Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Abortion debate thread

1…2324262829…59

Comments

  • #752
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    J C wrote: »
    Human Beings enjoy inalienable rights from God ... and not 'ourselves'.
    ... and nobody that I know, claims that every Human sperm is sacred ... nor does any law I know of, do this either.

    Eh no I think we have assigned these rights to ourselves. Some rationalise this by saying god did it...
    What is bizzarre, however, is that the criminal law acts as if frog-spawn is sacred ... and outlaws it's killing with very heavy fines and long terms of imprisonment ... whilst simultaneously not protecting unborn Human children at all, in most countries, and right up to birth, in some countries.

    No - such protection seeks to prevent destruction of orher species by guess what - humans. We don't have the cop on to look after the natural world - it has to legislated for

    These laws have nothing to do with the repoductive rights and health care of humans

    The are billions of humans on the planet - we are neither scarce nor endangered. Unlike some of the other species on the planet.
    Unfortunately, as Christianity declines, it is increasingly untrue that Humans enjoy legal protection that is higher than afforded to animals.
    Indeed many other creatures enjoy much better legal protection than unborn Human Beings ... and as attitudes such as yours become pervasive ... born Humans will also have their right to life increasingly circumscribed and extinguished.

    I don't think so - as said there is millions of humans on the planet - we are not at risk of extinction
    This is how 'the culture of death' originates ... with people who hate their own species so much, that they place no value on their fellow man ... and begin wishing for their extermination ... starting with the youngest and the most vulnerable!!

    Nah - it's called common sense and not believing we have some special provision over and above the natural world.
    What kind of sick society protects frog-spawn with the full force of criminal law and allows the deliberate killing unborn children with full legal immunity?

    Well as I explained many species face extinction because of our over population. Enabling such legislation for the survival of other species does not have anything to do with the repoductive healthcare of humans.


  • #753
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ... so are you saying that you are anti-abortion in all circumstances other than in 'dire medical circumstances' where the mother's life is in imminent and real danger?
    No. Re-read my post. I am against the medically unnecessary abortion of sentient humans beings.


  • #754
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    No. Re-read my post. I am against the medically unnecessary abortion of sentient humans beings.
    How do you define 'sentient'?
    ... and why limit it to sentient Human Beings ... as somebody in a deep sleep isn't sentient ... but nobody could rationally justify killing them just because they weren't sentient at the time?


  • #755
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    gozunda wrote: »
    Eh no I think we have assigned these rights to ourselves. Some rationalise this by saying god did it...
    ... we'll have to agree to differ on this one.
    gozunda wrote: »
    No - such protection seeks to prevent destruction of orher species by guess what - humans. We don't have the cop on to look after the natural world - it has to legislated for.
    Most species are run to extinction by other more competitive species ... that's what Natural Selection is all about.
    gozunda wrote: »
    These laws have nothing to do with the repoductive rights and health care of humans

    There are billions of humans on the planet - we are neither scarce nor endangered. Unlike some of the other species on the planet.
    Humans will be a lot scarcer and more endangered, if views like yours start to predominate!!!

    wrote:
    J C
    This is how 'the culture of death' originates ... with people who hate their own species so much, that they place no value on their fellow man ... and begin wishing for their extermination ... starting with the youngest and the most vulnerable!!

    gozunda
    Nah - it's called common sense and not believing we have some special provision over and above the natural world.
    It's a very warped and dangerous form of 'common sense' that protects frog spawn with water-tight draconian criminal legislation ... but declares 'open season' on unborn Humans.

    The 'culture of death' logically doesn't (and won't) stop at the killing of unborn children ... a culture that calls the extermination of Human Beings 'common sense' it is a very dangerous culture indeed.


    gozunda wrote: »
    Well as I explained many species face extinction because of our over population. Enabling such legislation for the survival of other species does not have anything to do with the repoductive healthcare of humans.
    Your concern for other species might be noble ... but for your beliefs that unborn Human children should be killed with impunity reveals a very different side!!:(

    Like I have said, there is something very sick and dangerous about a society that legally protects frog spawn and actively encourages the killing of unborn Human children with legal impunity?


  • #756
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    J C wrote: »
    ... we'll have to agree to differ on this one.

    Most species are run to extinction by other more competitive species ... that's what Natural Selection is all about.

    So the logical follow-on from such a belief is that a great cull of born Humans would also be a good idea ... to leave space for rare snails and other things!!!
    Outrageous!!!


    It's a very warped and dangerous form of 'common sense' that protects frog spawn with water-tight draconian criminal legislation ... but declares 'open season' on unborn Humans.


