Hillary admits that the unborn are people too but without rights...

You'd be the one forgetting the quote within the context of the greater body of Sanger's work to exterminate the 'undesirables' in society, Masterdickmuncher. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You brought no fact to the discussion. You posted a misleading partial quote. You chopped the last of the quote because it proved you wrong. And I didn't misrepresent anything by editing quotes. Like you.
The greater body of her work was to help women make informed decisions about reproduction and to get services to the poorer people.

And no where does it say she wanted to exterminate anyone. What a stupid thing to say. Show anything by her that proposes killing anyone. Abortion done according to existing laws doesn't kill any one.
She was a birth control advocate. She never advocated forced sterilization.


Sanger, “Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” Feb. 1919: We who advocate Birth Control, on the other hand, lay all our emphasis upon stopping not only the reproduction of the unfit but upon stopping all reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care for those who are born in health. The eugenist also believes that a woman should bear as many healthy children as possible as a duty to the state. …
We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother.

Byrd: Planned Parenthood has a long history of condemning racism and opposes discrimination in all forms. Margaret Sanger worked for social and racial justice at a time when segregation was the law of the land. She was invited by African American leaders to help provide health care to women in the African American community and her work was praised by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. For all her positive work, Margaret Sanger made statements some 80 years ago that were wrong then and are wrong now. Those statements have no bearing on the high quality health care Planned Parenthood provides today

You brought no fact to the discussion. You posted a misleading partial quote. You chopped the last of the quote because it proved you wrong. And I didn't misrepresent anything by editing quotes. Like you.
The greater body of her work was to help women make informed decisions about reproduction and to get services to the poorer people.

And no where does it say she wanted to exterminate anyone. What a stupid thing to say. Show anything by her that proposes killing anyone. Abortion done according to existing laws doesn't kill any one.
She was a birth control advocate. She never advocated forced sterilization. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

The quote wasn't at all misleading Masterdickmuncher. It's a documented fact that the Nazis co-opted Jewish community leaders to aid and abet their racist agenda, Masterdickmuncher, which is precisely what Sanger, et al, were trying to do by co-opting respected leaders in the black community. One need only look up "eugenics" to know what Sanger meant when as editor she promoted, "We desire no parents who are not both competent and willing parents. Only such parents are fit to father and to mother a future race worthy to rule the world," Masterdickmuncher.

"Eugenicists may remember that not many years ago this program for race regeneratlon was subjected to the cruel ridicule of stupidity and ignorance. Today Eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems." Sanger, October 1929.

As editor, Sanger published this tract in her journal, Birth Control Review, October 1929, advocating measure more extreme than birth control, Masterdickmuncher:

"Still, despite such restrictions of race fecundity, the number of inhabitants of the world has increased stupendously during the past century, making the population problem one of great significance. The prospect of overcrowding, due to this enormous growth In the number of the inhabitants of the world. has come to be met today by the modern scientific form of family limitation, the use of contraceptives. Their use does not affect necessarily-though it may and often does-the survival rate, but merely controls the birth rate. Moreover, their employment does not lower the moral tone or improve the health of the nations and classes making a wide use of them, on the contrary, their utilization may raise the moral tone and improve the health of the people resorting to them. Another point to recognize is that a diminution of the rate of increase among the poverty classes is a prime necessity for the elevation of the standards of those classes, and for then ultimate abolition. The extirpation of those classes is the immediate goal of all socially minded people.Furthermore, the free dissemination of contraceptive information and materials to the poverty group will help to lessen its rate of increase, but such measures alone will not accomplish that result to a sufficient degree for rapid social progress. Finally, in addition to free dissemination of contraceptive information and materials, other means are required."

Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

Check and mate scumsucker

That doesn't prove IBIJits assertion.

In fact, it proves you continue to interject racism into every post, JDrunk. Apparently they didn't teach you very much in professor school!

IBIJit had his lying ass handed to him.

By your responses, you've already made it abundantly clear that you believe slavery based on a misbegotten racist theory is bad, but you've conceded that you're quite willing to hypocritically overlook Hildabeast's championing a racist eugenicist who held those same beliefs, eatbibeau. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Multiple choice and you still can't answer the question? You call me stupid, and then don't speak on a level I tell you I will understand? Learn to speak to your audience.

Once again, you are attacking a strawman and refuse to answer simple questions. This can only mean you know I am right. Thanks for playing.

