Margaret Sanger's dream is sadly alive in New York City

[StLucieBengal]

(07-28-2015, 01:11 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Sketchy operation? What is sketchy about it?

There is always something coming up.   you can only be "framed" so many times before it just looks like your a careless and sketchy operation.  


Not to mention the new video.  

[Belsnickel]

(07-28-2015, 01:15 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This mother *****

I wish I knew who that was, lol.

[BmorePat87]

(07-28-2015, 01:18 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There is always something coming up.   you can only be "framed" so many times before it just looks like your a careless and sketchy operation.  


Not to mention the new video.  

The new video that revealed they are acting 100% legally? The fact that someone edited a video to try to make it look like they are sketchy doesn't make them sketchy.

Also, the fact that social conservatives keep trying to attack Planned Parenthood doesn't make Planned Parenthood sketchy. It makes social conservatives desperate. 

[BmorePat87]

(07-28-2015, 01:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I wish I knew who that was, lol.

Herbert Spencer. 19th century philosopher, sociologist, biologist, etc, etc, who is the father of social darwinism. Society/Humanity advances through economic struggles, with the rich being the successful ones who advance it. Charity is ok... as long as we're not encouraging the poor to mate.

He's one of the early sociologist I teach about in Sociology.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-28-2015, 01:21 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The new video that revealed they are acting 100% legally? The fact that someone edited a video to try to make it look like they are sketchy doesn't make them sketchy.

Also, the fact that social conservatives keep trying to attack Planned Parenthood doesn't make Planned Parenthood sketchy. It makes social conservatives desperate. 

Then have a thorough investigation and end all speculation.  unless there is something to hide.  there is enough evidence to warrant it looked into.  

[BmorePat87]

(07-28-2015, 01:25 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Then have a thorough investigation and end all speculation.  unless there is something to hide.  there is enough evidence to warrant it looked into.  

There isn't any evidence. What there is is a pathetic attempt to waste tax payer money to defend social conservatism that was defeated decades ago. 

Sorry, I don't want to waste money. 

[StLucieBengal]

(07-28-2015, 01:23 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Herbert Spencer. 19th century philosopher, sociologist, biologist, etc, etc, who is the father of social darwinism. Society/Humanity advances through economic struggles, with the rich being the successful ones who advance it. Charity is ok... as long as we're not encouraging the poor to mate.

He's one of the early sociologist I teach about in Sociology.

i'm curious .....  How much of the Eugenicists movement is taught in schools?    at least in yours.....  

[Belsnickel]

(07-28-2015, 01:18 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There is always something coming up.   you can only be "framed" so many times before it just looks like your a careless and sketchy operation.  


Not to mention the new video.  

Yeah, I saw about that one with the interview, saw the screen grab of the fee schedule too. It will be interesting to see what the response will be to that, I actually have a theory surrounding the fee schedule. The pricing seems to be based off of the type of abortion being performed, are the women having their abortions covered? If so that would make sense. But I'd like to see the revenue flows of it all and see what the costs are that are being used to justify/offset the income.

They need to get someone in their finance section to draw up some cost assessments.

(07-28-2015, 01:23 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Herbert Spencer. 19th century philosopher, sociologist, biologist, etc, etc, who is the father of social darwinism. Society/Humanity advances through economic struggles, with the rich being the successful ones who advance it. Charity is ok... as long as we're not encouraging the poor to mate.

He's one of the early sociologist I teach about in Sociology.

Ah. I know the name, interestingly enough the images I have seen of him must of been of him as an older gentleman.

[BmorePat87]

(07-28-2015, 01:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, I saw about that one with the interview, saw the screen grab of the fee schedule too. It will be interesting to see what the response will be to that, I actually have a theory surrounding the fee schedule. The pricing seems to be based off of the type of abortion being performed, are the women having their abortions covered? If so that would make sense. But I'd like to see the revenue flows of it all and see what the costs are that are being used to justify/offset the income.

They need to get someone in their finance section to draw up some cost assessments.


Ah. I know the name, interestingly enough the images I have seen of him must of been of him as an older gentleman.

The lighting is pretty bad, so you can't see his signature killer sideburns. 

[BmorePat87]

(07-28-2015, 01:28 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: i'm curious .....  How much of the Eugenicists movement is taught in schools?    at least in yours.....  

Very little in social studies. It's not that relevant to the bulk of sociology and it only makes a small appearance in modern world history with some of the 20th century genocides, but those are covered as individual events for the most part. 

[fredtoast]

(07-28-2015, 01:07 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: At the very least you shouldn't use the same defense they used to hoodwink blacks back in those days to promote birth control and abortions.    

