[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

"Gosnell, a family practice physician, had no obstetric or gynecological training and no right to perform any abortion"

He was not hiding what he was doing and ran a well known, tax-paying abortion clinic under multiple complaints and several lawsuits.

Think that sums it up. If anything this should be a wake up call for Pro-Lifers as this kind of practice would be the norm in a world which bans abortion.

Conversely, this should be evidence that legalized abortion doesn't mean "safe" and there is less oversight over this barbaric practice than cosmetic surgery.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Whooosh! The point was to illustrate how silly it is to cite atrocity and hold others' ideology to account for the moronic abuses of others. And in fact there are more of these around because of legalized abortion.

Its easy to miss stupidity based sarcasm in a stupidity based point of view.

There are absolutely NOT more illegal abortionists around because of legalised abortion. This is an absurd statement to make.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Its easy to miss stupidity based sarcasm in a stupidity based point of view.

There are absolutely NOT more illegal abortionists around because of legalized abortion. This is an absurd statement to make.

Gosnell was running a state licensed clinic.

I have questions about this Salon reprint. I did a google search, but can't find anything but links to Salon and other blogs. No stories on CNN or MSNBC.
I almost died in an emergency room because the doctor on call refused to perform a necessary procedure - Google Search
Abortion saved my life - Abortion - Salon.com
"A version of this piece originally appeared on Mikki Kendall's blog."
Abortion Saved My Life � Esoterica

We know who Gosnell is, and where his clinic was. The Salon article says "a Chicago hospital" the blog just says "a hospital" The doctor is not named.
Salon

I was taking an afternoon nap when the hemorrhaging started while my toddler napped in his room when I woke up to find blood gushing upward from my body. Though I didn't know it at the time, I was experiencing a placental abruption, a complication my doctor had told me was a possibility. My husband was at work, so I had to do my best to take care of me and my toddler on my own. I managed to get to the phone and make arrangements for both of my children before going to a Chicago hospital.

The blog

I was taking an afternoon nap when the hemorrhaging started. Laying in bed with my toddler napping in his room, and waking up to find blood gushing up my body is an experience I wouldn’t wish on anyone. The placental abruption that my doctor had listed as a possibility was happening and I was going to have to do my best to take care of both of us. Mind you, my husband was at work and my not quite 2 year old sure couldn’t dial 911 for me so I had to make it to the phone & make arrangements for the sleeping toddler as well as his older brother before I could leave the house. I’ll spare you the gory details of my personal splatter flick, but suffice to say by the time I got to the hospital I probably needed a transfusion.

Why didn't she call 911 first? Did she call 911? How did she get to the unnamed hospital? (an ambulance or a friend ?)

Then there's this interesting tidbit

About karnythia
A loudmouthed liberal who enjoys committing random acts of fiction in between ranting at people who are wrong on the internet. Mom, wife, and dainty little sociopath with an affection for booze, chocolate, and sarcasm.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

He was not hiding what he was doing and ran a well known, tax-paying abortion clinic under multiple complaints and several lawsuits.


Conversely, this should be evidence that legalized abortion doesn't mean "safe" and there is less oversight over this barbaric practice than cosmetic surgery.

Sounds like a regulatory failure.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Its easy to miss stupidity based sarcasm in a stupidity based point of view.

I'm sorry we disagree. If yours is the template of "intellect", I'll take my stupidity with pride thank you.

There are absolutely NOT more illegal abortionists around because of legalised abortion. This is an absurd statement to make.

Unsterile clinics with shoddy business practices treating women like cogs in the abortion mill? Absolutely. It's all part of the; "if it's legal, it must be okay" absurdity.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Sounds like a regulatory failure.

More like across the board failure. In case you're still not getting it, while I'm an ardent defender of the pro-life position, I would not typically cite a singular example of this type of thing and rub it in pro-choicers faces in that manner. The point was to illustrate the absurd nature of the post I was responding to. If it came off as flame-bait, it worked.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Gosnell was running a state licensed clinic.

