jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (46 posts)

The Liberal Progressive Agenda Of Genoicide

  1. TMMason profile image63
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    ---"Abortion is the number one killer of African-Americans, as revealed by CDC statistics. In the latest reported year, there were over 363,705 abortions and 289,306 total deaths from all other causes. Yet, this is celebrated as “reproductive justice” by pro-abortion groups who fight to crush free speech in order to silence any discussion."---

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nationa … ess-video/

    What a sad state of affairs my country and its people have become.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image73
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      How do you feel about this?

      "WASHINGTON — A leading medical advisory panel recommended on Tuesday that all insurers be required to cover contraceptives for women free of charge as one of several preventive services under the new health care law."

      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/healt … f=politics

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        That was our local paper, too.  We had a little furor here a while back when someone decided that the local college should do the same thing - give contraceptives to female students for free.

        I guess if women in general are too stupid to buy their own contraceptives then it would behoove society to provide them for free.  At least from a financial standpoint - from a social standpoint I can't see that it makes any sense at all to provide free entertainment for women.  If they can't buy it themselves they don't need to engage in that particular form of entertainment.

        I also would have to question whether or not men should get free condoms if women are getting free contraceptives.  Seems like a discrimination charge would likely be coming up.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image73
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          My point is that "right to lifers," logically should support measures to prevent unwanted, unplanned pregnancies and they should, logically, oppose capital punishment. But most of them appear to me to be rabid supporters of capital punishment and opponents of government support for contraception or comprehensive sex ed in public schools which includes information on contraception. They meet themselves coming back, so to speak, in my opinion. They also tend to oppose publicly pre- and post-natal care for indigent mothers. Go figure.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I rarely say this to any poster, but I agree completely with you smile

            Teaching abstinence is great and I, personally, would love to see my children abstain.  The problem is not enough information is being provide to teach kids exactly what they should be abstaining from.

            The word "sex" seems to be taboo in general to christian fundamentalists. 

            Personally, I would rather have my kids educated on all aspects of relationships and sex-including contraceptive use-then send them out with a "just don't do it or you'll go to hell". 

            Ignoring emerging sexuality in teenagers may be more comfortable but it leads to ignorant children that are forced to rely on peers for all of their information on the subject. 

            The fundies don't realize that by keeping our kids in the dark that they are perpetuating the problem.  By trying to hold on to ideals that are no longer realistic, they are contributing to the "decline of society" that they complain so much about.

        2. kerryg profile image87
          kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          So what, poor women don't get to have sex now? The most effective contraceptives are fairly expensive. IUDs provide 99.4-99.9% effectiveness for a period of 5-12 years (depending on the type of IUD), but their upfront cost is about $800-1200. The Pill can run $50 a month or more.

          Some types of contraceptives also have genuine medical benefits beyond preventing unwanted pregnancy and reducing STD infection rates. The Pill is commonly prescribed to women who suffer from severe menstrual cramps and other problems that could otherwise cause them to miss work or school. My sister went on it years before she needed the birth control aspect because it helps control her blood pressure during her period. When she's not on it, she faints, often several times a month. In her case, she has good employment provided insurance to help offset the costs, but not all women are so lucky.

          Poor women can't win for losing, it seems. Bring a child they can't afford into the world and they're irresponsible "parasites" on society because they need welfare, food stamps, Head Start, etc. to help them raise it; try to avoid bringing a child they can't afford into the world by getting government assistance (or even private insurance assistance, which is what Ralph's article was actually talking about) to help them get access to more reliable forms of birth control and they're getting "free entertainment."  I'm sorry, but it's really infuriating.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Other medical benefits aren't what is being discussed in the article; contraception is.  Any method of having the fun of sex without producing offspring.

            If it's not "free entertainment" what is it?  There are a lot of fun things I would like to do but can't because I can't afford it.  Neither poor nor rich women have some kind of innate "right" to that particular form of fun at someone elses expense.  There is nothing somehow magical nor necessary about sex; if they can't pay the cost of that night of fun, then don't do it!  For the life of me I can't see an ethical reason for society (you and I) to bear the cost of that night of pleasure.

            Of course it is I pointed out; they will do it anyway and then expect society to pick up the costs of future child rearing; because of that it is probably wise to go ahead and pay for their fun for them.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image73
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              So, it might be cheaper to provide the condoms than to care for the unwanted children.

