CLEF Discussion #3 - Why Does the Right get to dictate the definition of Pro-Life?

[skater314159]

An article that I would like to discuss here:



The Culture of Life Top Ten
By Michael Blanding, AlterNet
Posted on April 4, 2005, Printed on August 1, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/21660/
In the wake of the Terri Schiavo case, we've been hearing a lot about the so-called "culture of life." Christian conservatives use the term to refer to God's wish that we preserve all human lives, especially those more vulnerable than our own. In practice, however, it applies to a surprisingly stingy range of concerns: abortion, euthanasia, and stem cell research.

Conservatives have been very effective in past years in coming up with emotionally-laden phrases that are at best disingenuous and at worst outright lies. Witness "weapons of mass destruction," "partial birth abortion," "ownership society," and "freedom on the march." But their newest buzzphrase is perhaps the most galling.

Consider the opposite: who in their right minds would be on record supporting a "culture of death"? Well, the Nazis, that's who, say culture-of-lifers, and if you disagree with them on their key issues, you might as well sign up for the Hitler Youth. Just as incredible is their invocation of the 14th Amendment. Initially passed to support the rights of freed slaves after the Civil War, culture-of-lifers have expanded its protection of "life, liberty, property" outwards to fetuses and women in persistent vegetative states. Don't agree? Well, then perhaps you should start shopping around for a plantation and some cotton fields as well.

The problem with the "culture of life" argument is that, like any of these phrases, its vagueness allows you to define it however you want. Is it any coincidence that its application happens to gel with the core issues of those who created it? Rather than dismiss the argument, however, progressives should hold culture-of-lifers to their word.

At minimum, a true "culture of life" would support the following ten positions:

1. Withdraw the Troops

More than 1,500 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq, along with tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians (some estimates are as high as 100,000.) Meanwhile, we're hunkering down building long-term military bases and sending more troops. How many more soldiers have to die before we set a timetable for bringing them home?

2. Stop the Death Penalty

Fifty-nine prisoners were executed last year, 23 of them in Texas alone. Yet study after study has shown the death penalty to be unequally applied by race, and hundreds of inmates have been found innocent at the eleventh hour. If we are all created in God's image, then it is up to God, not us, to deal the ultimate in punishment.

3. Pass Effective Gun Control Laws

More than 80 Americans are killed by firearms each day. Yet Congress has made it easier for criminals to get their hands on weapons -- most recently with the repeal of the assault weapons ban -- instead of following the lead of states like Massachusetts and New York, which have passed tougher laws and decreased handgun deaths.

4. Fund Social Services

Hundreds of homeless people, many of them war veterans, die on the streets each year because they can't gain access to basic services such as housing and health care. A truly compassionate person would fight against Bush's mean-spirited budget that cuts Medicaid benefits, veterans‚ health care, community services block grants, and other life-saving programs in favor of tax cuts for the rich.

5. Create Universal Health Care for Children

The U.S. remains the only industrial nation not to provide health care for all its citizens. At the very least, we could coverage to the most vulnerable among us. Meanwhile, our infant mortality rate recently rose for the first time in four decades, to 28,000 deaths a year.
ed. note: Why not Universal Health Care for *all* Americans? That is more pro-life.

6. Research Alternative Energy

It's a fact that access to the world's oil has fueled conflict in the Middle East for years. Developing wind and solar power could be the best protection we have against more of our soldiers dying overseas in the future. At the same time, reducing greenhouse gases could slow global warming, held responsible for the increasing severity of natural disasters like the Southeast Asian tsunami that claimed the lives of 175,000 people (with another 100,000 missing).

7. Investigate Prisoner Abuses

While the face of abuse of foreign detainees are those revolting pictures of torture from Abu Ghraib, even more disturbing stories of prisoners dying while in custody have trickled out of Iraq and Afghanistan. A true culture of life would conduct a full investigation into the abuse, with those responsible being held to account.
ed. note: Enough with the "investigating". CLOSE GITMO. STOP TORTURE OF *ALL* PRISONERS. Stop denial of basic Human Rights to those being held by the US Government/Army. Stop farming out torture and kidnapping to Eastern European and other countries.


