The numbers don't lie.

**Morningfrost** · 01-14-13, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

No, Eugenics was not primarily about anti-retarded. Plus you are defending a completely disgusting human being, all to support your view on abortion! Come on man. Let me educate you some more. Here are some actual quotes from Sanger taken from Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, In Her Own Words :

I didn't say eugenics was about anti-retardation, I said that's what Sanger was. Some of that probably fit in with an anti-minority bit, but it was mainly about keeping stupid people from having stupid babies.

As for your quotes from Sanger, most are taken out of context, especially your quote about the extermination of blacks. She was speaking about the benefits of including black community leaders, especially black ministers, and her full quote is "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." In the "Jim Crow" south, there were other programs specifically designed to eliminate blacks, and her fear was that this would be seen the same way without respected members of the black community to explain to their constituents about the humanitarian benefits.

Your 3rd quote (about the purpose of birth control/eugenics) is something you yourself are taking out of context. The entire purpose of selective breeding is to take traits that are most desirable, and looking to make them more common in the future. Thus, it's aim is to create a "race of thoroughbreds". As for your 4th quote (about the mentally handicapped, etc.), that just goes and proves my point about her eugenics program being more about anti-retardation than anything else. I haven't seen your other quotes before and can't place them, but the fact that they include one-word quotes and the like leads me to believe they're also severely out of context. That doesn't mean shit. If I felt like it, I could go through all your posts and come up with quotes that would make it look like you were a rabid Obama supporter, especially if I only used one- or two-word quotes.

Let's be very clear. Sanger wanted to prevent Black and Brown people from being born. Period. You know this is factually true and backed by the evidence. Any assertion otherwise by you just puts you in the same category as the racist, genocidal, disgusting human being you are defending.

The fact that you just called me racist, genocidal and a disgusting human being is a discussion for another day. I didn't know shit about this lady before today, but I know how to do my own research and find context. You apparently don't, so fuck yourself.

There are several problems with what you have done here. The first is that you assume equivalency between total minority makeup and the female population. Next, you lump in women that could not or would never have an abortion. Let me repeat the quote from the source I cited since you completely ignored what it said to support your point:

Furthermore, as I said already according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion.

And yes, I do assume some resemblance of equivalency between female population and minority population makeup. There's not going to be a huge difference between the two numbers. In 2011 women made up 50.7% of the total U.S. population. I find it difficult to fathom that the percentage is somehow drastically different in the minority population. Your statistic is designed to be shocking, but it doesn't tell the whole truth.

Assuming 15-44 is the age group where abortions take place (according to your statistic), minority women will account for roughly 28% of that total number of women. White women will account for the other 72%. Minority women account for 36% of abortions, which is 8% above their population percentage. They appear more likely to have an abortion, sure, but it's not "5 times more likely."

Given that the stated purpose as I have quoted with Sanger was to eliminate blacks or as she liked to call them, "human weeds", and prevent their proliferation, I'd say she was pretty damned successful. And suckers like you buy into the bullshit. Of course abortion was a part of a eugenics program designed to keep minorities from proliferating. That's a FACT. It's been widely successful, so let's call it what it is - genocide. If it makes you uncomfortable to hear that because you like abortion that's not really my problem to deal with. I'll stick to the facts.

Given that your quotes are wildly out of context, you'll have to forgive me if I don't believe a word that comes out of your mouth on the subject.

Also, minority population in the United States as a percentage has been rising, so I don't see how you can say that abortion has kept anyone from proliferating. Calling something genocide because minority women have 29% more abortions than their population numbers would expect, is just asinine.

Yeah um, no. What you said was:
"In the case of homicide, for example, it doesn't matter how developed the child/fetus is. If it doesn't take a breath, it's not considered homicide, it's considered an illegal abortion. If it DOES take a breath before you kill it, it's considered homicide."

And that is completely, 100% incorrect, and you just contradicted yourself.

I'd already been corrected on that earlier by someone else, that had actual documented proof that I was wrong. They didn't say "If you kill a pregnant woman it's a double-homicide." Because in many cases, it's not. Go back to the source I posted, and nearly half the states don't acknowledge a fetus as a child during the entire stage of development.

Now I think maybe we should get back to the topic of gun control. I have high hopes that you can speak more intelligently about that than you do about abortion.

Troll comment from troll is troll. I think it's pretty obvious who the one speaking intelligently here is, and who is the one that provides baseless accusations and hyperbole intended to garner shock value.

You want abortion to be legal, ok I respect your right to want that. But if you want it, you need to be intellectually honest about every aspect of the morality of what it is. Frankly, this is the main reason I hate abortion and will never support it. That and, being adopted and born in Torrance, CA - if I had been conceived 4 years later than I was, I probably would have been one of those aborted children.

I was also adopted, in 1986, well after Roe v. Wade and abortion became legal.

I am morally and intellectually honest with myself about abortion. In some cases the reasons people get abortions are reprehensible, but in most cases they're not. They prevent children with birth defects that would limit their quality of life. They prevent children from being born with terminal diseases that would kill them within days, in excruciating pain. They prevent products of rape from being born, because statistically those children are abused (especially when not put up for adoption). Abortion also somewhat limits the number of children in foster care, which statistically turns out pretty poorly for the children in it.

~Morningfrost

**Warprosper** · 01-14-13, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

You dont need to know what the future holds to be prepared for it. Hence the second amendment.

So why does the constitution get amended?

**deathgodusmc** · 01-14-13, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by Warprosper

So why does the constitution get amended?

