U.S. Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe vs. Wade
- Thread starter donwuan
- Start date
women are waaaaaaay more privileged than men in this country. complete BS. and to state the legal system is against them is laughable.
Sanger was for birth control not abortion. While she was a eugenicist, she wasn't the only one back then. W.E.B. Du Bois also supported her birth control advocacy.
Fact Check: Was Planned Parenthood Started To 'Control' The Black Population?
"I know who Margaret Sanger is, and I know that she believed in eugenics, and that she was not particularly enamored with black people," candidate Ben Carson said of the organization's founder.www.npr.org
Birth control. My mistake. And what does DuBois, a known biracial elitist, have to do with this? And my point remains. To deny her racism is being willfully ignorant. Excusing it as “she wasn’t the only one“ is a definite cop out. Hell, even the president and chief executive of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America says it’s past time to stop making excuses:
I’m the Head of Planned Parenthood. We’re Done Making Excuses for Our Founder.
We must reckon with Margaret Sanger’s association with white supremacist groups and eugenics.
We need to talk about Margaret Sanger.
For the 11 years that I’ve been involved with Planned Parenthood, founded by Sanger, her legacy on race has been debated. Sanger, a nurse, opened the nation’s first birth control clinic in Brownsville, Brooklyn, in 1916, and dedicated her life to promoting birth control to improve women’s lives. But was she, or was she not, racist?
It’s a question that we’ve tried to avoid, but we no longer can. We must reckon with it.
Up until now, Planned Parenthood has failed to own the impact of our founder’s actions. We have defended Sanger as a protector of bodily autonomy and self-determination, while excusing her association with white supremacist groups and eugenics as an unfortunate “product of her time.” Until recently, we have hidden behind the assertion that her beliefs were the norm for people of her class and era, always being sure to name her work alongside that of W.E.B. Dubois and other Black freedom fighters. But the facts are complicated.
Sanger spoke to the women’s auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan at a rally in New Jersey to generate support for birth control. And even though she eventually distanced herself from the eugenics movement because of its hard turn to explicit racism, she endorsed the Supreme Court’s 1927 decision in Buck v. Bell, which allowed states to sterilize people deemed “unfit” without their consent and sometimes without their knowledge — a ruling that led to the sterilization of tens of thousands of people in the 20th century.
The first human trials of the birth control pill — a project that was Sanger’s passion later in her life — were conducted with her backing in Puerto Rico, where as many as 1,500 women were not told that the drug was experimental or that they might experience dangerous side effects.
We don’t know what was in Sanger’s heart, and we don’t need to in order to condemn her harmful choices. What we have is a history of focusing on white womanhood relentlessly. Whether our founder was a racist is not a simple yes or no question. Our reckoning is understanding her full legacy, and its impact. Our reckoning is the work that comes next.
And the first step is making Margaret Sanger less prominent in our present and future. The Planned Parent Federation of America has already renamed awards previously given in her honor, and Planned Parenthood of Greater New York renamed its Manhattan health center in 2020. Other independently managed affiliates may choose to follow.
Sanger remains an influential part of our history and will not be erased, but as we tell the history of Planned Parenthood’s founding, we must fully take responsibility for the harm that Sanger caused to generations of people with disabilities and Black, Latino, Asian-American, and Indigenous people.
Sanger thought birth control would liberate women, and in so many ways it has. According to a University of Michigan study, the availability of the birth control pill is responsible for roughly a third of women’s wage gains since the 1960s. Reassessing Sanger’s history doesn’t negate her feminist fight, but it does tarnish it. In the name of political expedience, she chose to engage white supremacists to further her cause. In doing that, she devalued and dehumanized people of color.
We will no longer make excuses or apologize for Margaret Sanger’s actions. But we can’t simply call her racist, scrub her from our history, and move on. We must examine how we have perpetuated her harms over the last century — as an organization, an institution, and as individuals.