8. Support AIDS Clinics Abroad

In Bush's 2003 State of the Union, he pledged $15 billion to combat AIDS in Africa -- since then not only has the program been under-funded, but the majority of it has gone into non-generic drug treatment and abstinence-only prevention programs. With more than 3 million HIV/AIDS deaths in Africa a year, a truly compassionate AIDS policy would work immediately with the United Nations programs that have proven the most effective against the disease.

9. Implement a Fair Guestworker Program

Last year, more than 300 undocumented migrants died crossing the border to work in the U.S. There is no getting around the fact that these workers from Mexico and other countries are essential to the functioning of our economy. A fair guestworker program would not only recognize the contributions of these workers, but also prevent needless deaths.

10. Join the International Criminal Court

Ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and genocide are alive and well in the world, in places like Kosovo, Rwanda, and most recently the Sudan.ed note: don't forget the US when talking about war crimes and crimes against humanity Yet the U.S. is one of only a handful of countries (including China and Israel) that refuse to join the International Criminal Court. Last week, over our country's objections, the United Nations finally referred to the ICC the case of Darfur, where an estimated 300,000 Sudanese have been brutally killed.

Together, these issues account for the needless deaths of tens of thousands of people a day. A culture that valued their lives is one we could all celebrate.

Michael Blanding is a freelance writer living in Boston. Read more of his work at www.michaelblanding.com.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/21660/

[DemBones DemBones]

1. The right has defined "pro-life" because the left wants

nothing to do with it. Even most Catholics on the left insist on being pro-choice on abortion, going against Church teaching.

Is the author suggesting that abortion, euthanasia, and stem cell research are not important parts of the "culture of life"? Pope John Paul II originated that phrase, "culture of life," and he cetainly included more than abortion, euthanasia, war, and the death penalty, but they are key issues that must be included. Karl Rove co-opted the phrase and taught Bush to say it in courting the Catholic vote.

[rug]

2. Prolife in current terms means pro imprisonment.

It should never be forgotten that Wade was a district attorney and that the prolife movement is a movement to criminalize abortion. Abortions cannot be illegal unless women and physicians end up in jail.

The argument against abortion is moral and theological. The argument for life has teeth only if social programs to aid humans take precedence over incarcerating humans.

[DemBones DemBones]

3. I consider the pro-life movement as a movement to change

hearts and minds, to end abortion by ending the demand for it, not to criminalize it.

[rug]

7. I support that definition but we both know what the political definition is.

[DemBones DemBones]

8. The political definition of the pro-life position isn't always made

by pro-life people, however.

Some people seem to think that all pro-lifers believe in bombing clinics and killing abortionists, but the people who do such things are not really pro-life, and neither is anyone who defends them. Anyone who kills, or attempts to kill, someone is not pro-life. The only killing that is permissible for Catholics is killing in self-defense or killing in combat.

Some Catholics (e.g., Antonin Scalia) argue that the death penalty is permissible and he's right that the Church doesn't absolutely forbid it but the Catechism and teachings of recent popes strongly discourages its use, just as the Catechism and recent popes encourage diplomacy rather than war. With the advent of nuclear weapons, even just wars are too risky.

[skater314159]

9. Do you think that we can change the definition? n/t

[rug]

12. Sure.

If the pro life efforts are concentrated on social programs, including direct, guaranteed services regarding pregnancy and newborn assistance, the term will come to be associated with actual efforts to aid life and the rightwing will be left with the motto of illegal, which equates to criminalization.

Given a choice as to support those who wish to aid women and babies directly, versus those who simply argue to outlaw abortion, it's no contest.

[benEzra]

4. I wish he'd drop the "assault weapon" thing, though...

rifles aren't a crime problem and never have been (and nothing was "banned" by the 1994 Feinstein law, anyway).

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html

You can buy civvie AK lookalikes in Massachusetts, same as in any other state except (IIRC) California.

Other than that, pretty good article, IMHO.

