Ending abortions is crucial in cultivating a society that values the sanctity of life.

@winchesterbros and it's working!

@winchesterbros You're seeing the unborn as a child, a separate entity.

Not everyone agrees, it could just as easily be said the child growing in the mother is a part of the mother and its her choice to do as she pleases with her body without societal input.

It's a personal decision there is no moral absolute when it comes to abortion.

@SumKindaMunster its not part of the mother, its genetically different from the mother, thats why the body's immune system is lowered so it prevents it from attacking the fetus. its biology is made up of the mothers and fathers. so the entity is separate from the mother.

@winchesterbros I would dispute that. Could the fetus survive on its own without being able to grow in the mother? It's not a separate entity, it is part of her body and if it was me, I would expect to be able to decide what I did with my body as well as anything growing inside it.

does this look like a part of the mother?

@Theliberal Speaking of brainwashing, you guys are spewing talking points from right wing sources such as Margaret Sanger being a racist and supportive of eugenics.

@SumKindaMunster and your ideology belongs to the left but its true where it all came from

@SumKindaMunster Well, she was. In her own words:

https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=129037.xml

https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=143449.xml

@winchesterbros Ha ha ha, me a leftist???? No. I knew where your propaganda came from didn't I?

@Sicarium I'm not disputing her words, rather the attacks leveled at her by the right wing due to her beliefs. If she didn't found Planned Parenthood would anyone in the right wing care what this lady believed almost a hundred years ago?

@SumKindaMunster yeah, the right was mostly against it after roe vs wade.

@SumKindaMunster By the same token, does her founding Planned Parenthood negate or excuse her horrendous beliefs? Are we supposed to ignore her beliefs just to protect modern-day abortion?

And it certainly sounded like you were disputing them, you called it a right-wing talking point, and then later called right-wing talking points propaganda.

@SumKindaMunster facts arent propaganda

and im not a righty, an independent.

@Sicarium My point is that you would not care about Margaret Sanger if you weren't beholden to right wing beliefs and talking points. Her personal beliefs are of no concern to me as is her founding of Planned Parenthood.

And yeah that is propaganda. You think the left is the only political group that promotes propaganda?

@winchesterbros Facts are used as propaganda.

@SumKindaMunster so anything factual that you are against becomes propaganda?

@winchesterbros No that's not what I said. I said facts are used as propaganda.

but propaganda is anything that you are against.

@SumKindaMunster [quote]My point is that you would not care about Margaret Sanger if you weren't beholden to right wing beliefs and talking points.[/quote]

That's an assumption, and a false one at that. Abortion aside, I find eugenics entirely abhorrent whether it was Hitler, Sanger, or modern-day Iceland.

[quote]And yeah that is propaganda. You think the left is the only political group that promotes propaganda?[/quote]

Propaganda is a half-truth used to tell a false narrative. That Sanger was a racist and eugenicist is not a half-truth. She was. End of story as far as I'm concerned. As for Planned Parenthood, there's every reason to believe that her personal beliefs directly led to her actions with Planned Parenthood. So yes, in the context of abortion, which is what's being discussed, that's relevant. And unless I missed a comment, you're the one that brought her up as a distraction.

@Sicarium Again, I am not disputing the words or her beliefs. If you want to claim that you care about what she said because she was a racist and supported eugenics go ahead, I speculate you need to pass some sort of purity test to prove your conservative bonafides, but I don't care if I go against the grain on this particular subject.

Propaganda is a lot of things. Propaganda is also highlighting certain words and beliefs of someone who you are attempting to denigrate, even if those words and beliefs have nothing to do with the reasons why you are putting the person down.

I don't agree that her personal beliefs had anything to do with her founding of Planned Parenthood. And neither do you, you can't possibly know what went through her mind, though you clearly claim otherwise.

I brought her up in direct response to this comment:

[quote] in america planned parenthood was created by a woman who believed in eugenics wanted minorities (blacks mostly) to be killed. she spoke at kkk meetings. and here we have a 3 to 1 blacks killing off their young compared to whites[/quote]

I did not bring her up, the original poster did.

