|
|
Post by mrstain on Jun 18, 2009 19:48:33 GMT -5
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was the great proponent of eugenics in the English speaking world and Hitler was her German counterpart in the 20th century. Together, both Sanger & Hitler desired elimination of the “racial menace” and the “unfit”. Most unbiased observers recall Sanger stressing the importance that “procreation of this group should be stopped”. Unfortunately, the comparison & direct connections don’t just end there.
We should also recall that Lothrop Stoddard, one of Sanger’s close colleagues which she appointed as a board member of her Birth Control League, described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as “scientific” and “humanitarian”. Sick and twisted for sure. Adolph Hitler also personally met with Stoddard and he was so impressed with him that his writings were placed in Nazi school textbooks.
Margaret Sanger also created a publication, the Birth Control Review, “Dedicated to the Principle of Intelligent and Voluntary Motherhood”. One of her contributors to the publication, Ernst Rudin, had direct ties to the Third Reich. Rudin was the director of the foremost German eugenics research in Munich and was also a member of the committee that recommended the law on forced sterilization in 1933. Rudin was a real gem. In an address to the German Society for Race-Hygiene he said, “We can hardly express our efforts more plainly or appropriately than in the words of the Fuhrer: ‘Whoever is not physically or mentally fit must not pass on his defects to his children. The state must take care that only the fit produce children.’” He also echoed this same message again in Sanger’s publication with her approval when he stated, “The danger to the community of the unsegregated feeble-minded woman is more evident. [They] should be prevented from procreation. In my view we should act without delay.”
Then there is Dr. Harry Laughlin – another board member of Sanger’s Birth Control League. He spoke of purifying America’s “breeding stock” and purging America’s “bad strains”. He stated in Sanger’s publication that it would be “the duty of organized society to prevent their reproduction” and he approved of using “institutional segregation” [just like concentration camps] to go about these efforts if need be. He stated that “Segregation and eugenical sterilization are sound and legal instruments for preventing reproduction by the most defective strains.”
History speaks loud and clear on this topic. Her own articles convict her. There is one called, “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics”. Then there was “The Eugenic Conscience” and “Birth Control and Positive Eugenics”. It is very clear where she stood on the topic and it was right alongside Hitler in their frontal assault against the innocent.
Unfortunately, this thought pattern continues today in the Democratic Party. Their own party platform states, "The Democratic Party STRONGLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. " It is undeniable that the Democratic party in American continues to support the destructive goals of Margarent Sanger's baby -- Planned Parenthood. We see it in their actions & votes and so does Planned Parenthood which just a few months ago awarded the current Secretary of State and former First Lady, Hillary Clinton, the highest award given by the Planned Parenthood -- the Margaret Sanger Award.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jun 19, 2009 0:14:58 GMT -5
I agree with what you are saying, BUT please don't make it a Democratic vs Republican issue.
Remember the alternative to Obama? He was not pro-life either. He supported tax funded embryonic stem cell research.
It's not just Democrats that believe in selective destruction of human life.
If anyone thinks that embryos "don't count" then they have no idea what being "pro-life" means in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Jun 19, 2009 21:31:57 GMT -5
One think about this embryonic stem cell thing. Embryonic stem cell reasearch has been legal in this country for years. It's just government money wasn't allowed to be used for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Jun 19, 2009 22:06:19 GMT -5
Well, since we dont need embryonic cells anymore to do the job, it needs to be done away with. We can now do the same with skin cells off our body.
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Jun 19, 2009 22:29:47 GMT -5
Really? I didn't know that.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jun 19, 2009 23:31:39 GMT -5
One think about this embryonic stem cell thing. Embryonic stem cell reasearch has been legal in this country for years. It's just government money wasn't allowed to be used for it. I know. But the Republican "pro life" candidate, McCain wanted to change all that by allowing tax money to be used. That is NOT pro-life. At all. |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jun 19, 2009 23:34:05 GMT -5
Marcie, they use cells from umbilical cord blood for non-embryonic stem cell research. Yeah, they have been able to do a lot of great things (like grow new skin) without killing other human beings.
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Jun 20, 2009 9:41:38 GMT -5
Well, im all for stem cell research, just not making babies to kill them....
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Jun 20, 2009 9:45:33 GMT -5
Marcie, I agree. Curing diseases is not so important that we have to kill thousands of babies.
|
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Jun 20, 2009 11:23:10 GMT -5
One think about this embryonic stem cell thing. Embryonic stem cell reasearch has been legal in this country for years. It's just government money wasn't allowed to be used for it. I know. But the Republican "pro life" candidate, McCain wanted to change all that by allowing tax money to be used. That is NOT pro-life. At all. The difference between Obama and McCain is Obama is in league with the abortion industry. At least this is what Right to Life claims. The abortion people are loosing money and the sale of embryos to medical research facilities will help them make more profits. |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jun 20, 2009 22:43:43 GMT -5
But Alfie, there is no difference between killing an embryo or a fetus. They are human beings. McCain wanted to pay people to do it.
