Rick Santorum talking on a Christian news show states that Obama should oppose abortion because he is a black man.
I swear I watched this 3x and the logic still makes zero sense ... to me. If someone can explain, please do! Thx. MM
It's simple, black people for so long were denied basic rights life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, just because of the color of their skin, the same is happening to the unborn when they are aborted without being given a choice, without the protection that is guaranteed by all in the constitution, the rights that blacks fought so hard to achieve.
Besides, everyone knows that abortion was intended to be used to control the population of black people.
'everyone knows that abortion was intended to be used to control the population of black people.'
That's an irrational statement at so many levels, it's incredible.
Irrational? How so? Do you know anything about Margret Danger? Read the link I posted.
You act as though Margaret Sanger herself invented abortion. Since it's been around for as long as women have been getting pregnant, your argument that it was intended to control the black population is ridiculous. You and Rick should get along famously.
Abortion goes back 2300 years! Are you kidding me? Do you have a single thought you didn't get from Glenn Beck?
So so was slavery but you kins seem to think America invented it. Sanger's fouding of planned parenthood was to implment her belief ineugenics.
The existence of Glenn Beck proves ONE man is a fool. It doesn't prove anything about ALL republicans. Sanger has been dead for almost 50 years and her opinions in 1930 are not those of the modern woman. The ability of the right to seize on 100 year-old statements of pioneers in the women's movement to distort modern politics is beyond irrational.
Sanger was a eugenicist and saw all none whites and even Eastern and Southern Europeans as inferior to Anglo-Saxon "racial stock." She was a monster whose goal was to decrease the birth rate among the inferior yet is still heralded by those wonderful modern woman as a champion. It isn't Sanger's ideas that are the problem today it is that those ideas are woven into the fabric of contemporary women's politics.
BULL! Sangers ideas from 1920 to 1940 which wingnuts want to call racism and eugenics are a side show. A distraction intended to drag the conversation away from real issues. If we are talking about a womans right to control over her own body and you wish to disagree with the modern movement, quote a current leader. Or at least one who hasn't been dead since the 60's.
Well it speaks to the mindset of progressives... they think they are the elite, the only ones that can control the people and get them to do the "right" thing...
"We think that, as my co-author, Thaler and I, that there's a little Homer Simpson in all of us. Sometimes we have self-control problems, sometimes we're impulsive and that in these circumstances, both private and public institutions, without coercing, can make our lives a lot better.
"Once we know that people are human and have some Homer Simpson in them, then there's a lot that can be done to manipulate them." -Cass Sunstein President Obama's regulatory Czar
"they (progressives) think they are the elite, the only ones that can control the people and get them to do the "right" thing..."
Supporting the women's right to choose is "trying to control people and get them to do the right thing?"
Think about that.
WSJ today for every 1000 black live births in NY there are 1489 abortions. This is significantly more than whites. I'd say the progressive agenda is right on target!
He ends with the statement that he finds it to be inconceivable that a black man would say, we are going to decide who are people and who are not. That could be taken two ways as I am sure he knew before stating it. 1, based upon how the blacks were treated as less than human by the christian whites, how could a black man develop the same attitude about another human. 2, How dare a black man attempt to take over one of the white christian's primary duties, determining who is human and who is not.
It doesn't suprise me that this is going on considering how much success they have had teaching black communities to hate the homosexual community. How dare the white christians determine that a homosexual is less than human and not entitled to the same rights christians enjoy?
Black babies are more likely to be aborted. Abortion is marketed to black mothers. Until Jesse Jackson entertained presidential aspirations he called abortion a black holocaust. It is simple, really, as a proportion of population blacks abort more often than whites.
Rather than allow comprehensive sex education and the availablitity of contreceptives that would decrease abortions, the christian right prefers to keep them coming. Abortions are being forced onto the black communities by the puritanical mindset of the mainstream christian. Rathe than allow proper sex education to be taught they prefer to have babies killed. It gives them something else to feel holier than tho about. Itr never enters their head that they are actually increasing the very thing they want to decrease. Amen.
I took it to be about the numbers. Is it not true that Black Mothers have more abortions?
I would like to point out that there is a subtle accusation of racism going on in this thread here. This is why Holder said we are COWARDS. Its OK to discuss race issues. Stating statistical facts are NOT racist. Attributing those statistics as being characteristic of a specific race is. I don't think this guy was doing the later.
"Everyone" knows abortion was intended to control the black population? I didn't know that. I've never heard that before.
Sounds a lot like Rick Santorum's claim that all biologists agree that life begins at conception. All biologists do NOT agree with that statement at all.