@SumKindaMunster [quote]Again, I am not disputing the words or her beliefs.[/quote]

Yeah, you did. And once that didn't work, you switched to disputing why anyone would even care. You moved the goal posts.

[quote]I speculate you need to pass some sort of purity test to prove your conservative bonafides, but I don't care if I go against the grain on this particular subject.[/quote]

Your speculations on my motivations matter about as much to me as your constant assumptions do. Especially given your next sentence. Try to have some self-awareness.

[quote]And neither do you, you can't possibly know what went through her mind, though you clearly claim otherwise.[/quote]

You don't get to tell me what I believe just because you can't rationally debate or argue against what I believe. And, to be clear, I said there are reasons to believe, I did not state it as absolute fact.

I genuinely believed you approached and discussed with people in good faith. I see I was wrong. Oh well.

@Sicarium You're full of crap Sicarium. You're response is bullshit and totally not related to what I said or implied. You're clearly emotional and incapable of responding in good faith on this subject.

I do approach and discuss with people in good faith. I responded completely and thoroughly to your statements and stayed on point and refuted what I felt I could speak to.

You yourself stated

[quote]As for Planned Parenthood, there's every reason to believe that her personal beliefs directly led to her actions with Planned Parenthood.[/quote]

How should someone interpret that response? I think it's pretty clear that is what you believe and as I stated, you can't possibly know what was in this woman's mind when she founded Planned Parenthood. So don't tell me that's not what you meant.

@SumKindaMunster [quote]You're full of crap Sicarium. You're response is bullshit and totally not related to what I said or implied. You're clearly emotional and incapable of responding in good faith on this subject.[/quote]

You're projecting. That's disappointing, but whatever.

[quote]I do approach and discuss with people in good faith. I responded completely and thoroughly to your statements and stayed on point and refuted what I felt I could speak to.[/quote]

Not based on this. If you do, then step back and we'll reset this. I'm happy to.

[quote]How should someone interpret that response?[/quote]

That I have every reason to believe her personal beliefs directly led to her actions. There's no interpretation required. If you were approaching this in good faith, you wouldn't even try to interpret some hidden meaning or pretend that a belief is absolute fact. A person acting in good faith would ask what those reasons are.

[quote]I think it's pretty clear that is what you believe[/quote]

Yes...that's what I believe. Never did I claim that what I believe is absolute fact.

[quote]So don't tell me that's not what you meant.[/quote]

I said exactly what I meant. I meant exactly what I said. Sanger is, by her own words, a eugenicist. I find eugenics abhorrent. I have every reason to believe that her beliefs did influence her actions with Planned Parenthood, including even starting it up. You can keep going in circles all you want, you can even keep distorting what I said all you want. It won't change anything I said. It will, however, disprove the claim that you approach people in good faith.

I don't believe you are sincere, but since you threw down the gauntlet, I will respond as I don't let such provocative challenges lie.

Resetting the argument....

First: The beliefs, words and actions of Margaret Sanger have no relevance in today's age. It's a different time. I believe if you do care about such things, this is a sign that you are beholden to right wing propaganda. For it is propaganda for the reasons stated above.

Second: I did not bring her up, the original poster did.

Third: You cannot know what this woman's intentions were or what was in her head when she founded Planned Parenthood. [i]You have chosen to believe such things[/i], and that is your choice. And I believe you wouldn't even know or care about her beliefs if you were not beholden to right wing propaganda.

Fourth: You hijacked this thread as I was discussing the subject with another poster. You're approach was to attack me for stating that I believed such interpretations of Sanger's actions were due to right wing propaganda. You did not approach me in a sincere manner, rather your comments were snarky, derogatory and provocative.

Fifth: I find it highly hypocritical for someone to hijack another thread, make some vague statements, then when challenged, become arrogant and defensive. You immediately went after me for my statements. These are not the actions of someone acting in good faith. If you were acting in good faith, you would have asked some questions and clarified my beliefs and what my point was, instead you immediately attacked me and attempted to put me down. So don't expect me to take your statement that I am not acting in good faith seriously. I believe you are projecting to compensate for your own poor behavior.