Comments by "Theodore Shulman" (@ColonelFredPuntridge) on "FORGOTTEN HISTORY"
channel.
-
1
-
@katie7748 What murderer? What murder? If you are thinking of abortion, you should know that Margaret Sanger was an outspoken, loud opponent of abortion. No fooling, she really was. She described abortion as “sordid,” “abhorrent,” “terrible,” “barbaric,” "vicious", "the wrong way", "taking a life", a “horror” in the same category as infanticide and child-abandonment, and "a disgrace to civilization." She called abortionists “blood-sucking men with MD after their names." She said that the rights of unborn babies to protection were "no less imperative" than the rights of already-born children. She circulated an advertisement for her birth-control clinic which said: "MOTHERS! / Can you afford to have a large family? /Do you want any more children? / If not, why do you have them? / DO NOT KILL, / DO NOT TAKE LIFE / BUT PREVENT." She never advocated in any way for legalizing abortion. Planned Parenthood did not start doing abortions until after she had been dead for more than three years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@grimjoker5572 No it is not your place to prevent anything or protect anyone, inside another person's body, unless you have permission from the owner of that body to do so. Protection of the weak depends on where the weak are located. If the weak are located inside my body, than even if the weak were fully conscious humans, sitting up and solving heretofore unsolved classic math problems, or writing award-winning poetry, you would have no business trying to protect them unless I, the owner, sovereign, and arbiter-of-everything inside my body, gave you permission to conduct a rescue mission inside it.
If all the human beings in the whole world were located inside my body, then I would be entitled to holocaust them. Or, just kill the ones I didn't like, and spare the ones I do like.
If God were located inside my body, then I would be entitled to kill God.
(For inside my body, I am like a refiner's fire.
The arbiter and owner, whom none may defy.)
1
-
1
-
@User-qo5pw She didn't advocate for "eradication". And the "human weeds" were anyone whose parents already had more children than they could afford to raise properly. A "human weed" meant a neglected child, neglected because the parents already had so many children that they couldn't look after all of them. A family (Margaret Sanger said) should be like plants in a garden, spaced, timed to season, and attentively watered and pruned, and given fertilizer. Not like an untended bit of weedy soil with children competing like wild animals for food, clothing, and attention.
"Human weeds" had nothing to do with race, skin-color, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. It was entirely a matter of how big your family was, and how many children your parents could afford to raise.
1
-
@grimjoker5572 RE: "You took an action you know could result in somebody being dependent on you for a period of time."
The kind of obligations you are talking about - agreeing to take care of a child - only obligate you to provide external goods (food, diapers, money, etc.), not any part of the insides of your body. That is why we don't force you to donate blood or tissues or organs to your children, no matter how pressing their need may be. In other words, if the only food the child could eat were part of the inside of your body, then you would be entitled to let the child starve to death, if that were your preference.
RE: "This means you consented to the consequences of said action."
The consequence you consented to is that if you get pregnant, you must choose whether to complete your pregnancy and give birth, or whether to abort it. Your obligation is to choose wisely. The government's obligation is to leave you (and your doctor) alone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@grimjoker5572
RE: "Her position that she'd work with literal Klans members to advance her cause?"
Pretty much, yes. She had what you might call a "cooperative personality". She was kind of a polar opposite of someone like Donald Trump or the late Senator John McCain - two men whose first impulse on meeting someone new is to pick fights, whose response to every problem is to find a target and then try to establish dominance. Margaret Sanger was the opposite: she was a serial bridge-builder, a seeker-of-common-ground. Her impulse on encountering someone new was always to try to find areas of agreement. That is one of the main reasons (maybe the main reason) she was able to accomplish so much in her lifetime. Bill Clinton is the same way - he wants you to like him, not fear him.
Margaret Sanger expressed this in her autobiography in the section about speaking to the Women's Branch of K^3 by writing: "Always to me any aroused group was a good group...." She meant, anyone who could be motivated to join in the project of making birth-control legal, well-known, and generally available, was worth the effort at least exploring and assessing. Including even K^3, notwithstanding the misgivings she had about them.