I don't understand what the difference is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 22, 2009 8:45:07 GMT -5
One think about this embryonic stem cell thing. Embryonic stem cell reasearch has been legal in this country for years. It's just government money wasn't allowed to be used for it. But now, thanks to a "Protestant" President...  Don't get me wrong, there are Catholic Politicians who believe in this too, but they are against the teachings of The Church and thus, are Catholic in name only. The same cannot be said for Protestant politicians who support this because Protestant churches support this. Not me, not us. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 22, 2009 9:09:07 GMT -5
Well, since we dont need embryonic cells anymore to do the job, it needs to be done away with. We can now do the same with skin cells off our body. Yep, today they announced that women's fallopian tubes that are removed have tons of stem cells that are no only usable, but incorruptable and seem to be better than fetal stem cells! Amen! |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 22, 2009 9:19:44 GMT -5
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was the great proponent of eugenics in the English speaking world and Hitler was her German counterpart in the 20th century. Together, both Sanger & Hitler desired elimination of the “ racial menace” and the “ unfit”. Most unbiased observers recall Sanger stressing the importance that “ procreation of this group should be stopped”. Unfortunately, the comparison & direct connections don’t just end there. We should also recall that Lothrop Stoddard, one of Sanger’s close colleagues which she appointed as a board member of her Birth Control League, described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as “ scientific” and “ humanitarian”. Sick and twisted for sure. Adolph Hitler also personally met with Stoddard and he was so impressed with him that his writings were placed in Nazi school textbooks. Margaret Sanger also created a publication, the Birth Control Review, “ Dedicated to the Principle of Intelligent and Voluntary Motherhood”. One of her contributors to the publication, Ernst Rudin, had direct ties to the Third Reich. Rudin was the director of the foremost German eugenics research in Munich and was also a member of the committee that recommended the law on forced sterilization in 1933. Rudin was a real gem. In an address to the German Society for Race-Hygiene he said, “ We can hardly express our efforts more plainly or appropriately than in the words of the Fuhrer: ‘Whoever is not physically or mentally fit must not pass on his defects to his children. The state must take care that only the fit produce children.’” He also echoed this same message again in Sanger’s publication with her approval when he stated, “ The danger to the community of the unsegregated feeble-minded woman is more evident. [They] should be prevented from procreation. In my view we should act without delay.” Then there is Dr. Harry Laughlin – another board member of Sanger’s Birth Control League. He spoke of purifying America’s “ breeding stock” and purging America’s “ bad strains”. He stated in Sanger’s publication that it would be “ the duty of organized society to prevent their reproduction” and he approved of using “ institutional segregation” [just like concentration camps] to go about these efforts if need be. He stated that “ Segregation and eugenical sterilization are sound and legal instruments for preventing reproduction by the most defective strains.” History speaks loud and clear on this topic. Her own articles convict her. There is one called, “ Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics”. Then there was “ The Eugenic Conscience” and “ Birth Control and Positive Eugenics”. It is very clear where she stood on the topic and it was right alongside Hitler in their frontal assault against the innocent. Unfortunately, this thought pattern continues today in the Democratic Party. Their own party platform states, " The Democratic Party STRONGLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. " It is undeniable that the Democratic party in American continues to support the destructive goals of Margarent Sanger's baby -- Planned Parenthood. We see it in their actions & votes and so does Planned Parenthood which just a few months ago awarded the current Secretary of State and former First Lady, Hillary Clinton, the highest award given by the Planned Parenthood -- the Margaret Sanger Award. Hmmm...what political party did Sanger belong to? The Republican Party. She was a known racist and was completely out of favor with The Catholic Church. Not only that, it was The Republican Party that LEGALIZED abortion and protected women's rights to have them in the early 70's! Why? Because back then, minority women were having them more than white women. But when white women became the major abortion cases, then all of a sudden, it became wrong in the 97% White Republican Party. Just the facts. Coincidence? Or fear of non-minority population changing the power structure of America by sheer numbers (like we did with the 2008 election)? Let the "facts" state the case. For 6 years, Republicans held The White House, The Senate, The Congress and The Supreme Court. What did they do to stop abortion? NOTHING! Times up! They had their chance and did NOTHING when they were all powerful and had all the votes they needed! And that's present history (not ancient history)! But look at this! Under a Democratic White House/Senate/Congress (and with a new Judge to be named to The Supreme Court who is another devout Catholic and who is Pro-Life!), 51% of the country sees itself as Pro-Life now!  And as everybody knows, when the economy goes up, abortions go down! And who are the kings of producing strong economies? The Democrats! |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 22, 2009 9:21:59 GMT -5