    Your concern for other species might be noble ... but for your outrageous beliefs that unborn Human children should be killed with impunity!!:(

    Like I have said, there is something very sick and dangerous about a society that legally protects frog spawn and actively encourages the killing unborn Human children with legal impunity?

    JC

    You don't like Frog spawn do you? I don't see any logical follow on tbh. You are presuming a logical fallacy that one will cause the other. These facts are unrelated. You believe in evolution and natural selection then? How does that work with relation to creationism? We are supposedly the highest animal therefore should we not care for the planet on which we live so as to provide the best conditions for other life forms!

    Btw where is this 'open season' on unborn humans you talk about? I havn't came across this here tbh. And what's that about killing of 'unborn children' with legal impunity .

    As I said you don't like frogspawn do you?


  • Advertisement
  • #757
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    gozunda wrote: »
    JC

    You don't like Frog spawn do you? I don't see any logical follow on tbh. You are presuming a logical fallacy that one will cause the other. These facts are unrelated. You believe in evolution and natural selection then? How does that work with relation to creationism? We are supposedly the highest animal therefore should we not care for the planet on which we live so as to provide the best conditions for other life forms!

    Btw where is this 'open season' on unborn humans you talk about? I havn't came across this here tbh. And what's that about killing of 'unborn children' with legal impunity .

    As I said you don't like frogspawn do you?
    I have nothing against frogs or frog spawn ... as stewards of God's Creation we should care for all of God's Creatures, propotionately and within reason ... and therefore unborn Humans should be legally protected to a greater degree than frog spawn ...
    ... but the reverse is actually true in most of the countries of the world ... where abortion on demand is 'open season' on unborn children ... and frogs (and their spawn) are given complete legal protection.

    ... we live in a society where unborn Humans can be chemically and physically killed with legal immunity ... but if somebody were to kill unborn tadpoles with a chemical spray they would spend a considerable time behind bars for their action.

    A society that thinks that this is 'common sense' ... is a very sick and dangerous society, for Human Beings ... but a great place for Frogs!!!:(


  • #758
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    J C wrote: »
    I have nothing against bfrog spawn ... but I do think that unborn Humans should be legally protected to a greater degree than frog spawn ... but the reverse is actually true in most of the countries of the world.

    Trust me humans have a lot more rights than any poor frog - born or unborn. Endangered species can be awarded special protection but it doesn't give the right to electoral representation etc.
    Abortion on demand is indeed 'open season' on unborn children.
    ... we live in a society where unborn Humans can be chemically and physically killed with legal immunity ... but if somebody were to kill unborn tadpoles with a chemical spray they would spend a considerable time behind bars for their action.

    Where is this "abortion on demand' you speak of? I have not came across this tbh.

    Do you know of specific examples of someone killing tadpoles spending considerable time behind bars for their actions?
    A society that thinks that this is 'common sense' ... is a very sick and dangerous society, for Human Beings ... but a great place for Frogs!!!:(

    Species such as frogs are often indicator species for the purposes of environmental pollution - when we destroy natural habitats - the resulting environment may become degraded and them unsuitable for human use. So there may be some important but also selfish reasons why we would seek to preserve other species and their habitats for our own benefit.


  • #759
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    gozunda wrote: »
    Trust me humans have a lot more rights than any poor frog - born or unborn. Endangered species can be awarded special protection but it doesn't give the right to electoral representation etc.
    Where does the unborn child have 'electoral representation'? ...
    ... and it is a fact that laws exist to fully protect Frogs and their spawn ... and there are also laws, in the same countries, that allow the killing of unborn children with full legal immunity!!!
    So, even though they don't have a vote, Frogs are fully protected ... while unborn children are competely unprotected!!!

    gozunda wrote: »
    Where is this "abortion on demand' you speak of? I have not came across this tbh.
    It's available in practically every country of the World.
    gozunda wrote: »
    Do you know of specific examples of someone killing tadpoles spending considerable time behind bars for their actions?
    The law is there ... and if somebody does kill tadpoles ... and they are caught, they face heavy fines and imprisonment.
    The laws on abortion are the reverse ... they provide total legal immunity from prosecution where somebody kills an unborn Human Being.

    gozunda wrote: »
    Species such as frogs are often indicator species for the purposes of environmental pollution - when we destroy natural habitats - the resulting environment may become degraded and them unsuitable for human use. So there may be some important but also selfish reasons why we would seek to preserve other species and their habitats for our own benefit.
    I believe that we have a responsibility to cherish God's Creation, including Frogs ... but a situation where our laws express more concern and provide more protection for frogs than for children is totally outrageous!!!!:(


  • #760
    Flier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 345 ✭✭Flier


    I'm all ion favour of protecting the frogs. And I think you'll find the penalties for either performing or procuring an abortion are quite sever - moreso than bringing home a few tadpoles, so I don't really know where you're going off on one here.


