"...I will harden their hearts..."

4,682 Views | 62 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by kurt vonnegut
jonb02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

Again with the selective quotations. Number 12 is especially insulting to the intelligence of anyone who is even slightly familiar with the material. It's impressive how Sanger has become the embodiment of evil for some folks. Never mind the abysmal poverty and treatment of women that she was fighting against.

Yep, Sanger was a eugenicist. So was almost every other educated person in the US and Europe during the first 3 decades of the 20th century. Eugenics was quite popular amongst Christian leadership, as well.

https://religionandpolitics.org/2021/05/12/the-eugenics-roots-of-evangelical-family-values/

Shout out to the leadership of the Catholic Church in this one area for largely opposing "negative" eugenics, though individual Catholics were not always on board with the leadership and the church did offer some support to "positive" eugenics efforts.
Sanger is a "founding father" of your movement and words absolutely matter especially from founding fathers, agreed?

You aren't denying that the foundation of the pro choice movement is based on eugenics AND racism. You aren't denying that the only thing that changed was the narrative so as not to scare people off of the movement. Since you can't possibly defend your movements origins you have resorted to deflecting. Classic move.

I will pray for Jesus to soften your heart.
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” - John Adams

“It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they’ve been fooled” - Mark Twain
Silian Rail
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jesus misunderstood and softened his head
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If god hardens your heart but Jesus softens it, who wins that battle?
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Silian Rail said:

Rocag said:

I disagree with the fundamental premise here that the pro-life crowd will accept the continued existence of legalized abortion with restrictions. That is clearly not the case and even now these groups are pushing not just for more restrictions where abortion is still legal but for federal level bans.


Much like with the gun grabbing crowd, we will settle for nothing less than the complete outlaw of abortion. We will gladly take any restriction as another beachhead to consolidate and then attack from.


The distinction being there is actually an amendment to the Constitution that addresses the right to keep and bear arms and there is nothing in the Constitution about the right to kill an unborn child.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
jonb02 said:

Sapper Redux said:

Again with the selective quotations. Number 12 is especially insulting to the intelligence of anyone who is even slightly familiar with the material. It's impressive how Sanger has become the embodiment of evil for some folks. Never mind the abysmal poverty and treatment of women that she was fighting against.

Yep, Sanger was a eugenicist. So was almost every other educated person in the US and Europe during the first 3 decades of the 20th century. Eugenics was quite popular amongst Christian leadership, as well.

https://religionandpolitics.org/2021/05/12/the-eugenics-roots-of-evangelical-family-values/

Shout out to the leadership of the Catholic Church in this one area for largely opposing "negative" eugenics, though individual Catholics were not always on board with the leadership and the church did offer some support to "positive" eugenics efforts.
Sanger is a "founding father" of your movement and words absolutely matter especially from founding fathers, agreed?

You aren't denying that the foundation of the pro choice movement is based on eugenics AND racism. You aren't denying that the only thing that changed was the narrative so as not to scare people off of the movement. Since you can't possibly defend your movements origins you have resorted to deflecting. Classic move.

I will pray for Jesus to soften your heart.
Lying about history, particularly if it somehow impugns 'the right' today is his specialty, but somehow twisting Sanger into a victim who represented an evolutionary step of conservative evangelicals in the US is an impressive feat of deception/dishonesty even for him.

"Sanger was an exemplar of Christian eugenicists."

No. Just as her father became a socialist, she and her husband absolutely did, and they were card carrying members, even if she eventually dropped doctrinal Marxism.


She, like her father, rejected Christianity/Roman Catholicism.
Quote:

Sanger's parents were Roman Catholics, but Michael Higgins later became an atheist. He "took up socialism because he believed it Christian philosophy put into practice" because "to me its ideals come nearest to carrying out what Christianity was supposed to do," Sanger recalled in her autobiography.
In 1902, Margaret Higgins married William (originally Wilhelm) "Bill" Sanger, a German-born architect and artist who immigrated to the United States with his family in 1878. In 1906, the couple moved to Hastings-on-Hudson, New York, where William Sanger designed and built their house.

If Michael Higgins held to the relatively benign socialism of the late 19th century, Bill Sanger was a radical.

The Sangers joined the newly formed Socialist Party of America, which supported the abolition of private property. In 1911, Bill Sanger ran (and lost) as the Socialist Party candidate for the New York City Board of Aldermen. He also helped organize the Syndicalist League of North America, a revolutionary labor group created by Marxist organizer William Z. Foster to "bore from within" the American Federation Labor (AFL) into supporting syndicalism, a form of union-based socialism.