I know. But the Republican "pro life" candidate, McCain wanted to change all that by allowing tax money to be used. That is NOT pro-life. At all. The difference between Obama and McCain is Obama is in league with the abortion industry. At least this is what Right to Life claims. The abortion people are loosing money and the sale of embryos to medical research facilities will help them make more profits. But none of that matters...abortion could be illegal and women would still have them. It's these women and their doctors and nurses that kill babies! Not laws! Laws protect them from prosecution, but if they never killed the baby in the first place, they wouldn't need the protection! Abortions have always been around (even before abortion clinics). The women who kill their children are the ones who kill their children. Not the politicians who protect them. Their guilty by default. But the women are the real baby killers. |
|
|
|
Post by mrstain on Jun 22, 2009 19:10:46 GMT -5
Yep, today they announced that women's fallopian tubes that are removed have tons of stem cells that are no only usable, but incorruptable and seem to be better than fetal stem cells! Amen! Awesome News! I just wish these kind of discoveries would get more attention. |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jun 22, 2009 19:49:14 GMT -5
What would happen if Christians focused more on changing hearts than changing laws?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrstain on Jun 22, 2009 20:39:15 GMT -5
Hmmm...what political party did Sanger belong to? The Republican Party. Wrong answer! She was on the same side of the political spectrum as yourself -- the left. Here's the truth from some bio's on Margaret Sanger: " Margaret Sanger's experiences with slum mothers who begged for information about how to avoid more pregnancies transformed her into a social radical. She joined the Socialist party, began attending radical rallies, and read everything she could about birth control practices."" In 1910 the Sangers moved back to Manhattan, and Margaret began working as a visiting nurse on the Lower East Side. She became active in radical politics, joining the Socialist party and working with the Industrial Workers of the World in supporting several militant strikes. From this network she absorbed feminist ideas and came to agree with Emma Goldman that women had a right to control their sexual and reproductive lives." " In 1912 she began to write and speak on sexual and health issues under socialist auspices and was encouraged by her enthusiastic reception." " While completing her nursing training, Sanger met William Sanger, an architect, whom she married in 1902. He was a German Jew and a socialist who was active in the radical causes of the day.
By 1912, the Sangers and their three children had moved to Greenwich Village, where the couple became involved in politics and the arts, and entertained some of the most radical intellectuals of the time. Sanger became deeply involved with the Socialist party." " She soon began speaking publicly on the problems of family life, connecting the size of the family with the economic problems of the working class. Her speeches became so popular that she was asked to turn them into a series of articles for the Call, a New York socialist newspaper." Source: www.answers.com/topic/margaret-sangerThat's just a few factual quotes that are pretty easy to find if one is actually interested in the FACTS. Given Secretary of State Clinton's radical leftist past it is no wonder she admired " Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision" as she said when she received the Sanger award a few months back. Shame, shame on you Mrs. Clinton! Now for a short spiritual & refreshing dive into God's word: " You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" Ex 20:16 Yes. That is the truth. As I made clear in my opening post, she had nothing but disdain for what she claimed was the " racial menace". Would you be so kind to provide these so-called facts that it was the " Republican Party that LEGALIZED abortion" As far as I can tell, this is just your opinion and, NO, a few Rockefeller Republicans (RINO's) do not represent the party. Do you even know any Republicans? Some of these generalizations you sling about are not only absurd, but very uncharitable. Time again for some of the Word that refreshes. " If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. " 1 Cor 13:1 The GOP did plenty against the murderous onslought of many in the Democratic party. There were countless numbers of legislative acts (federal & state) throughout the country to preserve the life of the unborn. Google is your friend. Another invaluable resource on legislative actions on the pro-life front is the NRLC. Link: nrlc.www.capwiz.com/nrlc/issues/Now, who do you think signed the Partial Birth Abortion ban into law? Republican, President Bush. Who do you think vetoed it multiple times? Democrat, Bill Clinton. Who do you think kept putting forth the so-called Freedom of Choice Act during that period? Democrats. Who do you think opposed it and continues to? Republicans. Who do you think put restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research? Republicans? Who is now leading the way in allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell destruction? The democrats. Who supported the Mexico City policy and thus did not allow any federal money to go to oversee abortion providers? Republicans. Who overturned the Mexico City policy as soon as Obama got into office? Democrats. Please, please, take an honest look at the REAL facts. That is truly a reason to celebrate, but those great numbers can in no way be attributed to the party that shares the same disdain for the unborn as Margaret Sanger. Those numbers should be rightly attributed to the pro-life efforts of many, many wonderful organizations that support life and most objective observers can agree that they would be on the political right. LOL... I think you meant to say "strong- ARMED economies."  |
|
|
|
Post by mrstain on Jun 22, 2009 20:43:56 GMT -5
What would happen if Christians focused more on changing hearts than changing laws? Who says it has to be an either/or approach? We should pursue the both/and option. We should try to change the hearts of those who do not believe abortion is murder, while simultaneously making progress on the legislative front. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 23, 2009 10:00:45 GMT -5
What would happen if Christians focused more on changing hearts than changing laws? Yep. Laws don't kill babies. Women and Doctors kill babies. |
|