  • #761
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    J C wrote: »
    Where does the unborn child have 'electoral representation'? ...
    ... and it is a fact that laws exist to fully protect Frogs and their spawn ... and there are also laws, in the same countries, that allow the killing of unborn children with full legal immunity!!!
    So, even though they don't have a vote, Frogs are fully protected ... while unborn children are competely unprotected!!!

    I didnt say they had. - I said humans had more rights. but snyway What countries are those? So are we allowed to protect frogs in countries that don't have such laws ?
    It's available in practically every country of the World.
    The law is there ... and if somebody does kill tadpoles ... and they are caught, they face heavy fines and imprisonment.
    The laws on abortion are the reverse ... they provide total legal immunity from prosecution where somebody kills an unborn Human Being.

    They are? What countries are you talking about specifically -I would like to look up this frog protection legislation
    I believe that we have a responsibility to cherish God's Creation, including Frogs ... but a situation where our laws express more concern and provide more protection for frogs than for children is totally outrageous!!!!:(

    But any connection between frogs and foetus by legislation does not have any logical connection so why try use this comparison.

    I don't understand what frogs have to do with it tbh.


  • Advertisement
  • #762
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Flier wrote: »
    I'm all ion favour of protecting the frogs. And I think you'll find the penalties for either performing or procuring an abortion are quite sever - moreso than bringing home a few tadpoles, so I don't really know where you're going off on one here.
    ... and I'm in favour of protecting frogs too ... but I'm also in favour of protecting unborn children.
    ... and in countries where abortion is legal ... no penalty obviously exists.


  • #763
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    gozunda wrote: »
    I didnt say they had. - I said humans had more rights. but snyway What countries are those? So are we allowed to protect frogs in countries that don't have such laws ?
    Of course we are allowed to protect frogs ... but surely unborn Human Beings should have levels of legal protection, at least equivalent to Frogs ... and in countries with abortion on demand, they don't.

    gozunda wrote: »
    But any connection between frogs and foetus by legislation does not have any logical connection so why try use this comparison.

    I don't understand what frogs have to do with it tbh.
    Societies that protects the right to life of unborn animals but facilitate the needless killing of unborn Humans have a very warped perspective on morality.
    We can protect animals, as well as mothers and their unborn children.


  • #764
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    How do you define 'sentient'?
    Feeling (in a meaningful sense), consciousness, subjective experience, that kind of stuff.

    I'm happy to discuss whether the word "sentience" adequately describes the threshold I have in my head - perhaps it doesn't, I'm no deep philosopher.
    J C wrote: »
    ... and why limit it to sentient Human Beings
    Because then I'd be feeling deep sorrow every time I stepped on a spider or pulled a weed up.
    J C wrote: »
    ... as somebody in a deep sleep isn't sentient ... but nobody could rationally justify killing them just because they weren't sentient at the time?
    How do you know that? I'll err on the side of caution, if it's all the same to you. When someone can be demonstrated to be irrecoverably non-sentient i.e. brain dead, we DO rationally justify killing them. We just don't use those words.

    Plus, the argument for not killing someone in a "deep sleep" doesn't only hinge on their perceived lack of sentience. You'll notice that throughout this debate, there is no consistent application of any single principle. The protection of endangered frog spawn has entirely different motives to the pro-choice position, and both have different motives to the position taken when withdrawing medical treatment.


  • #765
    wildlifeboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭wildlifeboy


    there are too many humans on the planet as it is. prochoice all the way.


  • #766
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    We humans aren't exactly an endangered species.


  • #767
    loveisdivine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,443 ✭✭✭loveisdivine


    I dont think the unborn should be afforded more/equal rights of anything already living. Unless its an endangered species, in which case the unborn of that species should be protected.

    Humans are not endangered. The species doesnt need protecting, we are in no threat of extinction. If anything, we could do with quite a lot less of us.

    I think the problem is some people think solely about the existence of the wonderous human being. Whereas others, like me, think about our existence in relation to the rest of the planet and everything that lives here.


  • #768
    martinnew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 87 ✭✭martinnew


    Obliq wrote: »
    We humans aren't exactly an endangered species.

    So that makes it ok to kill them?


  • #769
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wildlifeboy wrote: »
    there are too many humans on the planet as it is. prochoice all the way.
    ... you're pro-death ... please stop using euphemisms for what you truly believe ...
    I don't think there are too many people .... but in any event ... we cannot start killing Humans just because somebody thinks there are too many of us.

