"No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her own body." Margaret Sanger. Agree or disagree?
Freedom is not an all or nothing deal.
Yes controlling your body is important but when you become the host of another boy or girl you have a responsibility to that child.
And it's important to be able to control if and when you take on such a responsibility.
Exactly and women can. But once they have committed to the responsibility they don't have much time to change their mind.
They have 24 weeks provided they can scrape up the funds in time. I'd love to see us move abortions earlier in the pregnancy, but things like banning medical abortion and requiring unnecessary ultrasounds push it later.
And as of right now they can only do that if they can afford reliable birth control. The ACA requires insurance to cover it which will help keep women from having to consider abortion in the first place if it sticks around, but no guarantee.
You can get a condom for 75¢. If that's too expensive for you, then you should just keep your pants on.
Not nearly as effective with typical use. Can tear, come off, etc.
Controlling bodily functions is important!
Under God we have complete freedom to do as we please though he warns us that our actions have reactions. Under the law of the land however we are not free to murder as it is wrong. This whole freedom is posturing to get away with murder.
I think birth control was the subject here...
The quote was related to birth control. Sanger did advocate for abortion rights, although this wasn't the subject with this quote.
Abortion attributed to the right of women's bodies so I wanted to make this clear in case anyone thought that women's rights trumped baby's rights. There is a limit to women's right and I have displayed that limit.
Dude you have way too many Democrat followers
Actually most of the people who voted in this poll were independents, and only 5 more democrats voted than republicans. That said I think my followers in average tend to be more socially liberal, if not fiscally liberal, than the app on average.
I meant by just looking at the comments, but it's good you have diversity!
Left leaning =/= Democrat.
Yeah Miss this is one of the liberal hangout rooms. Don't expect to make any good conservative points here without getting into a serious argument.
That said, I can sympathize with you Matt, I don't have nearly enough Democrat followers, sometimes it feels like an echo chamber.
I have wanted more conservative followers for a while, especially now that I have the upgrade, I can have more votes. And not have the poll close in a few hours.
Exactly. Speaking of that. How did you get an upgrade?
Twss was very nice and awesome and upgraded me.
Agree, so long as she doesn't say that a fetus is her body.
Totally agree. I'd change that to be a little less limiting though. "No person", gender neutral. It's just that over 200 years of US history treats the "he" as a given, and the "she" as a maybe with restrictions.
I didn't change it to no person because then it wouldn't be a quote, and I figured the quote would be more powerful.
Definitely, I didn't mean to change the quote, just that it's a thing that should apply to everyone.
Interesting to see how many people feel the need to talk about things other than the specific quote offered for discussion.
I probably should've seen that happening. I didn't though
Not blaming you, Matt. It's a good quote and it expressed an important sentiment. I just find the knee-jerky comments interesting.
I didn't think you were
How do so many libertarians disagree with this? Isn't this part of their entire main principle?...
No, they're just pretenders. Libertarians, as a group, can be effectively summed up by, "Do what you like, as long as it's what *I* like."
Right. Everything is a constant double standard. I'm sick of it.
violence, I'm stealing that. It's the best description I've seen yet. It applies to the most of the other groups claiming to promote "freedom" as well, I think.
Have at it. It's certainly what I've noticed about the ones that choose to discuss their political outlooks.
I don't get in the habit of defending libertarians but on this issue I will. They simply respect the life of the child within the women's womb.
Agree. I find a surprising amount of anti-woman sentiment among libertarians. Freedom when it applies to you...
Being pro life is not being anti women. There are plenty of females who are pro life.
It's more than that, abortion is a single issue. The fact that some women are pro life isn't proof of anything, I could just as easily say it's proof they've internalized sexism. Somehow SOH libertarians aren't too keen on birth control either
Example being many here (not sure in general) don't support insurance coverage for it. I don't see anyone arguing insurance shouldn't cover treatment for erectile dysfunction or any other preventable health issue.
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," - Margaret Sanger
Agree or disagree?
Well, I'm definitely against exterminating ANY population, and I've never said I agreed with everything she said, in fact, this is maybe the one time I agree with her at all.
Great argumentative fallacy there, Pinky.
The one thing being the no woman can call herself free quote
My point is, that I refuse to give anything Margaret Sanger said the time of day. That woman did more to promote mass genocide than Hitler and Stalin combined.
So, pinky, you are unable to separate your emotions about a person from your assessment of anything that person subsequently says?
It's not emotions. It's recognizing evil for what it is and choosing to not have anything to do with it.
So... Let's say a female has control of her body. What is she free from?
A responsibility to carry a child for 10 months.
So she is free from responsibility?
Maybe. Are all men therefore inherently free from responsibility?
Why does your version of being free from the responsibility of child bearing come in the form of abortion instead of abstinence?
Huh? You suggested that being free from carrying a child was freedom from responsibility. I was asking for clarification of what you were saying, since men are physically incapable of doing it and are therefore free from the responsibility.
