Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The party that rabidly promotes the killing of babies, especially poor babies of color a la Margaret "eugenics" Sanger, wants a baby to die and not even allow the parents to use the money they raised to try and save him.

Don't ever say republicans don't care about babies once they are born. True colors shining through, ghouls.

That is a lie.

https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=238946.xml

Margaret Sanger, "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda," Oct 1921.

Why the F are you quoting something from 1921? Almost 100 years ago?

What does this have to do with anything, especially on this thread which is about a baby in the UK on life support?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The party that rabidly promotes the killing of babies, especially poor babies of color a la Margaret "eugenics" Sanger, wants a baby to die and not even allow the parents to use the money they raised to try and save him.

Don't ever say republicans don't care about babies once they are born. True colors shining through, ghouls.

Again, why all the attention on the baby that can't be saved and has a horrible quality of life, when there are others that can be saved if given access to care? Still waiting . . .

Exactly. Since Rs love babies so much.

Anonymous wrote:Oh know it's okay. I see.

Uh, eugenics is okay? How do you see that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The party that rabidly promotes the killing of babies, especially poor babies of color a la Margaret "eugenics" Sanger, wants a baby to die and not even allow the parents to use the money they raised to try and save him.

Don't ever say republicans don't care about babies once they are born. True colors shining through, ghouls.

Republicans don't care about babies once they are born.

+1

Republicans don't care about babies once they are born.

Oh know it's okay. I see.

Whoever provided the selective quotes can stop doing that, please.

Did she support eugenics at a time when a whole lot of people supported eugenics? Yes. Did she have racist attitudes at a time when lots of people had racist attitudes? Yes. Was eliminating black babies her purpose for supporting birth control? No.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/37/fd/37fdc7b6-de5f-4d22-8c05-9568268e92d8/sanger_opposition_claims_fact_sheet_2016.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The party that rabidly promotes the killing of babies, especially poor babies of color a la Margaret "eugenics" Sanger, wants a baby to die and not even allow the parents to use the money they raised to try and save him.

Don't ever say republicans don't care about babies once they are born. True colors shining through, ghouls.

That is a lie.

https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=238946.xml

Margaret Sanger, "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda," Oct 1921.

Published Article. Source: Birth Control Review, Oct. 1921, p. 5 , Margaret Sanger Microfilm S70:913 .

For a draft version of this article, see Library of Congress Microfilm 129:164. For related documents, see "Limitations of Eugenics," Sept. 1921 and Chapter VIII of "The Pivot of Civilization," 1922. An editorial introduction mentions the timeliness of this article in light of the recently held Second International Congress on Eugenics. Sanger submitted this paper to the Congress, but was rejected.

The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda

By Margaret Sanger

Seemingly every new approach to the great problem of the human race must manifest its vitality by running the gauntlet of prejudice, ridicule and misinterpretation. Eugenists may remember that not many years ago this program for race regeneration was subjected to the cruel ridicule of stupidity and ignorance. Today Eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems. The most intransigent and daring teachers and scientists have lent their support to this great biological interpretation of the human race. The war has emphasized its necessity.

The doctrine of Birth Control is now passing through the stage of ridicule, prejudice and misunderstanding. A few years ago this new weapon of civilization and freedom was condemned as immoral, destructive, obscene. Gradually the criticisms are lessening-–understanding is taking the place of misunderstanding. The eugenic and civilizational value of Birth Control is becoming apparent to the enlightened and the intelligent.

In the limited space of the present paper, I have time only to touch upon some of the fundamental convictions that form the basis of our Birth Control propaganda, and which, as I think you must agree, indicate that the campaign for Birth Control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical in ideal, with the final aims of Eugenics.

First: we are convinced that racial regeneration like individual regeneration, must come "from within." That is, it must be autonomous, self-directive, and not imposed from without. In other words, every potential parent, and especially every potential mother, must be brought to an acute realization of the primary and central importance of bringing children into this world.

Secondly: Not until the parents of the world are thus given control over their reproductive faculties will it ever be possible not alone to improve the quality of the generations of the future, but even to maintain civilization even at its present level. Only by self-control of this type, only by intelligent mastery of the procreative powers can the great mass of humanity be awakened to the great responsibility of parenthood.

I think you just proved the point. It is 2017 now, approximately one century after this paper was written.

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people
On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:
"This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage (Bretano's, New York, 1927)

On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:
In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

On adultery:
A woman's physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow, Sanger believed. Birth Control in America, p. 11

On marital sex:
"The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order," Sanger said. (p. 23) [Quite the opposite of God's view on the matter: "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4)

On abortion:
"Criminal' abortions arise from a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On the YMCA and YWCA:
"...brothels of the Spirit and morgues of Freedom!"), The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On the Catholic Church's view of contraception:
"...enforce SUBJUGATION by TURNING WOMAN INTO A MERE INCUBATOR." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On motherhood:
"I cannot refrain from saying that women must come to recognize there is some function of womanhood other than being a child-bearing machine." What Every Girl Should Know, by Margaret Sanger (Max Maisel, Publisher, 1915) [Jesus said: "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep... for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed (happy) are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts which never gave suck." (Luke 23:24)]



"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The party that rabidly promotes the killing of babies, especially poor babies of color a la Margaret "eugenics" Sanger, wants a baby to die and not even allow the parents to use the money they raised to try and save him.