Bill was well-connected to the who's who of the early 20th-century American Left, introducing his wife to his personal friend and five-time Socialist Party of America presidential candidate Eugene Debs; John "Jack" Reed, who sympathetically documented the 1917 Russian Revolution; Communist Party USA chairwoman and American Civil Liberties Union co-founder Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, who died during a visit to the Soviet Union; communist Alexander Berkman; anarchist Emma Goldman; and William Dudley "Big Bill" Haywood, who founded Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), a communist labor front.

She recounted that "our living room became a gathering place where liberals, anarchists, socialists, and IWW's could meet," mostly so they could trade ideas with Bill.

Margaret, however, was less committed to the socialist cause than her husband. "My own personal feelings drew me towards the individualist, anarchist philosophy," she wrote in her autobiography. "It seemed to me necessary to approach the ideal by way of Socialism . . . . Therefore, I joined the Socialist Party."

This was before the advent of Birth Control philosophy, when Sanger was still blending bits of leftist thought to form a larger ideology. Perhaps more influential in that process than socialism was her newfound atheism. Like her father, she was an iconoclast irritated by convention. "The whole sickly business of society today is a sham," the young Sanger scribbled in her journal. Channeling Marx's famous quip about "the opiate of the people," she criticized "the vapid innocuities of religion" for drugging the working class into contentment. The founding statement of her 1914 magazine Woman Rebel was "No Gods, No Masters."

Although she eventually dropped doctrinal Marxism, its coarse view of religion remained central to Margaret Sanger's worldview. In time, she abandoned socialism altogether as unhelpful in achieving Birth Control's final goals, yet socialist politics served as Sanger's introduction to activism.

Sanger is a patron saint of the American left, no doubt, as one of the first to unite it, even if many of the things she said, including skepticism of abortion itself, would render her a persona non grata today. Yet, to somehow claim/stake an argument that she represented conservative Christian thought in her time/work…is a lie that must not just be rebutted/rejected, but pointed at and mocked.

Then, just as today, some nominal Roman Catholics in American politics/society (generally on the left, not limited to the Pelosi's/Biden's of the world) embraced infanticide/were racist, but that's not a reason to blame the denomination/Church itself for their failures, or her manipulation of some toward her goals.
Rocag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I am not sure why pro-lifers think Margaret Sanger is a winning argument here. The truth is the majority of people who support pro-choice positions have very little idea who she even was and so the response to saying she was an awful person is a resounding "So what?" And I do believe that the pro-lifers inflate her overall importance in an attempt to add weight to their already questionable point. Sanger is too late by several thousand years to be considered the first person to publicly support the availability of abortion.

But sure, let's get rid of Planned Parenthood because of Sanger. While we're at it let's get rid of the Southern Baptist Church because it was specifically founded to support slavery. Hell let's get rid of America because many of its founding fathers were slave owners. I like the way you think.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rocag said:

I am not sure why pro-lifers think Margaret Sanger is a winning argument here. The truth is the majority of people who support pro-choice positions have very little idea who she even was and so the response to saying she was an awful person is a resounding "So what?" And I do believe that the pro-lifers inflate her overall importance in an attempt to add weight to their already questionable point. Sanger is too late by several thousand years to be considered the first person to publicly support the availability of abortion.

But sure, let's get rid of Planned Parenthood because of Sanger. While we're at it let's get rid of the Southern Baptist Church because it was specifically founded to support slavery. Hell let's get rid of America because many of its founding fathers were slave owners. I like the way you think.
LOL, so many profound deep thoughts there.

I will try to help you as to how Sanger fits in; she was the genesis of the pro choice/infanticide/eugenics movement in the modern US. She founded planned parenthood. She was an unrepentant socialist bigot. The American left today praises her life's work/impact (particularly on the black population) and wants her on the $20 bill.

Sorry, maybe that's just too inconvenient a truth. Playing a hypothetical "Jaywalking" skit about what some folks know about her doesn't really change the facts of her historical legacy, and enduring popularity on the American left.

I don't believe you know how I think.
Rocag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Again, and I say this with all sincerity, SO WHAT?

