• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Margaret Sanger Would Be Proud

SteelChip

Well-known member
Contributor
Joined
Apr 9, 2014
Messages
8,290
Reaction score
9,782
Points
113
Location
Interlachen, Florida
I don't know a lot about Planned Parenthood and until a year or so ago I really didn't care. Since that secret camera stuff came to light, it's hard not to see some of their policies and goals are at the very least..shady. Somehow they continue to garner enough support in congress to get millions of tax dollars in funding, for what appears to me to be nothing short of a baby killing factory.

Margaret Sanger Would Be Proud of What Planned Parenthood Has Become
http://dailysignal.com/2016/10/13/m...uam85YStPU2hhNWg4dEllV2c3dENpUitPbXBmaXM9In0=

Planned Parenthood is about to celebrate its 100th birthday.

It’s an odd, and frankly grotesque, commemoration for an organization that is responsible itself for ensuring over 7 million babies will never have the opportunity to celebrate even one birthday.

Planned Parenthood was founded on Oct. 16, 1916, by population control advocate Margaret Sanger. Though the organization’s mission statement today refers to “the fundamental right of each individual” to “manage his or her fertility,” Sanger was more honest about her goals in a 1934 article entitled “America Needs a Code for Babies.”

A few highlights from this eugenics masterpiece include:

“The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies … and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.”

“No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.”

“Feeble minded persons … and others found biologically unfit by authorities … should be sterilized or, in cases of doubt, should be so isolated as to prevent the perpetuation of their afflictions by breeding.”

And in her book “Woman and the New Race,” Sanger wrote: “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

My guess is Planned Parenthood isn’t using any of those warm and fuzzy quotes in its 100th anniversary marketing materials.

The organization has financially come a long way since 1916, taking in over $1.2 billion in revenue last year. Sadly, over $550 million of that came from taxpayers. And despite the scandal in 2015 showing the organization was possibly in the business of selling parts of aborted babies to medical research labs, Planned Parenthood and its defenders have only grown more defiant in their demands for government dollars.

Sanger from what I have read was a, racist eugenicist extraordinaire.
In a letter to Clarence Gable in 1939, Sanger wrote: “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” (Margaret Sanger commenting on the ‘Negro Project’ in a letter to Gamble, Dec. 10, 1939).

To whom our Ms Hillary Clinton has said "I admire Margaret Sanger enormously. Her courage, her tenacity, her vision … When I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I’m really in awe of her. There are a lot of lessons we can learn from her life, from the causes she launched and fought for and scarified for so greatly.”

One would think that associating with this organization would spell political suicide, but you would be wrong. Evidently it has become an established gov't sector to be protected.

Senate rejects effort to strip funding from Planned Parenthood
The Senate on Thursday rejected a short-term spending bill that would defund Planned Parenthood. The White House, meanwhile, reiterated its pledge to veto any spending bill that reaches President Obama's desk without funding for Planned Parenthood.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...e-rejects-effort-to-defund-planned-parenthood

Crazy huh ?
 
gotta lower the "Super Predator" population somehow, right?
 
Im sure it's unconstitutional, but that code was in place we would have a whole lot less of our societal problems - one parent welfare families, inner-city crime, massive prison populations.
 
Im sure it's unconstitutional, but that code was in place we would have a whole lot less of our societal problems - one parent welfare families, inner-city crime, massive prison populations.

What the ****???

Why am I not surprised.
 
Im sure it's unconstitutional, but that code was in place we would have a whole lot less of our societal problems - one parent welfare families, inner-city crime, massive prison populations.

Single parent welfare families become a moot point if we eliminate welfare. If we quit subsidizing Bastardy we will get less of it.
 
Just because you enjoy bitching about such things and passing judgement on such individuals...

Just because I have a moral code and you're all for eugenics. Margaret Sanger is oft vilified for these views of eugenics. The populace frowns upon them. You say "Hmmm, could have merit."