From her autobiography (which you should read, the whole thing, if you are serious about wanting to know more about her and cut through the garbage you see on videos like this one):
"All the world over, in Penang and Skagway, in El Paso and Helsingfors, I have found women’s psychology in the matter of childbearing essentially the same, no matter what the class, religion, or economic status. Always to me any aroused group was a good group, and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the [K^3] at Silver Lake, New Jersey, one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alperdue2704
Oh brother, this lame argument again??? PP locates in poor communities, because that is where the demand for minimal-cost, no-frills GYN care is greatest. Just as Salvation Army locates in poor communities, too, because that is where the customers are. Not as any conspiracy to keep poor people down by making them dress in shabby, ill-fitting, second-hand clothes.
And however the German Nazis felt about her, there's no argument about the fact that she didn't like them. She made this very clear in a private letter written in 1933. Same with KKK: the women's auxiliary branch of KKK invited her to give a secret night-time lecture, she reluctantly agreed, and she reported having the impression that they were all half-wits and kooks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@twoEARSoneMOUTH247 LOL funny, but I'm not lying. But go ahead and prove your point, by citing the source for that line about Blacks, Jews, and Soldiers. What book, speech, article, or essay, by Margaret Sanger, is it from? (Page number, too, ,please.) You can't, because she never said or wrote it.
1
-
1
-
RE: "Abortion should only be a decision to make understand the most dire of circumstances."
That's what Margaret Sanger thought! She turned women seeking abortions away from her clinics, and she described abortion as “sordid,” “abhorrent,” “terrible,” “barbaric,” "vicious,", "the wrong way", "taking a life", a “horror” in the same category as infanticide and child-abandonment, and "a disgrace to civilization." She called abortionists “blood-sucking men with MD after their names." She said that the rights of unborn babies to protection were "no less imperative" than the rights of already-born children. She circulated an advertisement for her birth-control clinic which said: "MOTHERS! / Can you afford to have a large family? /Do you want any more children? / If not, why do you have them? / DO NOT KILL, / DO NOT TAKE LIFE / BUT PREVENT." She never advocated in any way for legalizing abortion. Planned Parenthood did not start doing abortions until after she had been dead for more than three years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lupusdeum3894 Hardly. Margaret Sanger turned women seeking abortions away from her clinics, and she described abortion as “sordid”, “abhorrent”, “terrible”, “barbaric”, "vicious", "the wrong way", "taking a life", a “horror” in the same category as infanticide and child-abandonment, and "a disgrace to civilization." She called abortionists “blood-sucking men with MD after their names." She said that the rights of unborn babies to protection were "no less imperative" than the rights of already-born children. She circulated an advertisement for her birth-control clinic which said: "MOTHERS! / Can you afford to have a large family? /Do you want any more children? / If not, why do you have them? / DO NOT KILL, / DO NOT TAKE LIFE / BUT PREVENT." She never advocated in any way for legalizing abortion. Planned Parenthood did not start doing abortions until after she had been dead for more than three years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ac1045 I read Dan Kevles' review of it. He said it had a lot of historical facts right, but misinterpreted the overall meaning very badly, because the author wrote with a particular political agenda, with biased sponsors whom he had to please. A kind of a good-at-the-trees-but-bad-at-seeing-the-forest kind of complaint. Maybe "cherry-picking" is the phrase I'm looking for.
That's Professor Daniel J. Kevles, currently emeritus, on the faculty of Yale and Columbia, formerly a history-of-science big-shot at CalTech, is generally considered the leading world expert on this subject; also, on the history of nuclear physics, and on history of modern environmentalism, and on history of scams and pseudoscience, and on a few other key issues in history of modern science. His book on history of eugenics is In the Name of Eugenics - Genetics, and the Uses of Human Heredity. Published by Harvard University Press. (Full disclosure: I dated his daughter when we were undergrads, four decades ago.) Kevles is beholden to nobody, having been a name-your-own-salary-level big-shot in this stuff for half a century. He has no political agenda and just does straight-up history.
1
-
@liberality I have read her autobiography many times. She advocated for forced sterilization of people with some heritable illnesses, especially mental illnesses which rendered the patients unable to decide for themselves whether to get sterilized or to remain fertile, but never for forced sterilization based on race, skin-color, national origin, religion, or income or wealth.
And she never addressed any "rally", only a secret, indoor, members-only meeting of the Women's Auxilliary of KKK. She agreed to lecture to them in spite of her misgivings about them, and afterwards, she called the experience "weird", and came away with the impression that her audience were all half-wits, and never had anything to do with KKK again after.
That is very different from addressing a "rally". Try to get the facts right!
1