# Black Pastors Ask Smithsonian to Remove Bust of Planned Parentho



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Anyone else read this?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pen...sonian-remove-bust-planned-parenthood-founder


(CNSNews.com) â A group of black pastors sent a letter to the director of the Smithsonian Institutionâs National Portrait Gallery asking that the bust of Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger be removed from the museumâs âStruggle for Justiceâ exhibit, citing her support for eugenics and the targeting of minorities by the nationâs largest abortion provider.

"Perhaps the Gallery is unaware that Ms. Sanger supported black eugenics, a racist attitude toward black and other minority babies, an elitist attitude toward those she regarded as âthe feeble minded;â speaking at a rally of Ku Klux Klan women; and communications with Hitler sympathizers," the letter from Ministers Taking a Stand states.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Wonder why they aren't asking for the removal of the Jefferson Memorial given his racist behavior?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

basketti said:


> Wonder why they aren't asking for the removal of the Jefferson Memorial given his racist behavior?


I thought that there were requests for removal of civil war monuments. 

That said what are your thoughts on the article?


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

Some of the "comments" are hilarious.
Reminds me of HT.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2015)

http://npgportraits.si.edu/emuseumC...n=newpage&newstyle=single&newcurrentrecord=10


As a nurse on New York's crowded Lower East Side, Margaret Sanger saw firsthand how constant childbearing contributed to the cycle of poverty, and in 1912 she gave up nursing to devote herself to the promotion of birth control. Faced with laws forbidding dissemination of contraceptive information, Sanger's crusade had much opposition. But by 1921, when Sanger founded the Birth Control League, her movement had begun to win adherents in respectable quarters. Many years of battling were left before birth control would become part of mainstream social thinking, but with Sanger leading the way, that outcome increasingly seemed to be all but inevitable.
This photograph was taken shortly after Sanger's thirty-day imprisonment in 1917 for opening her first birth control clinic. Shortly before her release, the police ordered her to submit to fingerprinting. When she refused, a prolonged physical struggle ensued, from which she emerged the winner.


And no mention of of her negative attributes, typical intentional glossing over of history. Fix that or remove it is my opinion, it is a government institution and the people should have a voice.


----------



## summerdaze (Jun 11, 2009)

basketti said:


> Wonder why they aren't asking for the removal of the Jefferson Memorial given his racist behavior?


I sincerely hope that they don't. I am not in favor of removing articles from our past, no matter how sad, wrong, even disgusting they might be. People can learn from the past. We can marvel how far we've come, and be amazed that these things were once the thinking of the day. Erasing history really doesn't benefit anyone. 
The past can't hurt you today unless you want it to, and that's a choice.

What this woman started, with probably good intentions, has morphed into something well beyond. 

We can't change the past, and we'd be robbing our kids of the opportunity to learn from it. 
We CAN take steps to change the wrongdoing of TODAY, or at the very least, not honoring it. I think the pastors would be better off to rally against the atrosities that are happening RIGHT NOW with planned parenthood, and I hope pastors of all races would join them.
I also agree with Dim that ALL of her background and associations should have been included or updated or maybe they could have found someone more worthy of honoring.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I agree Summer. If we go this route then what's next? Students closing down Kent State because of the atrocities that the happened there? Taking all Muslims and deporting them forever? Taking down the Alamo brick by brick to appease Mexicans? 

It happened so lets learn and grow from it. I also agree with Cafee about not glossing over it. Tell it like it was and quit trying to be soft about it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And no mention of of her* negative attributes*, typical intentional glossing over of history. Fix that or remove it is my opinion, it is a government institution and the people should have a voice.


"Negative" is a subjective term, and doesn't mean the same thing to everyone.
You probably know people who would complain about Pasteur's moldy lab conditions


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Negative" is a subjective term, and doesn't mean the same thing to everyone.
> You probably know people who would complain about Pasteur's moldy lab conditions


Did not take long for you to show your negativity, right on cue.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Planned Parenthood kills more blacks in America than ANY and ALL other crimes, combined. Period.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

dlmcafee said:


> Did not take long for you to show your negativity, right on cue.


I let you show yours first :shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Planned Parenthood kills more blacks in America than ANY and ALL other crimes, combined. Period.


They ask for the services. 

They aren't dragged in against their will, and if PP didn't exist, someone else would be doing those abortions


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They ask for the services.
> 
> They aren't dragged in against their will, and if PP didn't exist, someone else would be doing those abortions


Ok......
That doesn't change any facts.

Seems to me, the 40's and 50's the strongest families were black families; intact, church goin, family first and all. Then in the 70's things just started falling apart....
I'm sorry, when did the clinics start popping up in the black communities, almost exclusively?
Oh, ok. The 70's.

Those pastors are right about this:"Perhaps the Gallery is unaware that Ms. Sanger supported black eugenics, a racist attitude toward black and other minority babies, an elitist attitude toward those she regarded as âthe feeble minded;â speaking at a rally of Ku Klux Klan women; and communications with Hitler sympathizers," the letter from Ministers Taking a Stand states.

Ah, Hitler.....Genocide master. 

Sure, leave her in the museum for 'history'. I agree.
But tell the Truth, and the WHOLE Truth.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *Seems to me*, the 40's and 50's the strongest families were black families; intact, church goin, family first and all. Then in the 70's things just started falling apart....
> I'm sorry, when did the clinics start popping up in the black communities, almost exclusively?
> Oh, ok. The 70's.


I think your views aren't realistic, and you just weren't seeing the worst of what was going on during those years.

Clinics didn't change behavior



> But tell the Truth, and the WHOLE Truth.


People don't want the whole truth.
They want one version only


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

In practice, Babyparts-R-Us is just a continuation of the eugenics theories of the early 20th century. Sanger's emphasis on reducing the population of those she deemed unfit is unspoken now, but proven by statistics to be the end result.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> People don't want the whole truth.
> They want one version only


And I guess that would be your version? I don't think so.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Planned Parenthood kills more blacks in America than ANY and ALL other crimes, combined. Period.


I get so confused by conservatives. First y'all rant and rave about black people having welfare babies and then you turn around and rant and rave about them having abortions. Y'all have some serious dichotomies....

(I decided to use "y'all" in hopes it would been seen as less personal than you)


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

So far as the article goes I think most Americans are unaware how enamored our society, doctors, scientists and politicians were with Eugenics. We were beating the Nazis on that philosophy right up until WWII and in some places it didn't die out until long after. 

Honestly I think a lot of people today could see some argument for controlled breeding of humans. If you really could weed out genetically the things that lead to social ills wouldn't you want to do so? I don't actually think it is possible but on the surface at least it sounds good. I have a feeling at some point we probably will go the Gattaca route. 

I did look up this quote from Sanger: *



Sanger, 1939: The ministerâs work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the ***** population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

Click to expand...

*In context it meant what I thought, she was hoping to stave off a misperception not saying her goal was to exterminate the ***** population.

I would be curious to know how those Pastors who wrote the letter would respond to this fact:



> In 1966, Planned Parenthood awarded Martin Luther King Jr. one of its Margaret Sanger Awards, and he praised her in his acceptance speech, delivered by his wife, Coretta Scott King, saying: âAt the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions.â


 http://www.factcheck.org/2011/11/cains-false-attack-on-planned-parenthood/

Kind of interesting after reading that article it would appear the Pastors cribbed all the points in their letter from Herman Cain's presidential run coments.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Patchouli said:


> I get so confused by conservatives. First y'all rant and rave about black people having welfare babies and then you turn around and rant and rave about them having abortions. Y'all have some serious dichotomies....
> 
> (I decided to use "y'all" in hopes it would been seen as less personal than you)


This gets the Real Life Award.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Ozarks Tom said:


> And I guess that would be your version? I don't think so.


No.

People want to hear those who always agree with them, even if their "truth" is really out right lies, like your "babyparts r us" drivel.


----------



## summerdaze (Jun 11, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Negative" is a subjective term, and doesn't mean the same thing to everyone.
> You probably know people who would complain about Pasteur's moldy lab conditions


Wow, that is some serious nit-pickin' there!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

The Abenaki American Indians from Vermont were targeted (among others) with eugenics and nearly decimated the tribe in that area. 

http://www.uvm.edu/~eugenics/famstudies.html


----------



## summerdaze (Jun 11, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They ask for the services.
> 
> They aren't dragged in against their will, and if PP didn't exist, someone else would be doing those abortions


I don't see where she said they were, or that someone else wouldn't do them. In fact, at this point, she hasn't added anything that may or may not pertain to what the stats are. So why are you adding that in? Stats are stats. Regardless of the possible reasons of why.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> The Abenaki American Indians from Vermont were targeted (among others) with eugenics and nearly decimated the tribe in that area.
> 
> http://www.uvm.edu/~eugenics/famstudies.html



I have seen some thinking from Republicans that reminds me a lot of this:



> *Who was investigated?*
> 
> Family reputation played a key role in deciding who was studied, what information was solicited, and what conclusions were drawn. Families who had become both visible and "notorious" in the previous decade of child rescue initiatives and poor relief surveys, or in the case files of private charities and state institutions and reformatories, became the unwitting subjects for genealogical study. Families selected were also old Vermont families whose ancestry could be traced back several generations in town records and who bore the stigma of "undesirable citizens" and community rejection.
> The families studied fit the stereotype of the "cacogenic family" (meaning "bad heredity") that had been popularized in rural sociology and rural eugenics literature since the turn of the century, in which isolation, illiteracy, poverty, and inbreeding were the defining themes. Arthur Estabrook's "Jukes" and "Tribe of Ishmael," Florence Danielson's and Charles B. Davenport's "Hill Folk," and Henry Goddard's "Kallikak Family," provided the research models for the Eugenics Survey's search for evidence of congenital "feeblemindedness," insanity, criminal or "asocial" behavior. Families of mixed racial ancestry were particularly vulnerable to eugenic investigations. The Eugenics Survey case files reveal what is concealed in most of their publications: the encrypting of racial and ethnic prejudice within social constructions of inherited mental incompetence as the root cause of chronic dependency, delinquency, and immorality.


This quote especially:



> ...The rights of the individual cannot be fully safeguarded when he is being compelled to support in the midst of his community the lawless, the immoral, the degenerate, and the mentally defective.... We are beginning to know enough about human heredity, about the working of the sterilization laws, to have a little courage, and to undertake a much needed reform. To make our state safe for decent citizens, to free the taxpayer from unnecessary burden in the support of the hereditary defective, to place upon a self-respecting, self-supporting basis the largest percentage of our boys and girls --- these are the objects for which constructive social betterment measures ought to be passed.​ Henry F. Perkins,
> _Lessons from a Eugenics Survey of Vermont_, 1927​


----------



## summerdaze (Jun 11, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I think your views aren't realistic, and you just weren't seeing the worst of what was going on during those years.
> 
> Clinics didn't change behavior
> 
> ...


I don't know about the black families and communities, b/c I didn't know any black families as a child, and I wasn't around black communities. I know that white families were more intact, more church going, neighbors were closer, kids were raised with more manners and morals, etc, so I can only imagine that black families were much the same way, but with bigger obstacles to face then white. 

Laura didn't say the clinics changed behavior. What I got from what she said was that because of the decay of families and communities in general, the BEHAVIOR changed, causing the need or want, or the willingness of the people to have and use the clinics springing up in their communities. 

People don't WANT the truth? That's just your OPINION. I think they DO. But we're both entitled to our opinions I guess. :hrm:


----------



## summerdaze (Jun 11, 2009)

Patch, those things you mentioned are horrible, and another example of learning something from PAST history. I don't know any republicans that would be for this in TODAY'S world, so not sure of the connection you were trying to make. 

Americans, like other peoples the world over, have done some terrible things. When I read those things in the articles, it makes me sad that this was ever acceptable thinking. But it can't hurt us now unless we choose for it to. A teachable moment in history.

I think we are kind of straying off the topic though, and I apologize for my role in that!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

summerdaze said:


> I don't see where she said they were, or that someone else wouldn't do them. In fact, at this point, she hasn't added anything that may or may not pertain to what the stats are. So why are you adding that in? Stats are stats. Regardless of the possible reasons of why.


Facts are facts too.
She gave some stats, I added some facts pertaining to the stats.

Often the "why" is more meaningful than the "how many"



> People don't WANT the truth? That's just your OPINION. I think they DO.


People claim to want the truth until they actually have to face it


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

summerdaze said:


> Patch, those things you mentioned are horrible, and another example of learning something from PAST history. I don't know any republicans that would be for this in TODAY'S world, so not sure of the connection you were trying to make.
> 
> Americans, like other peoples the world over, have done some terrible things. When I read those things in the articles, it makes me sad that this was ever acceptable thinking. But it can't hurt us now unless we choose for it to. A teachable moment in history.
> 
> I think we are kind of straying off the topic though, and I apologize for my role in that!





> ...The rights of the individual cannot be fully safeguarded when he is being compelled to support in the midst of his community the lawless, the immoral, the degenerate, and the mentally defective.... We are beginning to know enough about human heredity, about the working of the sterilization laws, to have a little courage, and to undertake a much needed reform. To make our state safe for decent citizens, to free the taxpayer from unnecessary burden in the support of the hereditary defective, to place upon a self-respecting, self-supporting basis the largest percentage of our boys and girls --- these are the objects for which constructive social betterment measures ought to be passed.​Henry F. Perkins,
> _Lessons from a Eugenics Survey of Vermont_, 1927​


The first sentence gets tossed around here all of the time. Ask all of the people here who believe their rights are trampled on by being forced to support the "lawless, the immoral, the degenerate, and the mentally defective" through their taxes if they would rather have all of those people sterilised. Go read one of the welfare threads, you will be astounded how many posters here suggest that a woman on welfare should be forced to not have children. 

That's why I don't get their stance on PP. They moan and groan in thread after thread about "how to fix Black communities" and single mothers having babies out of wedlock is their number one complaint. So PP does away with the babies out of wedlock and they have a meltdown over that. :smack


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Patchouli said:


> The first sentence gets tossed around here all of the time. Ask all of the people here who believe their rights are trampled on by being forced to support the "lawless, the immoral, the degenerate, and the mentally defective" through their taxes if they would rather have all of those people sterilised. Go read one of the welfare threads, you will be astounded how many posters here suggest that a woman on welfare should be forced to not have children.
> 
> That's why I don't get their stance on PP. They moan and groan in thread after thread about "how to fix Black communities" and single mothers having babies out of wedlock is their number one complaint. So PP does away with the babies out of wedlock and they have a meltdown over that. :smack


It seems to be all about control.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> The first sentence gets tossed around here all of the time. Ask all of the people here who believe their rights are trampled on by being forced to support the "lawless, the immoral, the degenerate, and the mentally defective" through their taxes if they would rather have all of those people sterilised. Go read one of the welfare threads, you will be astounded how many posters here suggest that a woman on welfare should be forced to not have children.
> 
> That's why I don't get their stance on PP. They moan and groan in thread after thread about "how to fix Black communities" and single mothers having babies out of wedlock is their number one complaint. So PP does away with the babies out of wedlock and they have a meltdown over that. :smack


Most sane people have a meltdown over murder! Insane people, don't! Pretty simple,eh?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> Most sane people have a meltdown over murder! Insane people, don't! Pretty simple,eh?