I don't really give a damn about Margaret Sanger. She has exactly zero impact on my thoughts about anything. And honestly her points of view didn't become the mainstream liberal point of view on most things. Yeah, she was strongly pro-contraceptives which remains true. But she wasn't a supporter of abortion and spent much of her life arguing against it, a fact that makes this entire argument laughable. You say she was the founder of the pro-choice movement when she wasn't even pro-choice to begin with. Honestly, just a quick Google will show you she wrote in her own autobiography:

Quote:

Abortion was the wrong way - no matter how early it was performed it was taking a life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way - it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun.

I am honestly convinced you have zero clue what you're even talking about.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Oh, you got me. Wow. While researching the woman you don't care about, you found the quote showing she was opposed to abortion. Wow again. I wonder if she secretly was a Roman Catholic or a Baptist.

Mea Culpa.

(Seriously, I linked to a piece above that also included, in that series, why she would be disapproved of today by the left as not pro-infanticide enough. She really only wanted to eliminate undesirable populations such as/mainly blacks. "Positive" eugenics. She didn't want word to get out, obviously, and hoped to co-opt black pastors to help.)
Rocag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Again, who cares?

The only point I was trying to make there was that if Sanger was anything as influential as you portray her to be in modern liberal politics then you'd expect people to care a little more about her points of view on subjects other than just the availability of contraception. And yet, they don't. No significant percentage of liberals shares her views on eugenics or abortion or masturbation or race or damn near anything else and so again the question must be asked: Why should we care?

But yeah, you go ahead with trying to convince people that a woman who was absolutely not pro-choice was "the genesis of the pro-choice movement".
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Somebody really wants Sanger to be their trump card. And no one cares.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rocag said:

Again, who cares?

The only point I was trying to make there was that if Sanger was anything as influential as you portray her to be in modern liberal politics then you'd expect people to care a little more about her points of view on subjects other than just the availability of contraception. And yet, they don't. No significant percentage of liberals shares her views on eugenics or abortion or masturbation or race or damn near anything else and so again the question must be asked: Why should we care?

But yeah, you go ahead with trying to convince people that a woman who was absolutely not pro-choice was "the genesis of the pro-choice movement".
Well what are you here crying about, exactly? Just get it off your chest already.

A lot of people who are prominent leftists do care about her legacy/impact, but if you don't that's just fine. I believe it should be taught/studied for the same reason the holocaust should, but whatever. A great number of leftists are very racist today as in days gone by (yes, especially progressives, the heirs to Woodrow Wilson's legacy), and I'm not just talking about taco's, btw.
Rocag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not caring about Margaret Sanger doesn't equal not caring about the abortion debate.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


This forum.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97 said:



This forum.
I prefer:

Secular person: I believe 'x'.

Christian: The basis of your beliefs utilizes different presuppositions and axioms and are not sufficiently rooted in a completely unfalsifiable philosophy similar enough to ours and therefore can be classified as arbitrary and any argument you can make can be dismissed as inherently illogical on the basis of it not meeting the necessary criteria for our beliefs.

Secular person: . . . . . . k, good talk.

Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nortex97 said:



This forum.


Except for the part where many Christians are actually willing to let people behave as they would like and leave them free from harassment.
notex
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

nortex97 said:



This forum.


Except for the part where many Christians are actually willing to let people behave as they would like and leave them free from harassment.
Said one of a handful of posters who went on and on in a thread because they (a) were upset Jackson Women's health lost a case about unfettered rights to kill babies up until birth, and (b) saint Sanger of the left was brought up/documented as to her actual beliefs/history.

That's it, we are nearly to page 3 because…the pro-infanticide group got their feelings hurt that some people had the temerity to disagree with them about the morality of their position. You even insisted on discussing your biblical/hermeneutical understandings of the Old Testament.

No christian here has harassed anyone.

Quoting you here so that nortex can laugh.
AgBandsman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rocag said:

You couch this in terms meant to confuse the issue and make it seem sinister. No, I don't think a woman who is pregnant with a baby that has developed some severe deformity or illness that guarantees the baby will not survive should be forced to carry that baby to term and then deliver it. She should have the choice to abort that pregnancy.
Doctors are not the absolute final say. plenty of pregnant mothers have been urged to have an abortion by their doctors due to the doctor's professional opinion on the health of the baby...only to be shown that the baby grew up to live a long and happy life.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
notex said:

Sapper Redux said:

nortex97 said:



This forum.


