 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Sky
Booted
Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 354
|
 Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 12:00 pm Post subject: History of Abortion & How It Effects Us Today |
 |
|
"The History of Abortion & How It Effects Us Today"
or,
"Hitler's Master Race Agenda Alive and Well in 21st Century America"
It might be interesting to discuss the history of abortion and how it effects us today so, to start things off, following is a brief background of Planned Parenthood and it's founder, Margaret Sanger, who, also, was not only a collaborator with the Nazi eugenicists but also was highly regarded and admired by Adolph Hitler.
The following (A Plan for Peace, Margaret Sanger) was published in Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108):
| Quote: |
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.
__________
*Summary of address before the New History Society, January 17th, New York City |
Do you recognize any of the above as having occurred or happening in the US today?
In coining the term "choice", Sanger's intent was that certain individuals were to choose (for others) what portions of the population would be gradually done away with and which portions would servive. What has come to be regarded as pro-choice is, in reality, a subterfuge in order to enlist the feminist movement to their cause. As an aside, Sanger was one of 'modern day' history's earliest and loudest feminist advocates.
Sanger's desire was to do away with the sick, inform, mentally ill, prisoners/convicts, Irish immigrants, blacks, etc. It was her early desire (pre and post WWI) to set up abortion cinics in all black neighborhoods, ghettoes, etc.
A very good read on the subject is Sanger's book, "The Pivot of Civilization" which can be purchased and downloaded at Amazon for about $2.00.
Comments, thoughts anyone? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1384
|
| Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
interesting....my opinion is that government has NO business regarding abortion...it's a medical decision...the government has no business telling me whether to choose surgery for a condition or chemotherapy or any of that...that's a decision between me, my family, and my doctor....
Where it gets tricky is when a portion of the population expects the Government to provide their medical care....then government takes on a parental role...that's where it gets problematic. Government is supposed to represent the wants of the majority while protecting the minority...that's tricky...
Last thought...at no time is America has it had a selective/directive policy towards who could (and who could not) have abortions...it's always been an individual choice. Generalities are bad, but that keeps it a short post.
Along this line of thought though, what is your solution for unwanted children? In other words, who raises the children that would otherwise be aborted? See, if our orphanages were empty of children, and folks that can't have kids were still looking for adoptees, I'd be much more supportive of a prohibition...as it stands, I think the pro-lifers need to can it until they have a solution for all the unwanted kids alive today...
Last thought, if God knows all the days of a person's life, doesn't he already know who is/isn't going to be aborted? If so, then I guess he doesn't really mind...just a thought to Ponder 
_________________
Link to intro post of "who I am"
"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: |
Along this line of thought though, what is your solution for unwanted children? In other words, who raises the children that would otherwise be aborted? See, if our orphanages were empty of children, and folks that can't have kids were still looking for adoptees, I'd be much more supportive of a prohibition...as it stands, I think the pro-lifers need to can it until they have a solution for all the unwanted kids alive today...
|
Pondering, I agree that government has no place in deciding one way or another regarding the killing of the unborn. It is a personal choice and there is already a Judge for that.
The solution is the same as before there was a Roe v Wade. It's not up to the pro-lifers to solve this problem. As long as there are "unwanted' children (unwanted being the operative word) orphanages and intake homes, etc. will be full. Our national conscience needs to be tweaked. It's been my experience that the vast majority of the abortions are not done to save the mother's life.
I know, personally, 14 women who have had abortions and their reasons were that they just weren't ready for a child. One gal, a former employee, had three abortions because of her lifestyle. My wife and I even offered to adopt the kids. We made offers to several of the others, too but for whatever reasons, they didn't take us up on it.
The issue (in my experience and opinion) isn't that the pro lifers need to provide a solution to stop the killing (some 40 million+ since Roe v. Wade) in America. Nations with a conscience need to stand up to this practice and deal with whatever the outcome. Killing innocents is never an acceptable alternative, and I don't care how the pro-abortion types care to phrase it. And I’m not buying into the “life of the mother” excuse because that’s not why so many babies are killed. And, as you stated, that’s a medical decision between self and doctor. If that were the only cause of abortions I’d be a lot more sympathetic – but that’s personal to me.
Since 1990 the number of abortions has been declining. Statistically, that’s a good thing – moralistically, it simply means that the murder rate has slowed. I’d like to believe that some of these mothers are gaining some sort of conscience.
I’m sure this information is not new to those who have already debated it, but it’s worth repeating and repeating.
I would have loved to provide a dissertation on the rest of your post, but that would have taken up several screen pages, and this one is long enough.
_________________
You may not believe in God, but He believes in you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6087
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is just like all the "Darwin was a racist, so evolution is invalid!" arguments. Maybe it has an actual foundation, maybe it doesn't. So what?