Sane people don't have meltdowns at all once past about 6 years of age

A "meltdown" would be evidence of mental problems


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Sane people don't have meltdowns at all once past about 6 years of age
> 
> A "meltdown" would be evidence of mental problems


Speaking from experience again? I see liberals melt down all the time, especially on this board!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> Speaking *from experience* again? I see liberals melt down all the time, especially on this board!


Yes, it's my experience sane folks don't have "meltdowns".

What you think you see may not really be what you think it is, since the ones I think come closest to exhibiting true signs of a "meltdown" aren't generally the ones you label as "liberals".


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> Most sane people have a meltdown over murder! Insane people, don't! Pretty simple,eh?


Here's your sign.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

no really said:


> I thought that there were requests for removal of civil war monuments.
> 
> That said what are your thoughts on the article?


I think he meant Thomas Jefferson, not Jefferson Davis, but yea that's a totally different argument.

So, here's what I think. I think that they have fallen into the BS trap. I think Sanger was a victim of politics in life and in death, no matter how vigilant she was against bigotry. The portrayal of her is false, and of course certain modern media personalities have no problem demonizing her for their own gain. But that doesn't really change the fact that her efforts were ultimately exploited, and I don't really blame the black community for having a problem with what those efforts seemed to have been for a time after they were exploited. What is pretty sad is that they don't trust the opinions of the civil rights leaders who knew and respected Sanger, such as W.E.B Du Bois and MLK Jr.

Someone did a nice job with her wikipedia article. Good sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics 



> As part of her efforts to promote birth control, Sanger found common cause with some proponents of eugenics. A frequently repeated falsehood perpetuated by those who oppose Planned Parenthood is that Sanger was in favor of the genocide of U.S. citizens who were not of European descent. This claim has been proven false by multiple sources, yet this lie and other misinformation continue to be a large component of the standard rhetoric from abortion opponents seeking to slander Sanger and the organization she helped to found [94], [95]. Sanger was not a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered unfit. However, because of the prevalence of false information spread about Sanger online and in the anti-choice community, confusion about her motives is apparent even today [96].





> Another falsehood perpetuated by anti-choice groups is the claim that Sanger's writings echoed her ideas about inferiority and loose morals of particular races, although this has never been verified by historians. Some of her collaborators did have strong views on "fitness" for reproduction in certain racial groups, but this does not justify the claim that Sanger herself endorsed these views.
> 
> Such attitudes did not keep her from collaborating with African-American leaders and professionals who saw a need for birth control in their communities. In 1929, James H. Hubert, a black social worker and leader of New York's Urban League, asked Sanger to open a clinic in Harlem.[98] Sanger secured funding from the Julius Rosenwald Fund and opened the clinic, staffed with black doctors, in 1930. The clinic was directed by a 15-member advisory board consisting of black doctors, nurses, clergy, journalists, and social workers. The clinic was publicized in the African-American press and in black churches, and it received the approval of W. E. B. Du Bois, founder of the NAACP.[99] Sanger did not tolerate bigotry among her staff, nor would she tolerate any refusal to work within interracial projects.[100] Sanger's work with minorities earned praise from Martin Luther King, Jr., in his 1966 acceptance speech for the Margaret Sanger award.[101]
> 
> From 1939 to 1942 Sanger was an honorary delegate of the Birth Control Federation of America, which included a supervisory role&#8212;alongside Mary Lasker and Clarence Gamble&#8212;in the ***** Project, an effort to deliver birth control to poor black people.[102] Sanger wanted the ***** Project to include black ministers in leadership roles, but other supervisors did not. To emphasize the benefits of involving black community leaders, she wrote to Gamble "we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the ***** population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." While New York University's Margaret Sanger Papers Project, argues that in writing that letter, "Sanger recognized that elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the ***** Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow South;"[103] Angela Davis uses the quote to support claims that Sanger intended to exterminate the black population.[104]


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, it's my experience sane folks don't have "meltdowns".
> 
> What you think you see may not really be what you think it is, since the ones I think come closest to exhibiting true signs of a "meltdown" aren't generally the ones you label as "liberals".


Yup, their the ones for sure. What YOU see may be clouded by your own mis-informed opinion. Melissa Harris Perry, Ed Shultz, Chris Matthews, Sally Kohn, Rachel Madow, etc...
Have all demonstrated that for all to see. Nothing new, just the way it is.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Here's your sign.


Here's yours....:grump:


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Yup, their the ones for sure. What YOU see may be clouded by your own mis-informed opinion. Melissa Harris Perry, Ed Shultz, Chris Matthews, Sally Kohn, Rachel Madow, etc...
> Have all demonstrated that for all to see. Nothing new, just the way it is.


Ae you sure you know what meltdown means Jeffrey? They usually involve lots and lots of exclamation points.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Negative" is a subjective term, and doesn't mean the same thing to everyone.
> You probably know people who would complain about Pasteur's moldy lab conditions


Just so that we do not assume what you mean, what portions or Ms. Sanger's efforts do you disagree with?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> Yup, their the ones for sure. What YOU see may be clouded by your own mis-informed opinion. Melissa Harris Perry, Ed Shultz, Chris Matthews, Sally Kohn, Rachel Madow, etc...
> Have all demonstrated that for all to see. Nothing new, just the way it is.


You're talking about a bunch of *entertainers*, and I don't think I've ever even seen any of them. They put on *shows* for ratings.



> I see liberals melt down all the time, especially *on this board*!


Do you have a link to any posts by the people you listed above?
I don't recall seeing them *on this board*


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

basketti said:


> Ae you sure you know what meltdown means Jeffrey? They usually involve lots and lots of exclamation points.


Do they? What is YOUR definition of lots and lots? You exaggerate to a great extent. Does it make you feel more important? Or do you just love to try and demean people? Are you like that in real life too?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

wiscto said:


> I think he meant Thomas Jefferson, not Jefferson Davis, but yea that's a totally different argument.
> 
> So, here's what I think. I think that they have fallen into the BS trap. I think Sanger was a victim of politics in life and in death, no matter how vigilant she was against bigotry. The portrayal of her is false, and of course certain modern media personalities have no problem demonizing her for their own gain. But that doesn't really change the fact that her efforts were ultimately exploited, and I don't really blame the black community for having a problem with what those efforts seemed to have been for a time after they were exploited. What is pretty sad is that they don't trust the opinions of the civil rights leaders who knew and respected Sanger, such as W.E.B Du Bois and MLK Jr.
> 
> ...


I'll just bump this in case any of you actually want to read about Margaret Sanger...


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're talking about a bunch of *entertainers*, and I don't think I've ever even seen any of them. They put on *shows* for ratings.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Their still liberals that have constant melt downs. I don't think you know the meaning, I really don't.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Glenn Beck = Mr. meltdown.

His meltdowns are epic. Tears, spittle, everything.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Just so that we do not assume what you mean, what portions or Ms. Sanger's efforts do you disagree with?


I neither agree nor disagree with anything she did

She died when I was a teenager, and has had no effect on my life at all, so I'm not getting my panties in a wad over anything she supposedly did or didn't do.

It doesn't bother me in the least if someone thought she earned a place in a historical museum, and it bothers me even less if someone wants her removed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> Their still liberals that have constant melt downs. I don't think you know the meaning, I really don't.


They are putting on a show.

You started out talking about people *here* having meltdowns.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

wiscto said:


> I'll just bump this in case any of you actually want to read about Margaret Sanger...


Fair enough, found this:

To stop this "multiplication," Sanger could be harsh. Her book, <The Pivot of Civilization>, has a chapter called "The Cruelty of Charity." In it she blasts as "insidiously injurious" programs to provide "medical and nursing facilities to slum mothers." In other words, Sanger wanted ethnic cleansing. Instead of helping the poor, she considered them (particularly Blacks, Hispanics, and Jewish immigrants) slum dwellers who would soon overrun the boundaries of their slums and contaminate the better elements of society with their inferior genes. Throughout the 200+ pages of <The Pivot of Civilization> Sanger called for the elimination of human weeds: "for the cessation of charity, for the segregation of morons, misfits, and maladjusted," and for the sterilization of "genetically inferior races."[7] In this same book she argued that organized attempts to help the poor were the "surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding, and is perpetuating . . . defectives, delinquents, and dependents."[8]

...here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/prolife/ppracism.txt


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I neither agree nor disagree with anything she did
> 
> She died when I was a teenager, and has had no effect on my life at all, so I'm not getting my panties in a wad over anything she supposedly did or didn't do.
> 
> It doesn't bother me in the least if someone thought she earned a place in a historical museum, and it bothers me even less if someone wants her removed.



That tells me that your are just posting to see your posts. If you don't have a dog in this fight, why do we continue to see your posts?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Shine said:


> Fair enough, found this:
> 
> To stop this "multiplication," Sanger could be harsh. Her book, <The Pivot of Civilization>, has a chapter called "The Cruelty of Charity." In it she blasts as "insidiously injurious" programs to provide "medical and nursing facilities to slum mothers." In other words, Sanger wanted ethnic cleansing. Instead of helping the poor, she considered them (particularly Blacks, Hispanics, and Jewish immigrants) slum dwellers who would soon overrun the boundaries of their slums and contaminate the better elements of society with their inferior genes. Throughout the 200+ pages of <The Pivot of Civilization> Sanger called for the elimination of human weeds: "for the cessation of charity, for the segregation of morons, misfits, and maladjusted," and for the sterilization of "genetically inferior races."[7] In this same book she argued that organized attempts to help the poor were the "surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding, and is perpetuating . . . defectives, delinquents, and dependents."[8]
> 
> ...here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/prolife/ppracism.txt


Oh see, the thing is, the wikipedia article writer read and cited multiple sources, all you're doing is reading from the highly edited script... And you're just putting a twist on her words that YOU have decided is true. Don't be afraid to read more. Don't. You might learn exactly HOW you are being lied to.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

The source of the above
: http://www.ewtn.com/library/prolife/ppracism.txt:



> Provided Courtesy of:
> Eternal Word Television Network
> 5817 Old Leeds Road
> Irondale, AL 35210


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> That tells me that your are just posting to see your posts. If you don't have a dog in this fight, *why do we continue to see your posts?*


Put me on ignore and you won't see them at all


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

basketti said:


> Glenn Beck = Mr. meltdown.
> 
> His meltdowns are epic. Tears, spittle, everything.


Got a link? I saw one once, pretty sad, not nearly as bad as Shultz though, his spittle was really flying on numerous occasions, almost as good as Harris Perry, or Matthews tingle. (Matthews wasn't really a melt down, more like a lusting, but was hysterical none the less)


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They are putting on a show.
> 
> You started out talking about people *here* having meltdowns.


Reading comprehension is obviously not your strong suit. Re-read my post. For the uneducated, comas matter!


----------



## Scott SW Ohio (Sep 20, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> For the uneducated, comas matter!


Funny!


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

wiscto said:


> I think he meant Thomas Jefferson, not Jefferson Davis, but yea that's a totally different argument.


Yes, I was referring to Thomas Jefferson.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> Reading comprehension is obviously not your strong suit. *Re-read my post*. For the uneducated, *comas* matter!


Comas do matter, but seldom lead to meltdowns since they require one be at least semi-conscious



> Quote:
> I see liberals melt down all the time, *especially on this board!*


There it is again, and you still haven't shown any evidence of any meltdowns by "liberals" *on this board*


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

basketti said:


> Glenn Beck = Mr. meltdown.
> 
> His meltdowns are epic. Tears, spittle, everything.



Irish Pixie's Avatar	
Irish Pixie Irish Pixie just sayin'.
That's nice. Any other worthless trivia you'd like to drop into this thread?
___


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

basketti said:


> Glenn Beck = Mr. meltdown.
> 
> His meltdowns are epic. Tears, spittle, everything.



Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, most of the Fox news crew have all had flaming meltdowns.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> Irish Pixie's Avatar
> Irish Pixie Irish Pixie just sayin'.
> That's nice. Any other worthless trivia you'd like to drop into this thread?
> ___


 Once again I am confused, are you trying to say Irish Pixie has meltdowns or are you just fond of saying her name?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

*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."[94] Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered unfit.[95][96]

In &#8220;The Morality of Birth Control,&#8221; a 1921 speech, she divided society into three groups: the educated and informed class that regulated the size of their families, the intelligent and responsible who desired to control their families however did not have the means or the knowledge and the irresponsible and reckless people whose religious scruples "prevent their exercising control over their numbers.&#8221; Sanger concludes &#8220;there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.&#8221;[97]

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".[98][99] In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating..."*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> Once again I am confused, are you trying to say Irish Pixie has meltdowns or are you just fond of saying her name?


I will try to help you.

I quoted someone who's words and message express the message I too shared and felt was appropriate and equal to what I wish to say.

Giving proper credit to the original author.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

JeffreyD said:


> Reading comprehension is obviously not your strong suit. Re-read my post. For the uneducated, comas matter!


Comas do in fact matter, sometimes even to people who are in a comatose state. Many think, "Oh people in comas don't know that they are comatose," but many studies have shown that people in comas are sometimes aware that they are comatose and unable to function, some describe this sensation as an out of body experience. 

Oh you meant commas.


----------



## mrsgcpete (Sep 16, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> I will try to help you.
> 
> I quoted someone who's words and message express the message I too shared and felt was appropriate and equal to what I wish to say.
> 
> Giving proper credit to the original author.


huh??


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mrsgcpete said:


> huh??


I'm guessing an explanation won't make things better


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> That's why I don't get their stance on PP. They moan and groan in thread after thread about "how to fix Black communities" and single mothers having babies out of wedlock is their number one complaint. *So PP does away with the babies out of wedlock and they have a meltdown over that.* :smack


There _are_ other options.