Except for the part where many Christians are actually willing to let people behave as they would like and leave them free from harassment.
Said one of a handful of posters who went on and on in a thread because they (a) were upset Jackson Women's health lost a case about unfettered rights to kill babies up until birth, and (b) saint Sanger of the left was brought up/documented as to her actual beliefs/history.

That's it, we are nearly to page 3 because…the pro-infanticide group got their feelings hurt that some people had the temerity to disagree with them about the morality of their position. You even insisted on discussing your biblical/hermeneutical understandings of the Old Testament.

No christian here has harassed anyone.

Quoting you here so that nortex can laugh.


A. That's not the position anyone was taking. Lying doesn't help you.

B. Sanger isn't a saint. If you're going to disparage her, be intellectually honest about it.

Glad you're helping him. That rent free space may come in handy.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgBandsman said:

Rocag said:

You couch this in terms meant to confuse the issue and make it seem sinister. No, I don't think a woman who is pregnant with a baby that has developed some severe deformity or illness that guarantees the baby will not survive should be forced to carry that baby to term and then deliver it. She should have the choice to abort that pregnancy.
Doctors are not the absolute final say. plenty of pregnant mothers have been urged to have an abortion by their doctors due to the doctor's professional opinion on the health of the baby...only to be shown that the baby grew up to live a long and happy life.


They had that choice to make a different decision. You're not giving other women the choice.
notex
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

AgBandsman said:

Rocag said:

You couch this in terms meant to confuse the issue and make it seem sinister. No, I don't think a woman who is pregnant with a baby that has developed some severe deformity or illness that guarantees the baby will not survive should be forced to carry that baby to term and then deliver it. She should have the choice to abort that pregnancy.
Doctors are not the absolute final say. plenty of pregnant mothers have been urged to have an abortion by their doctors due to the doctor's professional opinion on the health of the baby...only to be shown that the baby grew up to live a long and happy life.


They had that choice to make a different decision. You're not giving other women the choice.
"You?" All that has happened is the decision about legality for abortion has been returned to the voters/states. States regulate all kinds of medical procedures, and protect the rights of citizens/people in many ways. Most states continue to allow abortion of course, and some (such as NY) even openly encourage/celebrate infanticide.

Sanger is a high saint in the religion of leftists. That's why many want her on US currency.
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"All that has happened" says the person that would have you believe they are being intellectually honest.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
notex said:

Sapper Redux said:

AgBandsman said:

Rocag said:

You couch this in terms meant to confuse the issue and make it seem sinister. No, I don't think a woman who is pregnant with a baby that has developed some severe deformity or illness that guarantees the baby will not survive should be forced to carry that baby to term and then deliver it. She should have the choice to abort that pregnancy.
Doctors are not the absolute final say. plenty of pregnant mothers have been urged to have an abortion by their doctors due to the doctor's professional opinion on the health of the baby...only to be shown that the baby grew up to live a long and happy life.


They had that choice to make a different decision. You're not giving other women the choice.
"You?" All that has happened is the decision about legality for abortion has been returned to the voters/states. States regulate all kinds of medical procedures, and protect the rights of citizens/people in many ways. Most states continue to allow abortion of course, and some (such as NY) even openly encourage/celebrate infanticide.

Sanger is a high saint in the religion of leftists. That's why many want her on US currency.


It's funny how "mob rule" democracy is bad until it isn't for you. And exactly how many people want Sanger on money?
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
schmendeler said:

"All that has happened" says the person that would have you believe they are being intellectually honest.
What else have you been able to read into Dobbs?
Bryanisbest
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
God withdraws His protective hedge and allows Satan to come in and harden hearts, delude people (2 Thes 2:11) and kill people. Just like God allowed Satan to kill His Son for a redemptive purpose. God takes the blame for these actions but the perpetrator is actually Satan and his demonic powers. Like in the book of Job, Satan was allowed to attack Job, his servants, his family and estate. God took the blame and job was never told who the actual perp was. Greg Boyd calls this the doctrine redemptive withdrawal.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Of course God took the blame. He was to blame. He told Satan to do it and set specific limits on what he could do.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is a nice discussion between an orthodox person and a non Christian about this topic. I think you'll like it.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3tzH698zElzDx1ZMIf5ZEp?si=232qZidQS5Cz4YDQmzZ5tg&context=spotify%3Ashow%3A0gI8bUwPtT3gkduHqNh6M5
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
looks like a good 'driving home' podcast. Thanks!
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.