The May 2010 Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Newsletter can now be found at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/Newsletters/Newsletter108(May2010)(RGB).pdf Bill C-384 was soundly defeated by a vote of 228 to 59. Check how the Members of Parliament voted at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/HowTheyVoted.pdf On June 5, 2010, we are co-hosting the US/Canda Push-Back Seminar at the Radisson Gateway Hotel at the Seattle/Tacoma Airport. The overwhelming defeat of Bill C-384 proved that we can Push-Back the euthanasia lobby in the US and Canada and convince people that euthanasia and assisted suicide are a dangerous public policy. Register for the Seminar at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/2010SeminarFlyer(RGB)(LetterFormat).pdf The Schindler family are being attacked by a Florida television station and Michael Schiavo. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is standing in solidarity with the Schindler family. My blog comments: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2010/05/att
Reflections from the pastoral ministry of an Evangelical Catholic Priest.
First thing you need to notice is that she did not say what the video roll says she said.
ReplyDeleteLady Janus: The text was cut off at the bottom so I did not see a difference. What was it that was different in the text?
ReplyDeleteFr. Tim
P.S. I'm watching the leaders debate en français this evening. Ignatieff is even more of a fool that I thought. Last night he was a blustering buffoon... tonight he's all over the map! Insulting, demeaning, hypocritical. It does not seem fair that our choices are so limited.
ReplyDeleteC'est la vie!
Fr. Tim
People will vote for the candidate they want in their region to represent them.
ReplyDeleteAs for a blustering buffoon
Cherly Gallant MP representing Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke takes top honors in that role.
The text said that Sanger said that the greatest sin was bringing children into the world.
ReplyDeleteWhat she actually said is that the greatest sin is bringing children into a world in which they will suffer.
Lady Janus: It's her definition of 'suffering' that I think is at issue here. She believed and promoted eugenics. This quote is saying that if a child was going to be born in situation where they will grow up to be 'criminals' or 'delinquents', it would be better off that they not be permitted to live. You know, 'those' people who shouldn't have children?
ReplyDeleteThat I find offensive. One is not doomed by one's parents. Kids for good homes commit crimes. Kids from terrible home grow up to be valued citizens.
I do however give her the benefit of being a child of her times. Eugenics was touted as the answer to all of humanity's problems back in the 20's & 30's. She is a child of the culture she grew up in. It's only sad that, after the horrors of the Shoah and the wholesale euthanization of 'defectives' as well, that she didn't change her views.
Fr. Tim
She didn't say anything about criminals and delinquents. She was talking about poverty, hunger, and disease...things that can be avoided through the use of contraceptives. People breed children without being able to feed them, clothe them, shelter them, or educate them, and this is a good thing?
ReplyDeleteY'know...one of these days someone is gonna hafta 'splain why it's "racist" to want good lives and good benefits and healthy children. A lot of so-cons keep calling Sanger a "promoter of eugenics," but they have no damned idea what that word means (and the ones who do know what it means are pretty much content to use it as a whip with which to frenzy their very gullible cohorts)! And I'm tired of people slamming others for a word they can't even properly define. THAT's what I find offensive!
And there are definitely some people who should never have children.
Lady Janus
ReplyDelete“What she actually said is that the greatest sin is bringing children into a world in which they will suffer.” As opposed to a world in which they will not?
“She was talking about poverty, hunger, and disease...things that can be avoided through the use of contraceptives.” You forgot to mention ‘death’.
‘Good lives’, ‘good benefits’, ‘healthy children’ are all relative terms so will you be the one to decide what is good enough or healthy enough to qualify for permission to bear children? I do agree however that occasionally some people do (usually inadvertently) offer support to the claim that some people should not have had children.
I have responded to your comments even though they do NOT even deserve to be posted here or anywhere and I am disappointed in Tim for posting that kind of vulgar, offensive and repulsive slurring against a whole race of human beings. If you think it’s funny, think again!!!
Listening to Margaret Sanger is like reading a chapter from Mein Kampf. She thought like Hitler only she saw birth control, abortion and sterilization (forced if need be) as the solution to her perceived "problem".
ReplyDeleteAs far as judging who's life is worthy to continue. I've seen poor, hungry and sick people with far greater joy in their lives than rich, healthy people living on prozac with all the world has to offer. Nobody has the right to pass a death sentence on to someone else because in their minds, they think the persons life has no value. Sangers words made it rather clear that she was less concerned with the suffering of the "unfit" and more concerned with the financial and social burden they might impose on the "fit".
Cheers
Paul
"As opposed to a world in which they will not?"
ReplyDeleteYes. Or perhaps you think it's just fine to starve and abuse children?
"‘Good lives’, ‘good benefits’, ‘healthy children’ are all relative terms..."
Relative to a point, but not entirely. Do you think it's relative or real when a child is diseased and/or has nothing to eat or drink except that which will only make his condition worse?
"I have responded to your comments even though they do NOT even deserve to be posted here or anywhere and I am disappointed in Tim for posting that kind of vulgar, offensive and repulsive slurring against a whole race of human beings. If you think it’s funny, think again!!!"
I have no idea what you mean by all that. If you don't want to answer me, then by all means, don't answer. But do NOT assume that you know "the meaning behind my words," because there isn't anything behind my words. WYSIWYG. But, oh, just for the hell of it, what's "offensive?" What's "Vulgar?" What's "repulsive?" And who mentioned "race?"
Janus, either you are blinded by the inner milieu of racist infection or you are to proud (afraid of loneliness)to concede to the fact that you do not know everything which is also a symptom of stagnation bred by the same inner milieu of racist infection.
ReplyDeleteInstead of remaining in a state of childish denial why don’t you just apologize to all the black people in the world for what you have done publicly to them?
Larry, I have idea what the fvck you're on about, but you can take your suggestion and park it in a dark orifice, hm?
ReplyDeleteOh...and before you go calling "racist!" you might want to enquire as to the race of the person you're slamming. Moron.
Enough, Larry. You're starting to foam at the mouth. Go get yourself innoculated, and when your brain starts functioning again, you can apologize to me for the gratuitous smears and to Tim for the mess you just dumped all over his blog.
ReplyDelete