Yet you continue to support states rights even though that argument was used to support slavery.

The funny thing is that you have never made any sort of logical argument against what I said.  That is because there is no logical argument against what i said.  The fact that the argument was used by people who supported eugenics does not mean it is not valid.  

I challenge you to to show how it is not an advantage for a poor person to have fewer children in today's society.

[Belsnickel]

(07-28-2015, 01:32 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Very little in social studies. It's not that relevant to the bulk of sociology and it only makes a small appearance in modern world history with some of the 20th century genocides, but those are covered as individual events for the most part. 

To me, that's sad. They often say that if we forget our history we are doomed to repeat it. But for some reason we want to try to forget that we had forced sterilizations, lobotomies, and sometimes euthanizations of the "undesirables" right here in this country.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-28-2015, 01:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yet you continue to support states rights even though that argument was used to support slavery.

The funny thing is that you have never made any sort of logical argument against what I said.  That is because there is no logical argument against what i said.  The fact that the argument was used by people who supported eugenics does not mean it is not valid.  

I challenge you to to show how it is not an advantage for a poor person to have fewer children in today's society.

could you get a more broad excuse  

there is not need to make any argument... you hemmed yourself in when you used the same reasoning as was used to mark undesirables back in the day.    There is no need to debate someone who is gonna unknowingly make your point for you.  

[StLucieBengal]

(07-28-2015, 01:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: To me, that's sad. They often say that if we forget our history we are doomed to repeat it. But for some reason we want to try to forget that we had forced sterilizations, lobotomies, and sometimes euthanizations of the "undesirables" right here in this country.

there is a lot of ugliness that we do not teach from our history.   fact was that era in the world was a really ugly time.    its a shame it will be forgotten by the masses.  

[BmorePat87]

(07-28-2015, 01:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: To me, that's sad. They often say that if we forget our history we are doomed to repeat it. But for some reason we want to try to forget that we had forced sterilizations, lobotomies, and sometimes euthanizations of the "undesirables" right here in this country.

We showed my kids a documentary on the mentally ill homeless population in LA, so I touched on all of this with them since I learned about it when I went to school to teach special ed. 

But there's very little room for it to be worked into a curriculum in high school. We have to cover Reconstruction to 2008 in US history, and the Depression, WWII, the Civil Rights movement, and the Cold War are far more important in that period. 

[fredtoast]

(07-28-2015, 01:44 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: could you get a more broad excuse  

there is not need to make any argument... you hemmed yourself in when you used the same reasoning as was used to mark undesirables back in the day.    There is no need to debate someone who is gonna unknowingly make your point for you.  

Then you agree that you can no longer support more states rights because that argument was used to support slavery?

It is a lame logical fallacy to claim that an argument is invalid just because it had been used to support a bad cause.

there is no logical argument against the claim that having fewer children is a benefit to poor people in our society.

[*bfine32*]

(07-28-2015, 01:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I challenge you to to show how it is not an advantage for a poor person to have fewer children in today's society.

I know a huge financial burden was lifted when the older sibling could care for the younger while me and my spouse worked.

I could also see this being an advantage in an agricultural situation or care for an elder

[fredtoast]

(07-28-2015, 01:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I know a huge financial burden was lifted when the older sibling could care for the younger while me and my spouse worked.

I could also see this being an advantage in an agricultural situation or care for an elder

If the older sibling was not required to use his time caring for a younger sibling he could do something else to help the family.

And child labor is not the answer to escaping poverty.  The time that the mother loses with pregnancy and caring for infants is rarely regained unless the children are never allowed to go to school and are instead used as full time child labor.

[fredtoast]

How many of you are teaching your children that the best way to get ahead in life is to have as many children as quickly as possible?

[StLucieBengal]

(07-28-2015, 01:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then you agree that you can no longer support more states rights because that argument was used to support slavery?

It is a lame logical fallacy to claim that an argument is invalid just because it had been used to support a bad cause.

there is no logical argument against the claim that having fewer children is a benefit to poor people in our society.

the fact your so uninformed on this is hilarious.   Go read up on the negro project.  

And yes if we were talking about slavery right now and I used states rights as a reason to continue slavery right now.  then you would have a point.  

But since we are talking about pp, abortions, minorities/undesirables, and the eugenics movement and how its tenets are still active and being supported.    you don't realize it but your making my point that this has been so ingrained into everything we do that for most its second nature to defend it and use the same lines they have been teaching us for over a century.    

This is exactly why ignoring the eugenics movement in schools is a bad thing.