[DemBones DemBones]

5. It's significant that he doesn't mention abortion or euthanasia. The article seems

to be a leftist attempt to redefine the "culture of life" to include gun control. I'm a leftist but I support the Constitution, including the Second Amendment. He says 80 Americans are killed each day by guns, which means 2,920 people are killed by guns each year. I feel sure the majority of those deaths are caused by criminal acts, not by law-abiding citizens defending themselves against armed attackers. Some gun deaths are accidents. Last I heard, automobile accidents kill about 55,000 a year, and 1.6 million a year are killed deliberately, by abortion. Life is life. To cause a death is only permissible in self-defense. Rarely, if ever, is an abortion needed to save the life of the mother so abortion cannot be reasonably called self-defense.

By taking guns away from honest Americans, it's not likely we'd reduce the number of gun deaths significantly. Criminals would never willingly give up their guns, only law-abiding people would. Law-abiding people would never shoot anyone except in self-defense, which is permitted by law and by the Church.

He writes "In practice, however, it applies to a surprisingly stingy range of concerns: abortion, euthanasia, and stem cell research," three concerns which he omits from his "ten positions," two of which relate to gun control.

In reality, the "culture of life" is a phrase coined by Pope John Paul II, who strongly opposed the death penalty and war in general, though he judged the U.S. had a right to attack Afghanistan because Osama bin Laden was allegedly hiding there and had allegedly "masterminded" the attacks on the U.S. He strongly condemned the "pre-emptive" U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the continued fighting and occupation, as has Pope Benedict XVI.

But the Catholic Church also strongly condemns abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell reearch, which is an outgrowth of in vitro fertilization, also opposed by the Church. The Catholic concept of the culture of life includes opposition to the death penalty, all but the occasional "just" war, abortion, euthanasis, and embryonic stem cell research, and the social Gospel, saving lives by feeding the hungry, helping the poor and the sick, providing homes for the homeless. It's not just a three-issue concept for Catholics as it is for some, but not all, Protestant pro-lifers.

Either the author is not a Catholic or is a cafeteria Catholic who's not willing to "judge" anyone involved in abortion, euthanasia, or embryonic stem cell research, yet willing to "judge" all gun owners as guilty. Some of his proposals I support but he doesn't seem to be concerned about abortion, euthanasia, or embryonic stem cell research. A pro-life stance cannot omit those.

[skater314159]

10. I totally agree with your assessment...

... and I posted this article because it is something that we (as pro-Gospel-of-Life Catholics) will have to deal with from fellow members of "the Left". We need to know how to respond to statements like these from others here at DU when we tell them that we are "pro-life".

I think that it is good that we discuss here how to "take the message to the people" so that we can do it effectively. If we want to change how "pro-life" is defined in this country, it is up to us to make that change.

I'm just glad that there are this many people here discussing this issue! Thank you for your discussion!

[DemBones DemBones]

6. More analysis of the article. . .

The author writes: "Conservatives have been very effective in past years in coming up with emotionally-laden phrases that are at best disingenuous and at worst outright lies. Witness "weapons of mass destruction," "partial birth abortion," "ownership society," and "freedom on the march." But their newest buzzphrase is perhaps the most galling."

He's referring to the "culture of life" as "their newest buzzphrase," when it is fact a phrase originated by John Paul II, as I said in the post above, and as most Catholics know. I wonder if the author is being disingenuous about its origin. Karl Rove put it in George Bush's mouth in order to help him court the Catholic vote, and it spread from there to Protestant pro-lifers and others in the movement (there are atheists and members of non-Christian communities who are pro-life.)

Pro-lifers did not come up with the phrases "weapons of mass destruction," "ownership society," or "freedom on the march," unless you count the Bush administration as "pro-lifers," which I certainly don't. The pro-life movement did coin "partial-birth abortion" to draw attention to the gruesome nature of the D & X technique of abortion.

The author continues:

"Consider the opposite: who in their right minds would be on record supporting a "culture of death"? Well, the Nazis, that's who, say culture-of-lifers, and if you disagree with them on their key issues, you might as well sign up for the Hitler Youth. Just as incredible is their invocation of the 14th Amendment. Initially passed to support the rights of freed slaves after the Civil War, culture-of-lifers have expanded its protection of "life, liberty, property" outwards to fetuses and women in persistent vegetative states. Don't agree? Well, then perhaps you should start shopping around for a plantation and some cotton fields as well."