I have questions about this Salon reprint. I did a google search, but can't find anything but links to Salon and other blogs. No stories on CNN or MSNBC.
I almost died in an emergency room because the doctor on call refused to perform a necessary procedure - Google Search
Abortion saved my life - Abortion - Salon.com
"A version of this piece originally appeared on Mikki Kendall's blog."
Abortion Saved My Life � Esoterica

We know who Gosnell is, and where his clinic was. The Salon article says "a Chicago hospital" the blog just says "a hospital" The doctor is not named.
Salon

The blog


Why didn't she call 911 first? Did she call 911? How did she get to the unnamed hospital? (an ambulance or a friend ?)

Then there's this interesting tidbit

Excellent work Chongo. I thought I smelled a rat, particularly when there was nothing of an impending lawsuit mentioned in the article. That plus what you've uncovered here, I call bullsh!t on the whole thing. Just another liberal zealot straight making sh!t up to slander people she disagrees with.

We'd better get used to it the closer we get toward election season. This kind of BS is going to be launched at an unprecedented rate.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Excellent work Chongo. I thought I smelled a rat, particularly when there was nothing of an impending lawsuit mentioned in the article. That plus what you've uncovered here, I call bullsh!t on the whole thing. Just another liberal zealot straight making sh!t up to slander people she disagrees with.

We'd better get used to it the closer we get toward election season. This kind of BS is going to be launched at an unprecedented rate.

You and Chongo will believe anything that reinforces your biases. So you don't believe the story of her abortion, that she made is all up? Just because she is a liberal? Just because she doesn't mention a lawsuit? Is it so unbelievable that a doctor would never perform an abortion, even when a woman's life is at risk, when there are many people in the states that believe exactly that?

It should be worth noting that lawyers will recommend against publicly discussing a lawsuit.

Originally Posted by Athens

Ah, thats the best you can do, excellent. I win.

You think you've proved your point? I can't fncking stand you any longer. Welcome to my ignore list.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You and Chongo will believe anything that reinforces your biases. So you don't believe the story of her abortion, that she made is all up? Just because she is a liberal? Just because she doesn't mention a lawsuit? Is it so unbelievable that a doctor would never perform an abortion, even when a woman's life is at risk, when there are many people in the states that believe exactly that?

That wasn't what I took issue with lpkmckenna. I took issue with the ideal of rubbing the moron's actions in the face of pro-lifers as if this an appropriate example of a more pervasive problem among them. I cited a contrary example to illustrate what I thought. I'd also take issue with the ideal that "many" in the US believe the baby takes precedent in a matter involving the death of the mother, particularly in the health care industry where the mother has always taken precedent, pre or post Roe V Wade.

In light of what you've done with the story, it would not surprise me in the least to find out it's nothing more than that.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I can't fncking stand you any longer. Welcome to my ignore list.

[andi*pandi]

There are lots of comments on that blog that sound like Chongo, doubting the author, thinking it's fiction, poking holes in the story. The author replies:

My life is not your life � Esoterica

Lastly, no I wasn’t paid by Salon or anyone else to write that post. It’s not fiction, and the title of my blog isn’t an indication that my nonfiction should be taken with a grain of salt. It is an indication that I’m a published author of fiction and non fiction. The idea that this was a publicity stunt is laughable. I don’t know what planet some of the folks making that comment are on, but on no planet that I work on is having a blog post about a tragedy a way to boost attention for a closed company.

Believe her or don't, but hers is not the only tale of this kind I've heard.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

There are lots of comments on that blog that sound like Chongo, doubting the author, thinking it's fiction, poking holes in the story. The author replies:

My life is not your life � Esoterica



Believe her or don't, but hers is not the only tale of this kind I've heard.

Gosnell's clinic isn't the only one out there.
Abortion clinics operator is charged - latimes.com

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

And I gave the reason to, which was not because of racial superiority or inferiority, why don't you read the entire post. You're grasping at straws attempting to make it into something else.

Lots of populations around this planet have unique characteristics like taller woman then other populations or longer noses or really dark skin. I think its important to retain culture uniqueness and ethnic uniqueness.

Yeah those are racial attributes. Saying that racial attributes are good is just as racist as saying they are bad. Forcing anyone to breed with certain people like a captive giant panda, like they're an animal, to preserve their biodiversity, is racist.

Case in point look at the Canadian Native population. It is estimated that in 50 to 100 years there will be no more status natives due to mix race breeding. I dunno about you but I think it is terrible that the racial and cultural uniqueness is disappearing.