In my eyes, it's the duty of the man to care for the female and the child, if they choose to keep it. The responsibility I was speaking of, was if you have sex and get pregnant, you have a responsibility to care for the life you created.
This is only my opinion. I know we somewhat differ bethany.
Oh, sry Bethany. That was for the angry angel.
Gotcha angel. Thanks for clarifying.
You say freedom from responsibility as if that's a bad thing for women. How is the freedom to choose if and when to have children bad? The freedom not to endure childbirth? We're talking birth control here. It's a freedom men already have.
Was referring to abortion. But was trying to avoid an argument if you don't mind
Spoken like a true eugenecist.
Sanger was a psychotic, racist progressive (yes, as Woodrow Wilson proved, the terms can definitely exist in perfect harmony) and hardly anything she says should ever be remembered. However, I agree with that quote.
It's one of the few times f not the only one I agree. That said I don't go as far as she does, even here,
Honestly, I've heard some scholars speculate that she was very mentally unbalanced. Obviously she did some good things for women's rights, but there are about a million people who are much better ambassadors for progressivism than she, haha.
That's true. I don't doubt it to be honest she likely was. I ta for my us history teacher and she had this as the quote of the day, so I figured I would use it somehow.
I'm beginning to think posting this was a mistake....
Debate is good it helps us understand the other side while strengthening our own beliefs
True, I meant more the fact it could turn into absolute chaos
Not a mistake, Matt. Good poll.
It wasn't a mistake.
A baby has its own body
Let me rephrase that: yes, the statement is true however it is limited when violating someone else's liberty
A baby does, yes. A fetus, however, is literally physically attached to a woman and feeds off of her system.
That's like saying twins who are physically stuck together are one person. They rely on each other or survival but they are still 2 distinct entities with 2 distinct minds.
I didn't say they were one person, so no, it isn't like that. I said they were physically attached, which they are. Btw, sometimes conjoined twins are surgically separated even if it means one will likely die, to improve the life of the other.
Just because they are physically attached doesn't mean one has more power over the other. And both people need to agree for conjoining twins to be physically removed.
I'm talking about when they are babies, before they are able to voice an opinion. And of course the woman is more powerful than the fetus. Her body will save her life over the fetus' if it comes down to it (eg she is starving say).
Just because you can't voice your opinion doesn't mean you are less than human. And when it comes down to it, the body is not the one deciding to have an abortion.
It isn't necessarily about being less than human. It's about whether we want the law to require women to host other living beings inside their bodies against their will. Abortion is not an easy decision and no pro-choicer pretends it is. But forcing
a woman to carry a pregnancy and give birth against her will just plain doesn't work. Her body is intrinsically tied to the fetus'. Anything she does to herself, she does to the fetus. To criminalize abortion is to criminalize a woman's total control
over her own body. Whatever reasons you feel you have for doing that, that's still what you're doing. I know some people still value fetal life over women's rights when it is put that way. As a woman who intends to have kids someday, I don't, and
that is not a world I would want to bring daughters into. If I have a daughter, I don't want her to feel she is a prisoner to her own body. That's how the pro-life movement makes me feel. Like I'm not a person; I'm "just" a woman/incubator.
Okay Beth how would you feel about banning abortion after 20'weeks?
Skinner abortion is already limited to 24 weeks for humane reasons, there's no reason to limit it to 20 weeks.
By 20 weeks the fetus fits the scientific definition of life
lol, cells are living, a single cell is life, sperm are living. It meets the definition of life before that.
Skinner, my opinion is that any laws passed regarding abortion should, at a minimum, employ prevailing medical opinion. We should not have law being made that outright IGNORES the counsel of countless medical professions (cough Gonzales v. Carhart).
Actually it is about being less than human because you're saying women should have the right to kill a fetus, but women don't have the right to kill a human. If you don't want your child to live in this world, don't have a child. Don't start a life..
How many types of people have the right to live inside another person's body?
then end it because you don't want it to live in this world. I'm sorry, but whether the child lives in this world is not up to you.
Also by Sanger:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932
...and this too
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
Trust me, it's not like I agree with her on everything. Not even close.
Trust me, it's not like I agree with her in everything. Not even close.
that's a relief!!
Do you really think I'd believe that?
We're both probably a little weird! And no, I don't think that you would agree with her above statements!
Ok. Just checking
Not sure if this is aimed against Islam or something else..
I wasn't even thinking Islam.
Women are controlled by men almost (if not) completely
The entirety of Islam? Um, pretty sure my Muslim feminist lawyer best friend would beg to differ there. Her husband knows better than to try to control her.
State, it's only the extremists that do that, not most Muslims
You call them extremists, but they are really the closest thing to being a pure(/100%) Muslim
Well yes just like the closest 100% pure Christians stone their neighbors for working on the sabbath.
I mean, if they are a true Christian and the bible says they should, why would they not?
Statek, unless you yourself are Muslim I suggest you lay off pronouncing who among them practices their own religion the "best."
This isn't opinion, these are facts
What do you call someone who swears that they live by a book when they throw out bits and pieces?
