Believe in abortion? Read this and watch these links...

Disagree all you want. My position is fact based.

Maybe MLK accepted the award in Sanger's name because she isn't the racist so many conservatives make her out to be for political reasons.

And make no mistake. The pardoning of von Braun ( and I am well aware of who he was and his role in Nazi Germany) was not uncomfortable for the U.S. government. He had the knowledge and experience that the U.S. wanted.
I only used von Braun's example with America as a metaphor for a possible similar uncomfortable relationship as to why Martin Luther King Jr needed an association with Margaret Sanger. Feel free to examine "Hillary's America" and I will believe you if you can ******* Dinesh D'Souza to publicly issue an apology to the estate of Margaret Sanger provided you feel that strongly about this issue @Zwing. Once I see that I will burn my copy of that book in my personal library.
 
Last edited:
You brought up Sanger so I am addressing you spin.

There were a lot of "eugenicists" back then. Winston Churchill, Herbert Hoover, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells all supported the movement. African-American leader W. E. B. Du Bois backed many of its principles as well. The purpose of eugenics was to improve the human race by having people be more healthy through exercise, recreation in parks, marriage to someone free from sexually transmitted diseases, well-baby clinics, immunizations, clean food and water, proper nutrition, non-smoking and drinking.

And Carl Franklin's comedic misrepresentation of Sanger's letter to Clarence Gamble demonstrates the disingenuousness found throughout this thread. Sanger’s correspondence shows this sentence advocates for black doctors and ministers to play leadership roles in the Negro Project to avoid misunderstandings. Lynchings and Jim Crow laws gave blacks good reason to be wary of attempts to limit the number of children they bore. In Harlem, she hired a black doctor and social worker to quell those fears.
I will allow @Carl Franklin to defend his own arguments. And you mentioned a lot of famous eugenicists from history. I cannot speak against a lot of them but Theodore Roosevelt passed on his racist demeanor onto his nephew FDR where:

"President Roosevelt’s executive order in 1942 that ended up rounding up and forsing more than 100,000 Japanese Americans into prisons during World War II is arguably the most racist executive order in American history (He thankfully spared German and Italian Americans from the military prisons, but that showed his racism).

And while some of the White American competitors in the 1936 Berlin Olympics received invitations to the White House, Jesse Owens did not."
( https://www.huffpost.com/entry/would-a-president-trump-m_b_10135836 )

This is also further mentioned in Jesse Owen's wikipedia listing where Hitler gave him more respect in the Berlin Olympics and FDR, even if FDR was to busy to do so himself he could not even order any of his staffers to send Owens a telegram to congratulate him?

"Later, on October 15, 1936, Owens repeated this allegation when he addressed an audience of African Americans at a Republican rally in Kansas City, remarking: "Hitler didn't snub me—it was our president [FDR] who snubbed me. The president [FDR] didn't even send me a telegram."[40][41]"
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Owens )
Which would make FDR more racist than Hitler??? LOL!!!

On top of that FDR wanted to limit how many Jews survived the Holocaust as well as their numbers in America if you care to read this article as well.
( https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/FDR-...in-and-kept-out-of-US-documents-reveal-553336 )

As for Du Bois you are correct that he was a Black leader that espoused eugenics but understand it was a different model from the Nordic eugenics movement that he did not agree with at all. Instead he was after dividing the black community into four groups—from the desirable “Talented Tenth,” whom he saw as educated leaders, to the undesirable “submerged tenth,” whom he described as prostitutes, criminals, and loafers. Du Bois wanted to promote marriage and reproduction within the Talented Tenth and breed out the submerged tenth.
(https://listverse.com/2015/07/10/10-widely-admired-people-who-supported-eugenics/ )

If Du Bois were alive today I am certain he would grieve how the Black community regressed with the phenomenon of baby-mamas raising children alone without any fathers by design as he did promote marriage.
 
