Becka:

Her position in 1932 in Plan for Peace was not a significant departure from her positions in 1925 when she gave the speech Children's Era. How do I know this? Because among the other sources I had cited were essays in Birth Control Review dated 1919 and 1921, as follows:



Thus, it had always been her intention to eradicate the "feebleminded" and other "less savory" (my words) people, non-whites, the poor etc. and create a genetically superior race of people "thorougbreds" is her word.

So did she outright state that she wanted to force abortion on blacks prior to 1932, no. But she certainly supported sterilization of the poor, the feebleminded, etc (as noted in my earlier quotes) and this is along the very same continuum as requiring abortion.

And who should make that determination.

In 1925 she stated three times in the same speech that she did not support government interference with parenthood; whatever purpose she intended by advocating birth control, she was arguing for individual self-governance. In 1932 she changed her tune and started advocating for government controls - the application of her ideas (which the Nazis did).

Yes, the same ideas could be used today to advocate forced abortions; but what Sanger advocated was prevention - in her utopia, there would be no "unwanted" pregancies to be aborted. And consider the implications of her position for the rest of the population - if people with "undesirable" traits were to be prohibited from having children, should those with "desirable" traits then be obligated to have children?

I would find it equally abhorrent whether any rule of law put women in the position either of being forced to have children, or forced not to have children.

Exactly. Big government (conservative-style) trying to get involved in the private reproductive decisions of women.

If the person is merely standing on my lawn, don't I still have the right to take some action to protect my property. The threat they pose to me only goes towards the reasonableness of my action in protecting my property.

who will adopt black children? do you see the heartland militantly pro-life crowd adopting them?

Are you saying that the pro-life croud are racists?

i'm just asking a practical question. the statistics show that the vast majority of abortions are with black women so would the public be able to take them into their homes? and if not, would these people be willing to make them wards of the state?

Ok, so provide an analogy then. Let us see what the options are, given that person is within your property but not appearing to threaten you. What are your options via-a-vis a pregnancy?

Then, let us contrast that with the scenario in which the trespasser is an observable threat and draw an analogy vis-a-vis a pregnancy.

yes

Isn't that exactly what we have been doing? Since I can't use less than lethal measures for a fetus, the analogy stops there.

And isn't that what has been set up for the abortion issue (albeit as a Constitutional right). Lethal measures are not allowed to be used when other alternatives are available. Abortion is limited past viability.

Yes! Just like big government trying to get involved in the private gun ownership and handling decisions of citizens.

If you risk your life savings at the poker table and lose, is it necessary that you remain penniless? Is the autonomy which allowed you to make the choice to gamble not retained in order that you should be permitted a choice in how to handle the consequences?

Poor rainman Shipping on your Madesen-Saetter been delayed by those mean ATF people again?

Even a single day's delay in the shipment is an infringement of my Second Amendment right!

(I'm kidding people!)

no, i was asking a practical question. apparently one that you (collective) are scared to answer or even think about. plus, we all know how you (collective) feel about spending money on others so if they are not adopted, how do we pay for them to live?

the issue is so much cleaner when you leave reality out of the equation. i mean, life-at-all-costs has such a ring to it. you (collective) must've taken too many philosophy classes.

that's more irony than I can take at this hour

i think his point was that conservative government wanted out of all these things but yet ironically wants a state in somebody's actual body rather than conduct/materials.

please tell me what's ironic about what happens if abortions are illegal and we have babies galore?

No, the irony is you asserting that someone is leaving reality out of the equation.

I got his point, ron. My point was that it's easy to be right (and smug) if you just assume your conclusion. The discussion in this thread has been about the implications on abortion if a fetus is accorded status as (or similar to) a person. A significant portion of the country believes that it's not exactly a "private reprductive decision" because it affects (or, to put it another way, kills) another person.

Because if those babies do not get aborted, then they end up in a van, down buy the river

people act like adults and take care of their kids, and people that are going overseas to adopt children actually adopt children from here, people realize they have to take responsiblity for themselves? yep, a total disaster as women will be spitting out kids like Pez dispensers.

funny, i didn't see anybody talking about adopting babies, particularly black babies. there seems to be many many children in orphanages. what are the waiting lists for exactly? wouldn't these lists get even mre daunting? where's the thread about adoption reform? and even if it is reformed, where are the black babies going? if you are trying to assert that reality is in the equation, i havent even seen it implied.


you guys are sure hitting the theory and principle pretty hard though.

So, lets kill 'em all, right Ron. And while we are at it, let's kill invalids, people with schizophrenia, the disabled, the homeless, the blind ...

Many of them are effectively adult orphans, simply outside of orphanages.