I don't believe the pro choice movement these days is about eugenics but that wasn't always the case. Originally Posted by cowboy8055

And this is my point. Attributing the opinions of this one woman in the 30s to the pro-choice movement today is just a desperate attempt to make it something it is not. It is effectively a strawman, pretending that people who support a woman's right to choose are doing so for racist reasons and attacking that.

James Madison, the writer of the core of the constitution, wanted all free black people removed from the US. The attempt to paint the modern pro-choice movement as "racist eugenics" is equivalent to painting anyone who is part of the "constitutional originalist" movement as being racist and wanting slavery.

The reality is that this woman is admirable on some levels. She was a "founder" (at least in the US) of a woman's pregnancy rights over her own body, and I can especially see why some woman would admire her, despite her glaring racial flaws. Just as I understand why people admire the founding fathers, despite their glaring racial flaws.

FYI, abortions have been around for hundreds of years. Not the steril surgical kind but the back alley, chemical, mid wife kind. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I suggest you read up on the history of abortion. The first recording of a method of abortion is from Egypt (you know, that country that isn't part of Africa) by the Pharaohs in 1550 BC. That's over 3500 years ago. I highly doubt the leaders of the country were doing this in "back alleys." The reality is that abortions have probably been around long before that, but definition more than "hundreds of years" and they certainly weren't always "back alley."

Multiple choice and you still can't answer the question? You call me stupid, and then don't speak on a level I tell you I will understand? Learn to speak to your audience.You are stupid, eatbibeau.

Once again, you are attacking a strawman and refuse to answer simple questions. This can only mean you know I am right. Thanks for playing.
You're failing to account for the change in societal norms, eatbibeau; hence, you're fallaciously making an apples to oranges comparison.

And this is my point. Attributing the opinions of this one woman in the 30s to the pro-choice movement today is just a desperate attempt to make it something it is not. It is effectively a strawman, pretending that people who support a woman's right to choose are doing so for racist reasons and attacking that. You don't hear anyone commending Hitler for making the trains on time, eatbibeau.

James Madison, the writer of the core of the constitution, wanted all free black people removed from the US. The attempt to paint the modern pro-choice movement as "racist eugenics" is equivalent to painting anyone who is part of the "constitutional originalist" movement as being racist and wanting slavery. Actually, eatbibeau, the Constitution has been amended in regards to the issue of slavery; hence, your argument is stupidly fallacious, eatbibeau.

The reality is that this woman is admirable on some levels. She was a "founder" (at least in the US) of a woman's pregnancy rights over her own body, and I can especially see why some woman would admire her, despite her glaring racial flaws. Just as I understand why people admire the founding fathers, despite their glaring racial flaws. Your notion that Sanger's racism was a societal norm in the 1930s to the same degree that racism was the societal norm in the 18th century is wholly absurd, eatbibeau. Originally Posted by eatfibo

No, IBIdiot. YOU would. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I get it, IB, you know I am right. There is no reason to point it out over and over again by avoiding answering my simple yes or no questions with simple yes or no answers.

I get it, IB, you know I am right. There is no reason to point it out over and over again by avoiding answering my simple yes or no questions with simple yes or no answers. Originally Posted by eatfibo

What is evident, eatbibeau, is that your failure to account for the change in societal norms makes your abstract comparison worthless. Hence, since the basis for your presumptions is worthless, your presumptions are likewise rendered worthless, eatbibeau.

You're forgetting part of the quote. On purpose....

Read the whole quote, in context....

You would think a partial quote would be an excellent response.... Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

So Dickmuncher, how about looking up the entire Hildabeast quote from 2009? Is it also out of context? Did Hillary qualify her admiration for Margaret Sanger in any way? Or was it more like a "Hitler made the trains run on time!" full-throated embrace with no expressed reservations?

Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

Check and mate scumsucker Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You bitch slapped those assholes!!!

You're forgetting part of the quote. On purpose. No matter how many times you try to stick it in the argument, it will never mean she wanted to exterminate black people.

It's not about race because of Sanger. It's about race because you want it to be. You and your pals love to grab the Sanger quote even though it doesn't support the conclusion it's an attack on blacks.
You didn't think Egypt was in Africa.
Read the whole quote, in context.
.

You would think a partial quote would be an excellent response. Even if the quote supports the opposite meaning you think it does. The person who posts quotes without credit.
You're an asshole. A stupid one.

