Did you know that the current organization known as Planned Parenthood is the modern day modification of the older American Birth Control League? Headed by a woman called Margot Sanger, it was responsible for a growing philosophy among American elitists praising the science of Eugenics. Eugenics was a policy of creating racial purity through manipulation, destruction, or sterilization of undesirable races and biological traits. This was a philosophy that stemmed from Charles Darwin and was taken up by his cousin, which was then later championed by Sanger. The American Eugenics movement, pushing its policies through the American Birth Control League, was the social archetype whose architects would later inspire a Polish-German soldier named Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler, unknown to most, took many of his political and social inspirations from American social structure and philosophy. Hitler praised and was praised by American elites, as well as European elites. Today, this organization, Planned Parenthood, the theological ancestor of a pro-Eugenics movement that inspired, praised, and was praised by one of histories worst racial offenders (but there were others worse then him. For instance, the Japanese killed 30,000,000 Chinese people during WW2, but next to nothing of this is ever mentioned) attempts to be the intermediary between you and you unborn/newborn child. You may not believe this, but take a deeper look into it, at least. At the very least, "Planned Parenthood" has to come off as probably the most Orwellian-sounding name for an organization in modern times that I have heard of. The equivalent of a friendly smile on a psychopath.
So you are saying that a woman who has been dead for quite a number of years, who actually opposed abortion, who helped start PP is still having a influence over the modern PP. It always amazes me that so many people bring up Sanger as an example of what PP is about today .. She was a product of her time. There are plenty of people who started things who had, what we would consider to be, unpalatable opinions. To create a link between something that happened over 40 years ago to its modern counterpart is just plain clutching at straws IMHO.
Is it impossible for ideas to outlast their originators...or supporters? Even so, her exact ideology is not what I am concerned with as much as Planned Parenthood sounding like a rather coy way of the government working in a way of becoming an intermediary between parents and their children. Just my skepticism, of course, but was wondering if anyone else felt the same way. - - - Updated - - - Is it impossible for ideas to outlast their originators...or supporters? Even so, her exact ideology is not what I am concerned with as much as Planned Parenthood sounding like a rather coy way of the government working in a way of becoming an intermediary between parents and their children. Just my skepticism, of course, but was wondering if anyone else felt the same way.
I didn't think there was anyway anyone could be an intermediary between a woman and the unborn .. her choice, not yours, not mine, certainly not the states.
Well, not that it has anything to do with Planned Parenthood, but there was/is a big stink about whether a woman should be able to abort or not so that's one step. Things can build from that till you have things like state-run day cares and the like. Not that it's happening.
To be honest I don't think any level of "stink" concerning abortion will change it .. far to much of a back lash, it would only take one of the parties to run with a make it legal tag and they would walk into power.
Segregation and integration are not evil per se, so long as they are not forced under penalty of law. Personally? De-criminalizing segregation and discrimination would helps everybody out a great deal.
such an all encompassing statement would require evidence to support it, unless of course this is purely your opinion, which on the scale of things doesn't really mean very much.
I suppose the bukets of dead children/embryos/fetuses/zygotes/whatever would qualify as evidence to some, but not to others. Dependent on the calibration of the moral compass and value of human life. Governments should not be involved in the mass elective slaughter of human life, If they want to sponsor controlled hunts for troublesome creatures like wolves in montana and idaho than be my guest. But being involved in the killing of human beings, outside of well justified warfare, is simply wrong on a number of levels. If people absolutely feel the urge to kill their offspring, they should do it with their own money and a private practitioner. Public services should not be connected to it at all.
We have been here before and thre is no proof that federal funds are used in elective abortions, in fact, as you know, it is illegal to do so as specified in the Hyde ageement
Didn't say they did actually, I did say that they were involved. And that point cannot be denied. Planned Parenthood is involved in the bulk of abortions, is this not correct?
yes they are, but in your previous post you alluded to federal funds being used for abortions. You now I don't hold much credence for morals in any debate of this nature, they are just not static enough to have any real meaning. The value of human life is an interesting comment to make, when does the value of a human life decrease to the point where it is acceptable to end it .. when another doesn't follow the same moral viewpoint, or even violently opposes it .. what does justify the killing of another born human, the point where their morality falls short of the accepted "norm" ie the majority, if that is true then, as I have stated before, laws are fundementally based on the majority viewpoint nd as far as abortion is concerned the majority want it to remain legal.