Opinion | I’m the Head of Planned Parenthood. We’re Done Making Excuses for Our Founder. (Published 2021)
We must reckon with Margaret Sanger’s association with white supremacist groups and eugenics.
The problem is almost none of it is.
I already have. Go back a page.
Which parts do you want me to verify (that I haven’t already)? Hell, Tito has already verified the stats.
Her racism is irrelevant to the issue at hand. She wasn't pro-abortion nor did she invent it. Bringing her up is a red herring.
Birth control. My mistake. And what does DuBois, a known biracial elitist, have to do with this? And my point remains. To deny her racism is being willfully ignorant. Excusing it as “she wasn’t the only one“ is a definite cop out. Hell, even the president and chief executive of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America says it’s past time to stop making excuses:
I’m the Head of Planned Parenthood. We’re Done Making Excuses for Our Founder.We must reckon with Margaret Sanger’s association with white supremacist groups and eugenics.
We need to talk about Margaret Sanger.
For the 11 years that I’ve been involved with Planned Parenthood, founded by Sanger, her legacy on race has been debated. Sanger, a nurse, opened the nation’s first birth control clinic in Brownsville, Brooklyn, in 1916, and dedicated her life to promoting birth control to improve women’s lives. But was she, or was she not, racist?
It’s a question that we’ve tried to avoid, but we no longer can. We must reckon with it.
Up until now, Planned Parenthood has failed to own the impact of our founder’s actions. We have defended Sanger as a protector of bodily autonomy and self-determination, while excusing her association with white supremacist groups and eugenics as an unfortunate “product of her time.” Until recently, we have hidden behind the assertion that her beliefs were the norm for people of her class and era, always being sure to name her work alongside that of W.E.B. Dubois and other Black freedom fighters. But the facts are complicated.
Sanger spoke to the women’s auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan at a rally in New Jersey to generate support for birth control. And even though she eventually distanced herself from the eugenics movement because of its hard turn to explicit racism, she endorsed the Supreme Court’s 1927 decision in Buck v. Bell, which allowed states to sterilize people deemed “unfit” without their consent and sometimes without their knowledge — a ruling that led to the sterilization of tens of thousands of people in the 20th century.
The first human trials of the birth control pill — a project that was Sanger’s passion later in her life — were conducted with her backing in Puerto Rico, where as many as 1,500 women were not told that the drug was experimental or that they might experience dangerous side effects.
We don’t know what was in Sanger’s heart, and we don’t need to in order to condemn her harmful choices. What we have is a history of focusing on white womanhood relentlessly. Whether our founder was a racist is not a simple yes or no question. Our reckoning is understanding her full legacy, and its impact. Our reckoning is the work that comes next.
And the first step is making Margaret Sanger less prominent in our present and future. The Planned Parent Federation of America has already renamed awards previously given in her honor, and Planned Parenthood of Greater New York renamed its Manhattan health center in 2020. Other independently managed affiliates may choose to follow.
Sanger remains an influential part of our history and will not be erased, but as we tell the history of Planned Parenthood’s founding, we must fully take responsibility for the harm that Sanger caused to generations of people with disabilities and Black, Latino, Asian-American, and Indigenous people.
Sanger thought birth control would liberate women, and in so many ways it has. According to a University of Michigan study, the availability of the birth control pill is responsible for roughly a third of women’s wage gains since the 1960s. Reassessing Sanger’s history doesn’t negate her feminist fight, but it does tarnish it. In the name of political expedience, she chose to engage white supremacists to further her cause. In doing that, she devalued and dehumanized people of color.
We will no longer make excuses or apologize for Margaret Sanger’s actions. But we can’t simply call her racist, scrub her from our history, and move on. We must examine how we have perpetuated her harms over the last century — as an organization, an institution, and as individuals.