I suppose the author is unaware of Godwin's Law "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one," which has come to be widely accepted online, not just at Usenet. But he seems to be equally unaware that Hitler had disabled people killed early on, then moving on to what he considered the "defective race," the Jews. He also killed Catholics. In Poland, 6 million people were killed by the Nazis, of whom about 3 million were Jewish. Poland being a very Catholic country, the vast majority of the other 3 million were likely to have been Catholic. As far as abortion, Hitler forced non-Aryan women to abort and encouraged doctors to conduct many unethical and inhumane experiments.

As for his reference to the 14th Amendment, he fails to acknowledge an earlier event: the Dred Scott decision, which ruled that Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in a free state for many years was not free after his master's death, but still a slave. This was in accord with rulings that blacks were not real persons. Many pro-lifers feel that Roe v. Wade was as bad a decision as Dred Scott, because it denied the personhood of unborn babies as Dred Scott denied the personhood of blacks. Roe allows not only treating the unborn as "not real persons" but killing them outright.

[skater314159]

11. An interesting side bar...

I have an interest in Christianity and Judaism during the NSDAP era in Germany. The "pilot programme" for the Endlossung or "Final Solution" of the "Jewish Problem" was called T4. The T4 programme was initially practised against the mentally and physically handicapped as well as the mentally ill in Germany.

Public reaction - especially that of the Catholic population of Germany - caused Hitler to issue a stop order on further killing of individuals at hospitals and institutions. This action by the German people made it clear that if the public became aware of eugenics or doctor-induced murder, they would demand the goverment stop. This is important when you consider where the Nazis got thier idea for the T4 programme - the United States. During the 1920s and 1930s, there was a significant eugenics movement in America, for example the "negative eugenics" and "birth control methods" advocated by Margaret Sanger. Because the US had been successfully forcing individuals to be forcibly sterilised or undergo medical "treatments" (in reality torture), the Nazis felt that their brand of "race science" was acceptable.

Widespread public protestations to T4 were why the Nazis determined that a very harsh (and brutal) solution must come to the Jewish Question. Including the killing of priests, religious, and faithful Catholics in Poland and Germany was part of this brutal solution, because the Nazis knew that Catholics would protest killing at the hands of the government.

If pro-life believers in Germany were able to mount resistance to and overcome the T4 programme, think of what we can do if we unite and speak out against current policies of the US.

[DemBones DemBones]

13. I was just reading about Margaret Sanger's "Negro Project," which aimed to

get rid of all but "quality" blacks. It was strange how I found it as I was reading one site that led to another, neither of them having to do with pro-life issues, and then I came across a link to a website about the topic of abortion as genocide. The site is:

http://blackgenocide.org

(You'll get a box asking you to log in each time you go to a new page but you can click "cancel" in the box each time if you don't want to register.)

There is a lot of good information there.

"Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 Blacks were lynched in the U.S. That number is surpassed in less than 3 days by abortion."

"In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King said, "The early church brought an end to such things as INFANTICIDE." What would Martin Luther King say to the church today?"


Of course, abortion wouldn't be legal today if not for the efforts of Margaret Sanger and other eugenicists and the people they convinced that birth control was an answer to the problems of the poor, ignoring inequities in wages, unfair hiring practices, etc.

Sanger herself grew up in a large family, which she hated, and only had one child, describing his birth as a horrible experience, so she wasn't exactly pro-family, apparently couldn't conceive (pun intended) that some people want children.

The article on "the Negro Project" alone is 6 pages long and there is much more about Margaret Sanger's involvement in the eugenics movement in other articles at the site. It's going to take me some time to explore it all.

Here are parts of letters written by Margaret Sanger about the Negro Project:

"I note that you doubt it worthwhile to employ a full-time Negro physician. It seems to me from my experience … that, while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table, which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts. They do not do this with white people and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and … knowledge, which … will have far-reaching results among the colored people."