What do the beliefs of "originators" have to do with choices we make today? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fake
Tiger
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 862
|
| Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
To compare the ideas of the PP founder with the abortion debate is about as beneficial, and as much a "Godwin" as comparing GWB with his relatives that made a lot of business with Nazi Germany, and finacially backing Hitler's rise to power...
It's about as sound as televangelists robbing poor faithful of off their money, when Jesus taught communal living.
Remember, it's easier for a camel to get through the needle's eye than for a rich man to enter heaven...
_________________
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
“If there is a God, atheism must seem to Him as less of an insult than religion.” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What comments are you guys referencing that would make insane the idea that the founders can't be held accountable for the "now".
_________________
You may not believe in God, but He believes in you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fake wrote: |
Remember, it's easier for a camel to get through the needle's eye than for a rich man to enter heaven... |
What does this quote actually mean. In bibilcal context?
_________________
You may not believe in God, but He believes in you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lone-traveler
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 6360
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
funny I was thinking about this yesterday...
I was thinking about the camel and it's role as a beast of burden, one who follows the one leading it.
And a rich man being the one that burdens the beast with the load.
So then, easier to be the one bearing the burden walking through the slim eye of a needle...narrow way, then being the one who burdens the beast with the things he can't leave behind, or rather won't.
The camel isn't concerned about the load that it carries it's concern lies in who it follows.
The rich man's concern is all about the load and is not watching where he's going.
just thinkin...
I think it's really cool when various people are thinking about similar things. must be mind control...lol..scary..lol
peace
lone
LOL
_________________
Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Joh 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Amen, LT.
_________________
You may not believe in God, but He believes in you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nobby
Board - Admin
Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 5147
Location: Missouri
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Matthew 19:16-24 (King James Version)
16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
23Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Very sad. 
_________________
Much Love Nobby
CVP Smilies
dictionary Bible |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nobby
Board - Admin
Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 5147
Location: Missouri
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know we got of on this topic? It has nothing to do with abortion or the opening topic! 
_________________
Much Love Nobby
CVP Smilies
dictionary Bible |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sky
Booted
Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 354
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fake wrote: | To compare the ideas of the PP founder with the abortion debate is about as beneficial, and as much a "Godwin" as comparing GWB with his relatives that made a lot of business with Nazi Germany, and finacially backing Hitler's rise to power...
|
to deny that Sanger's Planned Parenthood plan of eradicating all but the finest examples of (wasp) humankind is tantamount to saying the Bible and Jesus of 2000+ years ago have no effect on today or that history has no effect on tomorrow.
those that fail to learn from history are doomed to relive it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fake
Tiger
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 862
|
| Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
To compare Ms. Sangers ideas of PP back in the day, with todays PP, is about as meaningless as saying GWB is a bad president just because his relatives did business with Nazi Germany.
I can still think Bush is a bad president, I just don't see the merit in bringing up something he didn't do himself.
Same goes with PP.
Those who run PP today have no similarity with the ideas promoted by Ms. Sanger.
Sangers Eugenics ideas came in the 1920's and 30's, when we understood much less than today.
To blame PP of today for that, is like blaming Coca Cola for cocain use today, because they used coca in the cola, early in history of the Coca-Cola company history.
Fake
_________________
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
“If there is a God, atheism must seem to Him as less of an insult than religion.” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sky
Booted
Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 354
|
| Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fake wrote: | | To compare Ms. Sangers ideas of PP back in the day, with todays PP, |
Why do you think it is called a 'plan'? It is the same plan Sanger had back in the '30's (and before) as it is now and always has been; it is a plan that has been followed since its inception. It is a plan (in Sanger's PP terminology) to control the breeding of mankind; to control the breeding of those deemed to be unfit for human reproduction, it is Sanger's version of Hitler's Master Race policy, it is a eugenics plan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fake
Tiger
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 862
|
| Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pretty silly...
Ms. Sanger didn't start PP, and she left the organisation, that would become PP decades later, back in 1928.
Why she left? Her views were too radical, and didn't conform to the ideas of what the forerunner of PP thought to be good.
If people did some research at times.
Planned Parenthood began as the National Birth Control League, which was founded in 1916 under the leadership of Mary Ware Dennett.
Ms. Sanger was the leader of the organisation for a couple of years in the 1920's.
Groups and individuals opposed to Planned Parenthood and/or legalized abortion have frequently targeted Ms. Sanger for her views, attributing her efforts to promote birth control to a desire to "purify" the human race through eugenics, and even to eliminate minority races by placing birth control clinics in minority neighborhoods. For this reason, Ms. Sanger is often quoted selectively or out of context by detractors (a practice known as quote mining)
Fake
_________________
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
“If there is a God, atheism must seem to Him as less of an insult than religion.” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