And, didn't you mean to say 'fetus'.....or are you admitting that they are babies?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

kasilofhome said:


> Irish Pixie's Avatar
> Irish Pixie Irish Pixie just sayin'.
> That's nice. Any other worthless trivia you'd like to drop into this thread?
> ___





kasilofhome said:


> I will try to help you.
> 
> I quoted someone who's words and message express the message I too shared and felt was appropriate and equal to what I wish to say.
> 
> Giving proper credit to the original author.


Oh, I see. You're using an old quote of mine instead of typing something original of your own. I hope it makes you happy. What about my avatar? Are you using my avatar for something?

You really, really like my screen name, don't you.  You can't have it, it's all mine.


----------



## summerdaze (Jun 11, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I neither agree nor disagree with anything she did
> 
> She died when I was a teenager, and has had no effect on my life at all, so I'm not getting my panties in a wad over anything she supposedly did or didn't do.
> 
> It doesn't bother me in the least if someone thought she earned a place in a historical museum, and it bothers me even less if someone wants her removed.


You know, if you enter a thread and find that you're not interested, or have nothing relative to add to the conversation, you can back right out and go to another thread, don't you? 

What's the point of you staying in one, just to throw out random, useless bits of drivel that doesn't have much to do with the topic, especially if you DON'T CARE ABOUT THE TOPIC??


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Woolieface said:


> *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."[94] Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered unfit.[95][96]
> 
> In âThe Morality of Birth Control,â a 1921 speech, she divided society into three groups: the educated and informed class that regulated the size of their families, the intelligent and responsible who desired to control their families however did not have the means or the knowledge and the irresponsible and reckless people whose religious scruples "prevent their exercising control over their numbers.â Sanger concludes âthere is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.â[97]
> 
> ...


Apparently, she wasn't able to stop the procreation of her last group....


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I so wish Sanger had targeted the obnoxiously arrogant. Big sigh.


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> I so wish Sanger had targeted the obnoxiously arrogant. Big sigh.


Notify the FBI, someone just threatened murder....... lol just kidding, sorry


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

dlmcafee said:


> Notify the FBI, someone just threatened murder....... lol just kidding, sorry


That's funny...I was just thinking of that very post earlier when I read some comments in the other one...lol


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

summerdaze said:


> You know, if you enter a thread and find that you're not interested, or have *nothing relative to add* to the conversation, you can back right out and go to another thread, don't you?
> 
> What's the point of you staying in one, just to throw out *random, useless bits of drivel* that doesn't have much to do with the topic, especially if you DON'T CARE ABOUT THE TOPIC??


What's the point of you staying to play "hall monitor"?

Sanger isn't the only topic being discussed, and your opinion of what I post really isn't any more "relative" than my post, which WAS about the topic and not about another poster.

As I was told before, if you want to control the content, buy the forum or start your own.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I so wish Sanger had targeted the obnoxiously arrogant. Big sigh.


But we'd miss you!

By the way, your signature line is the precise definition of a troll. _"People say I can't multi-task. Well, I can tick you off and amuse myself at the same time"_. You might want to give it a second thought.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> I will try to help you.
> 
> I quoted someone who's words and message express the message I too shared and felt was appropriate and equal to what I wish to say.
> 
> Giving proper credit to the original author.


That works a whole lot better when you use the quote function. "Just sayin".


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Txsteader said:


> There _are_ other options.
> 
> And, didn't you mean to say 'fetus'.....or are you admitting that they are babies?


I was talking about conservative thinking and y'all see them all as babies. Personally I would use the term fetus up to about 20 weeks. 

The other option of course would be free or cheap birth control but conservatives are against PP handing that one out too or paying for it with health insurance and generally like putting stumbling blocks in the way of it any way they can. So not much help to your argument there.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Jolly said:


> Apparently, she wasn't able to stop the procreation of her last group....


The real question here would be if you could stop the procreation of the feeble minded would you?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Ozarks Tom said:


> But we'd miss you!
> 
> By the way, your signature line is the precise definition of a troll. _"People say I can't multi-task. Well, I can tick you off and amuse myself at the same time"_. You might want to give it a second thought.


Why don't you report it?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> The real question here would be if you could stop the procreation of the feeble minded would you?


I doubt anyone who is pro freedom or pro life would actually stand behind that idea, even if it makes for tempting joke material on a forum. It was, seriously, an idea that Sanger stood behind. 

The belief in eugenics went through a very polular phase in this country and is actually at the root of more well loved institutions of medicine here than just planned parenthood. Planned parenthood just happens to be unable to escape the transparency of what it does. Other methods are more easily layered over in more benevolent looking enterprises.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Patchouli said:


> The real question here would be if you could stop the procreation of the feeble minded would you?


Actually, I can answer that question for you.

Yes, you can. If they are wards of the State, the State can mandate birth control. The State cannot mandate abortion, if one becomes pregnant. The State cannot regulate the sexual coupling of two feeble-minded people, if both agree, even if both are wards of the State.

Didn't know that one, did ya? :nana: :happy2:


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Woolieface said:


> I doubt anyone who is pro freedom or pro life would actually stand behind that idea, even if it makes for tempting joke material on a forum. It was, seriously, an idea that Sanger stood behind.
> 
> The belief in eugenics went through a very polular phase in this country and is actually at the root of more well loved institutions of medicine here than just planned parenthood. Planned parenthood just happens to be unable to escape the transparency of what it does. Other methods are more easily layered over in more benevolent looking enterprises.



I can understand the perspective of Margaret Sanger who waded through a lot of pain and suffering and thought to save the next generation from it. Back then people really were convinced that science could save us all and could create a genuine utopia of everyone being fed and healthy and happy. No poverty, no suffering, everyone living a comfortable middle class life. It's not like she came to her conclusions because she was a monster or a racist. It came from a genuine compassion. 

But we all know compassion and righteous causes can do far more damage than they do good. It's yet another thing that is incredibly complicated. There is no easy black and white answer. And we do a real disservice to people when we try to paint them as good or evil when really they were just humans and a mix of both.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Jolly said:


> Actually, I can answer that question for you.
> 
> Yes, you can. If they are wards of the State, the State can mandate birth control. The State cannot mandate abortion, if one becomes pregnant. The State cannot regulate the sexual coupling of two feeble-minded people, if both agree, even if both are wards of the State.
> 
> Didn't know that one, did ya? :nana: :happy2:


I did know that actually.  I was under the impression you were casting a wider net with your joke though. And I did assume you were being facetious but sort of serious too.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Why don't you report it?


I've never reported anything to anyone. I'm a big believer in karma.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Ozarks Tom said:


> I've never reported anything to anyone. I'm a big believer in karma.


Get outta here! Me too!


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> I can understand the perspective of Margaret Sanger who waded through a lot of pain and suffering and thought to save the next generation from it. Back then people really were convinced that science could save us all and could create a genuine utopia of everyone being fed and healthy and happy. No poverty, no suffering, everyone living a comfortable middle class life. It's not like she came to her conclusions because she was a monster or a racist. It came from a genuine compassion.
> 
> But we all know compassion and righteous causes can do far more damage than they do good. It's yet another thing that is incredibly complicated. There is no easy black and white answer. And we do a real disservice to people when we try to paint them as good or evil when really they were just humans and a mix of both.


Believing that her (or any eugenicist) did or supported what they did was because of compassion for the very people they wanted to basically eradicate, is really dressing up a pig in a Sunday dress. We all know Hitler was a eugenics nut. 

The very core of the eugenics movement is about elimination of what is considered a lower life form...barely human...maybe not even human. Hypothetically, if we could all agree who those people were and eliminate them, then we'd have a new group filling that position and our standard of "fitness" gets higher (or at least higher on whatever screwed up chart this would be on).

The nastiest and most vile things to have happened in history have all revolved around specifying who shouldn't get to breathe the air with the rest of us. No one holds that kind of contempt for another human being who knows anything about real compassion.

The eugenics movement is not dead, by the way, just much quieter...and you'd be surprised how many average people make the list of the unfit according to those very high and mighty (and compassionate) philanthropists.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

Patchouli said:


> I get so confused by conservatives. First y'all rant and rave about black people having welfare babies and then you turn around and rant and rave about them having abortions. Y'all have some serious dichotomies....
> 
> (I decided to use "y'all" in hopes it would been seen as less personal than you)



I am amazed that you cannot see the value of both ideals...responsible conception and protection of life...regardless of race, color, creed (had to add that because you seem hung up on the black thing).


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Hey... clue personal resoncabilty..

Know that sex causes life.

Protect the life you made.

Don't even have to mention sex, race, faith, height, or comprehension skills.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

There was a reason for shotgun weddings.

It had to do both with responsibility and economics, IMO. If a couple made a baby, they were held responsible to take care of it. And, in earlier times, a family couldn't afford to feed extra mouths, when just scraping by, themselves.

That's probably also why there was such a stigma attached to an out-of-wedlock birth.

Take away the money of our current society, and you just might see a return to that type of thinking...


----------



## summerdaze (Jun 11, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What's the point of you staying to play "hall monitor"?
> 
> Sanger isn't the only topic being discussed, and your opinion of what I post really isn't any more "relative" than my post, which WAS about the topic and not about another poster.
> 
> As I was told before, if you want to control the content, buy the forum or start your own.


Oh yeah, I'm hall monitor. I'm just all over everyone all the time. :boring: If I want to "control the content, buy the forum or start my own?" That's a bit dramatic isn't it? 

Well, whatev. Maybe I shouldn't have called your comments "useless bits of drivel", or however I put it. Seemed that way to me this morning. 

I think the path of least resistance here is just to put you and a couple others on ignore. (and feel free to do the same to me since I'm so overbearing with the control stuff) 

Now back to our regularly scheduled program......


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Oh yeah, I'm hall monitor. I'm just all over everyone all the time. If I want to "control the content, buy the forum or start my own?" *That's a bit dramatic isn't it*?


Yes, I also thought it was overly dramatic when Gibbsgirl first said it to me a while back, but it seemed to fit well in your case.



> I think the path of least resistance here is just to put you and a couple others on ignore.


Yes, that's a very good option. More folks should do it instead of always complaining


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

The crime against humanity, of our generation, is abortion. I know what abortion is. I know the results. All of the quotes in the world and waxing poetic will not change that fact in my mind. Abortion is nearly 100% fatal to an unborn child. Lets face it. It is unlikely that we are going to convince each other. 

To the original post. I agree with the pastors mentioned in the original post. Sanger has no place in a display about "justice". We need to remember her, but, not as any type of hero.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The crime against humanity, of our generation, is abortion.


Abortions have been done for thousands of years.
It's not a recent phenomenon, and it's not going away


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Woolieface said:


> Believing that her (or any eugenicist) did or supported what they did was because of compassion for the very people they wanted to basically eradicate, is really dressing up a pig in a Sunday dress. We all know Hitler was a eugenics nut.
> 
> The very core of the eugenics movement is about elimination of what is considered a lower life form...barely human...maybe not even human. Hypothetically, if we could all agree who those people were and eliminate them, then we'd have a new group filling that position and our standard of "fitness" gets higher (or at least higher on whatever screwed up chart this would be on).
> 
> ...


I disagree with that. I guess I come at it from the perspective of a farmer. I don't cull or castrate animals because I hate them. I do it because I care about all of my future livestock. I want to get rid of health issues, animals that fail to thrive, etc. I do it out of compassion not hate. 

There is a huge gulf between Sanger and Hitler's thinking. Hitler killed everyone who didn't fit the bill for his master race: perfect blonde haired, blue eyed Aryans. Sanger wanted to reduce births from families she felt were not able to produce healthy, thriving, functional children. Hitler's goal was a conquering Master race. Sanger's goal was an end to poverty and sad lives. Really vastly different goals there.

The simple fact is up until fairly recently nature did the culling and it culled pretty hard. These days we have set up a world where humans at least in first world countries rarely ever get culled at all. There are inevitable consequences to that for our species. And honestly deep down we all know that. We make jokes about Darwin awards and having to put absurd instructions on things to keep people from hurting themselves.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

tarbe said:


> I am amazed that you cannot see the value of both ideals...responsible conception and protection of life...regardless of race, color, creed (had to add that because you seem hung up on the black thing).


I know it's easy to get lost in these threads, sometimes I have no idea what the OP was by a couple of pages in, but the OP was about Black Pastors being upset over Margaret Sanger. And generally when the topic of welfare comes up here on HT it involves black single mothers having babies or how the welfare system is destroying the black race by promoting babies out of wedlock etc. I am not the one who is hung up on it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

You'd think they would want to be removing former slave owners first,
Sanger is only coming up now due to the PP video hoax


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Abortions have been done for thousands of years.
> It's not a recent phenomenon, and it's not going away


 True, but, when we make it legal, we are responsible for it.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You'd think they would want to be removing former slave owners first,
> Sanger is only coming up now due to the PP video hoax


 Actually, I don't believe in removing her bust. I simply believe that she doesn't belong in a display about "justice". Just like I wouldn't try and remove a statue of (insert murderous dictator here), but rather, advocate for a full telling of history.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> I disagree with that. I guess I come at it from the perspective of a farmer. I don't cull or castrate animals because I hate them. I do it because I care about all of my future livestock. I want to get rid of health issues, animals that fail to thrive, etc. I do it out of compassion not hate.
> 
> There is a huge gulf between Sanger and Hitler's thinking. Hitler killed everyone who didn't fit the bill for his master race: perfect blonde haired, blue eyed Aryans. Sanger wanted to reduce births from families she felt were not able to produce healthy, thriving, functional children. Hitler's goal was a conquering Master race. Sanger's goal was an end to poverty and sad lives. Really vastly different goals there.
> 
> The simple fact is up until fairly recently nature did the culling and it culled pretty hard. These days we have set up a world where humans at least in first world countries rarely ever get culled at all. There are inevitable consequences to that for our species. And honestly deep down we all know that. We make jokes about Darwin awards and having to put absurd instructions on things to keep people from hurting themselves.


Ah, and there you have it, exactly. These people do, in fact, see the perceived lower classes of humanity as "livestock". Livestock are managed, used, kept captive and forced to do and submit to what their masters want. 

Human beings are not livestock. When we allow ourselves to see other human beings this way, we have to remember that we are also seen this way by some self appointed "higher" strata of human society. We allow a disposition in ourselves to accommodate ideas that would be, otherwise, naturally repugnant to us. The very basis of freedom rests on acknowledging what we all know deep down...that we are all born with equal rights, whether you see those as God given or natural rights. Take those away from one human being and you are not immune, either....and that is where we fool ourselves,believing that we escape the cull list because we're "not one of those" people.