Last edited:
View attachment 2685542 ...... View attachment 2685543 "I think she's got a point there, folks!"
Intriguing quote, although we do not fully agree and buck heads alot I greatly appreciate your wit and logic my friend as opposed to an unfortunate individual that was not even smart enough to debate as you do @MacNfries and @subhub174014 as well. I only referenced you here as you initiated contact here. I hope that that is not a breach of my promise as I suspected it would not be behind your back?
 
Last edited:
Intriguing quote, although we do not fully agree and buck heads alot I greatly appreciate your wit and logic my friend as opposed to an unfortunate individual that was not even smart enough to debate as you do @MacNfries and @subhub174014 as well.
Just offering up another view point, is all. Saving babies might start in the womb, but it last for many years going forward. If parents are ****** to have babies they can't afford, at least the right thing is to support the entirety of the responsibility, otherwise they end up on the streets and become a bigger burden to society.
 
Just offering up another view point, is all. Saving babies might start in the womb, but it last for many years going forward. If parents are ****** to have babies they can't afford, at least the right thing is to support the entirety of the responsibility, otherwise they end up on the streets and become a bigger burden to society.
@MacNfries you sound like Du Bois from my earlier post and that sounds acceptable. But understand there are many c.hildless (typo intended just like the MrPutin bug on this site) couples out there that would do everything possible to adopt and raise him/her as their own as well. And who is to say the accomplishments that such individuals can achieve? Maybe your champion that could defeat Trump was aborted? If you watch the Daystar link I provided at the start of this thread, Abby Johnson herself said she was nearly aborted. Ironic how her life progressed to this point?

( https://www.blacktowhite.net/thread...-watch-these-links.160149/page-3#post-2431727 ) (for DuBois's argument)

In fact did you realize that Cher, Justin Bieber, Tim Tebow, Celine Dion, Jack Nicholson, and Steve Jobs among others were nearly aborted? Imagine just to consider Steve Jobs's life imagine what life would be like today without Mac products? Or Apple's array of products and their jobs or IT development? Billions of dollars gone because one life was not born. The true burden to society would be if Steve Jobs never existed in the first place. ;)
( https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-people-almost-never-born/josh-heller )
( https://www.rebelcircus.com/blog/12-famous-people-almost-aborted/ )
 
Last edited:
did you realize that Cher, Justin Bieber, Tim Tebow, Celine Dion, Jack Nicholson, and Steve Jobs among others were nearly aborted? Imagine just to consider Steve Jobs's life imagine what life would be like today without Mac products?
The same exact opposite could be said about those born who become Hitlers, Attila the Huns, mass murderers, or even Donald Trumps? I think the big argument here is early embryonic stage abortions, anyway, not full/close to full term fetus type abortions. And NO, I did not view the video you posted. I can envision what a late term abortion might be like, but taking the "extreme" of abortion and representing it as the "whole" is no more right than the opposite of that. And that's what the conservatives like to use in making their attempts to reverse Roe vs Wade. Personally, I'm a first term trimester supporter,, and early 2nd term with a doctors order, and I've said that many times. Fetuses are able to survive outside the womb by the late 2nd trimester (gestational age), and that's when the laws should really tighten up. That's why its so important that affordable healthcare be available throughout the term of the pregnancy.
 
The same exact opposite could be said about those born who become Hitlers, Attila the Huns, mass murderers, or even Donald Trumps? I think the big argument here is early embryonic stage abortions, anyway, not full/close to full term fetus type abortions. And NO, I did not view the video you posted. I can envision what a late term abortion might be like, but taking the "extreme" of abortion and representing it as the "whole" is no more right than the opposite of that. And that's what the conservatives like to use in making their attempts to reverse Roe vs Wade. Personally, I'm a first term trimester supporter,, and early 2nd term with a doctors order, and I've said that many times. Fetuses are able to survive outside the womb by the late 2nd trimester (gestational age), and that's when the laws should really tighten up. That's why its so important that affordable healthcare be available throughout the term of the pregnancy.
I am glad you brought up Roe vs Wade @MacNfries. As the late Paul Harvey could have inquired, "do you know the rest of the story?" It is all listed in the wikipedia of Norma McCorvey as she was the Plaintiff Norma Leah McCorvey Nelson; (September 22, 1947 – February 18, 2017), better known by the legal pseudonym "Jane Roe", was the plaintiff in the landmark American lawsuit Roe v. Wade in 1973.