Opinion | I’m the Head of Planned Parenthood. We’re Done Making Excuses for Our Founder. (Published 2021)
We must reckon with Margaret Sanger’s association with white supremacist groups and eugenics.www.nytimes.com
Bro, you must be an agent. Because ain't no real black man, even if he is super ultra pro-choice, gonna come on a black man's forum and try to defend this cracka ass cracka racist.Sanger was for birth control not abortion. While she was a eugenicist, she wasn't the only one back then. W.E.B. Du Bois also supported her birth control advocacy.
Fact Check: Was Planned Parenthood Started To 'Control' The Black Population?
"I know who Margaret Sanger is, and I know that she believed in eugenics, and that she was not particularly enamored with black people," candidate Ben Carson said of the organization's founder.
Margaret Sanger said this, and I quote:
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
This was after she spoke at a Ku Klux Klan rally.
This racist cracka ass cracka wrote this article titled “A Better Race Through Birth Control,” she wrote, “Given Birth Control, the unfit will voluntarily eliminate their kind.”
Beat it kid. I refuse to allow you to spread false information. Even if it's to brothers who I have a difference of opinion with.
Gon git!!
Damn. Straight ether
So first you want to deny her racism. Then you want to excuse it. And now you want to say it is “irrelevant” and a ”red herring”, even though she is the founder of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country, whose current president herself acknowledges Sanger’s racism and says it’s time to stop making excuses for it!
BGOL, I tell ya!
Where did I defend her? She was for birth control, she was an eugenicist, and she worked with W.E.B. Du Bois. Please show me where any of this is incorrect?
Here's the part of the quote you omitted:
“The minister's work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach,” Sanger wrote in a letter in 1939. “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
Oh, she spoke at a klan rally? Guess why -- she considered them to be poor white trash and wanted them to practice birth control. Marcus Garvey also spoke to the kkk but I'll leave it there.
Do I doubt she had racist ideas? No. Most CACs, particularly in the 1920s, have them. Hell, Henry Ford, Walt Disney, Vince McMahon, and many other people whose services you probably patronize have them. That doesn't mean they want commit genocide against Black people.
Like I said earlier, bringing her up is a red herring. It's irrelevant to the issue. I like it here so get used to seeing me around.
Last edited:
Worth wasn't the issue. I've stated numerous times that I believe abortion should be last resort and would prefer for it not to happen at all, but I'm against the choice being taken away and the interference into a woman's life.
The initial tweet inquired about laws regarding pre and post natal care. You and a few others said it was child support. I asked if child support pays for the mother's hospital bills, which is what the tweet was referencing, and you went off on some tangent about worth and medicaid. Many states, particularly the Red states most eager to outlaw abortion, did not expand medicaid under the ACA, so not everyone is covered or able to get medicaid. There are no workplace protections either assuming the woman is working. No paid family leave or time off.
Point out where I denied her racism. You claimed liberals want to exterminate Black babies, I called that a conspiracy theory, then you mentioned her for some reason.So first you want to deny her racism. Then you want to excuse it. And now you want to say it is “irrelevant” and a ”red herring”, even though she is the founder of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country, whose current president herself acknowledges Sanger’s racism and says it’s time to stop making excuses for it!
BGOL, I tell ya!
I pointed out she was for birth control and worked with Du Bois. Where did I say she wasn't a racist? You're putting words in mouth because you have no argument.
Last edited:
I did some research, it looks like you were eligible to marry during the Roman times when you hit puberty for male and female when all this Christian nonsense came out. Overtime this has slowly creeped up to almost 30 years old. The age at which you can support a wife and family has increased, very few decent paying jobs available to somebody just coming out of high school. If you don't finish high school and just work, which was common back in the day, you are looking at minimum wage jobs. I don't think it is possible for somebody to leave high school and financially support themselves with housing.
Than you have religious dogma saying you should wait until you are married and criminal code shunning any sexual activity of young adults.
Catholicism. Catholicism equates premarital sex with fornication and ties it with breaking the sixth commandment ("Thou shalt not commit adultery") in its Catechism: Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman.
