My shared views of politics, religion, and life from the
typical to the extraordinary, the sacred to the profane, the real to the imagined, the right to the left, and the right to the wrong.
I don't watch videos on my computer. Can you summarize?
Yep. Defund Planned Parenthood.If that isn't enough, it goes on to show that a vast majority of the business done by PP are abortions, that the founder Margaret Sanger was a horrific racist and intentionally wanted the culling of undersirable "colored people", and how a vast majority of PP clinics are in minority areas ironically.
I'm glad you picked up on this. It's important that this video go viral. When I saw it on YouTube it had only 300 visits. Post it on Facebook and email friends with blogs to post it. Everyone needs to see it!
Yup, they build 75-80% of Planned Parenthood offices in minority neighborhoods to abort minority babies becaue they think it will lower crime. They being Democrats, and I'm not kidding and this isn't a glen beck consperacy theory. I'm talking about a long running theory most recently updated by economist Steven Levitt that abortion reduces crime.Makes sense when you learn that Planned Parenthoods founder, margaret sanger hated blacks and loved Hitler. No kidding loved l-o-v-e-d Hitler.Here are some of her little gems:On blacks, immigrants and indigents:"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people On sterilization & racial purification:"The lower orders of society should be forcebly sterilized to prevent pollution of our race." On the right of married couples to bear children:"Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child", she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932 On the purpose of birth control:The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2) On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12"We must not let on that our true purpose is the extermination of the black race" -- Birth Control Review, May 1919 p. 14"We should emulate some of the better practices instituted by the Chancelor in Germany" -- on Adolph Hitler, 1938.And to no suprize, Planned Parenthood is STILL defend this witch.As a matter of fact, Hillary Clinton compared her to Thomas Jefferson and Nanci Peloci called her the greatest women's rights advocate of the 20th century. Yup, the "kill all the niggers and spics" bitch. What company Democrats keep in their party?
And yet there are myriads of liberals that tar conservatives/libertarians with the label of "racist". Margaret Sanger was a vile and disgusting human being. It is sadly ironic that the left idolizes her "accomplishment" in the form of Planned Parenthood.I wonder how many of the ignorant among them would even change their minds about Planned Parenthood if they were to be made aware of some of the quotes you provided from her? I wonder if they would be repulsed, or just say that the necessity of Planned Parenthood outweight her racist attitudes?
I dunno, but Hillary Clinton thinks that genocidal lunatic was equivilant to a founding father and Barbara Boxer called her one of the greatest civil rights heros in American history. How freak'n ironic is that!?
Free, that doesn't even surprise me really.
Paine, as I pointed out in my response at Oh!pinion, Sanger favored contraception and did not favor abortion. What's more, she was associated with Planned Parenthood for only a few years — ages ago.Planned Parenthood provides a broad range of women's health services to mostly low-income women. It's policy is to encourage responsible behavior, including use of contraception if pregnancy is not a good idea. PP does provide abortion services. You're kidding yourself and being grossly unfair if you buy into the notion that they are the main thing PP clinics do. You're also accepting a fallacy if you believe abortions are mainly provided to give women an "easy" way out of the consequences of their own shabby behavior. Just as they wind up pregnant for many reasons — including rape and incest — women get abortions for many reasons.Whatever the reason, abortion is always tragic. But we know from historical experience they're always going to be sought after by a few. We also know that driving them underground is the worst thing that can be done about them. That is as true from the standpoint of the individual as it is from society's standpoint.If you want to discourage abortions, do what you can to provide more better alternatives. Encourage women to behave responsibly. Seeking prohibition by eliminating PP and other properly staffed and operated clinics that provide abortions is not the way.
Anderson, abortions represented between 63.3% and 71% of Planned Parenthood Federation of America's total clinic revenue in 2003-04. And that's a fact straight from their own Annual Report.Abortions were the end result in 93% of all pregnancies seen by Planned Parenthood.While abortion, except in saving the life of the mother, is always wrong, I typically do not hate those having abortions. Rather I feel great sorrow for them and the pain for which they have and will go through for having done so. Removing tax payer funding for this grim and evil practice really is a moral imperative. I do agree that we need to educate and become a society that explains and fosters an understanding that abortion is not a good option in order to make them far more rare. Continuing to subsidize this practice would seem to be contrary to that goal, wouldn't you think, sir?
"Removing tax payer funding for this grim and evil practice really is a moral imperative." Once we assume moral imperatives, we play a dangerous game indeed. From this place, all kinds of evil can be justified.
John, to a certain extent I understand your point; however, please explain how this evil practice brings about good in the world ultimately?
T. Paine: "Removing tax payer funding for this grim and evil practice really is a moral imperative." John: “Once we assume moral imperatives, we play a dangerous game indeed. From this place, all kinds of evil can be justified.” T. Paine: "John, to a certain extent I understand your point; however, please explain how this evil practice brings about good in the world ultimately?" I just told you in a different comment: John: "If absolute morality existed, we could not detect it or have definitive proof of what it was (we could not devise a list of moral imperatives." Therefore, to believe we have found a moral imperative, and then act on and enforce our belief, we create a very dangerous situation. This is how some fundamentalist Muslims justify blowing things we need to bits, like our brothers and sisters. For the sake of discussion of moral imperatives, read about Kant's Categorical Imperative. Anything that does not fall into that definition, leads to a contradiction. Perhaps it will not be you contradicting yourself, but will be someone else contradicting what you have said. We cannot claim ownership of truth unless it can truly be owned. If your truth is my deception, and vice versa, then we should be very careful about acting to enforce our opinion as if it were a moral imperative. You can say that you think it is wrong. To say that it is always wrong you know exceeds the boundaries of reason. Do you then disregard the opinions of those who have the exact same data you have and are equally intelligent, yet “know,” that you are mistaken? I know you could use the same argument to justify Nazism, for example. However, the majority of civilized society would disagree. When a nation is split 50/50 on an issue, one side cannot take extraordinary measures to enforce their “morally imperative” opinion, or society does not work and civil war or oppression follows. A moral imperative cannot be disputed with logic. Surely you will acknowledge that tons of very logical people use logic to dispute your moral imperative? So, your moral imperative is really a strong opinion on a very important matter. It is not, however, an imperative.
Post a Comment