced abortions?

Here is what pro-choice means:

That women have the legal right to do any or all of the following:

1. To have a baby and keep it.

2. To have a baby and put it up for adoption.

3. To have an abortion.

Pro-choice does NOT mean advocating one choice over another. It simply means advocating and supporting the legal right to choose any or all of the above options.

Of course, only the INDIVIDUAL who is pregnant can rightly decide what is the best option for HERSELF and HER pregnancy.

Oh- so you're okay with "non-innocent" "unborn babies" being killed- LOL!!!

You're so silly. A z/ef is neither guilty OR innocent, nor is a z/e/f either armed or defenseless.

I don't expect you to understand what that means, though.

And of course, what a woman is pregnant with up until the moment of birth is not a BABY. It's a FETUS. Once there is a LIVE BIRTH, there is a BABY. Once there is a BABY there is a PERSON. Once there is a PERSON, they are afforded all the rights of PERSONHOOD.

Can't really make it any simpler to understand.....

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Walled Lake, MI

#220417 May 7, 2012
Superwilly wrote:
PP has never distanced itself from the eugenics of it's founder.
Margaret Sanger CLEARLY believed in negative eugenics;
From Wikipedia;
Sanger's 1920 book endorsed eugenics.
As part of her efforts to promote birth control, Sanger found common cause with proponents of eugenics, believing that they both sought to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit."[72] Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing reproduction by those considered unfit. Sanger's eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded.[73][74] In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating.[75] Although Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve her goals.[76][77][78]
In contrast with eugenicists who advocated euthanasia for the unfit,[note 9] Sanger wrote, "we [do not] believe that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding."[79] Similarly, Sanger denounced the aggressive and lethal Nazi eugenics program.[74] In addition, Sanger believed the responsibility for birth control should remain in the hands of able-minded individual parents rather than the state, and that self-determining motherhood was the only unshakable foundation for racial betterment.[76][80]
Complementing her eugenics policies, Sanger also supported restrictive immigration policies. In "A Plan for Peace", a 1932 essay, she proposed a congressional department to address population problems. She also recommended that immigration exclude those "whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race," and that sterilization and segregation be applied to those with incurable, hereditary disabilities.[73][74][81]
If the founder of an organization expressed "to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit", would that not raise concerns?
Don't you find that type of thinking highly repugnant no matter what the context?
PP does not shout it out, but they have never ever distanced themselves from her eugenics.
Planned Parenthood had nothing to do with the forced eugenics program in this country. Prove where PP had ever advocated reducing certain "types" of people. I want to see a statement released by PP where they've stated this. I also want to see where PP solicits "undesirable" populations to have abortions. Please, show me a billboard posted by PP that says, "Hey poor black people! Come have an abortion!"

People like you listen to FOX news way too much. Do some real research.
LightForce

Warren, MI

#220418 May 7, 2012
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
That was much better than my comment was going to be. I was just going to tell him to FO.
Don't be caught this weekend unprepared when those uninvited guests show up to your door. Be the envy of all yer relatives with this lip-smackin' recipe. Here - set a spell an have a look-see:

Aplle Pie

A heap o' short sweetnin
A smigen o' wheat flour
A bit o' tartnin'
Less than a bit o' tart hide
Even less o' bever stick
A quotom o' mashed mace
Butter
A raw outcoverin fer a pie
A poke o' pome fruit

In the lower half o' yore pie outercoverin lay out layers o'pome an tween the layers sprinkle some o' yore tartnin' tart hide, wheaten flour, n' spices. Put some teeny dots o' butter over the top. Lay on the upper half o' yore pie outcoverin' with a few holes punched in fer to let out the steam n' bake a good bit.

Enjoy!

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Walled Lake, MI

#220419 May 7, 2012
Superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Not applicable, the nazis DID collaborate with american eugenicists.
Margaret sanger advocated eugenics and did so in her book.
From the George Mason University website;
"More than just providing the scientific roadmap, America funded Germany's eugenic institutions. By 1926, Rockefeller had donated some $410,000 -- almost $4 million in 21st-Century money -- to hundreds of German researchers. In May 1926, Rockefeller awarded $250,000 to the German Psychiatric Institute of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, later to become the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry. Among the leading psychiatrists at the German Psychiatric Institute was Ernst Rüdin, who became director and eventually an architect of Hitler's systematic medical repression.
Another in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute's eugenic complex of institutions was the Institute for Brain Research. Since 1915, it had operated out of a single room. Everything changed when Rockefeller money arrived in 1929. A grant of $317,000 allowed the Institute to construct a major building and take center stage in German race biology. The Institute received additional grants from the Rockefeller Foundation during the next several years. Leading the Institute, once again, was Hitler's medical henchman Ernst Rüdin. Rüdin's organization became a prime director and recipient of the murderous experimentation and research conducted on Jews, Gypsies and others."
This isn't some imagined connection between american eugenicists and the nazis, it existed, it's history, it's fact.
Margaret Sanger appointed a man named Lothrop Stoddard to be a board member of the Birth Control League, the forerunner of Planned Parenthood. Stoddard was an avid supporter of eugenics, forced sterilization, and Adolph Hitler.
Again, not some sort of imagined connection, it's fact and history.
I'm still waiting where you're going to provide evidence that PP goes out and tries to get the less-fortunate or desirable populations to have abortions. I want to see proof that PP advertises, "Are you poor? Black? Hispanic? Have an abortion!" I also want to see where PP is forcing these people to have abortions. Please, if you're going to make these statements, then you need proof to back them up. Otherwise, it's just dribble.