All of this is a cesspool that leads to unwanted pregnancies and sexual assaults, damn it 15 to 20 years before you are situated right to unload on a seal proper. It reminds me of prison where inmates are sexually deprived and turn to homosexuality.
This Supreme Court ruling could be the impetus for society to make changes that are sorely needed. We should not sex deprive young adults like a prison inmate as punishment. Look at the priests that spew this nonsense engage in child pedophilia.
Last edited:
Craziest nigga on BGOLI did some research, it looks like you were eligible to marry during the Roman times when you hit puberty for male and female. Overtime this has slowly creeped up to almost 30 years old. The age at which you can support a wife and family has increased, very few decent paying jobs available to somebody just coming out of high school. If you don't finish high school and just work, which was common back in the day, you are looking at minimum wage jobs. I don't think it is possible for somebody to leave high school and financially support themselves with housing.
Than you have religious dogma saying you should wait until you are married and criminal code shunning any sexual activity of young adults.
Catholicism. Catholicism equates premarital sex with fornication and ties it with breaking the sixth commandment ("Thou shalt not commit adultery") in its Catechism: Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman.
All of this is a cesspool that leads to unwanted pregnancies and sexual assaults, damn it 15 to 20 years before you are situated right to unload on a seal proper. It reminds me of prison where inmates are sexually deprived and turn to homosexuality.
This Supreme Court ruling could be the impetus for society to make changes that are sorely needed. We should not sex deprive young adults like a prison inmate as punishment. Look at the priests that spew this nonsense engage in child pedophilia.
You made it a point to say she was a “eugenicist”, worked with DuBois, and then posted an NPR article that denied her racism. So if you weren’t trying to deny her racism yourself, then what where you trying to do?
I mentioned Sanger because she is the founder of Planned Parenthood, which, as I stated earlier, is the largest abortion provider in the country. Abortion is an avowedly liberal cause. And it’s an avowedly liberal organization. And a vastly disproportionate number of its abortions are performed on Black women.
Did you read the article? It doesn't deny that she was racist. I posted it to disprove your claim she wanted to exterminate Black people. You brought her up to prove some point that Planned Parenthood and liberals want to exterminate Black babies. You still haven't given any proof of this.
I pointed out that she wasn't for abortion because it shows she's irrelevant to the abortion debate. You also mention that PP has renounced her. If that's the case, how is she relevant to what PP is doing in 2022 rather than 1922?
There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist – a nonviolent resister.
I guess I'll be called an "agent" again by posting this quote by Coretta Scott King.
My thoughts.....
This issue is between a woman and her doctor.
Abortion laws already exist. If a woman says she doesn't want to have an abortion, then she ain't gonna have the abortion. That's pretty much the law before the government has anything to do with it.
If you and your wife are against abortion, then you won't have one. But when you're concerned about what every couple in your neighborhood is doing when it comes to the internal workings of the women's bodies, that's first of all weird af and secondly some strong authoritarianism.
So my only question right now is, will white women remain in support of this? (I know white supremacist ww certainly will) Or will they come running to the Democrat Party in 2022?
This issue is between a woman and her doctor.
Abortion laws already exist. If a woman says she doesn't want to have an abortion, then she ain't gonna have the abortion. That's pretty much the law before the government has anything to do with it.
If you and your wife are against abortion, then you won't have one. But when you're concerned about what every couple in your neighborhood is doing when it comes to the internal workings of the women's bodies, that's first of all weird af and secondly some strong authoritarianism.
So my only question right now is, will white women remain in support of this? (I know white supremacist ww certainly will) Or will they come running to the Democrat Party in 2022?
I hear all of that. But, you have to admit that bringing up chikd support and hospital cost deflects from the main issue.........what justifies the murder of a baby?
You and others attempt to deflect and justify by attempting to draw attention to perceived negative outcomes of not engaging in abortion. Basically, it sounds like this....