Not as terrible as it would be to act as if they're less than human, denying them the right to decide their own genetic destiny however they see fit.

Offering information to them, that's fine (NA-Cupid?). Producing propaganda to convince them to "breed pure," that's borderline, if done carefully. But using force of law like you've suggested is just not acceptable; there's no way for that not to be racist.

[Athens]

What is with you and seeing everything as less than human? Or with one race being Superior then others? I am starting to think you have been a victim to some racism in the past and you now see any topic about race as racism only. I think your being very selective to because the original post I made was about eliminating defective babies with genetic problems along with breeding licenses aborting unauthorized pregnancies and requiring same race breeding. It was following mostly that of a hollywood movie called Gattaca which explores designer babies and a world which people are discriminated by genetic material not the color of your skin. Something very possible in the future. Your focused on only one part of it, the last part of it on a post pointing out an alternative to our current way of random breeding and the saving of everything that lives. Verses a more natural form of procreation of only allowing the strong to survive and keeping things in the same racial family.

I toss in there the idea of retaining culture and ethnic uniqueness and you see this as just pure racism. I said racial diversity is good and you act as its bad. I don't see anything wrong with abortion for population control, for economic reasons and for medical reasons. I don't see a problem in designer babies filtering out bad genes that cause illnesses.

[Athens]

I thought I posted this before but I guess I didn't hit Send. I don't like Abortion clinics. I think dedicated Abortion clinics should be banned. The procedure should only done at a general hospital. A dedicated abortion clinic sole purpose in life is to make a profit doing abortions. I can't see them offering any real incentives for a person to change their mind and if anything are more then likely to encourage it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

What is with you and seeing everything as less than human? Or with one race being Superior then others? I am starting to think you have been a victim to some racism in the past and you now see any topic about race as racism only. I think your being very selective to because the original post I made was about eliminating defective babies with genetic problems along with breeding licenses aborting unauthorized pregnancies and requiring same race breeding. It was following mostly that of a hollywood movie called Gattaca which explores designer babies and a world which people are discriminated by genetic material not the color of your skin. Something very possible in the future. Your focused on only one part of it, the last part of it on a post pointing out an alternative to our current way of random breeding and the saving of everything that lives. Verses a more natural form of procreation of only allowing the strong to survive and keeping things in the same racial family.

I toss in there the idea of retaining culture and ethnic uniqueness and you see this as just pure racism.

No, what happened was you said "Look I know your going to next say im being racist and im not." [sic]
You brought up racism, not me. I'm just hanging around long enough to keep telling you when you're wrong.

I said racial diversity is good and you act as its bad.

"I said lily white skin is good and you act as its bad." [sic]
There's nothing wrong with finding praise for something of a certain race or races. The problem is in calling for the expansion of those races or traits, at the expense of others. And like it or not Athens, "mixed" is a race too. You're calling for the forced expansion of non-mixed races at the expense of mixed races, and that's racist against the mixed. I'm not taking it personally, I'm just calmly trying to explain to you how you're wrong, a concept you seem to be struggling with.

I don't like Abortion clinics. I think dedicated Abortion clinics should be banned.

"I don't like Athens. I think Athens should be banned." Gee, don't you think I should find a middle ground between dislike and destroy?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I thought I posted this before but I guess I didn't hit Send. I don't like Abortion clinics. I think dedicated Abortion clinics should be banned. The procedure should only done at a general hospital. A dedicated abortion clinic sole purpose in life is to make a profit doing abortions. I can't see them offering any real incentives for a person to change their mind and if anything are more then likely to encourage it.

Then you should support defunding Planned Parenthood.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Then you should support defunding Planned Parenthood.

Yes, because denying fundamental healthcare to poor people is exactly what Jesus would want.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Then you should support defunding Planned Parenthood.

Do you know what Planned Parenthood was before they changed the name to Planned Parenthood?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Yes, because denying fundamental healthcare to poor people is exactly what Jesus would want.

Killing your offspring is "fundamental healthcare" that Jesus would want?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Do you know what Planned Parenthood was before they changed the name to Planned Parenthood?