<snip>

Sanger knew blacks were religious people–and how useful ministers would be to her project. She wrote in the same letter: The minister’s work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members. (emphasis added)


More from the article about the Negro Project:

"Abortion is the number-one killer of blacks in America," says Rev. Hunter of LEARN. "We’re losing our people at the rate of 1,452 a day. That’s just pure genocide. There’s no other word for it. influence and the whole mindset that Planned Parenthood has brought into the black community ... say it’s okay to destroy your people. We bought into the lie; we bought into the propaganda."

<snip>

"We’re destroying the destiny and purpose of others who should be here," Hunter laments. "Who knows the musicians we’ve lost? Who knows the great leaders the black community has really lost? Who knows what great minds of economic power people have lost? What great teachers?" He recites an old African proverb: "No one knows whose womb holds the chief."

[iverglas]

14. you know

that all of the allegations of racism made against Sanger that you have cited are lies.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/margaret-sanger-planned-parenthood-founder.htm

I think it is magnificent that we are in on the ground floor, helping Negroes to control their birth rate, to reduce their high infant and maternal death rate, to maintain better standards of health and living for those already born, and to create better opportunities for those who will be born (Sanger, 1942).

Why do you choose to propagage lies? At Democratic Underground?


What would Martin Luther King say to the church today?"

Well, you KNOW what Martin Luther King said when he accepted the Sanger award:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/the-reverend-martin-luther-king-jr.htm

Family Planning — A Special and Urgent Concern

by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Recently, the press has been filled with reports of sightings of flying saucers. While we need not give credence to these stories, they allow our imagination to speculate on how visitors from outer space would judge us. I am afraid they would be stupefied at our conduct. They would observe that for death planning we spend billions to create engines and strategies for war. They would also observe that we spend millions to prevent death by disease and other causes. Finally they would observe that we spend paltry sums for population planning, even though its spontaneous growth is an urgent threat to life on our planet. Our visitors from outer space could be forgiven if they reported home that our planet is inhabited by a race of insane men whose future is bleak and uncertain.

There is no human circumstance more tragic than the persisting existence of a harmful condition for which a remedy is readily available. Family planning, to relate population to world resources, is possible, practical and necessary. Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not yet understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we possess.

What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and education of the billions who are its victims.

It is easier for a Negro to understand a social paradox because he has lived so long with evils that could be eradicated but were perpetuated by indifference or ignorance. The Negro finally had to devise unique methods to deal with his problem, and perhaps the measure of success he is realizing can be an inspiration to others coping with tenacious social problems.

In our struggle for equality we were confronted with the reality that many millions of people were essentially ignorant of our conditions or refused to face unpleasant truths. The hard-core bigot was merely one of our adversaries. The millions who were blind to our plight had to be compelled to face the social evil their indifference permitted to flourish.

After centuries of relative silence and enforced acceptance, we adapted a technique of exposing the problem by direct and dramatic methods. We had confidence that when we awakened the nation to the immorality and evil of inequality, there would be an upsurge of conscience followed by remedial action.

We knew that there were solutions and that the majority of the nation were ready for them. Yet we also knew that the existence of solutions would not automatically operate to alter conditions. We had to organize, not only arguments, but people in the millions for action. Finally we had to be prepared to accept all the consequences involved in dramatizing our grievances in the unique style we had devised.

There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist — a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.

Recently the subject of Negro family life has received extensive attention. Unfortunately, studies have overemphasized the problem of the Negro male ego and almost entirely ignored the most serious element — Negro migration. During the past half century Negroes have migrated on a massive scale, transplanting millions from rural communities to crammed urban ghettoes. In their migration, as with all migrants, they carried with them the folkways of the countryside into an inhospitable city slum. The size of family that may have been appropriate and tolerable on a manually cultivated farm was carried over to the jammed streets of the ghetto. In all respects Negroes were atomized, neglected and discriminated against. Yet, the worst omission was the absence of institutions to acclimate them to their new environment. Margaret Sanger, who offered an important institutional remedy, was unfortunately ignored by social and political leaders in this period. In consequence, Negro folkways in family size persisted. The problem was compounded when unrestrained exploitation and discrimination accented the bewilderment of the newcomer, and high rates of illegitimacy and fragile family relationships resulted.