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Harvey )
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey )

If you read it you will discover intriguing facts like...

"McCorvey would later assert that she had been the 'pawn' of two young and ambitious lawyers (Weddington and Coffee) who were looking for a plaintiff with whom they could challenge the Texas state law prohibiting abortion.[22]",

and "In 2004, McCorvey, hoping to restrict access to legal abortion services in the country, sought to have the Supreme Court of the United States overturn the ruling of Roe v. Wade, claiming that there was now evidence that the procedure harms women but the case was ultimately dismissed in 2005.[29][30]

On January 22, 2008, McCorvey endorsed Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. McCorvey stated, 'I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v. Wade. He has never wavered on the issue of being pro-life and has a voting record to prove it. He understands the importance of civil liberties for all, including the unborn.'[31]

McCorvey remained active in pro-life demonstrations, including one she participated in before President Barack Obama's commencement address to the graduates of the University of Notre Dame (the decision to invite the President to speak at the university on May 17, 2009 was controversial because his views on abortion conflicted with the teachings of the Catholic Church, with which the University is affiliated)",

and "In 1969, at the age of 21, McCorvey became pregnant a third time and returned to Dallas. According to McCorvey, friends advised her that she should assert falsely that she had been raped by a group of black men and that she could thereby obtain a legal abortion under Texas's law which prohibited abortion; sources differ over whether the Texas law had such a ******* exception.[14][15][16] Due to lack of police evidence or documentation, the scheme was not successful and McCorvey would later admit the situation was a fabrication.[17][18] She attempted to obtain an illegal abortion, but the recommended clinic had been closed down by authorities.[10] Her doctor, Richard Lane, suggested that she consult Henry McCluskey, an adoption lawyer in Dallas. McCorvey stated that she was only interested in an abortion but agreed to meet with McCluskey.[5]

Eventually, McCorvey was referred to attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington,[19][20] who were looking for pregnant women who were seeking abortions. The case took three years of trials to reach the Supreme Court of the United States, and Norma never attended a single trial. In the meantime, she had given birth to the baby in question, who was eventually adopted [2]".

So it is intriguing that even Jane Roe again also known as Norma McCorvey opted not to abort her *******. What an intriguing concept? If Jane Roe could come to that realization why not other pregnant women do the same @MacNfries? Moreover she admitted she was the pawn of two ambitious Texas lawyers seeking to change the law. And she also became a pro-life advocate before her death as well so it would appear she changed her mind and realized that this movement she unwittingly apart of was a big mistake as well. Would you care to expand on this @MacNfries? ;)

Furthermore the snapshot of racism at that time is disturbing where her friends said that if she wanted to have an abortion just tell everyone that she was raped by Black men and then Texas would grant her an abortion as society seem not desire c.hildren of Black men. Yet on this site there are women, couples, and bisexual White males desiring Black guys? If this hidden genocide never occurred it would appear there would be a lot more to select from?
 
Last edited:
In a perfect world every baby is conceived in love and raised in a beautiful home. Women are never ****** in to sexy by controlling partners, *******, or have babies that will not survive outside the womb. In a perfect world everyone has access to education and birth control and the health and mental capacity to bring a healthy fetus to term. Women who know they can’t raise a baby find a loving adoptive home. In this day and age, there are so many options to prevent pregnancy. We have the morning after pill. Ideally? Termination is never needed. But we don’t live in a perfect world. Half my family is adopted. I could never have an abortion. And in fact had trouble being supportive to friends that have. But it’s their choice based on their circumstances and the last thing I want to see is a women risking a back ally abortion out of desperation. I support their right to choose and I keep my mouth shut while I donate to planned parenthood.
 
