forced sterilization, who supported it?

apple0154 said:
Well, the best place to start is to ask the woman.
Click to expand...

Without getting into the abortion debate, I think this is a key difference between abortion and what was done to these people.

The women sterilized had this done to them without their permission or even their knowledge.
 
DamnYankee said:
They were deemed by some bureaucrat to be unfit to be parents, just like you deem some babies to unfit for life. You have no problem with abortion at 9 months, so why insinuate something else?
Click to expand...

Dixie, Dixie, Dixie. It's not a point of a baby being unfit. Abortion prevents a miserable life. Sterilization of a human being is a punishment. Refusing to bring a child into the world knowing it will unduly suffer is not punishing a child.

As for abortions at 9 months such occurrances rarely happen. Let's say a woman has a problem pregnancy and the doctors told her this will be the last baby she will be able to have. The fetus is taking a serious toll on the woman's body but because this will be her last pregnancy she wants to continue with it. At 8 months she falls seriously ill. In that case it's either abort or she will suffer permanent damage. She has to maintain the right to abort.
 
bravo said:
Try starting at the FIRST POST to find out what the thread is about, fool....
Click to expand...

Another comprehension challenged, pathetic poster. What do Sanger's beliefs have to do with a woman choosing abortion? That was the point of my question. An 18 year old doesn't give a damn what Sanger thought or believed. The average gal going for an abortion doesn't give a damn what Sanger thought or believed.

Do try to comprehend. Whether notable pro-choice individuals believed in a master race or forced sterilization or UFOs, it doesn't matter.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
that you like to waffle on the issue
Click to expand...

No waffling here. There needs to be a cut-off point. That doesn't mean everyone is going to wait until that point. A woman is going to suffer much more having an abortion at, say, 8 months rather than at 3 months. However, as long as her body is involved she should have the final decision.
 
apple0154 said:
Dixie, Dixie, Dixie. It's not a point of a baby being unfit. Abortion prevents a miserable life. Sterilization of a human being is a punishment. Refusing to bring a child into the world knowing it will unduly suffer is not punishing a child.

As for abortions at 9 months such occurrances rarely happen. Let's say a woman has a problem pregnancy and the doctors told her this will be the last baby she will be able to have. The fetus is taking a serious toll on the woman's body but because this will be her last pregnancy she wants to continue with it. At 8 months she falls seriously ill. In that case it's either abort or she will suffer permanent damage. She has to maintain the right to abort.
Click to expand...
You failed to answer the question, so I'll repeat it:
They were deemed by some bureaucrat to be unfit to be parents, just like you deem some babies to unfit for life. You have no problem with abortion at 9 months, so why insinuate something else?
 
apple0154 said:
Another comprehension challenged, pathetic poster. What do Sanger's beliefs have to do with a woman choosing abortion? That was the point of my question. An 18 year old doesn't give a damn what Sanger thought or believed. The average gal going for an abortion doesn't give a damn what Sanger thought or believed.

Do try to comprehend. Whether notable pro-choice individuals believed in a master race or forced sterilization or UFOs, it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...


Lets try again.....

Desh op
forced sterilization, who supported it?
Click to expand...

Answer.....Sanger, for one.

Sanger not only supported choosing abortion.....she supported forcing de facto abortion by forced sterilization.....
 
The difference between forced sterilization and abortion in this country is that FORCED Sterilization was against the will of the sterilized. Abortions are chosen by the woman that does it. The fetus has no rights. The most conservative, right wing religious state in this nation REJECTED rights for a zygote or fetus. China, who so many conservatives pushed for most favored nation status, forces abortion. I am as opposed to a country that forces women to abort as I am a nation that would force it's women to remain pregnant against their consent.
 
Socrtease said:
The difference between forced sterilization and abortion in this country is that FORCED Sterilization was against the will of the sterilized. Abortions are chosen by the woman that does it. The fetus has no rights. The most conservative, right wing religious state in this nation REJECTED rights for a zygote or fetus. China, who so many conservatives pushed for most favored nation status, forces abortion. I am as opposed to a country that forces women to abort as I am a nation that would force it's women to remain pregnant against their consent.
Click to expand...

China is conservative? :D
 
DamnYankee said:
You failed to answer the question, so I'll repeat it:
They were deemed by some bureaucrat to be unfit to be parents, just like you deem some babies to unfit for life. You have no problem with abortion at 9 months, so why insinuate something else?
Click to expand...

Here we go, again, with comprehnsion. You wrote, "They were deemed by some bureaucrat...." My point is no bureaucrat should be telling any women anything as far as abortion is concerned. Now do you understand? It is the woman's body. She and only she decides what to do with her body.
 
bravo said:
Lets try again.....

Desh op


Answer.....Sanger, for one.