The forced eugenics program ended in the 1970s.

You also use Margaret Sanger as if she were advocating something bad. You're probably one of those people who gripe about people on welfare, yet you see a problem with someone who was trying to help those people control or halt their procreation. She was first and foremost a woman's rights leader, dedicated to helping women choose whether or not they wanted to have a child by helping them gain access to birth control.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Walled Lake, MI

#220420 May 7, 2012
Superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
They were ardent eugenicists, so was Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood has never distanced itself from Margaret Sanger's belief in eugenics.
So, it DOES MATTER. IT IS ABOUT ABORTION IN 2012 IN THE US. Eugenics was wrong, is wrong, and will be wrong, no matter what terminology is used, no matter who espouses it (Planned Parenthood).
Abortion is eugenics. kill the offspring because they are handicapped? Kill the baby because they may have a defect? Kill the baby because they may be mentally challenged? Kill the baby because they may represent financial difficulty for the family?
If a woman doesn't want to have a developmentally challenged baby, that is her choice. Not PP's. PP doesn't advertise "Got a retarded baby in the oven? Have an abortion!" (And I use that term to relay the absurdity of your claims.)

Your claim that abortion is eugenics is false. You know who is more likely to get an abortion between a low-income African American female and a middle-class, educated, career-driven Caucasian woman? Yeah...I that's what I thought.

Geez, I wonder how many celebrities/athletes have gotten abortions because they didn't want a baby and pregnancy to take them out of the running for important roles or games? Hmmm....yup. That's eugenics, alright.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Walled Lake, MI

#220421 May 7, 2012
Grunt56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ooops.
Looks like someone else sees him for what he is.
Better call his cheerleaders in.
She's not really a fan of you, either.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Walled Lake, MI

#220422 May 7, 2012
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think that whether a fetus is a person or not is relevant in this debate?
Um....YESSS...this might be the absolute stupidest thing anyone has ever posted on here! WTH do you think this debate is all about? Seriously...you're so very, very dense.
LightForce

Warren, MI

#220423 May 7, 2012
Orange County blues wrote:
<quoted text>Why would you think for even a second that ANYONE would support forced abortions?
Here is what pro-choice means:
That women have the legal right to do any or all of the following:
1. To have a baby and keep it.
2. To have a baby and put it up for adoption.
3. To have an abortion.
Pro-choice does NOT mean advocating one choice over another. It simply means advocating and supporting the legal right to choose any or all of the above options.
Of course, only the INDIVIDUAL who is pregnant can rightly decide what is the best option for HERSELF and HER pregnancy.
Oh- so you're okay with "non-innocent" "unborn babies" being killed- LOL!!!
You're so silly. A z/ef is neither guilty OR innocent, nor is a z/e/f either armed or defenseless.
I don't expect you to understand what that means, though.
And of course, what a woman is pregnant with up until the moment of birth is not a BABY. It's a FETUS. Once there is a LIVE BIRTH, there is a BABY. Once there is a BABY there is a PERSON. Once there is a PERSON, they are afforded all the rights of PERSONHOOD.
Can't really make it any simpler to understand.....
Why would anyone support abortion at all whether it be in the guise of choice, population control, or whatever? An unborn baby is an individual human being(person) no matter what good(bad) wife tells you.

The rest of your comment I understood, but I had to lower my standards in order to.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Walled Lake, MI

#220424 May 7, 2012
Superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
It does have relevance beccause margaret sanger is the founder of planned parenthood, her teachings are the zeitgeist of planned parenthood.
Thank goodness she did. I'm glad someone founded an organization that is dedicated to helping women attain birth control (which, is what she opened in 1916 - a birth control clinic). Thank goodness someone stood up for women's rights to choose whether or not they even want to become pregnant. For shame that any woman should decide that they don't want to be a mother for whatever reason and be able to go to PP and get birth control.(Shaking my head at your ignorance).

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Walled Lake, MI

#220425 May 7, 2012
Superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
All that can be done more effectively and less costly at any woman's hospital. Planned Parenthood is obsolete as anything more than a shell organization for the abortion industry.
Men's sexual health?
There are real doctors that specialize in that.
You do know that men can go to PP as well, right?

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Walled Lake, MI

#220426 May 7, 2012
Grunt56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that prediction went like her others.
This just shows the intellect of you both. She posts something stupid that is shown to be false. You show up AFTER it's been proven to be a false statement and agree with her.
You gals are so minor league.
And you're in the major league of Topix posters? What a feat!

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Walled Lake, MI

#220427 May 7, 2012
Superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Clueless? I get all that stuff through my doctor, a real doctor that has no agenda.
Good thing the doctors at PP have an agenda for helping low-income, non-insurance-having women. Damn those people with their agenda of trying to help others.