isn't the real question when is it not okay to take a human life?
Not really, its when one THINKS human life starts, because there is much detail of conception skipped over when deciding when a fertilized egg actually means Life Has Begun. Everyone has THEIR opinion:
A: Does life begin with the fertilized egg (zygote) 'before' it attaches to the uterine wall? Some "right to lifers" believe this.​
B: Or, does life begin after the zygote attaches to the uterine wall? Some "right to lifers" believe this.​
C: Maybe life begins once a heartbeat is distinguishable ... many "right to lifers" believe this is when a baby's life begins.​
D: Even others, believe a baby's life begins mid-late weeks of the first trimester of pregnancy.​
E: And even others, belief life of a baby human starts when the embryo is now considered a fetus.​
Maybe STIFFBBC (since he created this thread) might like to ADD a voting chart to the above options to see what everyone thinks.​

Hobby Lobby says it starts when the egg is fertilized by the sperm, thus their stand against the Morning After Pill as a form of ****** abortion. And before you go choosing sides (as a Right To Lifer) you have to decide if you are for or against the birth control pill, because in essence, one of the preventive steps of the birth control pill is to prevent the fertile zygote from attaching to the uterine wall to deny its growth and nourishment. Which means, if you're against the Morning After Pill, you're also against the standard birth control pill. Some conservatives take this very position, thus THEY say birth control pills should be illegal. If one takes THIS position, and desires to be able to have random sex with partner(s), it comes down to either the male or female adult being fixed so sperm & egg never meet, or in taking the risk of having sex and allowing nature to take its course with pregnancy. Should a ******* victim or minor be ****** to birth a baby due to these circumstances? Or parents of a pregnant female ******* are informed the continuing development of the fetus will ******* either the ******* or baby at birth and THEY should choose. I seriously doubt 5-10% if Right To Lifers have thought this out in its entirety. What if everyone had the SAME factual information BEFORE they chose life or death of an ill conceived baby?

Just make sure if it is just about conception, that you realize that the conservative approach is not really about the right to LIFE; to conservatives it is about the right to BIRTH ONLY. After birth, that baby is on its own with its mom whether she WANTS and takes care of the baby or not.
words_HissyFit.jpg
 
Last edited:
Not really, its when one THINKS human life starts, because there is much detail of conception skipped over when deciding if a fertilized egg actually means Life Has Begun. Everyone has THEIR opinion:
A: Does life begin with the fertilized egg (zygote) 'before' it attaches to the uterine wall? Some "right to lifers" believe this.​
B: Or, does life begin after the zygote attaches to the uterine wall? Some "right to lifers" believe this.​
C: Or, maybe life begins once a heartbeat is distinguishable ... many "right to lifers" believe this is when a baby's life begins.​
D: Even others, believe a baby's life begins mid-late weeks of the first trimester of pregnancy.​
E: And even others, belief life of a baby human starts when the embryo is now considered a fetus.​
Maybe STIFFBBC (since he created this thread) might like to ADD a voting chart to the above options to see what everyone thinks.​

Hobby Lobby says it starts when the egg is fertilized by the sperm, thus their stand against the Morning After Pill as a form of ****** abortion. And before you go choosing sides (as a Right To Lifer, you have to decide if you are for or against the birth control pill, because in essence, one of the preventive steps of the birth control pill is to prevent the fertile zygote from attaching to the uterine wall to deny its growth and nourishment. Which means, if you're against the Morning After Pill, you're also against the standard birth control pill. Some conservatives take this very position, thus say birth control pills should be illegal. Thus, if one desires to be able to have random sex with partner(s) it comes down to either the male or female being fixed so sperm & egg never meet, or taking the risk of having sex and allowing nature to take its course.

Just make sure if it is just about conception, that you realize that the conservative approach is not really about the right to LIFE; to conservatives it is about the right to BIRTH ONLY. After birth, that baby is on its own with its mom whether she WANTS and takes care of the baby or not.
View attachment 2693326
First of all you have no clue what I am for or against. I don't really care to hear all the other BS from a condescending wannabe professor. It sounds as though you have no position, you must not have a vagina so you don't get to have one I get it.
 