The American Birth Control League, founded by Margaret Sanger

from The Pivot of Civilization:
Aim of the ABCL

Research: To collect the findings of scientists, concerning the relation of reckless breeding to the evils of delinquency, defect and dependence;
Investigation: To derive from these scientifically ascertained facts and figures, conclusions which may aid all public health and social agencies in the study of problems of maternal and infant mortality, child-labor, mental and physical defects and delinquence in relation to the practice of reckless parentage.
Hygienic and Physiological instruction by the Medical profession to mothers and potential mothers in harmless and reliable methods of Birth Control in answer to their requests for such knowledge.
Sterilization of the insane and mentally retarded and the encouragement of this operation upon those afflicted with inherited or transmissible diseases, with the understanding that sterilization does not deprive the individual of his or her sex expression, but merely renders him incapable of producing children.
Education: The program of education includes: The enlightenment of the public at large, mainly through the education of leaders of thought and opinion--teachers, ministers, editors and writers to the moral and scientific soundness of the principles of Birth Control and the imperative necessity of its adoption as the basis of national and racial progress.
Political and Legislative: To enlist the support and cooperation of legal advisers, statesmen and legislators in effecting the removal of state and federal statutes which encourage dysgenic breeding, increase the sum total of disease, misery and poverty and prevent the establishment of a policy of national health and strength.


Organization: To send into the various States of the Union field workers to enlist the support and arouse the interest of the masses, to the importance of Birth Control so that laws may be changed and the establishment of clinics made possible in every State.
International: This department aims to cooperate with similar organizations in other countries to study Birth Control in its relations to the world population problem, food supplies, national and racial conflicts, and to urge all international bodies organized to promote world peace, the consideration of these aspects of international amity.

[Chongo]

More from Ms Sanger
(A Plan for Peace, Margaret Sanger) was published in Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108): A Plan for Peace by MARGARET SANGER

First, put into action President Wilson's fourteen points, upon which terms Germany and Austria surrendered to the Allies in 1918. Second, have Congress set up a special department for the study of population problems and appoint a Parliament of Population, the directors representing the various branches of science: this body to direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and to direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of individuals. The main objects of the Population Congress would be:

a) to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.

b) to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand,
decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11 per thousand.

c) to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be
detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic,
criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.

d) to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose
progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

e) to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of
feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to
sterilization.

f) to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.

g) to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work
under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.

The first step would thus be to control the intake and output of morons, mental defectives, epileptics. The second step would be to take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection, and segregate them on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strenghtening and development of moral conduct. Having corralled this enormous part of our population and placed it on a basis of health instead of punishment, it is safe to say that fifteen or twenty millions of our population would then be organized into soldiers of defense--- defending the unborn against their own disabilities. The third step would be to give special attention to the mothers' health, to see that women who are suffering from tuberculosis, heart or kidney disease, toxic goitre, gonorrhea, or any disease where the condition of pregnancy disturbs their health are placed under public health nurses to instruct them in practical, scientific methods of contraception in order to safeguard their lives---thus reducing maternal mortality. The above steps may seem to place emphasis on a health program instead of on tariffs, moratoriums and debts, but I believe that national health is the first essential factor in any program for universal peace. With the future citizen safeguarded from hereditary taints, with five million mental and moral degenerates segregated, with ten million women and ten million children receiving adequate care, we could then turn our attention to the basic needs for international peace. There would then be a definite effort to make population increase slowly and at a specified rate, in order to accommodate and adjust increasing numbers to the best social and economic system. In the meantime we should organize and join an International League of Low Birth Rate Nations to secure and maintain World Peace.

Peace through superior breeding and population control. Sound familiar?

[besson3c]

Okay, would some conservative in here please run by your argument again as to why the government should be making these sorts of choices for us?

To me this is the sticking point, and the same point I can't wrap my head around particularly given all of the rhetoric about government "staying out of our lives"

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, would some conservative in here please run by your argument again as to why the government should be making these sorts of choices for us?

To me this is the sticking point, and the same point I can't wrap my head around particularly given all of the rhetoric about government "staying out of our lives"

I can only imagine it's because they really do want a nanny state when it comes to social issues.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, would some conservative in here please run by your argument again as to why the government should be making these sorts of choices for us?