There is no great gulf between one eugenicists and another...only incremental degrees. The natural path of eugenics ends in the death of the perceived "unfit". The opinion of the masses, when turned to accept a slight degree of eugenics, will find themselves eventually being asked to accept the next step. So it has always gone and always will.

Do we want to live in a world where we "cull" human beings? And if we think for a moment that we might, are we going to be among the survivors?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> I get so confused by conservatives. First y'all rant and rave about black people having welfare babies and then you turn around and rant and rave about them having abortions. Y'all have some serious dichotomies....
> 
> (I decided to use "y'all" in hopes it would been seen as less personal than you)


I cannot believe you said that. How utterly racist! Then again, its pretty much the progressives way...saying black people can only have unwanted pregnancies OR welfare babies. No in between? That is just overwhelmingly racist, and a progressive driven ideal.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

basketti said:


> Wonder why they aren't asking for the removal of the Jefferson Memorial given his racist behavior?


I wonder why they aren't removing Obama for his racist behavior, or jailing Sharpton for tax fraud and inciting riots?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> I cannot believe you said that. How utterly racist! Then again, its pretty much the progressives way...saying black people can only have unwanted pregnancies OR welfare babies. No in between? That is just overwhelmingly racist, and a progressive driven ideal.


Progressives believe blacks are too ignorant to help themselves, too lazy to want to and to stupid to know that it's the left side of the country keeping them on welfare and out of the workforce.
But you know, the progressives will blame everybody else, their gullible followers will repeat the lies and so it goes.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You'd think they would want to be removing former slave owners first,
> Sanger is only coming up now due to the PP video hoax


Like they say about abortion, it's legal, don't worry about it.
Slavery was legal back in the day, it's not now, so why worry about it?
After 150 years, isn't it time to get over it and stop blaming slavery for every problem in the black community?
Not one person alive has owned a slave, not one person alive has been a slave.
Time to cast that crutch aside


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Woolieface said:


> Ah, and there you have it, exactly. These people do, in fact, see the perceived lower classes of humanity as "livestock". Livestock are managed, used, kept captive and forced to do and submit to what their masters want.
> 
> Human beings are not livestock. When we allow ourselves to see other human beings this way, we have to remember that we are also seen this way by some self appointed "higher" strata of human society. We allow a disposition in ourselves to accommodate ideas that would be, otherwise, naturally repugnant to us. The very basis of freedom rests on acknowledging what we all know deep down...that we are all born with equal rights, whether you see those as God given or natural rights. Take those away from one human being and you are not immune, either....and that is where we fool ourselves,believing that we escape the cull list because we're "not one of those" people.
> 
> ...


Can you not see there is a vast difference between killing people and not letting some reproduce? And that there is a vast moral gulf between them? Hitler not only kept some people from reproducing he killed millions of living people. Sanger just tried to keep the lower classes from reproducing. And she wasn't even forcing them not to reproduce, just giving them options like birth control to keep their numbers down. 

I never should have used cull I guess. But if you really can't see a vast difference there then we can not have a real conversation. Genocide and birth control are in no way, shape or form equivalent.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Abortion is not contraception.... it is sniffing out a life... it's murder


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> True, but, when we make it legal, we are responsible for it.


When you make it illegal you are responsible for *more* deaths, because the number of abortions won't change, but the number of mother dying will increase.

All the emotional arguments don't change reality


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

No, I will not be responsible for such deaths.

No, more than I am responsible when my neighbor gets drunk and crashes their car.

I will not be forcing women to have unprotected sex.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> I cannot believe you said that. *How utterly racist!* Then again, its pretty much the progressives way...saying black people can only have unwanted pregnancies OR welfare babies. No in between? That is just overwhelmingly racist, and a progressive driven ideal.


It's a documented fact poor minority women have the most abortions.
You can yell "racist" all day long, but it's still the truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion


> An American study in 2002 concluded that about* half of women having abortions were using a form of contraception at the time of becoming pregnant*. Inconsistent use was reported by half of those using condoms and three-quarters of those using the birth-control pill; 42% of those using condoms reported failure through slipping or breakage.[109]
> 
> The Guttmacher Institute estimated that *"most abortions in the United States are obtained by minority women*" because minority women "have much higher rates of unintended pregnancy."[110]


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> No, I will not be responsible for such deaths.
> 
> No, more than I am responsible when my neighbor gets drunk and crashes their car.
> 
> I will not be forcing women to have* unprotected sex*.


Half of them are using contraception that failed.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

It's always better to have back UPS for important stuff.

Go on the pill
And use a condom
And a sponge
And withdrawal

That should cut it down


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> It's always better to have back UPS for important stuff.
> 
> Go on the pill
> And use a condom
> ...


Just another totally unrealistic answer to a very real problem


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Why...there is no reason why a person on the pill can't demand a condom for the partner.... the pill alone can not protect a woman from getting a sexually transmitted diseases or infect her partner... so simple for health reasons this is already taught.

No, a sponge can be used hours before and no even interfere with spontaneity.

Withdrawal takes no money, or product.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Just another totally unrealistic answer to a very real problem


Yup, only slightly better than "abstinence".


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> When you make it illegal you are responsible for *more* deaths, because the number of abortions won't change, but the number of mother dying will increase.
> 
> All the emotional arguments don't change reality


 So, you really believe that, if abortions are made illegal, the SAME number of women will have one? Really? If that were true, making theft legal would not result in more stealing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> So, you really *believe *that, if abortions are made illegal, the SAME number of women will have one? Really? *If that were true*, making theft legal would not result in more stealing.


It's not what I "believe". I try to stick to facts instead of emotions
It's a documented reality:



> The legality of abortion is one of the main determinants of its safety. Countries with restrictive abortion laws have significantly higher rates of unsafe abortion (and *similar overall abortion rates*) compared to those where abortion is legal and available.[9][10][85][86]





> For example, the 1996 legalization of abortion in South Africa had an immediate positive impact on the frequency of abortion-related complications,[89] with abortion-related deaths dropping by more than 90%.[90] In addition, a lack of access to effective contraception contributes to unsafe abortion.
> 
> It has been estimated that the incidence of unsafe abortion could be reduced by up to 75% (from 20 million to 5 million annually) if modern family planning and maternal health services were readily available globally.[91]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yup, only slightly better than "abstinence".



Abstinence is one hundred percent effective.

Just as non drinkers don't get drunk

Now, failing to use abstinence means being sexually active and at risk of all that goes with sex.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> Abstinence is one hundred percent effective.


It's also a 100% unrealistic expectation


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's also a 100% unrealistic expectation


Yup, it is.


----------



## FutureFarm (Mar 1, 2013)

I personally don't see why abstinence is unrealistic. My wife and I dated six years before getting married and waited until our wedding night. All it takes is self control and some responsibility. Sure there were times when it wasn't easy to control our impulses, but isn't impulse control what makes humanity great? If you can't trust your partner to control their impulses regarding extra marital sex, can you trust them to control their impulses when they lose their temper?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

FutureFarm said:


> I personally don't see why abstinence is unrealistic. My wife and I dated six years before getting married and waited until our wedding night. All it takes is self control and some responsibility. Sure there were times when it wasn't easy to control our impulses, but isn't impulse control what makes humanity great? If you can't trust your partner to control their impulses regarding extra marital sex, can you trust them to control their impulses when they lose their temper?


It's unrealistic because it's not happening *in the majority* of cases.
Abstinence has been preached for thousands of years, and most don't listen.


----------



## FutureFarm (Mar 1, 2013)

If preventing unwanted pregnancies is the goal, are there any more effective options? As noted on this site, every type of birth control fails. If you can't afford to have a baby, you can't afford to have sex.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

FutureFarm said:


> I personally don't see why abstinence is unrealistic. My wife and I dated six years before getting married and waited until our wedding night. All it takes is self control and some responsibility. Sure there were times when it wasn't easy to control our impulses, but isn't impulse control what makes humanity great? If you can't trust your partner to control their impulses regarding extra marital sex, can you trust them to control their impulses when they lose their temper?


I personally understand completely why it is.  

Extra marital sex has nothing to do with abstinence, nor does violence.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

FutureFarm said:


> If preventing unwanted pregnancies is the goal, are there any more effective options? As noted on this site, every type of birth control fails. If you can't afford to have a baby, you can't afford to have sex.


Yup, the only 100% form of birth control is sterilization.


----------



## FutureFarm (Mar 1, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> I personally understand completely why it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Extra marital sex has nothing to do with abstinence, nor does violence.



Because you can't control your impulses? Is that why you think. abstinence is unrealistic?


----------



## FutureFarm (Mar 1, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yup, the only 100% form of birth control is sterilization.



That's not even 100% effective. A man my dad worked with got married and tried to start a family. He and his wife tried for years and couldn't. They went to see a doctor and were told he would never father children. They adopted a girl. A year or two later they're pregnant. It's his, don't bother on that route. A few years later they're pregnant again. Now satisfied with the size of their unexpected family, he gets the ol' snip snip. All the checkups go normally. Two years later another pregnancy and a healthy baby boy. The man gets another surgery and it goes well. Now there's a set of twins three years younger than their son who was born after the first surgery. So even surgeries aren't always effective. No one has ever gotten pregnant who hasn't had sex though. So I will still say that abstinence is 100% effective.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

FutureFarm said:


> That's not even 100% effective. A man my dad worked with got married and tried to start a family. He and his wife tried for years and couldn't. They went to see a doctor and were told he would never father children. They adopted a girl. A year or two later they're pregnant. It's his, don't bother on that route. A few years later they're pregnant again. Now satisfied with the size of their unexpected family, he gets the ol' snip snip. All the checkups go normally. Two years later another pregnancy and a healthy baby boy. The man gets another surgery and it goes well. Now there's a set of twins three years younger than their son who was born after the first surgery. *So even surgeries aren't always effective*. No one has ever gotten pregnant who hasn't had sex though. So I will still say that abstinence is 100% effective.


LOL
Without DNA testing, there is no way of knowing if those children are his no matter what he wants to believe
Anecdotes won't change the reality that millions of women have unwanted pregnancies each year, and proposing unrealistic solutions wont' help


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> Abortion is not contraception.... it is sniffing out a life... it's murder


I believe you meant "snuffing" and I would tend to disagree. It may be snuffing out potential life but it is not murder.


----------



## FutureFarm (Mar 1, 2013)

Tested. There're his. 
What does that say about our society that people can't control their impulses enough to not engage in activities that they know have a high chance of resulting in unwanted consequences


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> Without DNA testing, there is no way of knowing if those children are his no matter what he wants to believe
> Anecdotes won't change the reality that millions of women have unwanted pregnancies each year, and proposing unrealistic solutions wont' help


Like I said in another thread, birth control methods seem to be unreliable. Maybe it is time for the big drug companies to start some research into more reliable methods. With all the major developments in medications you would think there would be some better options. 
Women need to demand better.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> No, I will not be responsible for such deaths.
> 
> No, more than I am responsible when my neighbor gets drunk and crashes their car.
> 
> I will not be forcing women to have unprotected sex.



:smack Women can want a pregnancy and have no idea it has the potential to kill them until well into it. At least try to deal with the facts.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Adding there needs to be a more reliable option for men also, as stated by Irish Pixie.. Totally agree.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

FutureFarm said:


> Tested. There're his.
> What does that say about our society that people can't control their impulses enough to not engage in activities that they know have a high chance of resulting in unwanted consequences


It says they are human


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> I cannot believe you said that. How utterly racist! Then again, its pretty much the progressives way...saying black people can only have unwanted pregnancies OR welfare babies. No in between? That is just overwhelmingly racist, and a progressive driven ideal.


You really want me to go look up all of your statements on welfare babies? I am not the racist one here.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> It's always better to have back UPS for important stuff.
> 
> Go on the pill
> And use a condom
> ...


Oh sure that's realistic..... By the time you do all of that you might as well just skip the sex altogether.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

FutureFarm said:


> Because *you* can't control your impulses? Is that why you think. abstinence is unrealistic?


I never said I _can't_ control them, I don't _want_ to control them. I don't _have_ to control them. Typical conservative- stay out of my bedroom. 

You never explained what abstinence has to do with extramarital sex or violence. Can you. Please?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> Oh sure that's realistic..... By the time you do all of that you might as well just skip the sex altogether.


Also not a bad plan....


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

FutureFarm said:


> What does that say about our society that people can't control their impulses enough to not engage in activities that they know have a high chance of resulting in unwanted consequences


Perhaps, unlike what some people posting here seem to think, they know that there are a whole host of reasons besides procreation to have sex. Expressing love for your partner, wanting to be close to your partner physically are just 2. Plus it's a heck of a fun way to spend a couple of hours.

Like it or not, abortion has been around forever and it isn't going anywhere. Banning abortion or imposing draconian restrictions isn't going to eliminate abortion. It will only succeed in driving it underground and making it unsafe again. Returning reproductive rights to the 1950s protects no one. 

Plus, making laws for the entire country based on the religious beliefs of a few is absolutely wrong. What rights are you willing to give up because they offend someone else's religious beliefs?


----------



## FutureFarm (Mar 1, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> I never said I _can't_ control them, I don't _want_ to control them. I don't _have_ to control them. Typical conservative- stay out of my bedroom.
> 
> You never explained what abstinence has to do with extramarital sex or violence. Can you. Please?



By proving that my wife and I have enough control over our impulses to not have sex before we are ready to accept the consequences, we better trust each other to control our impulses in other aspects of our life. Whether that be the fact that my wife trusts me to walk through a gunshow and not purchase something even if it is on sale, or the mutual trust we have that the other will not get physical When tempers run hot. I'm not suggesting that those who cannot or chose not to control their impulses are inherently violent or probe to cheating on their spouses/partners, but my wife and I have a mutual trust that is stronger because of our ability to control our impulses. Impulsiveness is almost never considered an admirable quality.
And I couldn't care less what happens in your bedroom as long as it is between consenting adults.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Woolieface said:


> Also not a bad plan....


Dang. Why not just skip chocolate, a good meal, and wine while we're at it? Just skip all of life's pleasures? 

Gah. :facepalm:


----------



## FutureFarm (Mar 1, 2013)

SLFarmMI said:


> Perhaps, unlike what some people posting here seem to think, they know that there are a whole host of reasons besides procreation to have sex. Expressing love for your partner, wanting to be close to your partner physically are just 2. Plus it's a heck of a fun way to spend a couple of hours.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have never mentioned religious beliefs. You'll have to take up that argument with someone who has. I am willing to give up the "right" to kill another person without due process or in self defense to live in a civil society. What rights are you willing to give up to live in a society? Theft has been around forever and has always been illegal, and yet hasn't stopped. I don't expect the killing of the unborn to cease, but just because I don't expect theft to cease doesn't mean I support freedom to choose someone else's property.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Dang. Why not just skip chocolate, a good meal, and wine while we're at it? Just skip all of life's pleasures?
> 
> Gah. :facepalm:


Well, if someone let me know that I'd have to strangle a puppy at the end of the act if I wanted to participate in said act, I'd skip it, and that's just a dog, mind you...