First of all you have no clue what I am for or against. I don't really care to hear all the other BS from a condescending wannabe professor. It sounds as though you have no position, you must not have a vagina so you don't get to have one I get it.
I simply ANSWERED your question, and I don't care less what you're for or against. If you didn't want a response, WHY ask the question?
Secondly, I'm "ProChoice" (with limitations) myself, not that it matters, but, I'm also a parent twice over with a *******, and that matters to me. I think females should have THE decision over their own body. I'm pretty sure Right To Lifers don't. It is the protection of the fetus at all cost to them.
Now, if you wish to discuss LOGICALLY instead of making accusations and bold statements that you have no detail about, I'll listen. OTHERWISE, sit down, OR put your wife on here and quit pretending you ARE the wife.
 
Last edited:
Not really, its when one THINKS human life starts, because there is much detail of conception skipped over when deciding when a fertilized egg actually means Life Has Begun. Everyone has THEIR opinion:
A: Does life begin with the fertilized egg (zygote) 'before' it attaches to the uterine wall? Some "right to lifers" believe this.​
B: Or, does life begin after the zygote attaches to the uterine wall? Some "right to lifers" believe this.​
C: Maybe life begins once a heartbeat is distinguishable ... many "right to lifers" believe this is when a baby's life begins.​
D: Even others, believe a baby's life begins mid-late weeks of the first trimester of pregnancy.​
E: And even others, belief life of a baby human starts when the embryo is now considered a fetus.​
Maybe STIFFBBC (since he created this thread) might like to ADD a voting chart to the above options to see what everyone thinks.​

Hobby Lobby says it starts when the egg is fertilized by the sperm, thus their stand against the Morning After Pill as a form of ****** abortion. And before you go choosing sides (as a Right To Lifer) you have to decide if you are for or against the birth control pill, because in essence, one of the preventive steps of the birth control pill is to prevent the fertile zygote from attaching to the uterine wall to deny its growth and nourishment. Which means, if you're against the Morning After Pill, you're also against the standard birth control pill. Some conservatives take this very position, thus THEY say birth control pills should be illegal. If one takes THIS position, and desires to be able to have random sex with partner(s), it comes down to either the male or female adult being fixed so sperm & egg never meet, or in taking the risk of having sex and allowing nature to take its course with pregnancy. Should a ******* victim or minor be ****** to birth a baby due to these circumstances? Or parents of a pregnant female ******* are informed the continuing development of the fetus will ******* either the ******* or baby at birth and THEY should choose. I seriously doubt 5-10% if Right To Lifers have thought this out in its entirety. What if everyone had the SAME factual information BEFORE they chose life or death of an ill conceived baby?

Just make sure if it is just about conception, that you realize that the conservative approach is not really about the right to LIFE; to conservatives it is about the right to BIRTH ONLY. After birth, that baby is on its own with its mom whether she WANTS and takes care of the baby or not.
View attachment 2693326
Wait. When did hobby lobby become a medical practice??
 
Wait. When did hobby lobby become a medical practice??
Yes; another bunch of old men making the decision for women regarding their bodies.
They said their group health plan didn't have to comply with PPACA standards and the Supreme Court sided with them. The concern, however, is that this sets huge precedence to other similar companies who might make exclusions to their own plans outside the ACA regs.
You may not be familiar with the Hobby Lobby case? Surprising, you're female and you're not familiar with that case? ....
 
Last edited:
Yes; another bunch of old men making the decision for women regarding their bodies.
They said their group health plan didn't have to comply with PPACA standards and the Supreme Court sided with them. The concern, however, is that this sets huge precedence to other similar companies who might make exclusions to their own plans outside the ACA regs.
You may not be familiar with the Hobby Lobby case? Surprising, you're female and you're not familiar with that case? ....
I’m familiar with it. It just struck me as funny. I’m not a crafty girl, but I’d never shop there anyway.
 