Sanger not only supported choosing abortion.....she supported forcing de facto abortion by forced sterilization.....
Click to expand...

So Sanger believed in abortion and forced sterilization. Are you saying one has to believe in both? Are you saying one equals the other? Or are you just making a statement?
 
apple0154 said:
So Sanger believed in abortion and forced sterilization. Are you saying one has to believe in both? Are you saying one equals the other? Or are you just making a statement?
Click to expand...

I'm addressing the opening post, you meathead....

And most telling, how Hillary Clinton so admired Sanger the Insane.....it tells me something about liberal/progressives that is more than just disturbing......
 
apple0154 said:
Here we go, again, with comprehnsion. You wrote, "They were deemed by some bureaucrat...." My point is no bureaucrat should be telling any women anything as far as abortion is concerned. Now do you understand? It is the woman's body. She and only she decides what to do with her body.
Click to expand...

Do you know how many people are prevented, by force, from committing suicide ?....Thats against your civil rights, isn't it...?
Are you writing to your congressmen and Obama to stop this unconstitutional practice ?
 
apple0154 said:
Here we go, again, with comprehnsion. You wrote, "They were deemed by some bureaucrat...." My point is no bureaucrat should be telling any women anything as far as abortion is concerned. Now do you understand? It is the woman's body. She and only she decides what to do with her body.
Click to expand...

If such is the case then you should be against several other laws:

1. Helmet laws.
2. laws against smoking in bars.
3. Laws requiring an age limit on smoking (those kids can decide what to do with their bodies when it comes to killing their spawn, they should be able to decide to smoke).
4. Laws requiring an age limit on drinking. (pretty much any age limit law should be thrown out if it has to do with their body, all people, including the mentally and emotionally unprepared can decide all things pertaining to their body, even if it involves a second party.)
5. All laws against selling organs.
6. Euthanasia laws.
7. Speeding laws.
8. Seatbelt laws.
...

What are your views on each of these? If you are for any of them, you are a hypocrite.
 
Many consider eugenics to be man performing a god-like role. "It's god's way too" they tell themselves, as they focus their death ray policies and poisons onto the rest of mankind.
 
bravo said:
I'm addressing the opening post, you meathead....

And most telling, how Hillary Clinton so admired Sanger the Insane.....it tells me something about liberal/progressives that is more than just disturbing......
Click to expand...

Sanger was a champion for women's rights. She had a dark side, but she still fought for women's rights. It is probably the reason Hillary admired her, and not for abortion or sterilization. It is the same for Carnegie and Ford, they are most remembered for their good and not the evil eugenics they promoted. Still, it would be a good thing for people to remember what they tried, but failed to do.
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
Do you know how many people are prevented, by force, from committing suicide ?....Thats against your civil rights, isn't it...?
Are you writing to your congressmen and Obama to stop this unconstitutional practice ?
Click to expand...

Now, you are going to not like this, but I feel if people wish to take their lives it should be their option. I think it is foolish to make it a crime. I also believe, now more than ever, in assisted suicide. I would like people to get help for their suicidal thoughts, but in the end, if they wish to take their own lives, they should be allowed to do so. I also do not think it is sin to take ones life.
 
Last edited:
Rana said:
Sanger was a champion for women's ight. She had a dark side, but she still fought for women's rights. It is probably the reason Hillary admired her, and not for abortion or sterilization. It is the same or Carnegie and Ford, they are most remembered for their good and not the evil eugenics they promoted. Still, it would be a good thing for people to remember hat they tried, but failed to do.
Click to expand...

Im not really sure if they failed. ANyone who doesn't conform to the globalist globalizationism is considered a populist enemy of proper thought who should be starved or bombed out of existence.
 
Damocles said:
If such is the case then you should be against several other laws:

1. Helmet laws.
2. laws against smoking in bars.
3. Laws requiring an age limit on smoking (those kids can decide what to do with their bodies when it comes to killing their spawn, they should be able to decide to smoke).
4. Laws requiring an age limit on drinking. (pretty much any age limit law should be thrown out if it has to do with their body, all people, including the mentally and emotionally unprepared can decide all things pertaining to their body, even if it involves a second party.)
5. All laws against selling organs.
6. Euthanasia laws.
7. Speeding laws.
8. Seatbelt laws.
...

What are your views on each of these? If you are for any of them, you are a hypocrite.
Click to expand...


Now, now, Damo, you know there needs to be laws to protect children. There also needs to be laws to protect people from other people. The seat belt law I agree with, it is your decision whether to buckle, the child car seat law, is a good one. It protects children.

If you wish to sell your own organs, fine, it is just hen you go after other people's, that you have to draw the line.

Speeding laws affect other people, the should be enforced.

When our reckless actions affect others, unfortunately, there have to be law to protect us from others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top