Sanger, who was arrested several times in her efforts to bring birth control to women in the United States, set up her first clinic in Brooklyn in 1916. In the late 1930s, she sought to bring clinics to black women in the South, in an effort that was called the “Negro Project.” Sanger wrote in 1939 letters to colleague Clarence James Gamble that she believed the project needed a black physician and black minister to gain the trust of the community:

Sanger, 1939: The minister’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 Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

Sanger says that a minister could debunk the notion, if it arose, that the clinics aimed to “exterminate the Negro population.” She didn’t say that she wanted to “exterminate” the black population. The Margaret Sanger Papers Project at New York University says that this quote has “gone viral on the Internet,” normally out of context, and it “doesn’t reflect the fact that Sanger recognized elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow south, unless clergy and other community leaders spread the word that the Project had a humanitarian aim.”
It goes on to characterize beliefs such as Cain’s as “extremist.” The project says: “No serious scholar and none of the dozens of black leaders who supported Sanger’s work have ever suggested that she tried to reduce the black population or set up black abortion mills, the implication in much of the extremist anti-choice material.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/11/cai...ed-parenthood/ Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

My God MunchMidget, she was using the black ministers to fool the people!!!

You are a stupid son of a bitch, aren't you.

Read some of her other racist quotes, your supercilious jackass!!

Population control, she wrote, would bring about the “materials of a new race.”

“If we are to develop in America a new race with a racial soul, we must keep the birth rate within the scope of our ability to understand as well as to educate. We must not encourage reproduction beyond our capacity to assimilate our numbers so as to make the coming generation into such physically fit, mentally capable, socially alert individuals as are the ideal of a democracy,” Sanger wrote. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 3: The Materials of the New Race

If Trump said that you would claim it is code for getting rid of non white people!!

Multiple choice and you still can't answer the question? You call me stupid, and then don't speak on a level I tell you I will understand? Learn to speak to your audience.

Once again, you are attacking a strawman and refuse to answer simple questions. This can only mean you know I am right. Thanks for playing.


And this is my point. Attributing the opinions of this one woman in the 30s to the pro-choice movement today is just a desperate attempt to make it something it is not. It is effectively a strawman, pretending that people who support a woman's right to choose are doing so for racist reasons and attacking that.

James Madison, the writer of the core of the constitution, wanted all free black people removed from the US. The attempt to paint the modern pro-choice movement as "racist eugenics" is equivalent to painting anyone who is part of the "constitutional originalist" movement as being racist and wanting slavery.

The reality is that this woman is admirable on some levels. She was a "founder" (at least in the US) of a woman's pregnancy rights over her own body, and I can especially see why some woman would admire her, despite her glaring racial flaws. Just as I understand why people admire the founding fathers, despite their glaring racial flaws.


I suggest you read up on the history of abortion. The first recording of a method of abortion is from Egypt (you know, that country that isn't part of Africa) by the Pharaohs in 1550 BC. That's over 3500 years ago. I highly doubt the leaders of the country were doing this in "back alleys." The reality is that abortions have probably been around long before that, but definition more than "hundreds of years" and they certainly weren't always "back alley." Originally Posted by eatfibo

Oh come on! You attack me for making fun of someone who said abortions have only been around since the 1920s. Why don't you make fun of them (it wasn't you was it?) The methods to prevent a birth indeed do go back a lllloooonnnnnggggg time but it was readily apparent to everyone else that I was calling out the idiot who thinks abortion is a recent phenomenom. You did understand that didn't you...

It looks like Sanger was predicting Idiocracy.

It appears, based on the social aspects of our "citizens" today, that she failed miserably in her goals. It is no wonder we have an ever increasing nation of dropouts and democrats.

Oh come on! You attack me for making fun of someone who said abortions have only been around since the 1920s. Why don't you make fun of them (it wasn't you was it?) The methods to prevent a birth indeed do go back a lllloooonnnnnggggg time but it was readily apparent to everyone else that I was calling out the idiot who thinks abortion is a recent phenomenom. You did understand that didn't you... Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I can't believe the sarcasm in my post wasn't completely obvious. I can't believe you didn't catch it.

But even if you want to pretend that my clearly sarcastic statement was meant to be taken literally, that doesn't change the fact that statement about abortion was also completely wrong. The difference is that you actually meant what you literally said.

I can't believe the sarcasm in my post wasn't completely obvious. I can't believe you didn't catch it.

But even if you want to pretend that my clearly sarcastic statement was meant to be taken literally, that doesn't change the fact that statement about abortion was also completely wrong. The difference is that you actually meant what you literally said. Originally Posted by eatfibo

I guess you call this feigned ignorance. It doesn't become you.