Which sorts of choices? Whether you have free reign to kill your offspring due to convenience issues? Those choices?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The American Birth Control League, founded by Margaret Sanger

from The Pivot of Civilization:
Aim of the ABCL

Nice, but you left out the connection with the Nazi's and crimes against humanity with horrendous experiments conducted on Jewish prisoners, research they partially funded and benefited from. And this was still occurring even during the war years until late in the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, would some conservative in here please run by your argument again as to why the government should be making these sorts of choices for us?

To me this is the sticking point, and the same point I can't wrap my head around particularly given all of the rhetoric about government "staying out of our lives"

If Government bans it they are involved and making the choice for every one. If they don't ban it they are not involved and those that want it make the choice can choose to either do it or not. So how about not getting government involved.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Which sorts of choices? Whether you have free reign to kill your offspring due to convenience issues? Those choices?

You mean killing a bunch of cells that isn't a offspring until birthed and alive?

[lpkmckenna]

Thank you Chongo for flooding the forum with irrelevant information.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, what happened was you said "Look I know your going to next say im being racist and im not." [sic]
You brought up racism, not me. I'm just hanging around long enough to keep telling you when you're wrong.


"I said lily white skin is good and you act as its bad." [sic]
There's nothing wrong with finding praise for something of a certain race or races. The problem is in calling for the expansion of those races or traits, at the expense of others. And like it or not Athens, "mixed" is a race too. You're calling for the forced expansion of non-mixed races at the expense of mixed races, and that's racist against the mixed. I'm not taking it personally, I'm just calmly trying to explain to you how you're wrong, a concept you seem to be struggling with.


"I don't like Athens. I think Athens should be banned." Gee, don't you think I should find a middle ground between dislike and destroy?

I don't think you realize how close we came to this kind of world. In the late 1800's and early 1900's this is exactly what was being done. And mixed race is not a race, its a classification of someone who shares ancestry with more then one established race criteria's. My point was simple and some how you missed it. If we let government play god, deciding who can live who can die, it might as well progress to the ultimate end with designer babies and only the breeding of viable humans for the sake of bettering genetic code which through unnatural means currently is being degraded by artificially helping the weak live, those that would never have lived if it was not for medical science. Ether government stays out of it taking no position on it allowing woman to choose or they get involved and progress naturally to eugenics which they had done once already before.

[Waragainstsleep]

Actually I found Chongo's information quite interesting. While he didn't mention eugenics, I think thats what he was shooting for when he asked: "Sound familiar?"

The thing about eugenics is that its not entirely as bad an idea as you might think. The overriding principles as outlined by Chongo's Margaret Sanger posts above are trying to improve the human race as a whole by helping evolution to do its job of filtering out the weak or as Athen's puts it 'defective'. Its a harsh term but its not inaccurate.
Modern medicine spends a whole lot of time and effort fighting the effects of evolution by keeping people alive when they would otherwise die. I'm not suggesting for a second that anyone should be allowed to die if they can be saved, but for genetic conditions, enforced screening, genetic modification to remove the 'faulty' genes or encouraged sterilisation is really only sensible. I personally think it is cruel to bring a child into the world to suffer from something like cystic fibrosis or downs syndrome when it could be preventable one way or another.
Eugenics as a whole has been given a bad name by the Nazi association. This is understandable but not very clever. Hitler probably liked eating toast. Does that mean we should all stop eating toast because its evil and wrong? Some of the principles of eugenics are sound. Most of the Sanger posts above make a lot of scientific sense, though I don't condone experimenting on live humans the way the Nazis did.

I have to disagree with Athens' position on maintaining ethnic diversity. And even cultural diversity. The more cultures come together and interbreed, the more they will come to understand each other better. Its also genetically more healthy.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Athens 

You mean killing a bunch of cells that isn't a offspring until birthed and alive?

According to whose semantics?

What I do know is that the scientific standard we use for those same bunch of cells located an inch out of the birth canal is a audible heartbeat and/or active brainwaves. It doesn't seem logical to change that standard just because of the temporary location of those cells unless that location is going to threaten someone's life. I can't kill all the cells that make up your body just because you happened to be located somewhere that inconveniences me. Should the government get out of those choices as well?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, would some conservative in here please run by your argument again as to why the government should be making these sorts of choices for us?