For the record, abortion has been around for centuries. Long before blacks in America.
And for the sake of argument. By this logic, WOMEN should oppose abortion because, like blacks, women were denied full rights and had to fight for the right to vote, a place in the workforce, equal pay, etc.
Surely no one can expect WOMEN as a "class of citizen" to reject abortion on these grounds. That's ludicrous.
Yes the founder of planned parenthood Margret Sanger (a liberal) held this view. Read and learn...
http://www.abortionfacts.com/learn/hist … ortion.asp
Specifically, black women should oppose abortion the most, since it is black female babies that are most often aborted....
That's not how I read her....
She worked on the Lower East side of Manhattan, where a lot of poor European immigrants lived...
She was trying to help those poor women, who had baby after baby after baby and the husband could not support them all. Plus, those women died young. Hard life for all involved.
http://www.womensenews.org/story/commen … and-racism
You should read this then. By all accounts Sanger was insensitive at best and a racist at worst.
Read the history. She was a hard core racist.
I've "read the history" and haven't found anything indicating that Sanger was a "hard core racist." Please enlighten me. Sounds like you are trying to smear someone because of your own personal beliefs. If Sanger held racial views that progressive people would disagree with today that may be because she was born in 1876 to a generation in which racial beliefs that are not acceptable today were not uncommon. A racist 100 years ago is one thing and a racist today is something entirely different. The election of Obama has brought a lot of racist cockroaches out of the woodwork.
She not only believed in womans reproductive rights and health. She was also a HUGE promoter of eugenics. She believe that only the "Right" people should be reproducing. She believed that abortion could be used as a tool to manage the population. Ensuring that the best genetic lines were being propogated. Sound familiar? The history is there Ralph. You know it. If you choose to read a one sided account of history you will make comments like you have. By the way did you see the latest news on that wonderfull organization she is credited with starting?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 06135.html
These guys are FEDERALLY FUNDED RALPH. What a waste!
You said she was "a hard core racist," but you haven't provided evidence of that. Plenty of people jumped on the eugenics bandwagon. For example, James Watson. I don't support eugenics, however, Sanger's main work involved birth control. Don't you agree that drugstores should be allowed to sell condoms and that birth control should be taught in high school sex ed classes. Just where are YOU coming from?
You are trying to smear a good organization just because of misconduct by one individual. Nothing could be more one-sided.
Ralph, anyone interested in the truth can google Margret Sanger, Eugenics, ABCL, The Negro Project that started in Harlem. It's all there.
Sounds to me like you're trying to use ancient history to smear Planned Parenthood and efforts to disseminate information on contraception. It just doesn't was to equate planned parenthood today with eugenics 70 or 80 years ago. If you don't believe in contraception, don't practice it.
Smearing? Hardly, stating the history is a matter of fact. If you start wrong and don't make corrections you will finnish wrong. Recent events within their organization prove that. Regardless of past or recent events, Federal dollars spent on an organization that supports something as divisive as abortion is unexceptable. If Planned Parenthood is such a worthy cause, they should have NO trouble gettting private donations. Here is an organization that gets a third of it's money from the Federal Government. St Jude hospital gets approximately 14%. Go figure...
The federal government has thrown $1.5 billion away on "abstinence only" programs. Does that make you happy?
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/public … ?task=view
"Planned Parenthood receives federal tax dollars through Title X of the Public Health Service Act of 1970. The funding is for reproductive health care services, including family planning, and cannot be directly spent on actual abortion procedures except in cases of rape, incest or to preserve the life of the mother."
Absolutely NOT! Sounds like you and I could have given them that information for FREE! Can you imagine that? Think of that Ralph. 1.5 billion spent on telling people that sex can cause unwanted pregnancy! Again the issue is so divisive the government should NOT be involved monitarily.
Well, why don't you smear the abstinence only program and stop worrying about Planned Parenthood which provides an effective, useful service to thousands or millions of women.
For starters the 1.5 billion number is for all monies spent since 1997 on abstenance programs. Planned Parrenthood can't account for nearly the same amount(1.3 billion) granted by the FED from 2006 to 2008! Futher abstenance until marriage program funding was cut completely out of the Federal Budget in 2010 by the Obama Administration.
"Futher abstenance until marriage program funding was cut completely out of the Federal Budget in 2010 by the Obama Administration."
Well, that's good news. It was a complete wast of taxpayer's money which is not the case for medical services for women through Planned Parenthood.
