Jump to content


The history of morality of abortion


Recommended Posts

I hadn't heard any of this until now:

In its challenge to the “contraception mandate” of the Affordable Care Act, Hobby Lobby claims that certain forms of birth control—Plan B, “ella,” and IUDs—induce abortion and therefore go against the owners’ religious beliefs. The government’s response is that none of these contraceptives ends a pregnancy. Rather, they prevent implantation in the uterine lining. . . .

 

Ask most (white) evangelicals about the morality of abortion these days, and you’re certain to hear about its absolute immorality in most, if not all, circumstances. But this is a recent innovation in the history of evangelical belief, a product of political forces as well as new theological insight. . . . Their beliefs, like those of the people around them, change with time and circumstance.

http://www.slate.com...t_from_not.html

Link to comment

Wow.....talk about stretching politics.

 

Everyone's views change over time. Liberals views change and so do conservatives. Environmentalists views change. Anti and pro abortion people's views change too.

 

To lump an entire group of people in and claim that most views changed due to politics is just silly and opportunistic.

 

I know I am just one person but I have had tons of conversations with both pro and anti abortion people and their path to their beliefs always seemed close to mine. I used to be freedom of choice around my HS and college days. However, it was my mother, sister and wife that changed my mind (oh...those horrible men who want to only control a woman's body). That, along with actually going through the process of having three children (wife actually pregnant 5 times) simply changed my view of when life begins. It's simple as that.

 

But...hey.....I refuse to discuss those seminars I went to in my twenties on how to be a sexist pig and control women's bodies.

Link to comment

Are people really "Pro" abortion? I mean, do people really want abortions or do they want the woman/family to have the freedom of choice?

I know one person who is "pro" abortion. She's crazy . . . and an OB/GYN . . . so I guess she is doing what she loves? :hmmph

 

Other than that, I know a lot of pro-choice people.

Link to comment

Are people really "Pro" abortion? I mean, do people really want abortions or do they want the woman/family to have the freedom of choice?

Ask Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood - the leading provider of abortions:

http://www.toomanyaborted.com/sanger/

 

Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.”1 These are the words of a woman who is heralded by women’s rights groups worldwide. These are the words of Margaret Sanger, the mother of Planned Parenthood, whose beliefs were firmly rooted in the destructive pseudo-science of Negative Eugenics, a social movement that believed in selective breeding to better the human race by preventing the reproduction of the ‘unfit’.2 Professionally, Sanger was a nurse who testified before the U.S. Senate in 1916 to call for the formation of the Population Congress that would seek to employ Negative Eugenics to separate humanity. Drastically limiting immigration of those considered ‘unfit’ was a mainstay of Sanger and her fellow eugenists. Their draconian proposals of forced segregation, for American citizens, were commonly held views among these ‘progressives’ who sought to achieve a superior and more intelligent race.

“…apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted…to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be…for the period of their entire lives.”– Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Review, “Plan for Peace”, April 1932, Vol 26, Number 4

 

Margaret Sanger, an American elite (whose second marriage to oil tycoon Noah Slee provided much of the financial backing for her cause) is the mother of Birth Control in America. Although a mother herself, she abandoned her own children for something she felt was more worthy of her time and passion. Some herald her as a hero that advanced women’s rights to new heights. But it’s important to understand the context in which she championed such ‘rights’. It was not out of benevolence but a deep-seated hatred of ‘forced’ motherhood, chastity, of the ‘inferior classes’, of religion (especially Catholicism), and racial elements that were a hindrance to the breeding of a ‘race of thoroughbreds’.3 She wasn’t interested in removing the cause of poverty, illiteracy, illegitimate births, or other social ills–just attacking the result…innocent life…which inherently had nothing to do with any of the conditions in which he or she was given life.

“Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease…Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks [of people] that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant.”– Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, Chapter V, “Cruelty of Charity”

 

This is only a small fraction of the darker legacy associated with her name. It has been well-small_bubble_Pivot_of_Civilization.png documented that Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Philosophy was firmly rooted in negative eugenics. She was the founder of the American Birth Control League, which in 1943, was renamed Planned Parenthood.4 She was funded by the same elite eugenists (i.e. John D. Rockefeller) who also, concurrently, funded Eugen Fischer and his work at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute (responsible for the Nazi scientific theories of racial hygiene that led the the slaughter of millions of Jews, gypsies, blacks and others deemed the inferior race).5 Many of whom Sanger associated with, professionally and editorially (writers/contributors to her Birth Control Review publication) are found, by scholars, to have greatly influenced Nazi racist ideology. To carry out her population control plans, her organization, American Birth Control League that she founded in 1921, opened its facilities in predominantly black, immigrant and poor area of New York City. (This would be the template for the majority of Planned Parenthood clinics.) In 1939, with the help of wealthy Americans moguls (such as Clarence Gamble, of Procter & Gamble, and Mary Lasker) launched her racially motivated population control scheme that she called “Negro Project”, recruiting black preachers to sermonize her population control message.

“Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defective.” –Margaret Sanger, “Women and the New Race” Chapter 18

Link to comment

1919?

Every movement has a foundation stone on which it builds unless it repudiates it's former self. I've never heard any deeply committed pro-abortionist person or organization denounce how PP was started or the woman behind it.

If you haven't heard, it might surprise you to learn that Planned Parenthood itself refers to Sanger's views as "objectionable and outmoded."

 

I suppose that this isn't normally discussed on toomanyaborted.com. :hmmph

Link to comment

I stand corrected Carl. Here is a FoxNews article (of all places) supporting your claim. Old information is bad information - in regards to the Sanger/PP being joined at the hip still - I stand corrected and should have looked at it deeper instead of shooting from the emotional hip. In regards to abortion and PP - I'm very much opposed.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/30/planned-parenthood-rejects-cain-claim-abortion-clinics-are-aimed-at-black/

Link to comment

The struggle I have with the abortion topic is that turning it into a political issue results in losing sight of the actual real-life people and fetuses that it affects.

 

I have no problem with the article, and I think that evangelicals have come a ways in their thinking on the matter, but also have a lot further to go. I am not unsympathetic towards the circumstances that women find themselves in without choosing, but I am also incredibly sympathetic towards the fetuses that have no ability to defend themselves.

 

That's what this comes down to. You can huff and puff about all of the surrounding details your entire life, but ultimately, the crux of the matter is that a fetus either is or isn't alive, and if it is, aborting in most all contexts (I wanted to just say abortion is period, but that would be legalistic posturing) is murder.

Link to comment

That's what this comes down to. You can huff and puff about all of the surrounding details your entire life, but ultimately, the crux of the matter is that a fetus either is or isn't alive, and if it is, aborting in most all contexts (I wanted to just say abortion is period, but that would be legalistic posturing) is murder.

In your own opinion, does this critical change happen before or after the zygote is attached?

 

On another tangent, what are your views on birth control?

Link to comment

In your own opinion, does this critical change happen before or after the zygote is attached?

this is where the issue lies, when does life begin (or end, for that matter). some ethicists believe that life does not begin until consciousness. although that does seem extreme, it does make sense in terms of when life ends and the issue of euthanasia and mercy killings.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...