For the Negro, therefore, intelligent guides of family planning are a profoundly important ingredient in his quest for security and a decent life. There are mountainous obstacles still separating Negroes from a normal existence. Yet one element in stabilizing his life would be an understanding of and easy access to the means to develop a family related in size to his community environment and to the income potential he can command.

This is not to suggest that the Negro will solve all his problems through Planned Parenthood. His problems are far more complex, encompassing economic security, education, freedom from discrimination, decent housing and access to culture. Yet if family planning is sensible it can facilitate or at least not be an obstacle to the solution of the many profound problems that plague him.

The Negro constitutes half the poor of the nation. Like all poor, Negro and white, they have many unwanted children. This is a cruel evil they urgently need to control. There is scarcely anything more tragic in human life than a child who is not wanted. That which should be a blessing becomes a curse for parent and child. There is nothing inherent in the Negro mentality which creates this condition. Their poverty causes it. When Negroes have been able to ascend economically, statistics reveal they plan their families with even greater care than whites. Negroes of higher economic and educational status actually have fewer children than white families in the same circumstances.

Some commentators point out that with present birth rates it will not be long before Negroes are a majority in many of the major cities of the nation. As a consequence, they can be expected to take political control, and many people are apprehensive at this prospect. Negroes do not seek political control by this means. They seek only what they are entitled to and do not wish for domination purchased at the cost of human misery. Negroes were once bred by slave owners to be sold as merchandise. They do not welcome any solution which involves population breeding as a weapon. They are instinctively sympathetic to all who offer methods that will improve their lives and offer them fair opportunity to develop and advance as all other people in our society.

For these reasons we are natural allies of those who seek to inject any form of planning in our society that enriches life and guarantees the right to exist in freedom and dignity.

For these constructive movements we are prepared to give our energies and consistent support; because in the need for family planning, Negro and white have a common bond; and together we can and should unite our strength for the wise preservation, not of races in general, but of the one race we all constitute — the human race.

Why would you dishonour his memory by using him to advance your own agenda, which he did not share?

[DemBones DemBones]

15. Of course PP denies it but Sanger wrote about eugenics

quite a lot and the writings still exist. That's why PP doesn't say much about Sanger now.

You dishonor MLK's memory by assuming he'd support the killing of black babies in the womb.

MLK was killed in April 1968, long before abortion activists began pushing to legalize abortion. The first talk I heard of legalizing abortion was in 1970 and I read two good newspapers a day plus The Progressive, was involved in peace action. PP and pro-abortion activists told many lies in getting abortion legalized.

When MLK accepted that award, he probably thought that family planning would help black people. I doubt he had a clue that abortion would be legalized and used as birth control.

If you followed the links in my post, you'd see that black clergy today, 39 years after MLK's death, are concerned about how many black babies are being aborted.

Finally, this is the Catholic and Orthodox Group and the Catholic Church teaches that abortion is murder. Arguing against Catholic teaching is not allowed here, as you will see if you read the rules. There is a "pro-choice" forum and a "pro-choice" group you are free to post your support for abortion in.

[iverglas]

16. query

Arguing against Catholic teaching is not allowed here, as you will see if you read the rules.

Are lies about Margaret Sanger "Catholic teaching"?

If you know someone who is "arguing against Catholic teaching" in this forum, you might want to have a word with him/her.

[skater314159]

17. Question for you.

You are not Catholic, as you pointed out in a rant against me bashing my faith and my beliefs about Pro-Life in another thread (which has been deleted by the mods due to your uncivil and harassing tone).

Why did you come to this thread to argue with us? It is clear what our views are, and you have made it perfectly clear what your views are. It is also clear that you cannot agree to disagree. What are your posts intended to do?

Why do you seek out controversy?

Why does anyone who disagrees with you or your views is called a liar, harassed with juvenile insults, or accused of crimnal acts?

Peace! :hippie:

[iverglas]

20. why are you misrepresenting again?

Why did you come to this thread to argue with us?

What do you claim I am arguing about?

I found a thread that contained lies (told by a third party) about a deceased human being, and indirect aspersions cast on another. (Since Martin Luther King accepted an award named for Margaret Sanger and praised her work in his acceptance speech, allegations of racism leveled at Margaret Sanger plainly implicate Martin Luther King in racism.)