Medical services that are completely preventable. A waste of tax payer money. Especially from an organization that has proven capable of loosing 1.3 billion over a two year period. At some point Ralph we are going to have to tighten the purse strings. The spending can't go on forever.
"Completely preventable?" ???How and why would you want to do that?
We agree that the purse strings need to be tightened but not even close on which purse strings. I would start with the military budget, not human services.
HOW? That's pretty self explanitory. How much is a condom? Human services? I would consider feeding the hungry human services. I would consider providing temporary housing for the homeless during extreme weather human services. I would consider vacines for the young and elderly human services. I could go on and on with a list of "HUMAN SERVICES" all with groups clamoring for more money. Most having a better track record than PP.
Cutting the Military. Its all that comes up with liberals when budget cuts come up. Your going to have to come to terms with that unrealistic approach. It's not the only place to cut. Its not the only place with waste. I seem to recall the Democrat led congress FORCING airplains on a US Military that didn't want them! You look at 1.3 BILLION dollars unaccounted for, spent on preventing pregnancy for people who treat sex like a sport and you say "I would start with the military budget" UBELIEVABLE! Whats more surprising is that I'm no longer surprised.
Leave it to Santorum to make it a race issue.
It's a FREEDOM issue. Freeodm of life. Choice. Destiny.
Unless you want to live their lives FOR them, take care of the babies FOR them, you have 0 say.
I think Santorum's argument exposes an underlying "us versus them" mentality that still causes a major rift in race relations to this day. Is Obama, who is identified as a black man in the media even though he's just as "white" as he is "black", supposed to oppose abortions because it was historically used to suppress the black population or because it currently affects the black population disproportionately? The hidden inference is that Barack Obama has a vested interest in the population of one race over another.
It may not seem that way on the surface, but what Santorum said is divisive politics in its ugliest form. This is the same kind of thing that went on for decades with the "Southern Strategy", which the GOP officially apologized for 7 or 8 years ago.
Seems to me Sarnorum's comment was racist, suggesting that Obama's position would or should be determined by his race. Santorum is an arsehole.
Would you think he was an anti-semite for assuming a Jew would be against returning Jerusalem to the Palestinians?
An interview with Sanger by Mike Wallace. You can read the transcript or click to watch the v ideo.
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/multimedia/vi … ret_t.html
The worst thing in the interview is Mike Wallace advertising Philip Morris cigarettes at a time when anyone with a brain in their head was aware of the health hazards of smoking. Margaret Sanger acquitted herself perfectly well.
What's your point, Sir Dent?
I see absolutely nothing in that interview that makes me believe Margaret Sanger was a racist. She was a nurse, a woman who grew up in a family of 11 whose mother died early.
She advocated birth control -- not abortion.
BTW, the absolute BEST part of the interview is the sponsorship!
Phillip Morris, yes indeedy! And here's the interviewer himself, waxing eloquent on how wonderful Philip Morris CIGARETTES are!
Oh, the irony, the irony!
Thank you, Katiem.
I feel better, like maybe I'm not losing my ability to reason after all !
oh, i think we all know what his "reasons" (read: motives) are.
When Black women in America have the personal, educational and economic opportunity to thrive as women and as mothers, perhaps we will see the abortion rate in that demographic segment go down.
Sanger advocated birth control, not abortion.
The modern equivalent is pro-choice people.
Prevention is preferable!
Former director of a planned Parenthood clinic.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour … pLRftkoiPQ
Sounds like the same scam the Tea Baggers pulled on ACORN.
No scam. You should read about Abby Johnson. You will then see why she no longer works for PP.
Funny, I'm still waiting for any argument from Santorum that does make sense.
by Holle Abee6 years ago
by Stacie L6 years ago
By Colby Itkowitz, Morning CallSeptember 21, 2011, 9:20 a.m.Reporting from Washington— Presidential hopeful and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum doesn't make headlines like his other Republican contenders, but...
by Credence220 months ago
I thought that this article, attached, was most revealing. It might just show that this problem is not just a figment of left's imagination. A politically conservative Black man from a politically Conservative state,...
by Patricia Scott6 months ago
Do you think that "Black Lives Matter" is designed to bring us closer or to further divide us?I am hopeful that we can find a way to live together on this planet respecting each other and valuing each...
by Rhonda Lytle3 years ago
Is there really a war on women in the USA or is it a politically motivated means of division?Do you believe there is a war on women in the United States of America? If so, what do you think it is? Do you...
by Marcy Goodfleisch4 weeks ago
Will Trump take the USA backward or forward with women's rights?Some editorials accuse Trump of being sexist but some of his staff members say he supports women's rights. What do you think?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.