Roe attorney: Use abortion to 'eliminate poor'

World Net Daily ^ | 13 May 2006

[Calpernia]

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm4847.pdf <--Note: CDC

Achievements in Public Health, 1900–1999 <--Note: Report on ACHIEVEMENTS

Note: Small Excerpt on the highlights of this report:


During the 20th century, the hallmark of family planning in the United States has been the ability to achieve desired birth spacing and family size (Figure 1). Fertility
decreased as couples chose to have fewer children; concurrently, child mortality declined, people moved from farms to cities, and the age at marriage increased (1 ).

(snip)

In 1912, the modern birth-control movement began. Margaret Sanger (see box), a public health nurse concerned about the adverse health effects of frequent childbirth, miscarriages, and abortion, initiated efforts to circulate information about and provide access to contraception (9 ). In 1916, Sanger challenged the laws that suppressed the distribution of birth control information by opening in Brooklyn, New York, the first family planning clinic. The police closed her clinic, but the court challenges that followed established a legal precedent that allowed physicians to provide advice on contraception for health reasons. During the 1920s and 1930s, Sanger continued to.....

(snip)

Small excerpt of date chart:


1970
Family Planning Services and Population Research Act creates Title X of the Public
Health Service Act
1972
Medicaid funding for family planning services authorized
1973
Supreme Court (Roe vs. Wade) legalizes abortion

[Paulus Invictus]

The obvious questions are: Why on earth do most blacks vote non-stop for RATs like this guy and his ilk who are responsible for Roe vs. Wade and the murder of millions of black babies during the past 40 years?

Then there is school choice that the RATs strongly oppose while the poor black parents simply want their kids to get a better education. Why do the blacks still vote for the pols that prohibit them from selecting better schools? It's incomprehensible.

[Das Outsider]

How is he being dishonest?

Let me clarify: If this story and Judicial Watch's findings are accurate, then Weddington did little more than tell the truth about the abortion lobby's goals. Of course, there are others (particularly in academia) who have done well to confirm my suspicion about the true end of abortion rights.

[bcsco]

"If Weddington is writing this crap..he must make a lot of Dems very uncomfortable. I can't believe he didn't get a plane ticket to somewhere from Bill."

Methinks you need an enlightening into the DimocRat mindset. This is a window into the elite liberal soul.

[bcsco]

"They want to kill a good portion of their base."

Exactly! But they've never come to realize this until, possibly, recently. Since James Taranto of the WSJ Online brought up the subject of the 'Roe Affect' a few years ago, some liberal elites have also come around to that conclusion.

[Das Outsider]

The obvious questions are: Why on earth do most blacks vote non-stop for RATs like this guy and his ilk who are responsible for Roe vs. Wade and the murder of millions of black babies during the past 40 years?

From my experience--if that means anything--it's because there's a feeling that Republicans will screw you every which way to make a buck. Now, ask them how that works, and most often they can't tell you; the argument usually falls on its face.

Voting for a pro-abortion Democrat sounds good if abortion is commonplace in your community and you've got a deeply held suspicion of the other guy.

[HitmanLV]

I gotta check my eyes. When i first saw the thread, i could have sworn it said 'effeminate poor.' :-)

[bcsco]

"Speaking of rights while adovcating the out and out enfringement of the most fundamental right...the right to life."

But to an arrogant elitist such as this no right is involved. This underscores the world of difference between your understanding of 'Inalienable Rights' and his. You believe there is a 'right' to exist. He simply does not. Rights, in his estimation, can only be conferred on the living.

[Petronski]

We are in agreement. Be well!

[bcsco]

"How many of our problems today are connected to the abortion Holocaust? Our labor shortage, leading to mass illegal immigration. Our shortfall in social security funding because of reduced workers paying taxes?"

I'm not following your logic. What labor shortage? Non-workers are down to about 4.7% of the workforce now. That's the lowest its ever been. And our shortfall in Social Security is as much due to a growing older population that anything.

We may have fewer workers today than we would have had abortion not been so prevalent, but to say that is a root cause of illegal immigration and our Social Security problems is a bit of a stretch.

[Das Outsider]

But to an arrogant elitist such as this no right is involved. This underscores the world of difference between your understanding of 'Inalienable Rights' and his. You believe there is a 'right' to exist. He simply does not. Rights, in his estimation, can only be conferred on the living.

Try to pin down exactly what does not have the right to life and you'll get one of three answers:

1) We really can't say what a fetus is, but we'll kill it anyway. This is akin to shooting a stranger in the dark, which very well could be your mother.

2) It may be a person, but we're going to kill it anyway. This is more like shooting your mother in broad daylight.

and the old standard...

3) It isn't a person at all and we're going to kill it--though we prefer not to call it that. Now you've shot your mother, referred to it as "elective dispersal of cranial matter," and when asked about the whole affair, you reply, "What mother?"