    ... killing Humans used to be called murder ... but now it seems to be increasingly called 'choice' ... but exactly whose choice ... and why it is being made ... nobody is actually saying!!


  • #770
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    J C wrote: »
    ... you're pro-death ... please stop using euphemisms for what you truly believe ...
    I don't think there are too many people .... but in any event ... we cannot start killing Humans just because somebody thinks there are too many of us.

    If we don't restrict our numbers now - we will eventually kill ourselves of anyway....

    Nice future....


  • #771
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Feeling (in a meaningful sense), consciousness, subjective experience, that kind of stuff.

    I'm happy to discuss whether the word "sentience" adequately describes the threshold I have in my head - perhaps it doesn't, I'm no deep philosopher.
    Newborn babies also don't have full consciousness ... so your use of a threshold of 'sentience' is merely a flag of convenience to facilitate abortion right up to term ... and potentially even infanticide beyond birth!!!!

    doctoremma wrote: »
    How do you know that? I'll err on the side of caution, if it's all the same to you. When someone can be demonstrated to be irrecoverably non-sentient i.e. brain dead, we DO rationally justify killing them. We just don't use those words.
    When somebody is irecoverably brain dead ... they are dead ... and therefore we can't possibly kill them because they are dead already.
    The situation with non-sentinent unborn children and sleeping born people is totally different as they are only temporarily non-sentinent ... and kiling them is murder.
    The pro-abortion position isn't improved by advocating the killing unborn children because they are asleep ... it is even more treacherous and cowardly to kill somebody who is asleep ... and therefore unable to defend themselves.
    ... it takes an especially sinister and outrageous murderer to crawl into people's bedrooms while they are sleeping ... to kill them.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    Plus, the argument for not killing someone in a "deep sleep" doesn't only hinge on their perceived lack of sentience. You'll notice that throughout this debate, there is no consistent application of any single principle. The protection of endangered frog spawn has entirely different motives to the pro-choice position, and both have different motives to the position taken when withdrawing medical treatment.
    It really doesn't matter what the motive is ... the deliberate pre-planned killing of a Human Being that represents no threat to another Human is murder ... and its murder whether they are asleep or wide awake, at the time.

    You're plumbing new depths by advocting killing unborn children simply because they are asleep in the womb!!!:(
    I'm a tough man ... but the idea of killing a sleeping unborn child is turning my stomach ... the sheer treachery of it all is deeply disturbing!!!
    doctoremma wrote: »
    You'll notice that throughout this debate, there is no consistent application of any single principle. The protection of endangered frog spawn has entirely different motives to the pro-choice position.
    That's what is so dangerous about your arbitrary positions on when its OK to kill ... its allright to kill a sleeping unborn child ... but its not allright to kill a non-sentient tadpole.
    ... and wildlifeboy thinks that killing Humans is OK becasue he thinks there are too many of us.

    ... there is only one word for all of this ... outrageous!!!


  • Advertisement
  • #772
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    gozunda wrote: »
    If we don't restrict our numbers now - we will eventually kill ourselves of anyway....

    Nice future....
    ... so are you going to start killing people ... because you believe there are too many of us?

    ... an outrageous ... and deeply sinister ... 'counsel of defeat' ... is all I'll say to that!!!:(


  • #773
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    J C wrote: »
    ... so are you going to start killing people ... because you believe there are too many of us?

    ... outrageous ... and deeply sinister ... is all I'll say to that!!!:(


    Whose killing people - ducks?

    How about we start with something simple like available contraception and birth control freely available & neither outrageous or deeply sinister - your favourite words!

    That would work.


  • #774
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    loveisdivine wrote: »
    I dont think the unborn should be afforded more/equal rights of anything already living. Unless its an endangered species, in which case the unborn of that species should be protected.
    I can't even begin to understand why somebody would give legal preference to the life of frog spawn over the lives our unborn children ... and ultimately therefore our own Human lives ???
    loveisdivine wrote: »
    Humans are not endangered. The species doesnt need protecting, we are in no threat of extinction. If anything, we could do with quite a lot less of us.
    I don't think so ... but if you feel that we do need to reduce the population ... it should be done in a civilised way that doesn't involve the deliberate killing of Human Beings.
    loveisdivine wrote: »
    I think the problem is some people think solely about the existence of the wonderous human being. Whereas others, like me, think about our existence in relation to the rest of the planet and everything that lives here.
    ... and what exactly does that lead to??
    ... killing unborn Humans ... and protecting frog spawn!!!