What a nasty, vile society that is so bent on hedonism as a way of life that it's worth the sacrifice of infants to pursue it.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

FutureFarm said:


> By proving that my wife and I have enough control over our impulses to not have sex before we are ready to accept the consequences, we better trust each other to control our impulses in other aspects of our life. Whether that be the fact that my wife trusts me to walk through a gunshow and not purchase something even if it is on sale, or the mutual trust we have that the other will not get physical When tempers run hot. I'm not suggesting that those who cannot or chose not to control their impulses are inherently violent or probe to cheating on their spouses/partners, but my wife and I have a mutual trust that is stronger because of our ability to control our impulses. Impulsiveness is almost never considered an admirable quality.


I had premarital sex with my now husband (married for 33 years in November) and we trust each other completely. And I call BS on your "stronger mutual trust" just because for six years you denied yourselves sex. The gun show/trust thing is ridiculous in my opinion. 

Sex with a committed partner is not impulsiveness. It's one of life's gifts.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Woolieface said:


> Well, if someone let me know that I'd have to strangle a puppy at the end of the act if I wanted to participate in said act, I'd skip it, and that's just a dog, mind you...
> 
> What a nasty, vile society that is so bent on hedonism as a way of life that it's worth the sacrifice of infants to pursue it.


I've never had an abortion. I've had sex thousands of times... I've never had to "strangle a puppy at the end of the act". Can you explain how that can possibly be?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

SLFarmMI said:


> Perhaps, unlike what some people posting here seem to think, they know that there are a whole host of reasons besides procreation to have sex. Expressing love for your partner, wanting to be close to your partner physically are just 2. Plus it's a heck of a fun way to spend a couple of hours.
> 
> Like it or not, abortion has been around forever and it isn't going anywhere. Banning abortion or imposing draconian restrictions isn't going to eliminate abortion. It will only succeed in driving it underground and making it unsafe again. Returning reproductive rights to the 1950s protects no one.
> 
> Plus, making laws for the entire country based on the religious beliefs of a few is absolutely wrong. What rights are you willing to give up because they offend someone else's religious beliefs?


Real Life Award post.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> I've never had an abortion. I've had sex thousands of times... I've never had to "strangle a puppy at the end of the act". Can you explain how that can possibly be?


Well, now if that's how it always went, we wouldn't be here having yet another abortion debate, now would we?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Woolieface said:


> Well, now if that's how it always went, we wouldn't be here having yet another abortion debate, now would we?


No we wouldn't. We also wouldn't be having this conversation if you hadn't posted this: "Well, if someone let me know that I'd have to strangle a puppy at the end of the act if I wanted to participate in said act, I'd skip it, and that's just a dog, mind you...

*What a nasty, vile society that is so bent on hedonism as a way of life that it's worth the sacrifice of infants to pursue it.*" It's patently ridiculous. 

Like all responsible people you (collective you) use birth control. Sometimes birth control fails, does that mean that no one should have sex? 

Sometimes the brakes fail on cars so no one should drive. Right? How far do you want to go with this?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> Well, if someone let me know that* I'd have to* strangle a puppy at the end of the act if I wanted to participate in said act, I'd skip it, and that's just a dog, mind you...
> 
> What a nasty, vile society that is so bent on hedonism as a way of life that it's worth the sacrifice of infants to pursue it.


No one is saying you have to do anything other than stop trying to dictate what others do


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shine said:


> Fair enough, found this:
> 
> To stop this "multiplication," Sanger could be harsh. Her book, <The Pivot of Civilization>, has a chapter called "The Cruelty of Charity." In it she blasts as "insidiously injurious" programs to provide "medical and nursing facilities to slum mothers." In other words, Sanger wanted ethnic cleansing. Instead of helping the poor, she considered them (particularly Blacks, Hispanics, and Jewish immigrants) slum dwellers who would soon overrun the boundaries of their slums and contaminate the better elements of society with their inferior genes. Throughout the 200+ pages of <The Pivot of Civilization> Sanger called for the elimination of human weeds: "for the cessation of charity, for the segregation of morons, misfits, and maladjusted," and for the sterilization of "genetically inferior races."[7] In this same book she argued that organized attempts to help the poor were the "surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding, and is perpetuating . . . defectives, delinquents, and dependents."[8]
> 
> ...here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/prolife/ppracism.txt


Just in case someone missed reading this the 1st time, here's a look into Sanger's book she wrote...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> *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."[94] Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered unfit.[95][96]
> 
> In âThe Morality of Birth Control,â a 1921 speech, she divided society into three groups: the educated and informed class that regulated the size of their families, the intelligent and responsible who desired to control their families however did not have the means or the knowledge and the irresponsible and reckless people whose religious scruples "prevent their exercising control over their numbers.â Sanger concludes âthere is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.â[97]
> 
> ...


Seems we all should read this again as well...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> I disagree with that. I guess I come at it from the perspective of a farmer. I don't cull or castrate animals because I hate them. I do it because I care about all of my future livestock. I want to get rid of health issues, animals that fail to thrive, etc. I do it out of compassion not hate.
> 
> There is a huge gulf between Sanger and Hitler's thinking. Hitler killed everyone who didn't fit the bill for his master race: perfect blonde haired, blue eyed Aryans. Sanger wanted to reduce births from families she felt were not able to produce healthy, thriving, functional children. Hitler's goal was a conquering Master race. Sanger's goal was an end to poverty and sad lives. Really vastly different goals there.
> 
> The simple fact is up until fairly recently nature did the culling and it culled pretty hard. These days we have set up a world where humans at least in first world countries rarely ever get culled at all. There are inevitable consequences to that for our species. And honestly deep down we all know that. We make jokes about Darwin awards and having to put absurd instructions on things to keep people from hurting themselves.


I'm not believing what I'm reading...seems pretty much over the top socialistic...nearing communism.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> Ah, and there you have it, exactly. These people do, in fact, see the perceived lower classes of humanity as "livestock". Livestock are managed, used, kept captive and forced to do and submit to what their masters want.
> 
> Human beings are not livestock. When we allow ourselves to see other human beings this way, we have to remember that we are also seen this way by some self appointed "higher" strata of human society. We allow a disposition in ourselves to accommodate ideas that would be, otherwise, naturally repugnant to us. The very basis of freedom rests on acknowledging what we all know deep down...that we are all born with equal rights, whether you see those as God given or natural rights. Take those away from one human being and you are not immune, either....and that is where we fool ourselves,believing that we escape the cull list because we're "not one of those" people.
> 
> ...


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> You really want me to go look up all of your statements on welfare babies? I am not the racist one here.


Yes, please do. Otherwise, stop the name calling.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

After all the hand wringing, the words that change meanings of profound acts, the presumption of "rights" it really comes down to this:

"Do we want to live in a world where we "cull" human beings? And if we think for a moment that we might, are we going to be among the survivors?"

Because abortion is nothing more or less than the above, right now it's is culling the unwanted, the accidents, the malformed. Soon they will be widening the gates....


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> :smack Women can want a pregnancy and have no idea it has the potential to kill them until well into it. At least try to deal with the facts.


How many times does this happen? What's the % of pregnancies that cause the mother's death?
Abortion has ALWAYS been legal in this case. Always.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

FutureFarm said:


> I have never mentioned religious beliefs. You'll have to take up that argument with someone who has. I am willing to give up the "right" to kill another person without due process or in self defense to live in a civil society. What rights are you willing to give up to live in a society? Theft has been around forever and has always been illegal, and yet hasn't stopped. I don't expect the killing of the unborn to cease, but just because I don't expect theft to cease doesn't mean I support freedom to choose someone else's property.


Post of the day award.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> After all the hand wringing, the words that change meanings of profound acts, the presumption of "rights" it really comes down to this:
> 
> "Do we want to live in a world where we "cull" human beings? And if we think for a moment that we might, are we going to be among the survivors?"
> 
> Because abortion is nothing more or less than the above, right now it's is culling the unwanted, the accidents, the malformed. Soon they will be widening the gates....


On what do you base your assumption of "right now it's is culling the unwanted, the accidents, the malformed. Soon they will be widening the gates...."? I've seen nothing like that. There are two states were you have the right to die, is that what you're referring to?


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

FutureFarm said:


> *What rights are you willing to give up to live in a society?*


I am unwilling to give up the rights of women to make their own decisions about their lives and bodies based on their particular circumstances. We fought long and hard for those rights. I happen to believe that women are intelligent and capable enough to weigh all their options and make the one that is the best for their situation.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

SLFarmMI said:


> I am unwilling to give up the rights of women to make their own decisions about their lives and bodies based on their particular circumstances. We fought long and hard for those rights. I happen to believe that women are intelligent and capable enough to weigh all their options and make the one that is the best for their situation.


Dang straight.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> On what do you base your assumption of "right now it's is culling the unwanted, the accidents, the malformed.
> 
> *Soon they will be widening the gates....*"?
> 
> I've seen nothing like that. There are two states were you have the right to die, is that what you're referring to?


That's his pious "Christian" way of saying those who don't agree with him are going to Hell


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I'm not psychic 

Posted by bff.



You just make assumptions to fit you agenda


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> I'm not psychic
> Posted by bff.
> You just make assumptions to fit you agenda


What assumptions have I made to fit an agenda?
Try to be specific and give examples


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not what I &quot;believe&quot;. I try to stick to facts instead of emotions
> It's a documented reality:
> 
> 
> ...


I would like to see some real numbers, not simply a claim of "similar abortion rates". (not "The same"). What were the laws like? Was the crime of abortion ignored so that people could just abort at will with little fear of prosecution? What were the enforcement mechanisms in place? These are all facts that must be looked at. We know that making it legal makes it safer, for the woman. That is not in dispute. Just like if we were to disarm the population it would make it safer for criminals to engage in their trades.


----------



## FutureFarm (Mar 1, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> I had premarital sex with my now husband (married for 33 years in November) and we trust each other completely. And I call BS on your "stronger mutual trust" just because for six years you denied yourselves sex. The gun show/trust thing is ridiculous in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> Sex with a committed partner is not impulsiveness. It's one of life's gifts.



Why would you doubt that it has increased our mutual trust?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

SLFarmMI said:


> I am unwilling to give up the rights of women to make their own decisions about their lives and bodies based on their particular circumstances. We fought long and hard for those rights. I happen to believe that women are intelligent and capable enough to weigh all their options and make the one that is the best for their situation.


Are you talking about 'right to die'? Actually is nearly all states you do NOT have the right to kill yourself. You'll be forceably put in a psych facility if you survive. 
And as far a doing whatever you want w/your own body...not so. You cannot sell a kidney. You cannot cut off your arm...
And if you'll look into a bit of science-unless you're a flat-earther or somesuch-you'll see that the unborn child is NOT the mother's body. It is a SEPARATE human being. 
No one has a right to kill a separate human being.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

SLFarmMI said:


> Perhaps, unlike what some people posting here seem to think, they know that there are a whole host of reasons besides procreation to have sex. Expressing love for your partner, wanting to be close to your partner physically are just 2. Plus it's a heck of a fun way to spend a couple of hours.
> 
> Like it or not, abortion has been around forever and it isn't going anywhere. Banning abortion or imposing draconian restrictions isn't going to eliminate abortion. It will only succeed in driving it underground and making it unsafe again. Returning reproductive rights to the 1950s protects no one.
> 
> Plus, making laws for the entire country based on the religious beliefs of a few is absolutely wrong. What rights are you willing to give up because they offend someone else's religious beliefs?


 Much of what you have said is true. Outlawing abortion will not end it. Just like outlawing rape, murder, theft, fraud, etc. does not stop them, but, in a civil society, there are some things that are wrong and those things must be resisted. Law is the tool we use to resist. 

Most of the crimes I have listed are also listed in the Christian Bible as crimes or "sins". Does that mean that people, who are opposed to those crimes are forcing their religious beliefs on others? I know more than a few Atheists who are opposed to abortion because they see it for what it is, destroying a human life. 

The pro-lifer is not trying to restrict rights, no more than the abolitionists wanted to restrict rights. No, the anti-abortionists want to extend rights to a currently unprotected class, the unborn. 
We wish to give a voice to the voiceless, and protect the defenseless.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

FutureFarm said:


> Why would you doubt that it has increased our mutual trust?


How could denying each other increase mutual trust? Trust is gained by time and action, at least in my experience.


----------



## FutureFarm (Mar 1, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> How could denying each other increase mutual trust? Trust is gained by time and action, at least in my experience.



We have proven to each other that over time and repeated action that we can be trusted to not act on emotion and impulse, but consider our past commitments and think ahead and plan for possible outcomes. Before we were married we were in no position to be able to raise a child, so we didn't engage in activity that could create a child. How can you trust your husband to not have sex outside your marriage, when he has proven that he will?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

FutureFarm said:


> We have proven to each other that over time and repeated action that we can be trusted to not act on emotion and impulse, but consider our past commitments and think ahead and plan for possible outcomes. Before we were married we were in no position to be able to raise a child, so we didn't engage in activity that could create a child. How can you trust your husband to not have sex outside your marriage, when he has proven that he will?


He had premarital sex with me, that doesn't mean he'll have sex with anyone else, does it? How can _you_ trust your wife not to have sex outside the marriage? She could be now unless you're with her 24/7. How does anyone trust their partner not to have sex outside the marriage? 

I still don't understand how denying each other for six years increases mutual trust.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

FutureFarm said:


> We have proven to each other that over time and repeated action that we can be trusted to not act on emotion and impulse, but consider our past commitments and think ahead and plan for possible outcomes. Before we were married we were in no position to be able to raise a child, so we didn't engage in activity that could create a child. How can you trust your husband to not have sex outside your marriage, when he has proven that he will?


Sex outside of marriage does not mean sex outside of a relationship. How did you know your spouse was not having sex with someone else while you were denying it.


----------



## FutureFarm (Mar 1, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Sex outside of marriage does not mean sex outside of a relationship. How did you know your spouse was not having sex with someone else while you were denying it.