To me this is the sticking point, and the same point I can't wrap my head around particularly given all of the rhetoric about government "staying out of our lives"

Don't try so hard to be confused over the difference between smaller, less intrusive government and anarchy. If you can't wrap your head around that, it's likely too small.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Actually I found Chongo's information quite interesting. While he didn't mention eugenics, I think thats what he was shooting for when he asked: "Sound familiar?"

He was citing Sanger in context of another poster here who was essentially saying the same things.

The thing about eugenics is that its not entirely as bad an idea as you might think. The overriding principles as outlined by Chongo's Margaret Sanger posts above are trying to improve the human race as a whole by helping evolution to do its job of filtering out the weak or as Athen's puts it 'defective'. Its a harsh term but its not inaccurate.

It's a harsh term because weak as it is being used by those who cite crime statistics for example, really means "poor". Abortion is rarely if ever being used for the reasons you're citing as meritorious. Her ideal of weak was contingent upon race.

Eugenics as a whole has been given a bad name by the Nazi association. This is understandable but not very clever. Hitler probably liked eating toast. Does that mean we should all stop eating toast because its evil and wrong? Some of the principles of eugenics are sound. Most of the Sanger posts above make a lot of scientific sense, though I don't condone experimenting on live humans the way the Nazis did.

Y'all are all over the place here. So... we should support a woman's right over her own body, but we should encourage enforced genetic screening, sterilization, eugenics, genetic modification, elimination of the weak, etc.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

According to whose semantics?

What I do know is that the scientific standard we use for those same bunch of cells located an inch out of the birth canal is a audible heartbeat and/or active brainwaves. It doesn't seem logical to change that standard just because of the temporary location of those cells unless that location is going to threaten someone's life. I can't kill all the cells that make up your body just because you happened to be located somewhere that inconveniences me. Should the government get out of those choices as well?

Why yes of course. It's either communism or anarchy. There is no in-between. Then, you should have complete control over your own body... unless you choose to procreate with it. You're fine to abort, but once you've decided to actually give birth to that mixed child, weak child, poor child, or brown-eyed brunette child; there are all kinds of means for government control including sterilization to ensure you don't procreate. The obvious problem here (for whatever reason) seems to be with the notion of actually propagating the species.

Just so it's clear, these population-control advocates generally support a single-payer healthcare system too.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

He was citing Sanger in context of another poster here who was essentially saying the same things.

It's a harsh term because weak as it is being used by those who cite crime statistics for example, really means "poor". Abortion is rarely if ever being used for the reasons you're citing as meritorious. Her ideal of weak was contingent upon race.

I don't pretend to know what she meant on a personal basis but the wording in Chongo's posts makes no direct mention to race whatsoever. I certainly wasn't reading her personal prejudices into any part of it that I agree with.
My own usage of the term weak was in reference to genetic weakness, again nothing to do with economics. It was defective I claimed sounded harsh but ultimately its the same thing. Weakness in this case can mean anything from being disease-prone to having fragile bones or organs to simply being too stupid to cross a road without getting hit and killed. All things that evolution would select for if it were left unhindered to do so.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Y'all are all over the place here. So... we should support a woman's right over her own body, but we should encourage enforced genetic screening, sterilization, eugenics, genetic modification, elimination of the weak, etc.

I'm really not. I never said abortion, screening or elimination of the weak should be enforced, merely encouraged. The only way to do that without inciting rioting from all the brain-damaged bible thumpers is to allow people to make those choices for themselves, and try as hard as you can to teach others why sometimes its a good idea to make such a choice, instead of trying to guilt them into keeping babies they never wanted or telling they will go to hell if they don't.

[Athens]

Guess we shouldn't kill cancer cells either after all its alive and part of gods plan.

[The Final Dakar]

Man, this thread is a monument to some pretty embarrassing views.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I don't think you realize how close we came to this kind of world. In the late 1800's and early 1900's this is exactly what was being done. And mixed race is not a race, its a classification of someone who shares ancestry with more then one established race criteria's. My point was simple and some how you missed it.

No, your "point" is so simple that I don't care about it. But your aside was false, so I called you on it.