              1. kerryg profile image87
                kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Cost of 18 years of condoms (1 condom per day): ~$4800
                Cost of raising a kid to age 18: $120,000-250,000

                Gee, I wonder which makes more sense.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image73
                  Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Some might need more than one per day! :-)

                  1. kerryg profile image87
                    kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    I know. I figure it probably averages out over time for most people though. I doubt there at many people who manage to have sex every single day of their lives. Sooner or later they're going to get a nasty head cold or case of food poisoning or something and not feel up to it. wink

            2. kerryg profile image87
              kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Unmarried women sleeping with a different guy every weekend aren't the only ones using birth control, you know. Married people use it, too, and celibacy in marriage is considered by most people to be grounds for divorce.

              Additionally, given the shockingly high rates of rape and coercive sex (not fun or "entertaining" at all) by husbands and boyfriends, especially among poor communities, it's very important for women to have access to birth control to protect themselves. Yes, it's better for them to get out of the relationship in the first place, but all too often, that's easier said than done, ESPECIALLY when there are children involved. It's a well documented fact that abusive men often try to deliberately impregnate women against their will as a way to increase control over them. It's much harder to leave an abusive partner with children than without, especially if he's the main breadwinner.

        3. kerryg profile image87
          kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Also, men's contraceptives are pretty much limited at this point to condoms, which are affordable for most people, and vasectomy. (Plus a few unreliable methods like withdrawal that don't cost anybody anything and couldn't be covered by insurance in any way.)

          Personally, I'd be totally behind requiring insurance companies to provide free vasectomies and some sort of voucher or something to get free condoms, but the focus is on women because most of the available forms of birth control - the Pill, IUDs, Plan B, the patch, Nuvaring, diaphragm, the sponge, cervical caps, tubal ligation, Essure, etc. - are directed at women.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            You do understand that it isn't the insurance companies that will cover the cost of free contraception?  That is you and I? 

            It won't be the big bad corporations that will pay for it out of their profits; it will be the neighbors, friends and strangers that will pay for it through higher insurance costs.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image73
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Which would you rather pay for, contraceptives or child care?

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                I have repeatedly stated that financially we as a society are probably ahead of the game to provide, free of charge, this form of entertainment.

                My question, though, is where do we ever stop this madness?  Should we give them free movie tickets, too, to keep them off the streets at night?  We already give away free cell phones, shall we add satellite TV to the list?  A few cities are now providing free net access, but how about free computers now so that access can be used?

                Just how far do we go to provide luxuries for the poor beyond what their needs are?  And no, sex is not a necessity - it is a luxury.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  What planet do you live on?

            2. kerryg profile image87
              kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              I do not think it is either realistic or fair to expect everybody below a certain income level to abstain from sex.

              If I'm going to be stuck subsidizing one or the other (and I do believe that society has a moral responsibility to ensure that all children receive at least a minimal level of health care, education, housing, and healthy food - kids growing up hungry, homeless, sick, and illiterate does nobody any good), I'd much rather subsidize responsibility than irresponsibility, especially since responsibility is so much cheaper. tongue

              As I pointed out above, a condom a day for 18 years is less than $5000. IUDs are potentially even cheaper - if you get the copper ones, you could have 24 years of birth control for less than $3000. That's 1/24 or less the cost of raising a kid to 18.

    2. Shadesbreath profile image85
      Shadesbreathposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      You should be ashamed of this kind of sophistry.

      1. TMMason profile image63
        TMMasonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I am ashamed of this country's acceptance of the blatent slaughter of children of all races... but to see what these stats show, is repulsive.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Well, once we get all of the leant-leftists and pseudo-conservatives out of the way, you and I can re-populate this great land with a super race of true Americans...

          Wait, we need a dame at some point...

          1. profile image0
            Sherlock221bposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            There are plenty of Dames in England, if you should need any.  Dame Judy Dench or Dame Maggie Smith, might not be the best choices to re-populate America, but there are younger ones, who might consider helping.

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image73
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Again, how do you feel about contraception?

        3. thebrucebeat profile image59
          thebrucebeatposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          And I am ashamed of posters on these hubs that don't even bother to spell check their own forum titles.

    3. Cagsil profile image59
      Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Another post for distortion.

      Not to mention, it's in the WRONG category to top it. Abortion isn't a hate crime and you insinuating that it is by post the above pathetic post under it, shows how determined you are to push YOUR beliefs on other people.

      Why don't you stay out of other people's lives and mind your own business, considering it has NOTHING to do with you to begin with.

      1. Jonathan Janco profile image72
        Jonathan Jancoposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Because he obviously gets a check every time he uses the phrase 'leant leftist'.

      2. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Maybe not, but TMs posts are generally hate crimes.

  2. RooBee profile image81
    RooBeeposted 6 years ago

    Contraception is of the devil and unnatural! Just like gay marriage! Now, where are my fertility drugs and Viagra? wink

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image73
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      So are aspirin or Coca Cola "unnatural." So what? (I hope your comment was sarcastic rather than serious.)