None of the lies or aspersions has anything to do with the teachings of the RC church or any other church, that I know of. They are lies about historical facts, completely unrelated to the RC church or any other church, and aspersions cast on an individual who happened to be a member of the clergy but that had nothing to do with his religion or religious organization.

Does someone have to cite lies about Margaret Sanger and aspersions cast on Martin Luther King in order to discuss the RC church or RC church dogma? I certainly wouldn't think so.

Just as I don't need to discuss the RC church or RC church dogma in order to object to such lies and aspersions.

One of my favourite elected representatives, to whose campaigns I devoted many hours, was an RC priest. A few years later, I was happy to meet several RC priests who voted for me in an election at a different level of government. I worked with many RC clergy and laypeople over the years in our mutual efforts to assist refugees and immigrants. My best friend when I was a kid was RC, and several of my closest friends as an adult are RC. I don't argue about their church or dogma with them any more than I have argued about them here.

However, if I noticed any of them quoting lies about Margaret Sanger or aspersions cast on Martin Luther King, I'd have a word.

Now, if they wanted to go join a private club and do things like that, I wouldn't barge in and interrupt their proceedings.

Seeing any private clubs around here?

The DU DU Catholic and Orthodox Christian Group is for those who wish to hold respectful discussions of Catholic and/or Orthodox Christian beliefs, share faith experiences, post prayer requests, discuss Catholic/Orthodox liturgies, traditions, saints, etc., talk about Catholic education or organizations (Knights of Columbus, Pax Christi, Legion of Mary, the Catholic Worker movement, etc.), or in any way positively explore issues having to do with the Roman Catholic Church or any rite of the Catholic or Orthodox Church.

Nothing there about safe haven for misrepresenting history, let alone history that is completely unrelated to any of the items in question.

[skater314159]

21. Disagreeing with you and saying you are wrong...

... is not misrepresenting anything.

You need to learn that fact and get past your constant "victim" mentality.

Why do you seek out confrontation with individuals and groups that disagree with you? Does it give you feelings of power? Does it have to do with the great sense of insecurity that you display in your inflammatory and hateful posts to those who disagree with you?

As DemBones stated, you are clearly Pro-Choice. There is a forum for you. Please go there to post your willfully ignorant "facts" about Margaret Sanger and MLK. You know that DemBones was speaking *directly to you*. Why did you ignore her?

Did you think that was "clever", "witty" or yet another display of your "superior intelligence"?

If you don't agree with our views, are NOT Catholic, and NOT Pro-life, why are you in this forum?

This thread in this area is for Pro-Life individuals who are Catholic and Orthodox.

Last evening, you were bashing the institution of the Church. You may think that you can deny this and play dumb ("I cannot recall" isn't just used by Republicans you know) because the posts you used harasing and infantile hatespeech in were deleted, but that does not change your clearly stated beliefs. We are not a punching bag for you.

Also, in the future, you might want to try citing something besides revisionist historical propaganda written by Planned Parenthood to help your "case".

Peace :hippie:

[skater314159]

19. Word to you Iverglas. n/t

[DemBones DemBones]

22. Quoting Margaret Sanger's own words is not lying.

Pretending that she was not a major player in the American eugenics movement, which Hitler greatly admired, is lying.


You ought to read ALL of the group rules.

"This group is intended to be a venue for those who desire to discuss stated topics and is not intended as a forum to argue against Catholic/Orthodox belief or the Catholic/Orthodox Churches, members, or clergy."

You are arguing against members of the Catholic Church as well as against Catholic teaching. This is one place at DU you can't do that.

You also need to read the DU rules again as you are clearly stalking Skater or you wouldn't be here at all.

[skater314159]

18. Thanks DemBones!

You stated the case well, but I would just like to add that today many people like to quote MLK to support thier cause or views while forgetting a key fact about the man. He was a Black Southern Baptist. He was a man of strong Christian faith and conviction. The reason that he did what he did and was able to mobilise people like he did is because he was a Preacher of the Word of God. He lived the Gospel message and it showed. He was a light to the nations and in my opinion, a Saint in the Baptist faith.