I simply ANSWERED your question, and I don't care less what you're for or against. If you didn't want a response, WHY ask the question?
Secondly, I'm "ProChoice" (with limitations) myself, not that it matters, but, I'm also a parent twice over with a *******, and that matters to me. I think females should have THE decision over their own body. I'm pretty sure Right To Lifers don't. It is the protection of the fetus at all cost to them.
Now, if you wish to discuss LOGICALLY instead of making accusations and bold statements that you have no detail about, I'll listen. OTHERWISE, sit down, OR put your wife on here and quit pretending you ARE the wife.
That didn't take long to jump to intolerant liberal. It clearly says couple and at no time did I say or imply I was my wife. I find it interesting a liberal would assume a couple would only be male female. I know the only people that are allowed to have an opinion are boot licking liberals, however how much difference is there between pro life with limitations and pro choice with limitations? And to think we were going to close this account.
 
That didn't take long to jump to intolerant liberal. It clearly says couple and at no time did I say or imply I was my wife. I find it interesting a liberal would assume a couple would only be male female. I know the only people that are allowed to have an opinion are boot licking liberals, however how much difference is there between pro life with limitations and pro choice with limitations? And to think we were going to close this account.
I think you just did with ... "at no time did I say or imply I was "MY WIFE" lol Well, you do seem to be about as intelligent as a Trumptard, that's for sure. lol
Look, I don't want to go back and forth, ok? If you don't wish to talk about abortion issues, and you don't wish to put your wife on to discuss it, lets just stop and you can go ahead with your first idea to close your account. Please don't stay here "just for me". I have better things to do, like pick my teeth, let a fart, and maybe even take a bath ... I'm 4 days behind on my weekly bath as is.
Now BYE ... have a nice life and don't let the bed bugs bite.
gif_StickDog.gifgif_StickMan02.gif
 
That didn't take long to jump to intolerant liberal. It clearly says couple and at no time did I say or imply I was my wife. I find it interesting a liberal would assume a couple would only be male female. I know the only people that are allowed to have an opinion are boot licking liberals, however how much difference is there between pro life with limitations and pro choice with limitations? And to think we were going to close this account.
I think you just did with ... "at no time did I say or imply I was "MY WIFE" lol Well, you do seem to be about as intelligent as a Trumptard, that's for sure. lol
Look, I don't want to go back and forth, ok? If you don't wish to talk about abortion issues, and you don't wish to put your wife on to discuss it, lets just stop and you can go ahead with your first idea to close your account. Please don't stay here "just for me". I have better things to do, like pick my teeth, let a fart, and maybe even take a bath ... I'm 4 days behind on my weekly bath as is.
Now BYE ... have a nice life and don't let the bed bugs bite.
View attachment 2696118View attachment 2696119
Sigh not being a referee, but when I created this thread I just wanted to share and maybe debate the Unplanned video, I didn't think this would become political or another excuse for attacking each other. A point to @MacNfries who wanted to stick to abortion on this thread, but at the same time perhaps a point loss for attacking @Q9500. Just my 2 cents and hopefully someone will watch the video and say something about it? It is sort of like school days as how can you expect to be able to talk about a subject let alone expect to write an exam or take a test on a particular subject if you never opened the book?
 
Sigh not being a referee, but when I created this thread I just wanted to share and maybe debate the Unplanned video, I didn't think this would become political or another excuse for attacking each other. A point to @MacNfries who wanted to stick to abortion on this thread, but at the same time perhaps a point loss for attacking @Q9500. Just my 2 cents and hopefully someone will watch the video and say something about it? It is sort of like school days as how can you expect to be able to talk about a subject let alone expect to write an exam or take a test on a particular subject if you never opened the book?
My guess nobody watches it is because if one is anti choice, they assume it just reaffirms their position. Pro choice people see it for what it is, anti choice propaganda.
 
Back
Top