[bcsco]

"Try to pin down exactly what does not have the right to life and you'll get one of three answers:..."

I've been in very few such conversations. The last one, when the 'lib tried to excuse their beliefs, I turned to walk away. When asked whether I was conceding their belief I stated 'no, I just didn't want to spit in your face'.

[Das Outsider]

I've been in very few such conversations. The last one, when the 'lib tried to excuse their beliefs, I turned to walk away. When asked whether I was conceding their belief I stated 'no, I just didn't want to spit in your face'.

It is difficult because the process involves Socratic method and logic: the bane of today's left-wing emotionalism. Many people just write the whole thing off as a mere difference of opinion, which says that they don't really accept knowledge of absolutes and things like that--but they get really upset upon hearing that gas went up a whopping five cents overnight!

[Calpernia]

>>>>30th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

[FLASHBACK] Ramsey Clark backs the President's Supreme Court nominee
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1437269/posts

(snip)

Ramsey Clark, former U.S. attorney general has given a limited endorsement of Judge Harry A. Blackmun

(snip)

NOTE: Ramsey Clark of: VVAW, IAC, ANSWER, Not In Our Name, Human Rights First

[ohioWfan]

Of course.

But I've never had to make that choice because most 'RINO's' (overused until it's meaning has been beaten out of it), are actually pro-life.

I'd rather have ANY Senator who is with conservatives 70-80% of the time, to having one who is NEVER with me.

The question as to whether to vote for a RINO or let a leftist win is a no-brainer. A conservative goes with the one closest to his views, and that is NEVER a leftist.

[Das Outsider]

A conservative goes with the one closest to his views, and that is NEVER a leftist.

True enough. There is no such thing as a pro-life leftist; however, there are pro-life Democrats. There are also Republicans (a small segment) who are either softly pro-abortion or take what they see as a neutral stance (read: cowardice). I can't even consider voting for any such candidate, regardless of the alternative because in the end, you declare before the world and God that the slaughter of unborn children really isn't that big of a deal--now tax cuts, that's a different story!

I am glad that, as you mentioned, most Republicans (RINO or otherwise) are still pro-life. It seems better to me to go with consistent pro-lifers that might not be so good on other issues: I'm funny like that. ;)

[Calpernia]

>>>How can we keep calling these people communists when they act so much like nazis? Maybe they're both.

[Calpernia]

>>>>RU486 is Zyklon-B for the uterus.

- RU486: the modernized Zyklon B - The literal connection between Zyklon B and RU486 is grim and macabre. Russel Uclaf (the RU of RU486) is the French company that developed the abortion drug. Russel Uclaf's German parent company, Hoechst A.G., is a post-World War II spin-off company of the chemical firm I.G. Farben that supplied Hitler with Zyklon B.

Although Hoechst technically divested itself of affiliation with RU486 by donating the patent to the New York Population Council, the National Right to Life Committee continues its boycott of Hoechst pharmaceutical products, such as Allegra.

Just like Zyklon B, RU486 is a chemical developed to kill innocent human beings as if they were vermin. It is utterly confounding that Vice President Gore, a Christian, and his Jewish running mate, Sen. Lieberman, endorse RU486 which is nothing more than a human "pesticide."

- Zyklon B, a commercial form of hydrocyanic acid, which became active on contact with air. It was manufactured by a firm called Degesch, which was largely owned by I.G. Farben, and it had been brought to Auschwitz in the summer of 1941 as a vermin-killer and disinfectant.

- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1573646/posts?page=46#46
How do you say No NAIS in Japanese?

(Monsanto!)

Excerpt from thread:

After the Holocaust, I.G. Farben joined with Americans to develop chemical warfare agents. Together they founded the "Chemagrow Corporation" in Kansas City, Missouri. The Chemagrow Corporation employed German and American specialists for the U.S. Army Chemical Corps. Dr. Otto Bayer was I.G. Farben's research director. He developed and tested chemical warfare agents with Dr. Gerhard Schrader.

In 1967, Monsanto entered into a joint venture with IG Farben.

Even though the company was officially liquidated in 1952, it continued to be traded on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange as a trust, holding a few real estate assets until it was finally declared bankrupt on November 10, 2003 by its liquidators, after contributing 500,000 Deutschmarks (160,000 British pounds or 233,000 American dollars) towards a foundation for former slave laborers under the Nazi regime and the remaining property, worth 21 million Deutschmarks (6.7 million British pounds or 10 million American dollars) going to a buyer. During this lengthy period, the holding company had been continually criticized for failing to pay any compensation to the slave laborers, which was the stated reason for its continued existence after 1952.

[Calpernia]

>>>>(A) "Quality of life" would mean that anyone not in the top 50% of society should die (they are below average and "suffering"). It is a feel good expression to cover some bad ideas.

The database at the CDC has a database that will be tracking everyone's quality of life.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563271/posts
Healthy People 2010

[khnyny]

Here's another link on this.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1631314/posts