Utterly speaks for itself. Thanks for sharing this side of you.
 
Single parent welfare families become a moot point if we eliminate welfare. If we quit subsidizing Bastardy we will get less of it.

Perhaps. I had a discussion with an economics professor a long time ago and his take was, more or less, "it's cheaper to keep stupid, immoral people fat and happy, than to leave them desperate and hungry". I'm not sure he didn't have a valid point. If you're not going to shoot them in the head (and we're not) you had better keep them at bay.
 
Just because I have a moral code and you're all for eugenics. Margaret Sanger is oft vilified for these views of eugenics. The populace frowns upon them. You say "Hmmm, could have merit."

Utterly speaks for itself. Thanks for sharing this side of you.

It has nothing to do with a moral code. It's a problem and a solution. The fact that your moral code has a problem with the solution has nothing to do with whether it would be effective or not.
 
Perhaps. I had a discussion with an economics professor a long time ago and his take was, more or less, "it's cheaper to keep stupid, immoral people fat and happy, than to leave them desperate and hungry". I'm not sure he didn't have a valid point. If you're not going to shoot them in the head (and we're not) you had better keep them at bay.

Keep in mind that the government is the only entity which can imprison the population for not following its rules, edicts and orders. Therefore, government is vastly more powerful than any private business or individual. The denigration of American society over the past 50 years in my opinion stems in large part from two major governmental policies:

  • The financial support and indeed financial incentive for out-of-wedlock children.
  • The lowering of academic standards for grade school and high school students.

Nobody doubts but that having the government pay mothers to have children out-of-wedlock results in a massive increase in out-of-wedlock children.

b2465_chart10.ashx


Hmmm ... coincidence, I guess, that the number of children born to single mothers exploded right at the same time Johnson implemented his "war on poverty," including paying mothers to have children out-of-wedlock.

Further, once you pay mothers to have children with no fathers around to help raise them, and support them, and love them, and discipline them, you cannot then follow up by making those same children less well-educated and ... well, dumber. But we have:

nations_report_card_naep_0.jpg


So we are paying women to have children, paying women to keep the father out of the lives of these children, and then we are funding public education that winds up making these fatherless children dumb.

We are having societal problems? Go figure.
 
Perhaps. I had a discussion with an economics professor a long time ago and his take was, more or less, "it's cheaper to keep stupid, immoral people fat and happy, than to leave them desperate and hungry". I'm not sure he didn't have a valid point. If you're not going to shoot them in the head (and we're not) you had better keep them at bay.

You would also be amazed at how many less stupid imoral people we would have if we stoped subsidizing bastardy. Poverty has little to do with crime, lack of the knowledge of right and wrong and lack of empathy is the the root cause. Intact families teach those things, signal mothers piping out kids to get a bigger piece of the dole, not so much. The poorest county in the USA has practically no crime but does have intact families.

That professor was an idiot.
 
Trog supports China's one-child policy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/11197594/What-is-Chinas-one-child-policy.html

Who introduced the one-child policy and why?

During Chairman Mao’s rule, China’s birthrate was as high as four children per family and there were food shortages that led to famine.

At the beginning of the 1980s, the Communist party decided to restrict China’s population growth in order to stabilise food and water supplies and improve individual prosperity.

In September 1980, an open letter to the country was issued by the Communist party calling for “one child per couple” rules to “keep the population below 1.2 billion at the end of the 20th century”.

How large an impact has it had?

According to the Chinese Health ministry, doctors have performed 336 million abortions and 196 million sterilisations, since 1971 and inserted 403 million intrauterine devices.

By contrast, in the United States, which has a population a quarter of the size of China’s, there have been 50 million abortions since 1973.

Chinese officials believe the one child policy has reduced the population by 400 million but demographers, citing falling birth rates across Asia, believe it is closer to 100 million.

Are there any exceptions?

The policy has been a patchwork of measures. China’s ethnic minorities, such as Uighurs and Tibetans, are exempt.