Probably the same way you know Mr. Painter isn't out running around in you. This isn't the point of this thread though. I think before we went down this rabbit hole of uselessness, the topic was what forms of pregnancy control were effective, and not having sex seemed to be the only 100% effective method. I'm not sure why you and Pixie are so interested in my marriage. You both have your own to worry about.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

FutureFarm said:


> Probably the same way you know Mr. Painter isn't out running around in you. This isn't the point of this thread though. I think before we went down this rabbit hole of uselessness, the topic was what forms of pregnancy control were effective, and not having sex seemed to be the only 100% effective method. I'm not sure why you and Pixie are so interested in my marriage. You both have your own to worry about.



You brought up your marriage and stated a magical property of having denied each other sex for six years somehow making a "tighter bond of mutual trust". Why did you bring your marriage into this thread?

No, actually I don't worry about my marriage at all.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

FutureFarm said:


> *Probably the same way you know Mr. Painter isn't out running around in you.* This isn't the point of this thread though. I think before we went down this rabbit hole of uselessness, the topic was what forms of pregnancy control were effective, and not having sex seemed to be the only 100% effective method. I'm not sure why you and Pixie are so interested in my marriage. You both have your own to worry about.


Exactly! You just shot your point in the foot. Either you could trust your spouse before marriage just as you can trust them after or you can't. Withholding proves nothing and makes nothing better.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> No we wouldn't. We also wouldn't be having this conversation if you hadn't posted this: "Well, if someone let me know that I'd have to strangle a puppy at the end of the act if I wanted to participate in said act, I'd skip it, and that's just a dog, mind you...
> 
> *What a nasty, vile society that is so bent on hedonism as a way of life that it's worth the sacrifice of infants to pursue it.*" It's patently ridiculous.
> 
> ...


I'm sure you know that my suggestion had nothing to do with no person ever having sex. Once upon a time, we all understood that sexual relations had an appropriate place In A Committed Marriage, rather than as a casual, recreational sport. I think a real useful rule of thumb is, if you can't take responsibility for all possible outcomes of what you're about to do (without killing anyone)....then don't do it.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Woolieface said:


> I'm sure you know that my suggestion had nothing to do with no person ever having sex. Once upon a time, we all understood that sexual relations had an appropriate place In A Committed Marriage, rather than as a casual, recreational sport. I think a real useful rule of thumb is, if you can't take responsibility for all possible outcomes of what you're about to do (without killing anyone)....then don't do it.


And as previously pointed out that is unreasonable and irrational. There will always be people that are irresponsible or incapable of making a rational choice regarding sex, birth control failure, and women that become pregnant via rape.

And I don't know that you weren't suggesting that no person have sex ever. I will never understand the pro unborn and what they think. This is what you said, right? "What a nasty, vile society that is so bent on hedonism as a way of life that it's worth the sacrifice of infants to pursue it." It's good to know that you don't deem sex off limits to everyone.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> Abortion is not contraception.... it is sniffing out a life... it's murder


Sanger was not an abortionist, in fact she objected to abortion and none were performed at PP until after her death.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Tiempo said:


> Sanger was not an abortionist, in fact she objected to abortion and none were performed at PP until after her death.


 
"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margret Sanger

Sorry, but, it sounds like she fully supported, at least, abortion. It sounds like she took it to a level beyond where even most abortion supporters today are willing to go. 

She died in 1966, Roe V. Wade was decided in 1973.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Also...



> It is apparent that nothing short of contraceptives can put an end to the horrors of abortion and infanticide.
> Chapter 2, "Women's Struggle for Freedom"





> While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.
> Chapter 10, "Contraceptives or Abortion?"





> ..we explained simply what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way &#8212; no matter how early it was performed it was taking a life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way &#8212; it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun





> MOTHERS! / Can you afford to have a large family? / Do you want any more children? / If not, why do you have them? / DO NOT KILL, / DO NOT TAKE LIFE / BUT PREVENT / Safe, Harmless Information can be obtained of trained nurses at / 46 AMBOY STREET.
> 
> (Handbill advertising Sanger's first clinic, Brooklyn, New York, October 1916)


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Abortion is not contraception... 

Abortion snuffs out a life

Contraception that prevents life does not cause death.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> Abortion is not contraception...
> 
> Abortion snuffs out a life
> 
> Contraception that prevents life does not cause death.


Yes, that is what Sanger was saying.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Tiempo said:


> Also...


 If her views evolved, that is great. If these quotes truly reflect her thinking on the matter, PP should respect the wishes of its founder and cease and desist all abortions immediately.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> You brought up your marriage and stated a magical property of having denied each other sex for six years somehow making a "tighter bond of mutual trust". Why did you bring your marriage into this thread?
> 
> No, actually I don't worry about my marriage at all.


Six years?????????
I'm a pretty good dog, but if you don't pet me once in a while, it's hard to keep me under the porch.:cowboy:


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Farmerga said:


> If her views evolved, that is great. If these quotes truly reflect her thinking on the matter, PP should respect the wishes of its founder and cease and desist all abortions immediately.


I can't find anything to suggest she ever believed abortion was a good thing.

My own personal view is that it isn't in an ideal world, but it has happened for millennia and it's not going to stop happening so there should be access to safe, legal abortions to prevent a return to dangerous, back street abortions.

I also believe a far more practical way to address the issue than making abortion illegal is to support effective ways to reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies through education and optimal access to birth control.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Tiempo said:


> My own personal view is that it isn't in an ideal world, but it has happened for millennia and it's not going to stop happening so there should be access to safe, legal abortions to prevent a return to dangerous, back street abortions.


 That is the fly in the ointment. To a pro-lifer, keeping it legal to keep it safe is as strange, to us, as making robbery legal and disarming victims in order to keep robbers safe.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> That is the fly in the ointment. To a pro-lifer, keeping it legal to keep it safe is as strange, to us, as making robbery legal and disarming victims in order to keep robbers safe.


Do agree with abortion for rape, fetal abnormality or the health of the mother? How about the death penalty?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Do agree with abortion for rape, fetal abnormality or the health of the mother? How about the death penalty?


 I agree that, in certain, rare cases, abortion is a valid medical treatment. There is no logical reason to maintain a pregnancy if said pregnancy is going to kill the mother. 

Rape is a tough one. I can't begin to understand the pain that a victim of rape goes through, but, it is not the fault of the child. I don't like it, but, if I were drawing up the law to limit abortion, that would be a place where I could be convinced to give a little. 

Fetal abnormality is another thorny issue. What is abnormal? Downs syndrome? People who have Downs seem lead very happy lives, generally. I guess it depends on the abnormality. 

The Death penalty: I actually agree, in principle, with the death penalty. It is performed on the guilty, not like abortion that is performed on the innocent. However, I do not like the idea of a government having the power to kill its citizens. They tend to mess everything else up, no doubt they mess capital punishment up as well.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> I agree that, in certain, rare cases, abortion is a valid medical treatment. There is no logical reason to maintain a pregnancy if said pregnancy is going to kill the mother.
> 
> Rape is a tough one. I can't begin to understand the pain that a victim of rape goes through, but, it is not the fault of the child. I don't like it, but, if I were drawing up the law to limit abortion, that would be a place where I could be convinced to give a little.
> 
> ...


So you're admitting your pro choice not pro life? You're OK with abortion on your terms and ending someone's life for a crime. 

Welcome to the dark side, we have cookies.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> So you're admitting your pro choice not pro life? You're OK with abortion on your terms and ending someone's life for a crime.
> 
> Welcome to the dark side, we have cookies.


 
I am for logic. As I said, if a pregnancy is going to kill the mother both lives will be lost and the only logical course of action is to end the pregnancy where at least one life can be saved. I would hate it and would morn with the mother for the death of her child, but, it is the only logical thing to do. 

I am not for abortion for rape, or, fetal abnormality, I am simply a pragmatist and would be willing to give a little to save a lot. Say we were about to pass a constitutional amendment that limits abortion to only life of the mother cases, and we didn't have the votes to pass it, but, if we were to add a in case of rape and/or fetal abnormality clause, it would pass, of course, to save millions, I would support said amendment. 

I am for innocence. And, while I agree with the death penalty in principle, I am against it in practice because of the ineptness of the State and the chance that they may kill the innocent.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> I am for logic. As I said, if a pregnancy is going to kill the mother both lives will be lost and the only logical course of action is to end the pregnancy where at least one life can be saved. I would hate it and would morn with the mother for the death of her child, but, it is the only logical thing to do.
> 
> I am not for abortion for rape, or, fetal abnormality, I am simply a pragmatist and would be willing to give a little to save a lot. Say we were about to pass a constitutional amendment that limits abortion to only life of the mother cases, and we didn't have the votes to pass it, but, if we were to add a in case of rape and/or fetal abnormality clause, it would pass, of course, to save millions, I would support said amendment.
> 
> I am for innocence. And, while I agree with the death penalty in principle, I am against it in practice because of the ineptness of the State and the chance that they may kill the innocent.


You are still OK with abortion on your terms and agree (at least in principle) that people should be put to death for a crime. How can that possibly be considered pro life? You support abortion on your own terms.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> You are still OK with abortion on your terms and agree (at least in principle) that people should be put to death for a crime. How can that possibly be considered pro life? You support abortion on your own terms.


Simple. Whatever course saves the most individual lives wins. In the only real exception that is acceptable, in defense of the life of the mother, the choice is end the pregnancy and save the life of the mother, or, not end the pregnancy and both mother and child die anyway. So, abortion to save the life of the mother is pro-life. Also, this is only valid up to and until the fetus is viable. After that, the child can be delivered early, if need be.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> And as previously pointed out that is unreasonable and irrational. There will always be people that are irresponsible or incapable of making a rational choice regarding sex, birth control failure, and women that become pregnant via rape.
> 
> And I don't know that you weren't suggesting that no person have sex ever. I will never understand the pro unborn and what they think. This is what you said, right? "What a nasty, vile society that is so bent on hedonism as a way of life that it's worth the sacrifice of infants to pursue it." It's good to know that you don't deem sex off limits to everyone.


Yes, that's the point... it takes an irresponsible person to partake in an action that might begin new life without being willing to support that life.. Why do we reward irresponsibility with the right to kill? 

A nasty and vile society that is so bent on hedonism that it's willing to sacrifice infants in pursuit of it.... yes, that's what it is. I don't know what in there states that I advocate banning sex.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Woolieface said:


> Yes, that's the point... it takes an irresponsible person to partake in an action that might begin new life without being willing to support that life.. Why do we reward irresponsibility with the right to kill?
> 
> A nasty and vile society that is so bent on hedonism that it's willing to sacrifice infants in pursuit of it.... yes, that's what it is. I don't know what in there states that I advocate banning sex.


I don't know how anyone can not be horrified by the slaughter of babies.
There has to be something wrong with our society as a whole. Life doesn't have much value anymore apparently


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> I don't know how anyone can not be horrified by the slaughter of babies.
> There has to be something wrong with our society as a whole. Life doesn't have much value anymore apparently


I'm horrified by the slaughter of babies too. Where did this happen? Why isn't it on the news?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Woolieface said:


> Yes, that's the point... it takes an irresponsible person to partake in an action that might begin new life without being willing to support that life.. Why do we reward irresponsibility with the right to kill?
> 
> A nasty and vile society that is so bent on hedonism that it's willing to sacrifice infants in pursuit of it.... yes, that's what it is. I don't know what in there states that I advocate banning sex.


Who is sacrificing infants? Why is there no outrage? 

I'm glad you're practically perfect, Wooliface. I thought only Mary Poppins was...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Simple. Whatever course saves the most individual lives wins. In the only real exception that is acceptable, in defense of the life of the mother, the choice is end the pregnancy and save the life of the mother, or, not end the pregnancy and both mother and child die anyway. So, abortion to save the life of the mother is pro-life. Also, this is only valid up to and until the fetus is viable. After that, the child can be delivered early, if need be.


No, supporting _any_ type of abortion is not pro life, it's supporting abortion on your terms. The fact that you also support the death penalty is the clincher. 

We can go back and forth all day but it doesn't change what you said. In fact, I'm not going to respond anymore. You said what you said.

ETA: Don't feel bad. The vast majority of the pro unborn on HT support abortion on their own terms. I think I read one or two that really are pro life.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> No, supporting _any_ type of abortion is not pro life, it's supporting abortion on your terms. The fact that you also support the death penalty is the clincher.
> 
> We can go back and forth all day but it doesn't change what you said. In fact, I'm not going to respond anymore. You said what you said.
> 
> ETA: Don't feel bad. The vast majority of the pro unborn on HT support abortion on their own terms. I think I read one or two that really are pro life.


 Quick question: Where did I ever say that I "support" any type of abortion, or, the death penalty for that matter? I may have alluded to the fact that I am willing to tolerate it in some instances, for the greater good, but, I have never said that I support it. Just like, in some cases, I tolerate war, I do not support war. 

So, in closing, I did say what I said, but, it wasn't what you said that I said.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

FutureFarm said:


> Why would you doubt that it has increased our mutual trust?


Because you have no way of knowing if there would have been a difference
It's an assumption based on limited experience


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> *I would like to see some real numbers,* not simply a claim of "similar abortion rates". (not "The same"). What were the laws like? Was the crime of abortion ignored so that people could just abort at will with little fear of prosecution? What were the enforcement mechanisms in place? These are all facts that must be looked at. We know that making it legal makes it safer, for the woman. That is not in dispute. Just like if we were to disarm the population it would make it safer for criminals to engage in their trades.


Nothing is stopping you from doing the research.

WIKI lists all their sources, and I feel certain they will lead you to more.

You're connected to the greatest collection of knowledge in the history of mankind, and answers are just a click away, but you won't find them all here

Your criminal analogy makes no sense though. Let's just do one topic


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> That is the fly in the ointment. To a pro-lifer, keeping it legal to keep it safe is as strange, to us, as making robbery legal and disarming victims in order to keep robbers safe.


You're still just trying to force your views on others who don't necessarily share them.



> The pro-lifer is not trying to restrict rights, no more than the abolitionists wanted to restrict rights. No, the anti-abortionists want to extend rights to a currently unprotected class, the unborn.
> We wish to give a voice to the voiceless, and protect the defenseless.


The comparisons to slavery, robbery, Nazis, crime in general and the flowery emotional rhetoric have all been done to death.

Reality is the majority want abortions to remain legal, and they want others to mind their own business


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Who is sacrificing infants? Why is there no outrage?
> 
> I'm glad you're practically perfect, Wooliface. I thought only Mary Poppins was...


Is this a baby?










How about this one?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Woolieface said:


> Is this a baby?


Were they sacrificed? 