      1. RooBee profile image81
        RooBeeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, they were sarcastic - hence, the winky face..

  3. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago

    But it is African American's themselves who are choosing to get abortions...it's not like someone is forcing them. So the genocide argument is ridiculous.

    1. I am DB Cooper profile image75
      I am DB Cooperposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Your common sense isn't welcome in these here parts.

  4. GoingOnline profile image60
    GoingOnlineposted 6 years ago

    There's another advantage to the pill, which is that it lets teenagers with boyfriends who are on the bossy side of things and refuse to use condoms take the matter on their own hands. Or people who are married and don't want to have children, but whose husbands believe it's their divine right to get laid and have a child per year.

    Somehow I kinda prefer that the "useless parasites" that are going to have sex anyway for a variety of reasons (from peer pressure to self-stem problems to just lack of responsibility) get the pill for free before they become parasites. In fact, people shouldn't be allowed to have children until they can pay for them, but that would make everybody scream loudly if implemented as an attack on people's rights.

    12 months of the pill for a woman: 50*12 = $600.
    18 years of child subsidies, food stamps, housing benefits, etc... = Much more?

  5. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Geeez, when I read the title, I thought this was a thread on the genocide of Palestinians by the gvt of Israel! And I thought...what, is he saying Israel is progressive now?

    But I forget...once they're born, they don't matter! Slaughter away, eh Bibi? wink

    But who knew it would be a Hate Women thread?...well actually, that is no surprise either.

    Guess what?
    Abortion IS a choice, in this "free" country of ours....and the more you people suppress women and their rights..the more you will feel the wrath of your suppression!

    Don't like abortion? Don't have one!
    Meanwhile, mind your own business...and worry about the children who are already here!

  6. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    "sex is not a necessity - it is a luxury."

    Excuse me? Says who?

    Speak for yourself. Sex is the best relaxor and stress-reliever known to man!

    And it's funny that you go on and on about how much poor people are costing society...yet you want to add more....and unwanted ones at that.

    Pretzel Logic. Ego-driven madness.

  7. TMMason profile image63
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    @ Ralph. Yes I think contraceptives are a good thing Ralph.

    And to the, "It is their choice" argument. yes it is. And they like the rest of this country have been convinced that slaughtering children is a viable alternative to having a child.

    Thus the whole dumbing down of America agenda.

    Besides we all know exactly why the Margaret Sanger, Progressives, and Liberals devised the whole Aboirtion agenda.... they told us... a very long time ago what the deal was.

    Margaret Sanger and the extermination of Black Americans.

    "The aim of the program was to restrict—many believe exterminate—the black population. Under the pretense of “better health” and “family planning,” Sanger cleverly implemented her plan. What's more shocking is Sanger's beguilement of black America's crème de la crème—those prominent, well educated and well-to-do—into executing her scheme. Some within the black elite saw birth control as a means to attain economic empowerment, elevate the race and garner the respect of whites."

    http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/spec … roject.htm


    "In 1929, 10 years before Sanger created the Negro Project, the ABCL laid the groundwork for a clinic in Harlem, a largely black section of New York City. It was the dawn of the Great Depression, and for blacks that meant double the misery. Blacks faced harsher conditions of desperation and privation because of widespread racial prejudice and discrimination. From the ABCL's perspective, Harlem was the ideal place for this “experimental clinic,” which officially opened on November 21, 1930. Many blacks looked to escape their adverse circumstances and therefore did not recognize the eugenic undercurrent of the clinic. The clinic relied on the generosity of private foundations to remain in business.18 In addition to being thought of as “inferior” and disproportionately represented in the underclass, according to the clinic's own files used to justify its “work,” blacks in Harlem:

    That blacks endured extreme prejudice and discrimination, which contributed greatly to their plight, seemed to further justify restricting their numbers. Many believed the solution lay in reducing reproduction. Sanger suggested the answer to poverty and degradation lay in smaller numbers of blacks. She convinced black civic groups in Harlem of the “benefits” of birth control, under the cloak of “better health” (i.e., reduction of maternal and infant death; child spacing) and “family planning.” So with their cooperation, and the endorsement of The Amsterdam News (a prominent black newspaper), Sanger established the Harlem branch of the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau.21 The ABCL told the community birth control was the answer to their predicament."

    1. kerryg profile image87
      kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      ~sigh~

      Black women have higher abortion rates than white women because the rate of unintended pregnancy among black women is three times higher than among whites... mainly because black women are less likely to have access to affordable, reliable forms of birth control.