Your doctor most certainly does have an agenda. To make money.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Walled Lake, MI

#220428 May 7, 2012
Superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Prime example: Magee Woman's hospital, pittsburgh, pa.
They do abortions there, and I am opposed to that. You can opt out of an abortion there, but they are a particularly effective and comprehesive woman's medical care hospital. They'll provide care for any woman that seeks thier help.
Soooo...your example of where a woman can go to get the same services PP offers so they don't patronize an organization that performs abortions is a hospital that offers abortions.

Genius.
LightForce

Warren, MI

#220429 May 7, 2012
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
Um....YESSS...this might be the absolute stupidest thing anyone has ever posted on here! WTH do you think this debate is all about? Seriously...you're so very, very dense.
No need for personal attacks. You see - some if not most of the so-called pro-choicers on here think that the only debate is that of the woman's freedom to choose, regardless of whether the fetus is a person or not. I just wanted to know whether you had any morals whatsoever. By your reply, apparently you do.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Walled Lake, MI

#220430 May 7, 2012
Grunt56 wrote:
<quoted text>
My mortgage isn't 10k a month. If it were, I'd have said "doesn't cover the mortgage" or "is my mortgage". You really need to learn to read.
I can't help it if you live in the ghetto.
You try way too hard to try and convince people on here something about yourself. It's obvious how untrue most of your comments are. You say some people protest too much, but there is such a thing of doing the opposite and you're very guilty of it.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Walled Lake, MI

#220431 May 7, 2012
Grunt56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Please read the thread. 93% of women who had abortions listed their reasons as "school, money, work, etc". All of which add up to "inconvenience".
You don't have to like it. That doesn't make it any less true.
And it doesn't make it any more your business. A woman can have an abortion for any reason she decides upon.
Orange County blues

Kissimmee, FL

#220432 May 7, 2012
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would anyone support abortion at all whether it be in the guise of choice, population control, or whatever? An unborn baby is an individual human being(person) no matter what good(bad) wife tells you.
The rest of your comment I understood, but I had to lower my standards in order to.
You still don't GET it.

No pro-choicer supports abortion in and of itself. And no pro-choicer supports having a baby and keeping it in and of itself.And no pro-choicer supports having a baby and giving it up for adoption in and of itself.

What pro-choice supports is.......wait for it, wait for it....is CHOICE.

The only INDIVIDUAL who has to "support" any or all of the above choices is the INDIVIDUAL who is pregnant.

And no- you are WRONG. A zygote, an embryo and a fetus are NOT individual PERSONS.

Yes- if a z/e/f is within the body of a HUMAN, it is of course, HUMAN.

I can't help that you can't differentiate between something being HUMAN and something being a PERSON.

And I can't help that you don't know what "individual" means.

As long as a z/e/f is ATTACHED to a woman by means of the umbilical cord, it is NOT an INDIVIDUAL as it cannot exist INDIVIDUALLY as it it solely dependent upon that attachment via the umbilical cord to survive.

I mean really- this is fifth grade stuff.

But okay- since you insist on using the misnomer of "unborn baby", then surely you can insist upon referring to yourself as an "undead corpse". I mean, after all, eventually you WILL be a corpse, so why not start referring to yourself as one now?

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Walled Lake, MI

#220433 May 7, 2012
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would anyone support abortion at all whether it be in the guise of choice, population control, or whatever? An unborn baby is an individual human being(person) no matter what good(bad) wife tells you.
The rest of your comment I understood, but I had to lower my standards in order to.
Because personal liberty is more important. Because a woman's right to choose is more important. Because people don't see it in the same light as you. Because your opinion is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#220434 May 7, 2012
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
You do know that men can go to PP as well, right?
He didn't know until last night.

Silly Willy has plenty of opinions on Planned Parethood. He just doesn't have the facts to back them up.

The full blown war brought upon Planned Parenthood is a shameful.
The heads of these anti choicers is filled with propaganda and we all know who will suffer. Women in need.
They always get the short end of the stick.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Walled Lake, MI

#220435 May 7, 2012
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
No need for personal attacks. You see - some if not most of the so-called pro-choicers on here think that the only debate is that of the woman's freedom to choose, regardless of whether the fetus is a person or not. I just wanted to know whether you had any morals whatsoever. By your reply, apparently you do.
When you stop lacking the intelligence to have this debate, then I won't have to point it out that the gist of many of these conversations revolves around that exact point and yet, it's gone completely over your head.

No, I do not consider a 6-wk-old fetus a person.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 min Tony17 559,022
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 2 min Student 39,336
What Your Church Won't Tell You by Dave and Gar... (Apr '10) 3 min His Eminency dr S... 33,165
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min Dave Nelson 773,934
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 6 min RiccardoFire 37,794
Stop buying Chinese 6 min Protester 2
The World Will End On May 21, 2011 (Aug '08) 8 min His Eminency dr S... 16,450
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 18 min His Eminency dr S... 604,797
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 36 min HipGnosis 175,551
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 3 hr HipGnosis 441,755
More from around the web