    ... at least all the unfounded whinging about women 'needing' abortion on demand has been shown to be a thinly veiled sham ... that is being used to actually introduce abortion as a population culling and eugenics mechanism ... by people who value frogs lives above the lives of Humans.
    ... so please spare me all this sanctimonious baloney about womens lives being put in danger ... when ye actually believe there are too many people (including women) alive ... and a few more frogs ... and few less Humans is a 'good' thing!!!

    ... outrageous!!!


  • #775
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    gozunda wrote: »
    Whose killing people - ducks?

    How about we start with something simple like available contraception and birth control freely available & neither outrageous or deeply sinister - your favourite words!

    That would work.
    It might indeed ... but we're not talking about the availability of contraception here ... we're talking about the deliberate killing of already conceived Humans via procured abortion.
    ... and by the sound of some posts ... the 'culling' of some born Humans as well ... especially if legal mechanisms (like war or euthanasia) can be used to sanction it.


  • #776
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    J C wrote: »
    What kind of mind thinks that we should give legal preference to the life of frog spawn over the lives our children ... and logically ultimately our own lives ???

    I don't think so ... but if you feel that we do need to reduce the population ... it should be done in a civilised way that doesn't involve the deliberate killing of Human Beings.

    ... and what exactly does that lead to??
    ... killing unborn Humans ... and protecting frog spawn!!!

    ... at least all the unfounded whinging about women 'needing' abortion on demand has been shown to be a thinly veiled sham ... that is being used to actually introduce abortion as a population culling and eugenics mechanism ... by people who value frogs lives above the lives of Humans.
    ... so please spare me all this sanctimonious baloney about womens lives being put in danger ... when ye actually believe there are too many people (including women) alive ... and a few more frogs good few less Humans is a 'good' thing!!!

    ... outrageous!!

    Well What about the frogs then? All frogs - have they got jobs? Are you saying frogs are scrounging somehow?

    The point with the frogs is they do all right. Don't they? and you're much more important than they are, right? So, what are you worrying about?

    The thing about frogs is good luck to them
    I'm still concerned what you got against frogs?


  • #777
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    gozunda wrote: »
    Well What about the frogs then? All frogs - have they got jobs? Are you saying frogs are scrounging somehow?
    What's that got to do with the right to life ... or are you now adding insult to injury, by saying that the unborn children of people unable to work should be preferentially aborted?:(
    gozunda wrote: »
    The point with the frogs is they do all right. Don't they? and you're much more important than they are, right? So, what are you worrying about?

    The thing about frogs is good luck to them
    I'm still concerned what you got against frogs?
    I have no problem with frogs ... and I think they should be protected, if they are endangered.
    The problem I have is the assumption by pro-abortion people that protecting unborn frogs is more important than protecting unborn children.:(
    ... and in most countries ... this is actually the legal position ... frogs and their spawn have total legal protection ... and unborn humans have zero protection!!


  • #778
    georgieporgy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,927 ✭✭✭georgieporgy


    martinnew wrote: »
    So that makes it ok to kill them?
    It's probably ok to just kill the black ones. OOPS! just realised that's racist. Very bad of me :(

    I meant it's ok to kill all colours.:cool:

    well, I'm personally agin it like but this is a demokracy


  • #779
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    georgieporgy wrote: »
    It's probably ok to just kill the black ones. OOPS! just realised that's racist. Very bad of me :(

    I meant it's ok to kill all colours.:cool:

    well, I'm personally agin it like but this is a demokracy
    The abortion rate among black women in America is over three times greater than amongst white women.
    Quote:
    "In 2006, 50 out of 1,000 black women underwent abortions, according to the Census Bureau, versus 14 for white women and 22 for women of other races."

    Nobody knows why this is so ... but it is something that is no joke from the point of view of the long term outlook for the African American population.


  • #780
    georgieporgy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,927 ✭✭✭georgieporgy


    The "inferior races" were the chief target of Margaret Sanger and her dissolute associates right from the beginning. The fact that some whites and "others" were collateral damage was considered acceptable in the grand scheme of eugenics.

    Watch out frogs! Tomorrow the bell tolls for you!


  • Advertisement
  • #781
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    georgieporgy wrote: »
    The "inferior races" were the chief target of Margaret Sanger and her dissolute associates right from the beginning. The fact that some whites and "others" were collateral damage was considered acceptable in the grand scheme of eugenics.

    Watch out frogs! Tomorrow the bell tolls for you!
    The bell tolls for us all ... if the 'culture of death' takes root in our society!!!

    ... and its starting to put down deep roots indeed.


Advertisement