What facts, statek? Are you holding yourself out as an expert on a religion you don't practice? On what basis do you presume to speak for a people of which you are not a member?
Look in the Quran
Stoning and killing people who don't act as Allah wants is not something it talks about, but commands specifically
It even explains how the stoning should take place
You speak fluent Arabic? You understand the Quran in its original language?
For your next trick, do you plan to tell the Jews that the Talmud is wrong and they are required to interpret the Torah the way you want them to?
I like how you're ignoring the facts
You can look up videos of Muslims explaining their beliefs in both Arabic and English, and they are saying the same thing
Stop believing that they don't, because they do
Who is "they"? I know that some Muslims believe some awful things about their religion. All I have said is that this is not true of all Muslims. You seem to need to paint all Muslims with the same brush. The burden is on you to justify that.
Have you read the Quran? It spells this out
All of the followers don't believe in exactly that, but the book says it
I haven't read it in the original Arabic, no. Have you? And are you this obnoxious to Jews? Their religious texts, translated into English, also seem to compel some pretty horrific acts. Are Reform Jews not "real" Jews in your estimation?
I'm not talking about Jews here because I do not yet know enough about them
What is the source of your putative knowledge of Islam?
Muslim/Islam scholars and their websites/videos
As well as from a group of Iraqis that we "watched over" while they were in America for the first time while learning how to use some equipment
Have you ever had a conversation with an American Muslim?
Both middle eastern and American
And they told you that anyone who has an interpretation of the Quran that differs from theirs is not a real Muslim? And all of them agreed 100% on everything about their religion?
They agreed that they weren't textbook Muslims and said that they were more of 21st century Muslims who were there for the general idea of Allah and his teachings and the culture
Don't really care, however should I return the opposite I'd probably threaten to punch me in the nose
Complete agreement, but you taking care of your body is not the same as you taking responsibility for another.
While I might agree with this statement, I do not agree with Margaret Sanger in general.
Here is the full text for this quote if anyone is interested.
Also, Ms. Sanger & I would disagree on how to apply this control. I'm not opposed to birth control, but I believe self-control outside of marriage is more important.
Do you think it should be denied to unmarriedcouples?
I would not advocate denying birth control to any adult. My point was that she saw having multiple sex partners as a mark of freedom & I don't. This is being a slave to carnal desires, as she used the concept of slavery.
I think that varies from person to person. One partner or many: it's no one's business but yours.
I don't see that as freedom either. I'm not saying dint have sex outside of marriage, but multiple people at once? That's just too far for me.
It's not my business, you are right. I wouldn't do it, but I have no right to tell someone they can't.
I'm not saying that it is your business or mine. Ms. Sanger advocated that a woman was declaring her freedom by her sexual activity & use of birth control. I am simply saying that I don't think that is the way to declare total personal freedom.
Isn't that true of any person regardless of gender?
Yes, but then it would be paraphrasing, not a quote.
I paraquote all the time, because I do what I want
I don't believe in para quoting.
I don't believe in quoting.
^ Great debate here. ;)
Naturally. But the line is drawn when that freedom is used to limit that of others.
Part of being a woman is taking responsibility for what your body is capable of creating. Others may disagree, but I don't feel that interferes with my freedom.
Your second sentence is key--notably "others", "I", and "my".
YOU don't feel it interferes with YOUR freedom. I feel it interferes with MY freedom.
Pro-life (are you pro-life?) folks shouldn't tell others what to do. Conversely, neither should the other side.
It's a poll that has asked me to agree/disagree. That's how I've answered - using MY opinion. Where in my response did you find that I told anyone what to do? I would say I'm more pro-choice than I used to be, but that term doesn't define my...
...feelings on the subject. Neither does the term pro-life.
I never said you did.
Then perhaps I misinterpreted your response, as I believe you have misinterpreted my initial post.
No, I just wanted to elaborate on it. My response wasn't an indictment. I didn't even know where you stood on the issue (which is why I asked).
Gotcha. Abortion is a very tough subject for me to give a black or white answer. I'm patently pro-life for myself, but I also don't feel it's my job (or anyone else's) to legislate what every woman in the US can do with her body. I do believe that...
...being a woman means shouldering some responsibilities that men don't have and presumably never will. For me, that's fine. For others, well, not my call.
For what it's worth, I find that to be a perfectly respectable position.
Thank you. I can respect that you disagree with my personal position. It's a very complex issue, from all sides. This is as close as I've been able to come to a position that makes sense, considering the variables.
I agree with her smart woman.
She was a proponent of eugenics.
I definitely disagree with her in that. Some things, like access to birth control and the fact I'm pro choice, we agree on. I'm nowhere near as radical as she was though.
The very first person to disagree is a Libertarian. How does that work?
I think it means someone who is registered as libertarian on the app chooses the "disagree" option
CDFL, that can't be right. You must be delusional.
Or, it could be a libertarian who recognizes that a woman's control over her body ceases at the point that she attempts to harm another human being. Namely, her child in the womb.
I like how almost every conservative that saw this instantly thought about abortion.