You _are_ practically perfect, aren't you? Never irresponsible, never forced to do something you didn't want to, and never ever forced to make a heart wrenching decision.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> Is this a baby?
> How about this one?
> [


Those pictures are not representative of the typical aborted fetuses, since the vast majority are done prior to week 12

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#/media/File:US_abortion_by_gestational_age_2004_histogram.svg


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Woolieface said:


> Also not a bad plan....


Don't see that happening anytime soon.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I had premarital sex with my now husband (married for 33 years in November) and we trust each other completely. And I call BS on your "stronger mutual trust" just because for six years you denied yourselves sex. The gun show/trust thing is ridiculous in my opinion.
> 
> Sex with a committed partner is not impulsiveness. It's one of life's gifts.


Same here, married 27 years. First and only marriage for both of us.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> Just in case someone missed reading this the 1st time, here's a look into Sanger's book she wrote...


Huh sounds like a lot of the responses in that Summer food for children thread we had not so long ago. I am starting to think a lot of our Conservatives are closet Eugenicists.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> Yes, please do. Otherwise, stop the name calling.


Says the woman who called me a racist first.....


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margret Sanger
> 
> Sorry, but, it sounds like she fully supported, at least, abortion. It sounds like she took it to a level beyond where even most abortion supporters today are willing to go.
> 
> She died in 1966, Roe V. Wade was decided in 1973.


This will require some reading comprehension but here is your quote in context. 



> *This does not complete the case, however, for those who care to go farther into the subject will find that many of those who live for a year die before they reach the age of five.*[SIZE=-2]_ 9_[/SIZE]
> 
> Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. The same factors which create the terrible infant mortality rate, and which swell the death rate of children between the ages of one and five, operate even more extensively to lower the health rate of the surviving members. Moreover, the overcrowded homes of large families reared in poverty further contribute to this condition. Lack of medical attention is still another factor, so that the child who must struggle for health in competition with other members of a closely packed family has still great difficulties to meet after its poor constitution and malnutrition have been accounted for.[SIZE=-2]_ 10_[/SIZE]
> 
> The probability of a child handicapped by a weak constitution, an overcrowded home, inadequate food and care, and possibly a deficient mental equipment, winding up in prison or an almshouse, is too evident for comment. Every jail, hospital for the insane, reformatory and institution for the feebleminded cries out against the evils of too prolific breeding among wage-workers.


http://www.bartleby.com/1013/5.html


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Were they sacrificed?
> 
> You _are_ practically perfect, aren't you? Never irresponsible, never forced to do something you didn't want to, and never ever forced to make a heart wrenching decision.


Yes, they were sacrificed. No, I'm not perfect. Yes, I've been irresponsible sometimes, though have never taken a life in the process. I could not be forced to do that. Ever.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

We hear the same old tired excuses. *"A majority wants it".* So? The tyranny of the majority is a known concept that has been seen time an time again through history. The majority is not always correct. If we let the will of the majority rule on what is right and what is wrong, I shutter to think about how messed up our nation would really be. 

*"They are not living breathing humans"* That is just silly on the face of it. Do they not eat? Do they not breath? Are they not alive? If they are crushed, do they not die? Also, if they are not human, to what species do they belong? 

*"The vast majority of abortions are done early in the pregnancy"* Again, so? What does age of the child have to do with it? They are simply less developed, just like an infant is less developed than an adult. Is that infant worth less? 

*"It is legal"* Some of the worst crimes against humanity were "legal" when they were being committed. Abortion is simply another example on that sad list. 

*"The majority of abortions are performed on the poor"* So, we are really going to go back down the road of assigning different values on people from different groups? 

*"Her body, her choice" *But it is not simply "her body", is it? No, there is another human life there. Again, when it is truly "her body" I couldn't care less what she does with it. If she want to end her own life, so be it. If she wants to cut her legs off, have at it. The old saying of "Your rights end where my nose begins" holds true. That baby, through no fault of its own, is living in her body, they are separate beings.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> This will require some reading comprehension but here is your quote in context.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bartleby.com/1013/5.html


 
Again, if it is true that Sanger was against abortion, would it not be honoring her wishes if PP were to stop all abortions immediately and realize her vision of providing contraception services and other health care for women only?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Again, if it is true that Sanger was against abortion, would it not be honoring her wishes if PP were to stop all abortions immediately and realize her vision of providing contraception services and other health care for women only?


You might wish that but their goal is to provide services for women's reproductive health and welfare. Safe abortions does just that.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Again, if it is true that Sanger was against abortion, would it not be honoring her wishes if PP were to stop all abortions immediately and realize her vision of providing contraception services and other health care for women only?


Why? Planned Parenthood has evolved tremendously from the original American Birth Control League founded in 1921 by Sanger.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> You might wish that but their goal is to provide services for women's reproductive health and welfare. Safe abortions does just that.


 But, if Ms. Sanger was against abortion, is it not dishonoring her memory for the group, that she founded, to perform abortions, while giving out awards that bear her name?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> But, if Ms. Sanger was against abortion, is it not dishonoring her memory for the group, that she founded, to perform abortions, while giving out awards that bear her name?


Apparently not. It's evolved, and now 3% of of what PP does is abortions.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Apparently not. It's evolved, and now 3% of of what PP does is abortions.


That 3% number is misleading according the fact checkers at the Washington post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...3-percent-and-94-percent-are-both-misleading/

But, that is irrelevant. One elective abortion, is too many.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> That 3% number is misleading according the fact checkers at the Washington post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...3-percent-and-94-percent-are-both-misleading/
> 
> But, that is irrelevant. One elective abortion, is too many.


Yet you support abortion for the life of the mother? 

From your link: "When all services are counted equally, abortion procedures do account for 3 percent of Planned Parenthoodâs total services."


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yet you support abortion for the life of the mother?
> 
> From your link: "When all services are counted equally, abortion procedures do account for 3 percent of Planned Parenthoodâs total services."


 As I said before, I do not support abortion in any form. Just like I don't support killing any other human. There are times when it becomes necessary such as in defense of another life. 

Yes, the misleading part is counting them equally. They count giving a pill the same as abortion. One costs $40 the other costs $1000. That is like saying that removing a wart equates to open heart surgery.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> As I said before, I do not support abortion in any form. Just like I don't support killing any other human. There are times when it becomes necessary such as in defense of another life.
> 
> Yes, the misleading part is counting them equally. They count giving a pill the same as abortion. One costs $40 the other costs $1000. That is like saying that removing a wart equates to open heart surgery.


Does the link *you put up* say, "When all services are counted equally, abortion procedures do account for 3 percent of Planned Parenthoodâs total services."?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> _Where_ were they sacrificed, Mary Poppins?


Is Mary Poppins an approved nickname by your standards? Just checking, Big Red 

The individuals photographed were not aborted. The premature infant shown is at a stage of development that is aborted, and is actually younger than the one shown in utero. That child... the older one, can still be legally aborted. Which one is a baby capable of feeling pain and deserving to be protected?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Woolieface said:


> Is Mary Poppins an approved nickname by your standards? Just checking, Big Red
> 
> The individuals photographed were not aborted. The premature infant shown is at a stage of development that is aborted, and is actually younger than the one shown in utero. That child... the older one, can still be legally aborted. Which one is a baby capable of feeling pain and deserving to be protected?


You're right. I will stop calling you Mary Poppins. My apologies. 

So, the infant in the top photo was born, right? It is indeed an infant. The bottom photo is a fetus because it has not been born. Depending on the laws of that state the fetus can be aborted or brought to term. 

Any pregnancy is under the complete control of the woman who is pregnant. Her body, her choice.

You said that infants (babies?) were being sacrificed. Where? Got links or was it just an inflammatory opinion?


----------



## FutureFarm (Mar 1, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> You're right. I will stop calling you Mary Poppins. My apologies.
> 
> So, the infant in the top photo was born, right? It is indeed an infant. The bottom photo is a fetus because it has not been born. Depending on the laws of that state the fetus can be aborted or brought to term.
> 
> ...



Would it be her liver, heart, and lungs donated to Planned Parenthood? I don't think so. The parts donated are not the mother's parts. They are the fetus's parts. That is a human fetus, and it is being denied basic human rights. Do you have a historical example of any time when basic human rights were denied to a group and he outcome was good?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> You're right. I will stop calling you Mary Poppins. My apologies.
> 
> So, the infant in the top photo was born, right? It is indeed an infant. The bottom photo is a fetus because it has not been born. Depending on the laws of that state the fetus can be aborted or brought to term.
> 
> ...


Yet the premature, born infant is less developed than the one who can be legally aborted. It's all about location? 

I think it's appropriate to say "sacrificed" when speaking of people who make a choice to take their irresponsibility to the level of destroying life as the acceptable price for whatever pleasure and convenience they've sought to pursue.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Does the link *you put up* say, &quot;When all services are counted equally, abortion procedures do account for 3 percent of Planned Parenthoodâs total services.&quot;?


 Yes, as I said in previous posts. I said that the 3% number is misleading, as did the fact checkers at the Washington post.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Woolieface said:


> Yet the premature, born infant is less developed than the one who can be legally aborted. It's all about location?
> 
> I think it's appropriate to say "sacrificed" when speaking of people who make a choice to take their irresponsibility to the level of destroying life as the acceptable price for whatever pleasure and convenience they've sought to pursue.


You can use "sacrifice" instead of abortion all you'd like but that doesn't make it correct. 

Abortion is all about the woman who is pregnant and what she wants to do with her body. Period. You can rail and make up names, wring your hands, and tear out your hair but it's still legal and has been for over 40 years. In the end it's just you (collective you) trying to gain control over another person's body.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Yes, as I said in previous posts. I said that the 3% number is misleading, as did the fact checkers at the Washington post.


Yet even the Washington Post Fact Checker said that abortions comprise 3% of what Planned Parenthood does. Correct?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> In the end it's just you (collective you) trying to gain control over another person's body.


 That is one of the best definitions for abortion that I have seen. The only way, that I can see, to improve it would be to put the words "and kill" between the word "over" and "another".


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> That is one of the best definitions for abortion that I have seen. The only way, that I can see, to improve it would be to put the words "and kill" between the word "over" and "another".


So you say... opinions are a wonderful thing, huh?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yet even the Washington Post Fact Checker said that abortions comprise 3% of what Planned Parenthood does. Correct?


 When you count everything equally, yes. To be clear that is like counting giving out an aspirin the same as open heart surgery. Are both medical procedures? Yes, but most honest people would say that to count them both equally is misleading. And, as I stated previously, it is irrelevant how many they do in relation to other services.


----------



## FutureFarm (Mar 1, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> So you say... opinions are a wonderful thing, huh?



Is there anything incorrect, factually, about the definition in question? Abortion is about controlling and denying a human every right.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> You can use "sacrifice" instead of abortion all you'd like but that doesn't make it correct.
> 
> Abortion is all about the woman who is pregnant and what she wants to do with her body. Period. You can rail and make up names, wring your hands, and tear out your hair but it's still legal and has been for over 40 years. In the end it's just you (collective you) trying to gain control over another person's body.


No, I'm pretty sure she had control when she did that baby making thing. Trying to take control over someone elses body might be better exemplified by forcibly grabbing parts of it and ripping them off. 

You can also wring hands, rip hair out and yell legal all you like but clearly nobody is foggy on what is legal or not, nor was it ever the debate. What seems to be foggy here is what is a human or not, and if we're all sane, we can agree that if a premature child is a child, one of further development who is still in the womb is as well. That one doesn't even take a scientist.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Woolieface said:


> No, I'm pretty sure she had control when she did that baby making thing. Trying to take control over someone elses body might be better exemplified by forcibly grabbing parts of it and ripping them off.
> 
> You can also wring hands, rip hair out and yell legal all you like but clearly nobody is foggy on what is legal or not, nor was it ever the debate. What seems to be foggy here is what is a human or not, and if we're all sane, we can agree that if a premature child is a child, one of further development who is still in the womb is as well. That one doesn't even take a scientist.


Doesn't matter- her body, her choice. There's nothing you can do about it.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> When you count everything equally, yes. To be clear that is like counting giving out an aspirin the same as open heart surgery. Are both medical procedures? Yes, but most honest people would say that to count them both equally is misleading. And, as I stated previously, it is irrelevant how many they do in relation to other services.


So, to be perfectly clear, Planned Parenthood did not lie and abortions do comprise 3% of what they do, correct?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

FutureFarm said:


> Is there anything incorrect, factually, about the definition in question? Abortion is about controlling and denying a human every right.


No, it's not. Fetuses do not have rights. And I will add that I'm not a lawyer, particularly not a Constitutional lawyer, and I'm not discussing the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act."


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> So, to be perfectly clear, Planned Parenthood did not lie and abortions do comprise 3% of what they do, correct?


 I never said that they did. I said that their 3% number was misleading, which any honest person, including the honest people at the Washington post, would agree with.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Much of what you have said is true. Outlawing abortion will not end it. Just like outlawing rape, murder, theft, fraud, etc. does not stop them, but, in a civil society, there are some things that are wrong and those things must be resisted. Law is the tool we use to resist.
> 
> Most of the crimes I have listed are also listed in the Christian Bible as crimes or "sins". Does that mean that people, who are opposed to those crimes are forcing their religious beliefs on others? I know more than a few Atheists who are opposed to abortion because they see it for what it is, destroying a human life.
> 
> ...


Post of the milleneum award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Simple. Whatever course saves the most individual lives wins. In the only real exception that is acceptable, in defense of the life of the mother, the choice is end the pregnancy and save the life of the mother, or, not end the pregnancy and both mother and child die anyway. So, abortion to save the life of the mother is pro-life. Also, this is only valid up to and until the fetus is viable. After that, the child can be delivered early, if need be.


There's a few on this board that love to change our words...they don't have a CLUE that abortion was ALWAYS legal if mother's life was at stake...was there a Pro-Life crowd then? No, no need for it. 

In the case of rape, there's such a small % that are born b/c of rape & it sure isn't the baby's fault. I feel as you-a little more leeway for that. I've read too many wonderful stories of children born from rape that are complete joys to their parents. They're so glad they didn't kill their child.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Quick question: Where did I ever say that I "support" any type of abortion, or, the death penalty for that matter? I may have alluded to the fact that I am willing to tolerate it in some instances, for the greater good, but, I have never said that I support it. Just like, in some cases, I tolerate war, I do not support war.
> 
> So, in closing, I did say what I said, but, it wasn't what you said that I said.


Won't matter, Farmer. This poster will twist your words all day long. However the good news is, supposedly will not come back. 
Wanna take bets?