If we let government play god, deciding who can live who can die, it might as well progress to the ultimate end with designer babies and only the breeding of viable humans for the sake of bettering genetic code

In this, you are completely wrong as well. Interbreeding generally produces fitter offspring, not weaker:
Heterosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Biologically this is generally understood to be the entire point of sexual reproduction in the first place: that mingling of DNA enhances adaptation.

Ether government stays out of it taking no position on it allowing woman to choose or they get involved and progress naturally to eugenics which they had done once already before.

Reductio ad absurdum and false dichotomy

[hyteckit]

Conservatives kill babies.

Liberals kill fetuses.

So how many babies did we kill in Iraq? How much did it cost?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Gosnell's clinic isn't the only one out there.
Abortion clinics operator is charged - latimes.com

Medical malpractice.

[hyteckit]

When support for abortion is up from 2 years ago and economy is still down, we know it's the best time to talk about abortion and retread all the same arguments again, right?

Yes, lets attack unions and plan parenthood while Republicans have control of the house.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Thank you Chongo for flooding the forum with irrelevant information.

I was asked:

Originally Posted by Athens 

Do you know what Planned Parenthood was before they changed the name to Planned Parenthood?

I gave some info on The American Birth Control League's founder. I listed it's stated goals.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Guess we shouldn't kill cancer cells either after all its alive and part of gods plan.

Who said anything about God in this equation?

All that was mentioned in regards to a deity is the fact that the US bases it's laws on the notion that the rights we have and that the government can't impede were given to us by God.

[Athens]

Any topic about abortion will include some GOD in it because one of the biggest reasons against it is that a fetus has a soul and is gods creation....

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Don't try so hard to be confused over the difference between smaller, less intrusive government and anarchy. If you can't wrap your head around that, it's likely too small.

How does one decide whether this version of "smaller, less intrusive government" should include a health care mandate or abortion choices, for instance?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How does one decide whether this version of "smaller, less intrusive government" should include a health care mandate or abortion choices, for instance?

People can choose coverage deductibles and co-pays. They should also be allowed to choose what is covered as well. Why should someone who is incapable of being pregnant pay for coverage they will never use. My sister-in law had a hysterectomy in her mid thirties, yet still has to pay for pregnancy related coverage.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Out of mild curiousity, do those who firmly oppose abortion also oppose birth control?

Birth control generally "kills" the sperm or egg before conception can occur. Is it the act of conception that's the dividing line, then? It's okay to kill both parties until they actually meet and come together? It seems a rather arbitrary dividing line to me, as an egg or a sperm are as "alive" as a two-month-old fetus, and just as unlikely to survive outside of the womb.

Didn't really think about this before.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

People can choose coverage deductibles and co-pays. They should also be allowed to choose what is covered as well. Why should someone who is incapable of being pregnant pay for coverage they will never use. My sister-in law had a hysterectomy in her mid thirties, yet still has to pay for pregnancy related coverage.

This thread is about abortion, I think that we shouldn't derail.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Any topic about abortion will include some GOD in it because one of the biggest reasons against it is that a fetus has a soul and is gods creation....

Get back to us when that's brought up.

Thanks.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Conservatives kill babies.

Liberals kill fetuses.

So how many babies did we kill in Iraq? How much did it cost?

I can't speak for the others, but I'm against killing babies in Iraq... and Afghanistan and Libya for those who stopped paying attention when the (D) entered office.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Out of mild curiousity, do those who firmly oppose abortion also oppose birth control?

I'm not a fan of birth control that allows the egg to be fertilized. Otherwise, birth control is not near as destructive to the mother (that we know of) as abortion. I oppose both the killing of a zygote (as its fully-human chromosomal compilation is complete) and the exploitation of women for a lucrative industry.

When one considers the incredibly short amount of time from conception to birth, our "choices" are riding a very thin line IMO.

Birth control generally "kills" the sperm or egg before conception can occur. Is it the act of conception that's the dividing line, then? It's okay to kill both parties until they actually meet and come together? It seems a rather arbitrary dividing line to me, as an egg or a sperm are as "alive" as a two-month-old fetus, and just as unlikely to survive outside of the womb.

It's arbitrary either way. A 4 year old child would not survive outside the womb. Movement begins for a two-month old fetus, it has a brain, eyelids, hands, knees, etc... and IMO is more "alive" than an egg or sperm individually.