Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, who advocated racial eugenics. It was indeed her idea to medically curtail the procreation of blacks.
They have always had it. It is called abstinence. But "better birth control" as a substitute for abortion---when abortion's goal was to prevent black births anyway? So, does this mean you are sympathetic to Margaret Sanger's objectives?
It is a well-known fact that once a society attains prosperity, the size of a family tends to grow smaller, as a proliferation of sons and daughters is no longer necessary to sustain it.
Third world people have lots in the hope that some may survive the dirty water starvation and look after them in their old age
No Sanger was a pos. But on the other hand to be force into having a baby you don't want ..possibly birth control method failed etc is against that person's free will and could potentially lead to abuse of an unwanted child .
It's usually men who state absolutes....they don't get to deal with the real problems...like men in frocks pronouncing upon this and that ....with absolutely no idea of reality
So...it is better to kill a child than to let it live under less than optimal conditions? This is a philosophy that would justify machine-gunning all the orphans. I am not sympathetic to this view, as something of the kind happened to my stepchildren.
Don't go lecturing about "reality" when all you can offer is death.
Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, who advocated racial eugenics. It was indeed her idea to medically curtail the procreation of blacks.
There has to b better birth control. I read it is easy to do...something to do with the navel. Women need reliable birth control
They have always had it. It is called abstinence. But "better birth control" as a substitute for abortion---when abortion's goal was to prevent black births anyway? So, does this mean you are sympathetic to Margaret Sanger's objectives?
It is a well-known fact that once a society attains prosperity, the size of a family tends to grow smaller, as a proliferation of sons and daughters is no longer necessary to sustain it.
Third world people have lots in the hope that some may survive the dirty water starvation and look after them in their old age
No Sanger was a pos. But on the other hand to be force into having a baby you don't want ..possibly birth control method failed etc is against that person's free will and could potentially lead to abuse of an unwanted child .
It's usually men who state absolutes....they don't get to deal with the real problems...like men in frocks pronouncing upon this and that ....with absolutely no idea of reality
So...it is better to kill a child than to let it live under less than optimal conditions? This is a philosophy that would justify machine-gunning all the orphans. I am not sympathetic to this view, as something of the kind happened to my stepchildren.
Don't go lecturing about "reality" when all you can offer is death.