Oh, so if I don't kill this baby, then are you gonna support it when it's older?
Oh, so if I don't kill this baby, then are you gonna pay the hospital bill?
Oh, so if I don't kill this baby, then are you gonna make rape victims have their babies too?
Oh, so if I don't kill this baby, then are you gonna ignore when women have health complications.
Oh, so if I don't kill this baby, then are you gonna track down the man I chose to have sex with?
All of that sounds stupid and are false dichotomies. One decision has nothing to do with another.
It's like me saying, oh if I don't drink and drive are you gonna pay for my uber?
When a person drives drunk, in most cases it is due to self interest. He or she wants to get home or somewhere and they are only concerned with their wellbeing.
When a woman chooses abortion, in most cases it is due to her self interest. She doesn't want the baby to disrupt her life and she is only concerned with her well-being. No consideration for the baby. No consideration for the father.
Selfish. But, feminists package it as a right.
72 million voted for the former president.
I think some folks need to really do the back of the envelope math again.
Why argue with people who are pretending?
See this is the slippery slope that it’s going to get a lot of Republicans in Trouble especially that fool on the picture. The demographics of this country is changing to rapidly they are trying to hold down to every little power they can at this point.
This.
They're going to undo everything they can. The right wing knows they have at least 5 votes on the SC
The 1st step in all this was gutting the VRA in 2013... They always attack us first. So-called allies weren't too hyped up about this.
First they came for the Black people, but I did not speak out...
They've been making moves so they can have minority rule... shit, thats all the electoral college is. Since the failed coup, they've been putting the right stooges in place, shifting powers from Sec of state to the legislatures, passing voter suppression laws, etc to make sure that even if they lose, they will win. And it will be "legal"
Minority rule is the endgame
The article you shared said the following:
Her attitude toward African-Americans can certainly be viewed as paternalistic, but there is no evidence she subscribed to the more racist ideas of the time or that she coerced black women into using birth control. In fact, for her time, as the Washington Post noted, "she would likely be considered to have advanced views on race relations."
If that isn't trying to deny her racism, then what is it? And I never said "she wanted to exterminate Black people." Go back and read my post. I said she believed in “culling the populations of color in the world....... And it is verifiable is that abortion has had a greater demographic impact on Black people than any other group."Now shall we discuss that???
I don't see how she's irrelevant to the abortion debate when she was a birth control pioneer and she founded the country's largest abortion provider. Its own website says "Planned Parenthood traces its roots back to a nurse named Margaret Sanger." And I never said that PP has "renounced" her. You have a creative way of running with words. I said that the president of PP says that it would no longer be making excuses for her racism (like you were trying to do). That is different from "renouncing." Please see the video below......straight from Planned Parenthood.
No, I won't call you an agent. I just see what you're trying to do. As Alexis McGill Johnson says in the video "[You're] surrounding her with figures like W.E.B. DuBois...." to excuse her beliefs. Now you're to trying to invoke Coretta Scott King to do the same thing.
Imo it's really that simple but conservatives always want to be in two consenting adults sex life. I don't get that shit never will.
As a man, why are you worried about abortion? Technically if you have masterbated you have murdered potential life. I could argue life starts with the father, and any sexual act that does not lead to potential childbirth is illegal.
They are coming for you zod ninjas next. Sodomy includes blowjobs too.
Like I said, I don't care what a woman does with her body. I don't like late term abortion, but sometimes it's necessary. It won't matter to you until your wife/girlfriend has a tubal pregnancy and the government says she has to die that you might see the light.
They are coming for you zod ninjas next. Sodomy includes blowjobs too.
Like I said, I don't care what a woman does with her body. I don't like late term abortion, but sometimes it's necessary. It won't matter to you until your wife/girlfriend has a tubal pregnancy and the government says she has to die that you might see the light.
You didn't answer the question. Cool