      A eugenics conspiracy has nothing to do with it. In fact, I find it pretty hilarious, in a gross sort of way, that the people screaming about the "genocide" of black fetuses tend to be the same people who complain loudest about the fact, for example, that more minority babies are now being born in the US than white babies. Hypocritical much? tongue

      1. TMMason profile image63
        TMMasonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        The only babies I have ever complained about being born here are the illegal ones... and "illegal" is not a race. And my complaint was/is not that they are being born... but that they gain citizenship in the act. One can be done without the other occurring.

        And that is a real problem that needs to be addressed soon, there are even citizenship tourist Cos. set up for pregnant women all around the world to come here and have their baby, so as to gain American citizenship for that child.

        That is unacceptable.

        1. thebrucebeat profile image59
          thebrucebeatposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Please post your citation for this claim.

        2. S Leretseh profile image60
          S Leretsehposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          "And my complaint was/is not that they are being born... but that they gain citizenship in the act."

          Concure 100%.  Chinese are very persistent here now. Also, for those who aren't aware, the baby, when it becomes an adult, can invite not only his mother and father to the US on green cards, but also etended family members. (The Hart-Celler Act - 1965 ... Robert Kennedy was paid for his support of this act.  So was Tedddy. Robert K. even wrote a FULL pg OP-ED piece in the NYTimes supporting Hart Cellar - Kennedy, of course, was interested in Jewish support  for a Senate seat in NY.  He got it )

      2. S Leretseh profile image60
        S Leretsehposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        "mainly because black women are less likely to have access to affordable, reliable forms of birth control."

        NATURALLY!!!! ....kerryg has NOTHING to back that comment up.  Another "white conspiracy to oppress" devotee.

        1. kerryg profile image87
          kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this
          1. S Leretseh profile image60
            S Leretsehposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            There are those that THINK and those that are told WHAT TO think. kerryg,you  are clearly in the latter

            If you're a THINKING person kerryg, here's what immediately comes to mind reading your source :
            Who is the Guttmacher Institute?
            A quick internet search (did you really think I wouldn't check?) tells me that only 3% of the yearly operating budget for this non-profit group comes from individual contributions. And the rest of it? Apparently government (directly and indirectly). And who would fund such an organization? DEMS. And how does one get DEMS support (i.e. taxpayer funding) for this kind of nonsense(Rober sterling Foundation did provide funding, apparently, for the article kerryg referenced)? Create the spectrum of white racism.  My dream is that one day organizations like guttmacher will have to be 100% supported by private contribution.  result?They'd all be gone within a year.

            http://www.guttmacher.org/about/2010AnnualReport.pdf

            For those who don't want to click on kerryg’s ridiculous source, I will tell you that the inference made in the article is that black females don't hv access to the "pill"; and white women do.  This  - pharmaceutical produced - conceptive is the best you see.  White women can get it cuz they can afford it;  and blacks can't afford it - cuz their poor and black.  blah blah.  Those who get an unwanted pregnancy , with few exceptions, are either drunk, lazy, indifferent or stupid; or, likely, a combination of all four. 

            And let's also not forget the black male in all this. More than 8 out of 10 simply refuse to be fathers.  At some point you hv got to stop being appalled at his complete indifference to raising a child(ren) he fathers.  His indifference has become not only legendary but also the norm in the black communities all across America (remember, the Moynihan Report was pointing this out in 1965!).   And - IMO - its time to finally admit ... no federal program has ever or will ever change the Absent black male father.  I also don't see the black male or the black female - EVER ! - complaining in the least about his complete absence.

            1. kerryg profile image87
              kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              I can not and would not claim that Guttmacher is an unbiased source, but at least they back up their assertions and conclusions with facts and statistics, which is a good deal more than I can say for you.

              "Those who get an unwanted pregnancy , with few exceptions, are either drunk, lazy, indifferent or stupid; or, likely, a combination of all four."

              Prove it.

  8. Evan G Rogers profile image77
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    I think it's a foolish statement to claim that abortions are genocide.

    If people voluntarily get abortions, and a disproportionate number of those people can be described as "X", then it is NOT a conclusion that X is being genocided.

  9. ahorseback profile image40
    ahorsebackposted 6 years ago

    The pill, sex education , abortions , abstinance ? Sex education or sex entertainment !  Not many people talk about personal responsibility in any serious way.  After the frat parties and multiple teenage pregnancies we are going to require education! While mom and dad think the kids at Marys for a pajama party with their new Lexus shes actually across town at the extacy convention. WHAT about teaching a personal and moral accountability? Instead most American parents turn over the keys and the responsibility to the kids and watch "American Idol' ! Most twenty year olds today have the maturity of a six year old ! And they already have a two year old.  Parental and personal responsibility ,what is THAT!

 
working