Supreme court strikes down Louisiana law restricting abortions.

[Cow Poke]

There's no doubt she was an eugenicist but the idea that she supported abortion or wanted to exterminate black people doesn't seem to match what I've read of her writings.

And, so far, I'm not finding otherwise. Still looking.

[Darth Executor]

And, so far, I'm not finding otherwise. Still looking.

I did when I first looked into them. She's routinely subjected to out of context quote mining.

[Cow Poke]

I did when I first looked into them. She's routinely subjected to out of context quote mining.

Yeah, the only thing I can find regarding abortion - and it's never "abortion" - is "Birth Control", which includes, apparently, forced sterilization.

Here's something she actually wrote which makes me amazed that Planned Parenthood can still issue the "Margaret Sanger Award"

MY WAY TO PEACE

Margaret Sanger

wow

[seanD]

I did when I first looked into them. She's routinely subjected to out of context quote mining.

Not just quote-mining, but she's had sayings attributed to her she never said or not the way she said it. Which is sad because it's not necessary. She clearly was of a eugenicists mindset and echoed much of the philosophy of her white supremacist peers.

[Mountain Man]

Yeah, the only thing I can find regarding abortion - and it's never "abortion" - is "Birth Control", which includes, apparently, forced sterilization.

Here's something she actually wrote which makes me amazed that Planned Parenthood can still issue the "Margaret Sanger Award"

MY WAY TO PEACE...

You could have fun trolling liberals claiming that this is Trump's campaign platform, and let them meltdown in hysterics before revealing that it's actually the writing of one of the heroes of the left.

[Leonhard]

The point I was making is that they make sure no action, legal or illegal, can be taken to stop them.

And my point was that I'd be against illegal action taken against them, and cannot support it.

[seanD]

You could have fun trolling liberals claiming that this is Trump's campaign platform, and let them meltdown in hysterics before revealing that it's actually the writing of one of the heroes of the left.

It's hilarious and it works every time...

[Terraceth]

Did she actually mention abortion in her writings? I know her basic premise was eliminating "the inferiors" so "the superiors" could thrive and society would be better off, though she was very cloaked when it came to specific races, unlike many of her 20th century colleagues who argued the same thing but were much more overt about the "inferior races." I suspect there were some shrewd eugenicists that were much more careful about the language they used so as not to spook societal and political support, not unlike many liberals today who have cleverly managed to turn it into a "female equality" issue.

Here you go:

I'm certainly no fan of Sanger primarily because of her advocacy for eugenics but she did not favor abortion, in fact her big cause was making birth control available largely so people wouldn't go out and have abortions.



That she campaigned for birth-control as a way to prevent abortion is evidenced by the following handbill for her first clinic in English, Yiddish and Italian:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]35046[/ATTACH]

For years Planned Parenthood was staunchly anti-abortion following in Sanger's footsteps but they did an outface in (IIRC) the 60s.

[Terraceth]

Also, for anyone who wants a quick synopsis of the actual arguments made in the opinion and dissents without reading through all 100+ pages, SCOTUS Blog has, as usual, a good and neutral writeup:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/o...-abortion-law/

[seanD]

Here you go:

At the time, abortion was illegal, so the risk for the woman was much greater. It seems in her writings it would be impossible to tell if she was against abortion itself and the moral implications or the practice of illegal abortion in the west and the risks involved to the mother in place of birth prevention. Considering what she believed, I highly doubt it was the former. In one of her works she goes into great detail about the history of the practice of abortion and infanticide and she seems quite neutral about it.

[Darth Executor]

And my point was that I'd be against illegal action taken against them, and cannot support it.

I believe we already established your... inconsistency on the matter w regard to criminal action taken against Nazis a few months back, no need to rehash the subject.

[Leonhard]

I believe we already established your... inconsistency on the matter w regard to criminal action taken against Nazis a few months back, no need to rehash the subject.

Darth Ex, I do not support anti-abortion terrorism of any kind. There is also no parallel to freedom fighters.

I don't get why you don't just say "Amen brother" and be on with it. There's no place in the Christian movement for those kinds of actions.

[Darth Executor]

Darth Ex, I do not support anti-abortion terrorism of any kind. There is also no parallel to freedom fighters.

Just because it's causing you cognitive dissonance doesn't mean there is no parallel. There is in fact a parallel, which is that both abortionists and Nazis were mass murderers, and if you think criminal action against one is justified then it logically follows that criminal action against the other is also justified.

I don't get why you don't just say "Amen brother" and be on with it. There's no place in the Christian movement for those kinds of actions.

Because the grossly inconsistent position you and others like you hold is doing damage to both Christianity and the pro life position. If you want to argue that anti-abortion terrorism is wrong then you should also argue anti-nazi terrorism is wrong. If you want to argue anti-nazi terrorism is right then you should admit there's nothing wrong with anti-abortion terrorism.

[Leonhard]

Just because it's causing you cognitive dissonance doesn't mean there is no parallel.

Please refrain from the ad hominem. I talk to you respectfully, and I would like you to treat me in kind.

There is in fact a parallel, which is that both abortionists and Nazis were mass murderers, and if you think criminal action against one is justified then it logically follows that criminal action against the other is also justified.

The parallel is very thin, I made some arguments a long time ago on it. I remember arguing that the Christian case for freedom fighters and rebellion is difficult. At any rate I see no similarity between a vigilante in the US making committing a counter productive murder, or some freedom fighters blowing up a train track to stop tanks from reaching the front.

Because the grossly inconsistent position you and others like you hold is doing damage to both Christianity and the pro life position.

[Darth Executor]

Please refrain from the ad hominem. I talk to you respectfully, and I would like you to treat me in kind.

What are you talking about? How is saying you have cognitive dissonance an ad hominem?

The parallel is very thin, I made some arguments a long time ago on it. I remember arguing that the Christian case for freedom fighters and rebellion is difficult. At any rate I see no similarity between a vigilante in the US making committing a counter productive murder, or some freedom fighters blowing up a train track to stop tanks from reaching the front.

Do you have any evidence that murdering an abortionist is counter-productive? I've observed the opposite, that people who are otherwise not hostile to Christians or pro-lifers think we don't really care about unborn children because we won't use violence to protect them.

It's the hardcore abortion lovers that use the (extremely rare) violence against abortion providers as a bludgeon to guilt trip people like you into acting like you don't really care.

There is no inconsistency. I believe in the dignity of life. That includes the life of the doctors and women involved in this.

What about the dignity of the life of the Nazis?

There is no state of war that anyone here are in, and the terrorists doing these actions are not soldiers of any flag, nor are they cooperating with any allies, seeking to aid that side in a war that would end in a few years.

So what? This is an arbitrary distinction with no merit. A crime doesn't stop being a crime just because it might be excused by the law later. By this logic we could also claim that in the future Christians will overthrow the liberal baby killers and retroactively immunize abortion killers from their crimes.

This is silly and wrong. George Tiller for example was one of only 3 partial birth abortionists in the country. Killing him certainly reduced their number for a while. Training a doctor (even a fake one) takes a lot of time and resources.

Anyway, if you could be convinced that anti-abortion violence was effective and there was a Christian army who would liberate the world from liberal progressive hegemony in a few years would you support violence against them?