Could you show me the "Progressive Movement's" mission statement ? Could you tell me why you think black people are stupid and can't think for themselves? maybe all your ideas and thought originated decades ago and never changed but the rest of the world doesn't work that way.....
Here's a response to the Progressive Movement: [video=youtube;-4LASBUbU2I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4LASBUbU2I#t=19[/video]
A response? NO, I asked for the "Progressive Movements mission statement. And you AVOIDED the questions: Could you show me the "Progressive Movement's" mission statement ? Could you tell me why you think black people are stupid and can't think for themselves? maybe all your ideas and thought originated decades ago and never changed but the rest of the world doesn't work that way..... Want to discuss what's happening today? Fine. Want to go back 50-100 years to argue about what dead people thought ?...I'm done.
Yes it is Ironic, as to why PP started providing abortions I have no idea . .but then this topic is about Sanger and her alleged racism, not about PP .. off topic yet again.
George Bernard Shaw, a supporter of Margaret Sanger proposed gassing the unfit before Hitler took it up. https://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/george-bernard-shaw-hitler-and-margaret-sanger/ [video=youtube_share;hQvsf2MUKRQ]http://youtu.be/hQvsf2MUKRQ[/video]
You are the one who posted it as though it were relevant. Actually, the group "Ministers Taking a Stand" appears to be a tiny group. There is hardly any mention of it on Google except in the context of the Smithsonian protest. It is a pro-life, anti-gay group more representative of the GOP than black women. "Trust Black Women" is a group much more representative of black women. Its website says:
Sanger also believed in eugenics. It was all the liberal rage of the day. Remove the unfit from society in a humane manner. Why do you think it became acceptable to kill babies?
No argument that Sanger believed in Eugenics, what you have to prove is that Sanger was racist and used the Eugenics agenda to target minorities . .you cannot, ergo to associate a known racist with Sanger based on their mutual agreement of Eugenics is a guilt by association fallacy. A person can support Eugenics and not be racist given as Eugenics is "the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics." Eugenics in itself does not promote or even mention race, it is how it is implemented that may make it racist in nature. We even practice a form of Eugenics today .. what do you think genetic manipulation to remove faults is? BTW: Eugenics was not just a liberal thing, many conservatives supported it as well. Sanger NEVER advocated abortion or to "Remove the unfit from society in a humane manner.", you are implying that she supported the killing of those deemed unfit, she never did that at all . .so yet again you are projecting without any semblance to reality. No babies are killed in abortion, I assume you mean fetuses and it became "acceptable" (your word not mine) because anti-abortion laws were unconstitutional and the fact that it had been "acceptable" in ALL recorded history. Even those first anti-abortion laws had nothing to do with saving the life of a "baby", they were based on poison laws and doctors wanting to corner the market in abortions to make money.
Yep, leftist-liberals who decide THEY are god-like and 'know better' than whoever they decide is 'unfit.'
Except for the fact that numerous conservatives supported and promoted Eugenics in that era. The progressives and the conservatives found common ground in attributing phenomena such as crime, slums, prostitution, and alcoholism primarily to biology and in believing that biology might be used to eliminate these discordances of modern, urban, industrial society.
You are assuming that eugenicists were racist. They were for removing undesirables, mainly the insane, or unproductive. Fetus is a term used to inhumanize what is a life. Just like Jap was during WWII or how Germans portrayed Jews as rats. It is a convenient way to rationalize murder and if man can do anything, it is rationalize murder.
I did not know much about Sanger until this evening when I read several short biographical summaries from various sources. Sanger was an elitist, clearly wanted to control reproduction based upon a persons social status, and by todays standards she would absolutely be called a racist. To see "progressives" try to whitewash Sanger into meeting modern leftist social standards is hilarious and shows the lack of honesty in the "progressive" mind.
I suggest you read a little more, I suspect all your sources were right-wing or religious based where the reality is they are more concerned with demeaning PP that historical accuracy. and no one is trying to white wash Sanger, her Eugenics ideology is a matter of record and certainly wrong, that however does not mean she was racist. There is nothing that points to Sanger being a Eugenics follower based on race, not a single thing.
Actually I assuming nothing of a sort, actually read what I write please not what you want to see. It is plain that some Eugenics supporters were racist, some were not, Sanger falls into the 'not' group. I clearly stated that Eugenics in itself cannot and is not racist, how it is used can be. no they were not for removing undesirables, they were for stopping undesirables from breeding .. big difference .. you are suggesting that they advocated undesirables being "removed" ie killed and that is not what was advocated, certainly not by Sanger anyway. Fetus is the correct terminology, is calling you an adult "inhumanizing" [sic] you, according to your logic it must be as that is the terminology used for a person over the age of majority .. I hope you don't or have never called your children teens, or toddlers as by your logic you are "inhumanizing" [sic] them. It is a common thing among pro-lifers to try and change the correct terminology to suit their agenda, it is all part of their attempts to project emotional guilt onto others.
So you read some "short summaries", take from them your already preconceived ideas, and ignore the posts of someone who has studied and researched Sanger? That just isn't logical.
What about a couple calling their pregnancy a baby? They can call it a watermelon, a bun in the oven, a princess, ....it is still a fetus. I call my spouse "baby" even though my spouse is an adult. It does not make them a baby. I have called my cars "my baby", they were still Pontiacs.
Doesn't change the fact that it is a life no matter how much you want to turn it into something else.
SHOW EXACTLY WHERE I SAID IT WASN'T LIFE OR RETRACT. I NEVER posted I wanted to change a fetus into something else. Just give up, don't sink to lies...
Individuals are free to call it what ever they want, they can call it a car-park if they wish, that does not change the reality that it is a fetus, neither does it change the reality that in debates etc it is intellectually honest to use the correct terms .. tell me are you intellectually honest? BTW I see you evaded answering the question. Fetus is the correct terminology, is calling you an adult "inhumanizing" [sic] you, according to your logic it must be as that is the terminology used for a person over the age of majority .. I hope you don't or have never called your children teens, or toddlers as by your logic you are "inhumanizing" [sic] them. so is calling you an adult "inhumanizing" [sic] you? - - - Updated - - - No one is turning it into something else or are you suggesting that a fetus is not human or life?
I am not a "progressive" and do not limit my reading to material that fits my bias. I read a range of material, in fact given that Sanger is such a hot political topic these days to avoid any white washing or smearing of Sanger's info I went into the google archives and only read material from 2011 and earlier. Sanger had a simple philosophy - only worthy people should reproduce. The poor, illiterate, uneducated, should not have children - Sangers targeted birth control and abortion at those groups. And since black people are over-represented in the poor, illiterate, uneducated categories, that means her policy would disproportionately impact black people - and in todays world that is racist, politically incorrect, against the law, profiling, and would mean the "progressives" would lose their voting base. Some people want to ban the Confederate Flag - a flag which went out of existence 150 years ago - because it offends their modern sensibilities. But those same people bend over backwards to save the patron saint of abortion even though she grossly violates all modern sensibility - and she still has a real impact today - because she reflects on the morality of the church of abortion, planned parenthood. Total hypocrisy from the abortionists and the "progressives".