To add to its protections. The whole idea it to limit what our leaders can do to us. That is why our most crucial items like free speech and the right to bear arms at at the front. They dont have to read very far to be reminded we are in charge and can take it back if it ever becomes necessary.

**-Lazarus-** · 01-14-13, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

To add to its protections. The whole idea it to limit what our leaders can do to us. That is why our most crucial items like free speech and the right to bear arms at at the front. They dont have to read very far to be reminded we are in charge and can take it back if it ever becomes necessary.

As a matter of fact, if you understand our history, the Constitution would never have been signed into law without the Bill of Rights. Most of the senators refused to sign it until they were promised that in the next session they would introduce the Bill of Rights as amendments - the amendments in the bill of rights exist solely because the congressional session ended. The intent was for them to be in the original Constitution. Furthermore, with regard to the second amendment, the express purpose of the amendment was crystal clear - if you like you can read James Madison's notes from the first continental congress where he describes the debate and reasoning. At no time whatsoever in any of the records of the debates on the Bill of Rights did a single delegate in any of the state ratification debates (there were over 1600 delegates by the way) argue that the President of the United States would have the power to diminish any of the amendments that make up the bill of rights. That would have been an absurd notion! Because it was the President, and the other branches that made up the federal government that the states were most concerned about when it came to protecting the rights of the individual. At no time did any state delegate or any Constitutional delegate in Philadelphia argue that the President of the United States would have the power to seize the authority of Congress when it comes to taxing, spending, or the currency or debt. None of the founders has conferred or even argued to confer the kind of power on this President that he seizes for himself today or that he may seize for himself in the future. So when the Vice-President of the United States sits there and arrogantly states that the President is prepared and may issue executive orders respecting Amendment 2 of the Bill of Rights, or the President says the same, where does that authority come from? It comes from nowhere. It is unconstitutional, it is tyrannical, and despotic. When the President's party is urging him to unilaterally issue orders to spend money, borrow money, print money in violation of article one of the Constitution, in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, they are arguing for an unconstitutional act. They are arguing for tyranny.

If Congress and the President would just obey the Constitution we would not have any of the problems we are experiencing at the federal level today. As for gun control, it's pretty damned obvious what the founders wanted. What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?

**triggerhappy2005** · 01-14-13, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

To add to its protections.

Not necessarily.

Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's a better explanation as to why amendments exist.

What is the purpose of Constitutional amendments

**deathgodusmc** · 01-14-13, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Not necessarily.

Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's a better explanation as to why amendments exist.

What is the purpose of Constitutional amendments

I could see how someone would make an argument with that one but imo that amendment was made to fix an overstepping by our government with the 18th. As for the explanation you provide i have to say i disagree. The reason i disagree is the supreme court doesn't make or pass amendments or laws. The simply interpret what is already on the books. As i agree with its example the amendments are not made to over ride the supreme court. But once again i can see the argument being made but would have to say its at best a half truth.

**deathgodusmc** · 01-14-13, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

As a matter of fact, if you understand our history, the Constitution would never have been signed into law without the Bill of Rights. Most of the senators refused to sign it until they were promised that in the next session they would introduce the Bill of Rights as amendments - the amendments in the bill of rights exist solely because the congressional session ended. The intent was for them to be in the original Constitution. Furthermore, with regard to the second amendment, the express purpose of the amendment was crystal clear - if you like you can read James Madison's notes from the first continental congress where he describes the debate and reasoning. At no time whatsoever in any of the records of the debates on the Bill of Rights did a single delegate in any of the state ratification debates (there were over 1600 delegates by the way) argue that the President of the United States would have the power to diminish any of the amendments that make up the bill of rights. That would have been an absurd notion! Because it was the President, and the other branches that made up the federal government that the states were most concerned about when it came to protecting the rights of the individual. At no time did any state delegate or any Constitutional delegate in Philadelphia argue that the President of the United States would have the power to seize the authority of Congress when it comes to taxing, spending, or the currency or debt. None of the founders has conferred or even argued to confer the kind of power on this President that he seizes for himself today or that he may seize for himself in the future. So when the Vice-President of the United States sits there and arrogantly states that the President is prepared and may issue executive orders respecting Amendment 2 of the Bill of Rights, or the President says the same, where does that authority come from? It comes from nowhere. It is unconstitutional, it is tyrannical, and despotic. When the President's party is urging him to unilaterally issue orders to spend money, borrow money, print money in violation of article one of the Constitution, in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, they are arguing for an unconstitutional act. They are arguing for tyranny.

If Congress and the President would just obey the Constitution we would not have any of the problems we are experiencing at the federal level today. As for gun control, it's pretty damned obvious what the founders wanted. What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?

Damn it. Im all out of tin foil and i agree with almost everything you said.

**BigHub** · 01-14-13, 05:01 PM

A tad bit off of yalls topic... But none-the-less:

God bless Texas. Come and take it.

http://www.house.state.tx.us/news/pr...bill_code=2825

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

**deathgodusmc** · 01-14-13, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by BigHub

A tad bit off of yalls topic... But none-the-less:

God bless Texas. Come and take it.

Texas House of Representatives : Toth, Steve Member News Releases

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

Following Wyoming's lead on that law. I like it.

**-Lazarus-** · 01-14-13, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by CleverGeek

I guess home ownership is more dangerous then guns.. We should ban home-ownership.

Please read before commenting.. I am not saying to ban guns. Alcohol cars and crazy people all have laws and regulations surrounding them. Yet guns should be the exception?

There are already over 20k laws regulating firearms. There are certainly more than those regarding cars. For example, an illegal immigrant can get a driver's license, but can't buy a gun legally at a gun store.