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2015)

I thought (I guess wrong) that using religious quotes and passages were frowned apron when used to disparage or entice a member. What hypocrisy.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Woolieface said:


> No, I'm pretty sure she had control when she did that baby making thing. Trying to take control over someone elses body might be better exemplified by forcibly grabbing parts of it and ripping them off.
> 
> You can also wring hands, rip hair out and yell legal all you like but clearly nobody is foggy on what is legal or not, nor was it ever the debate. What seems to be foggy here is what is a human or not, and if we're all sane, we can agree that if a premature child is a child, one of further development who is still in the womb is as well. That one doesn't even take a scientist.





> it takes an irresponsible person to partake in an action that might begin new life without being willing to support that life..


How do you suppose this child's 'doing that baby making thing' was for her?

Where was her control over anything at all? What was her irresponsibility?

How does anyone justify forcing her to carry this pregnancy?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-33919483


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I think she's referring to me. Wanna take bets?  

There are some posters that aren't worth responding to because their posts are generally about other members rather than the topic at hand. Just sayin'.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> Is this a baby?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know! I know the answer! One is WANTED and one is NOT. Simple, isn't it?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tiempo said:


> How do you suppose this child's 'doing that baby making thing' was for her?
> 
> Where was her control over anything at all?
> 
> ...


That poor little girl had no control over anything. Makes me sick to think about it.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Huh sounds like a lot of the responses in that Summer food for children thread we had not so long ago. I am starting to think a lot of our Conservatives are closet Eugenicists.


I'm sorry, I mean no disrespect, but could you perhaps read some of that thread again? b/c I'm questioning your statement above, or comprehension of what was said...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Patchouli said:


> Huh sounds like a lot of the responses in that Summer food for children thread we had not so long ago. I am starting to think a lot of our Conservatives are closet Eugenicists.


I especially liked where a few said that all American kids were fat so there was no need for summer food programs. Some of the posts were simply ridiculous. 

I agree, many of the conservative posters here have opinion/views that are very similar to eugenicists. It's scary.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> Is Mary Poppins an approved nickname by your standards? Just checking, Big Red
> 
> The individuals photographed were not aborted. The premature infant shown is at a stage of development that is aborted, and is actually younger than the one shown in utero. That child... the older one, can still be legally aborted. Which one is a baby capable of feeling pain and deserving to be protected?


If you'll note, Woolie, this poster & a couple others can say whatever they want, snarky, rude, demeaning, as well as name-calling other posters, something they said they would not tolerate if done to them. 
They also happen to be a group that was banned in the past. Unfairly, they say. 
Seems there should be another vote.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> If you'll note, Woolie, this poster & a couple others can say whatever they want, snarky, rude, demeaning, as well as name-calling other posters, something they said they would not tolerate if done to them.
> They also happen to be a group that was banned in the past. Unfairly, they say.
> Seems there should be another vote.


There you go again. Projecting your posting behaviour on others.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

FutureFarm said:


> Would it be her liver, heart, and lungs donated to Planned Parenthood? I don't think so. The parts donated are not the mother's parts. They are the fetus's parts. That is a human fetus, and it is being denied basic human rights. Do you have a historical example of any time when basic human rights were denied to a group and he outcome was good?


Post of the month award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> When you count everything equally, yes. To be clear that is like counting giving out an aspirin the same as open heart surgery. Are both medical procedures? Yes, but most honest people would say that to count them both equally is misleading. And, as I stated previously, it is irrelevant how many they do in relation to other services.


PP should be obsolete anyway. ObummerUNcare guarantees a woman's right to healthcare. No one has to go to PP.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> There you go again. Projecting your posting behaviour on others.


I know, right? I think she (and the others) should report all posts that offend them in any way and let the mods/administration decide, don't you? Or perhaps they already do? Otherwise it's just whining and acting like a victim.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

From the post quoting Sanger: 

..."Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. The same factors which create the terrible infant mortality rate, and which swell the death rate of children between the ages of one and five, operate even more extensively to lower the health rate of the surviving members. Moreover, the overcrowded homes of large families reared in poverty further contribute to this condition. Lack of medical attention is still another factor, so that the child who must struggle for health in competition with other members of a closely packed family has still great difficulties to meet after its poor constitution and malnutrition have been accounted for. 10 

The probability of a child handicapped by a weak constitution, an overcrowded home, inadequate food and care, and possibly a deficient mental equipment, winding up in prison or an almshouse, is too evident for comment. Every jail, hospital for the insane, reformatory and institution for the feebleminded cries out against the evils of too prolific breeding among wage-workers.

Ok, what does this say? Shall we have a poll? Is it UNCLEAR this is advocating infanticide? So is this supposed to be PROOF Sanger didn't advocate for abortion? 
What is wrong w/you people???

I post articles from respected journals on various progressive pyschologists who advocate not only for abortion but for killing your child up to 2 yrs of age. The progressives, non-conserves here jump up & yell that I'm saying "all progressives", whine, whine, & yet this is posted like its the best thing to do!


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> If you'll note, Woolie, this poster & a couple others can say whatever they want, snarky, rude, demeaning, as well as name-calling other posters, something they said they would not tolerate if done to them.
> They also happen to be a group that was banned in the past. Unfairly, they say.
> Seems there should be another vote.


Ding ding ding! Hypocritcal post of the year award!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> I especially liked where a few said that all American kids were fat so there was no need for summer food programs. Some of the posts were simply ridiculous.
> 
> I agree, many of the conservative posters here have opinion/views that are very similar to eugenicists. It's scary.


06/01/15, 08:35 AM
Tricky Grama's Avatar	
Tricky Grama Tricky Grama is online now

"Date: Oct 2006
Location: N. E. TX
Posts: 29,526
In our country it is far more of a problem to be overweight. Children especially. Seems too many have been "Food Insecure" in their lives & had food poked at 'em. 
My pet charities include education for healthy food choices. Education regarding the fact that a fast food diet-some anyway-are bad for children. Should be a treat once in a while to take a kid to mickyd's. Kids shouldn't be raised on sodas, should be a special treat. 
The overweight children as well as adults are a HUGE problem in the USA. Most of these overweight kids will turn into diabetics, overweight adults. 
I see "Food Insecure" as all wrong for our country Just another 'feel bad so donate' mantra. I'll pull for the health of kids, thanks."

"05/29/15, 06:31 PM
Tricky Grama's Avatar	
Tricky Grama Tricky Grama is online now

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: N. E. TX
Posts: 29,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by MO_cows View Post
Can someone please tell me why Trixie is getting thrashed for government largesse, when her OP was a suggestion for people to VOLUNTARILY support their local food bank because the kids are out of school and not getting the meals there? Did this thread just go so fast the actual point went by in a blur and no one saw it?
I think a lot posted what their area was doing to feed the kids. What more is there to say? Except that there are far too many parents who do not step up to the plate. And when that was simi poopooed, it turned, I guess. 

BTW, no one is starving. We have far more fat kids than starving ones. We have far too many gov't programs to feed everyone. 
The conservatives here have prolly-collectively-given more $$ more time & more blood-like the studies show-& are tired of being taxed to death too. 

I'm not sure why it took 7 pages..."


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Too bad her nastiest posts were deleted by mods. Convenient to claim otherwise when your ugliest posts are removed. she does seem to have an issue with fat-shaming. Guess her body must be perfect...no sagging or wrinkling allowed....which is a strange attitude for a homesteading board where so many women are very natural.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> 06/01/15, 08:35 AM
> Tricky Grama's Avatar
> Tricky Grama Tricky Grama is online now
> 
> ...


Thank you very much. Nowhere did I say all American kids are fat. NO WHERE.
That is a lie to say I said that.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

basketti said:


> Too bad her nastiest posts were deleted by mods. Convenient to claim otherwise when your ugliest posts are removed. she does seem to have an issue with fat-shaming. Guess her body must be perfect...no sagging or wrinkling allowed....which is a strange attitude for a homesteading board where so many women are very natural.


It is really about time folks learned who's HT people & who's a politician. We have rules about calling folks here names. Y'all on the non-conserve side don't seem to see that.
Y'all will defend a lying, corrupt, inept, vile politician. Why is that? 
This is not a member of HT. Not a lady in your neighborhood. Nor in mine. Not have I ever used any of those titles on anyone here. Or in my neighborhood. Or yours. 
This is a lying, corrupt, inept, vile politician who should be in an orange jumpsuit & may very well be. 
I'll say it one more time: NOT a member of HT. Not a nice little ol' lady.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> It is really about time folks learned who's HT people & who's a politician. We have rules about calling folks here names. Y'all on the non-conserve side don't seem to see that.
> Y'all will defend a lying, corrupt, inept, vile politician. Why is that?
> This is not a member of HT. Not a lady in your neighborhood. Nor in mine. Not have I ever used any of those titles on anyone here. Or in my neighborhood. Or yours.
> This is a lying, corrupt, inept, vile politician who should be in an orange jumpsuit & may very well be.
> I'll say it one more time: NOT a member of HT. Not a nice little ol' lady.


We are voicing our opinion on your posts. It is unacceptable to shame anyone based on their looks on HT or not on HT. Not something that I think we should be teaching our youth. Sop yes I will speak up about that behaviour as long as it continues.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> It is really about time folks learned who's HT people & who's a politician. We have rules about calling folks here names. Y'all on the non-conserve side don't seem to see that.
> Y'all will defend a lying, corrupt, inept, vile politician. Why is that?
> This is not a member of HT. Not a lady in your neighborhood. Nor in mine. Not have I ever used any of those titles on anyone here. Or in my neighborhood. Or yours.
> This is a lying, corrupt, inept, vile politician who should be in an orange jumpsuit & may very well be.
> I'll say it one more time: NOT a member of HT. Not a nice little ol' lady.


Did you say something about a politician in the two posts you had deleted for "personal attack" on this thread today? Or was it about a member?


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

FutureFarm said:


> Is there anything incorrect, factually, about the definition in question? Abortion is about controlling and denying a human every right.


Abortion is about allowing the woman who is pregnant to make decisions about whether or not to continue a pregnancy rather than strangers who have zero knowledge of how an unwanted pregnancy will impact her life. 

You (global you) seem to be of the opinion that every abortion is the result of not using birth control and that forcing women to continue these unwanted pregnancies will be no big deal for the woman. You are very wrong.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

It is unacceptable in many that teaching our youth that abortion is not a death and thus I share my view ... I will speak up about the behaviour as long as it continues to be an acceptable form of birth control.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

SLFarmMI said:


> Abortion is about allowing the woman who is pregnant to make decisions about whether or not to continue a pregnancy rather than strangers who have zero knowledge of how an unwanted pregnancy will impact her life.
> 
> You (global you) seem to be of the opinion that every abortion is the result of not using birth control and that forcing women to continue these unwanted pregnancies will be no big deal for the woman. You are very wrong.


Real Life Award


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Did you say something about a politician in the two posts you had deleted for "personal attack" on this thread today? Or was it about a member?


Actually, in one post I said a member had lied. That's the truth, as evidenced in the quote PW posted from the thread on 'food insecurity'. 
No where had I said "all American kids are fat". It isn't right to attribute phrases to people when their not true. It is actually a personal attack if someone does this.

In the other deleted post I mentioned that some folks were banned b/4-no names were mentioned-I copied the post so I know what was said. NO name calling.
I'm sure I've read that b/4 about banned folks...and it's a post that still stands, to my knowledge.

Now, how about that deleted post of yours?


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

painterswife said:


> We are voicing our opinion on your posts. It is unacceptable to shame anyone based on their looks on HT or not on HT. Not something that I think we should be teaching our youth. Sop yes I will speak up about that behaviour as long as it continues.


Geez, get a life. Saying hillary is uglier than homemade sin is just speaking the truth. Calling chris christie a tub of lard is an insult to tubs of lard. If saying I couldn't vote for rand paul because he reminds me of Jerry Lee Lewis is offensive, tough.

I could throw in a few other "macro" aggressions, but I've got to go mow the lawn.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Geez, get a life. Saying hillary is uglier than homemade sin is just speaking the truth. Calling chris christie a tub of lard is an insult to tubs of lard. If saying I couldn't vote for rand paul because he reminds me of Jerry Lee Lewis is offensive, tough.
> 
> I could throw in a few other "macro" aggressions, but I've got to go mow the lawn.


Yup that kind of post speaks for itself.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> I know, right? I think she (and the others) should report all posts that offend them in any way and let the mods/administration decide, don't you? Or perhaps they already do? Otherwise it's just whining and acting like a victim.


I am a he. Making the Marry Poppins thing that much more special...lol

don't worry...just a spoon full of sugar and it will all be ok. I don't whine to the principal.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Doesn't matter- her body, her choice. There's nothing you can do about it.


Whether I can personally do anything about it or not....it does matter. That's the point missed.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Tiempo said:


> How do you suppose this child's 'doing that baby making thing' was for her?
> 
> Where was her control over anything at all? What was her irresponsibility?
> 
> ...


I don't know...ask her daughter 12 years from now.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Actually, in one post I said a member had lied. That's the truth, as evidenced in the quote PW posted from the thread on 'food insecurity'.
> No where had I said "all American kids are fat". It isn't right to attribute phrases to people when their not true. It is actually a personal attack if someone does this.
> 
> In the other deleted post I mentioned that some folks were banned b/4-no names were mentioned-I copied the post so I know what was said. NO name calling.
> ...


No names were mentioned in the post about all American kids being fat either. 

Yet you had two deleted posts because of personal attacks on HT members, not politicians. You said, "Y'all will defend a lying, corrupt, inept, vile politician." and "Not have I ever used any of those titles on anyone here." and in this post you said, "in one post I said a member had lied." You most definitely called a HT member a liar.

ETA: I hadn't realized that I had had a post deleted. I had (wrongly) called someone a nick name, in a later post I apologized. It's still there if you want to check.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Woolieface said:


> Whether I can personally do anything about it or not....it does matter. That's the point missed.


It's not a missed point. There is absolutely nothing you can do because it's a woman's choice. Her choice, not yours.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Woolieface said:


> I am a he. Making the Marry Poppins thing that much more special...lol
> 
> don't worry...just a spoon full of sugar and it will all be ok. I don't whine to the principal.


Psst. That post wasn't about you. I know you're male.  Read a few of the posts before that one and I think you'll have a better picture.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

For now.... and if we shut up due to verbal insults then we are too ---- weak in our convictions.

Pro killers... guess what you will just have to deal with the facts that we will stay here and fight for the weak.

I am sorry if someone's low self esteem was impacted when the world did not show up and applaud with a standing ovation drain the life force from tinker bell.


----------