Families in the countryside are permitted to have a second child if their first is a girl and recently couples that were only children themelves were allowed to apply to have more kids.

What are the punishments for breaking the policy?

Women are regularly inspected to check if they are pregnant, even well into their 40s and 50s. Those who are found to be in breach can suffer forced abortions and even sterilisations.

In millions of cases, families have been successful in hiding new children. The 1990 census recorded 23 million births but the 2000 census put the number of ten-year-olds at 26 million, suggesting at least three million babies had escaped the notice of family planning officials.

Those who are caught can also opt to pay a “social upbringing fee”, usually a multiple of the average income in the city where the child is born, designed to cover the cost of education and healthcare.

When will China stop the one-child policy?

Demographers have warned the Communist party that it must take drastic action to encourage more babies or face a rapidly ageing society. By 2030, a quarter of China’s population will be over 60. However, in March 2008 officials predicted the policy would stay in play for “at least a decade”.

Chinese_flag_(Beijing)_-_IMG_1104.jpg
 
Perhaps. I had a discussion with an economics professor a long time ago and his take was, more or less, "it's cheaper to keep stupid, immoral people fat and happy, than to leave them desperate and hungry". I'm not sure he didn't have a valid point. If you're not going to shoot them in the head (and we're not) you had better keep them at bay.
Another peek into the mind of liberals. Yuck.
 
You would also be amazed at how many less stupid imoral people we would have if we stoped subsidizing bastardy. Poverty has little to do with crime, lack of the knowledge of right and wrong and lack of empathy is the the root cause. Intact families teach those things, signal mothers piping out kids to get a bigger piece of the dole, not so much. The poorest county in the USA has practically no crime but does have intact families.

That professor was an idiot.

So what do we do with the children born into single parent welfare households?
 
Im sure it's unconstitutional, but that code was in place we would have a whole lot less of our societal problems - one parent welfare families, inner-city crime, massive prison populations.

Just because you enjoy bitching about such things and passing judgement on such individuals...

Perhaps. I had a discussion with an economics professor a long time ago and his take was, more or less, "it's cheaper to keep stupid, immoral people fat and happy, than to leave them desperate and hungry". I'm not sure he didn't have a valid point. If you're not going to shoot them in the head (and we're not) you had better keep them at bay.

It has nothing to do with a moral code. It's a problem and a solution. The fact that your moral code has a problem with the solution has nothing to do with whether it would be effective or not.

Wow.

Nazi.
 
No, but I do think the number of children you can claim as dependents should be limited to two.
why? if i can afford to clothe, feed and provide for my children, why is it any of your business how many I have?
 
So what do we do with the children born into single parent welfare households?

Nothing. The current multi-generational welfare family is lost. No skills, no work ethic, no ethics period, no education. What you do is pick a date, say January 1, 2017, and say that anyone born on or after that date is ineligible for welfare and there will be no additional credits to the family for more children. Then in 20 years or so the problem fixes itself.
 
why? if i can afford to clothe, feed and provide for my children, why is it any of your business how many I have?

Why should you pay less taxes just because you had more kids, I thought you could afford them?
 
Nothing. The current multi-generational welfare family is lost. No skills, no work ethic, no ethics period, no education. What you do is pick a date, say January 1, 2017, and say that anyone born on or after that date is ineligible for welfare and there will be no additional credits to the family for more children. Then in 20 years or so the problem fixes itself.

But there's already a lot of neglect In those households, do you just put that in place and hope they all get their **** together, or accept their is going to be more neglect?
 
Why should you pay less taxes just because you had more kids, I thought you could afford them?

Why should deadbeats who can't afford kids be deserving of taking more money away from people who work every time they squeeze another one out?
 
Why should deadbeats who can't afford kids be deserving of taking more money away from people who work every time they squeeze another one out?

They shouldn't but that's not the kids fault.
 
Top