Don't ever say republicans don't care about babies once they are born. True colors shining through, ghouls.

That is a lie.

https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=238946.xml

Margaret Sanger, "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda," Oct 1921.

Published Article. Source: Birth Control Review, Oct. 1921, p. 5 , Margaret Sanger Microfilm S70:913 .

For a draft version of this article, see Library of Congress Microfilm 129:164. For related documents, see "Limitations of Eugenics," Sept. 1921 and Chapter VIII of "The Pivot of Civilization," 1922. An editorial introduction mentions the timeliness of this article in light of the recently held Second International Congress on Eugenics. Sanger submitted this paper to the Congress, but was rejected.

The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda

By Margaret Sanger

Seemingly every new approach to the great problem of the human race must manifest its vitality by running the gauntlet of prejudice, ridicule and misinterpretation. Eugenists may remember that not many years ago this program for race regeneration was subjected to the cruel ridicule of stupidity and ignorance. Today Eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems. The most intransigent and daring teachers and scientists have lent their support to this great biological interpretation of the human race. The war has emphasized its necessity.

The doctrine of Birth Control is now passing through the stage of ridicule, prejudice and misunderstanding. A few years ago this new weapon of civilization and freedom was condemned as immoral, destructive, obscene. Gradually the criticisms are lessening-–understanding is taking the place of misunderstanding. The eugenic and civilizational value of Birth Control is becoming apparent to the enlightened and the intelligent.

In the limited space of the present paper, I have time only to touch upon some of the fundamental convictions that form the basis of our Birth Control propaganda, and which, as I think you must agree, indicate that the campaign for Birth Control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical in ideal, with the final aims of Eugenics.

First: we are convinced that racial regeneration like individual regeneration, must come "from within." That is, it must be autonomous, self-directive, and not imposed from without. In other words, every potential parent, and especially every potential mother, must be brought to an acute realization of the primary and central importance of bringing children into this world.

Secondly: Not until the parents of the world are thus given control over their reproductive faculties will it ever be possible not alone to improve the quality of the generations of the future, but even to maintain civilization even at its present level. Only by self-control of this type, only by intelligent mastery of the procreative powers can the great mass of humanity be awakened to the great responsibility of parenthood.

And the title of this thread should be:

Multiple judges refuse to allow American doctor to charge parents an enormous amount of money to experiment on their terminally ill British citizen baby.

Anonymous wrote:The party that rabidly promotes the killing of babies, especially poor babies of color a la Margaret "eugenics" Sanger, wants a baby to die and not even allow the parents to use the money they raised to try and save him.

Don't ever say republicans don't care about babies once they are born. True colors shining through, ghouls.

Again, why all the attention on the baby that can't be saved and has a horrible quality of life, when there are others that can be saved if given access to care? Still waiting . . .

You have to admit it's pretty lazy not to have done some basic prebirth research before you select your parents.

If we don't permit the natural consequences of such behavior to unfold, we'll just have more and more babies being careless about their birth circumstances.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where's all the Libs that scream they Rs don't care about children after they are born?

Oh, right here telling this kids parents to let him die.

Rs don't care about paying for babies once they're born. Listen to the arguments being made here on this thread. "They came up with the money if they have the money to pay for this." as long as it's privately paid for, Rs have no problem with children being kept on life support as long as the money holds out.

But funding decent food, dental care, housing, utilities, and education for kids of little means an no crowdfunding is not a priority for most Republicans.

When they say "personal responsibility", what they mean is, "Too bad, kids, you should have chosen to be born to parents with more money."

Anonymous wrote:The party that rabidly promotes the killing of babies, especially poor babies of color a la Margaret "eugenics" Sanger, wants a baby to die and not even allow the parents to use the money they raised to try and save him.

Don't ever say republicans don't care about babies once they are born. True colors shining through, ghouls.

IT WON'T SAVE HIM.

It is an experimental procedure, not intended to cure.

Anonymous wrote:Where's all the Libs that scream they Rs don't care about children after they are born?

Oh, right here telling this kids parents to let him die.

Rs don't care about paying for babies once they're born. Listen to the arguments being made here on this thread. "They came up with the money if they have the money to pay for this." as long as it's privately paid for, Rs have no problem with children being kept on life support as long as the money holds out.

But funding decent food, dental care, housing, utilities, and education for kids of little means an no crowdfunding is not a priority for most Republicans.