What is your view on the correlation of Germanys early concepts of eugenics with the Jews and todays Democratic solutions such as Planned Parenthood affecting minorities the most? Germanys Alfred Hoche 1st wrote about it in the 1920's in a piece called " Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens". Known for the phrase, "life unworthy of life". Alfred Hoche also stated that euthanizing to be a "fiscally practical practice". Wouldn't you agree this fits the narrative of the Democrats solution with PP?
You think? The below, oddly enough, was from Sanger which is strikingly similar to the Nazi view, but you know, with that American twist... "Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed, they must first clear the way for Birth Control. Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit…. Birth control of itself, by freeing the reproductive instinct from its present chains, will make a better race…. Eugenics without birth control seems to us a house built upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit" “The eugenist is very clear on the two facts which have been given you this morning: That the production of the unfit should be discouraged or stopped, and that the production of the fit should be encouraged and possibly forced.”
Seems quite clear PP sets up shop in minority communities because their view is that they are "unfit".
I assume you are talking about Margaret Sanger. I never read her books, I doubt you have either. When I look at Wikipedia I see your collection of " . . . ." leaves out a lot. The text you copied is only similar to Nazis because of the editing done by you or someone. She believed in birth control for women until they could afford to take care of their babies themselves. She defined Unfit at level of the individual not as a race. And unfit meant financially unable to care for the child What else does Wiki say that she was for and therefore I'm sure your against, because you know she's Nazis; Sanger opposed censorship throughout her career. Damn Pride - you favor censorship She believed in birth control for women until they could afford to take care of their babies themselves. Pride - why do you want more welfare babies She went to jail for distributing contraceptives and the trial judge held that women did not have "the right to copulate with a feeling of security that there will be no resulting conception." Really Pride, Really? In 1929, James H. Hubert, a Black social worker and the leader of New York's Urban League, asked Sanger to open a clinic in Harlem. Maybe she just fooled the black people back then. However, I think not Sanger's work with minorities earned praise from Coretta and Martin Luther King Jr.;
I actually didn't wiki her. I used other sources as wiki has issues. I can cite if you would like? Being that you seemingly agree that the Dems favor her view and the view of Nazis with regards to eugenics, we can certainly talk about her other view points outside of her of view eugenics being similar to the Nazis and her huge contribution to the modern day PP . Shall we continue? You should also learn and understand that taking a single view point, such as eugenics and citing people like Hitler or Sanger does not mean opposition to said view port or in favor of said view point translates to all other view points held by said person/persons. For example, if you support Biden for president because, lets say the economy, does that also mean you support inappropriately touching little kids like Biden likes to do in his spare time? Surely not right Kluke?
Since I never said anything about eugenics I can only guess you must be assuming silence is agreement. Which I think is bullshit but you obviously don't, and therefore you are in agreement with my post #1730. It's a good first step to come out and admit Trump 'Stockholm Syndrome'd you. Try not to be ashamed, you've got a lot of company. Get help quick, it might not be too late. Good luck! That's a good lesson to learn. Read that outloud 100 times and maybe it will start to sink in. But I have my doubts. You persistently show the opposite. For instance, the fact that I don't agree with some of your whack statements causes you to assume that . . . . . . . . . . . I supported Biden for president. You are aligned with KIKI and jmg in that belief. Even though I didn't and have posted that I didn't - you guys still assume; and assume; and assume. You're really good at that. It's Ok, everyone needs to be good at at least one thing.
A reminder of what happened on January 6. This supposedly peaceful crowd just sight seeing. https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/1490722344477802503?s=21
Considering the many ways 45 encouraged/demanded overturning the election I can’t get past “go” in anyones defense of him. Won’t even debate it. Even after recently admitting to this treasonous act, some people are still standing by him. Despicable.