Ignoring MLKs faith to support a materialistic worldview or abortion is ignorant and a desecration to his memory.

Peace! :hippie:

[theredpen]

23. Sanger was a racist

One of Sanger's most popular publications was "What Every Girl Should Know." On page 47 if the 1920 edition she felt that every girl should know this:

It is said that a fish as large as a man has a brain no larger than the kernel of an almond. In all fish and reptiles where there is no great brain development, there is also no conscious sexual control. The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.

Well, thank Jeebus that those native Australians had white people like Sanger to save them from their chimpanzee urges.

Of course I am a huge liar, so you'll want to see for yourself. Michigan State University has kindly scanned the book and provided http://digital.lib.msu.edu/collections/index.cfm?TitleID=129">this page for people to download it. Although it would be tremendously entertaining to see the histrionics involved in you trying to explain away this quote from Sanger's own printed works, I'd rather you just go away.

[DemBones DemBones]

24. Yes, she was, and like you, I read Sanger's works at university sites,

rather than trust what pro-life or pro-choice sites assert that she said.

If we are concerned with learning the truth, it is essential to go to the primary sources themselves, and read the entire work.

To quote Planned Parenthood about Margaret Sanger is like quoting a member of the administration about why we invaded Iraq.

As it turns out, what pro-life sites say about Sanger is proven by her own words. Planned Parenthood may pick and choose quotes that make it seem that she did not support eugenics but it is as silly as Tony Snow, or anyone else, saying he never said X when there are tapes of him saying X. Jon Stewart has made good use of such tapes. Too bad the mainstream media "news" shows don't do the same.

Sanger's own words show what she thought and what she hoped to accomplish.

[DemBones DemBones]

25. Speaking of aborigines,

I've just been reading "The Old Way," a fascinating book about the Bushmen of the Kalahari. In 1950, the just-retired president and founder of Raytheon Electronics, took his wife and teenaged son and daughter to the Kalahari to study the Bushmen, who were then living The Old Way of hunter-gatherers. They had no training in anthropology but simply tried to get to know the Bushmen. They didn't try to teach them to farm or anything else and they didn't give them food. They did take notes about what they learned.

The Bushmen were willing to have them there, to teach them to speak !Kung and about hunting and gathering, their traditions. They allowed them to watch dances, and gave them !Kung names but the Marshalls kept a certain amount of distance and tried to have as little impact as possible. Mrs. Marshall wrote scholarly studies of the Bushmen, who had never been studied by professional anthropologists, but this book is by the daughter, Elizabeth Marshall Thomas, who has returned to the Kalahari for a visit since the Old Way was destroyed.

The Bushmen living the Old Way of a hunter-gatherer culture never needed police to keep them from having sex in the streets. They didn't have streets, to start with, but they had a very strong sense of community and order, which did not include public sex.

They lived a real community life, interdependent on each other. Every large animal killed by a hunter was shared among the group and the hunter divided the meat and gave portions to everyone else in the group before giving any to his wife and children. Gatherers sometimes killed smaller animals, rabbits and tortoises, but gatherers were not expected to share what they found. They often did, but the rule on gathering was that what you found was yours.

The children were taught how to hunt and gather and what was acceptable behavior from infancy. Groups of Bushmen also visited other groups when their food supplies were low, knowing the other group would share if they had food, just as they would when the circumstances were reversed. They also gave gifts often, and those who received gifts reciprocated, which increased their ties to one another beyond the immediate family ties.

Their culture has been destroyed and they now live in poverty, confined to camps, given cornmeal to live on, too often getting drunk and getting into brawls. They never made any alcoholic beverages in the Old Way and they never fought. It wasn't acceptable in the Old Way. If people had a disagreement, one of them would leave the group for a time, going to live with other Bushmen.

Rich white people today go to the Kalahari to hang glide over the land occupied by the Bushmen for thousands of years, now taken from them, the Old Way destroyed forever.

Who has the bigger brain? The aborigines of many lands, North America included, who had well-developed social systems, or the "civilized" imperialists who destroyed their cultures?