Randi Rhodes Forums

read more HERE

I was looking for the specifics, but as usual there weren't any.

People who usually say things like that say idiotic things like "liberals" are responsible for the killing fields of Pol Pot in Cambodia, or Stalin's purges in Russia.

I would say the one thing the liberal (social-democratic) movement has done that has probably saved, at least, millions of lives over the last fifty years: promoting public health.

That, BTW, includes vaccination.

Ahh shit, you caught me...guys, it was me...one saturday I was bored, one thing led to another, etc

I assume Phillips is talking about abortion and euthanasia (euthanasia referring to the propaganda about Margaret Sanger. Phillips is a Christian reconstructionist. That's why he hates "everything' about the liberal agenda, you know, all that "freedom and justice for all" crap.

There have been 40 million abortions since 1973 in the U.S.

As far as euthanasia cases, there's better data on the UK and Netherlands than the U.S.

Some guesstimates are 3000 per year, including both passive euthanasia and assisted suicide. Active euthanasia is illegal, since it's murder.

Going back to 1973 as our benchmark year, that means ~100,000 cases.

That gets you waaaaaaay short of 1 billion.

BTW, Margaret Sanger never addressed the issue of euthanasia.

Glenn Beck says she did.

And there's also Cloward-Piven.

I don't think Phillips is a CR. I've been on the TPN mailing list for a year and a half, reading his stupid rants on an almost daily basis. He's another generic, miserable, Christian-supremacist bigot, that's for sure. But I've seen nothing to indicate he's a Reconstructionist.

I'll revise my earlier statement: she did discuss it, but didn't advocate it.

BTW, it's a misnomer, anyway, to call the killing of a living, not-suffering, not-terminal, not-on-life-support retarded or disabled person "euthanasia". Even if the Nazis did call their T-4 Aktion program "euthanasia".

What most people mean by "euthanasia" is the passive euthanasia of people on life support like Terri Schiavo. Sanger never wrote about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent "dysgenic" children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and dismissed "positive eugenics" (which promoted greater fertility for the "fitter" upper classes) as impractical. Though many leaders in the negative eugenics movement were calling for active euthanasia of the "unfit," Sanger spoke out against such methods. She believed that women with the power and knowledge of birth control were in the best position to produce "fit" children. She rejected any type of eugenics that would take control out of the hands of those actually giving birth.

Taking sharp issue in plain words with certain other[23] eugenicists, however, Margaret Sanger completely rejected the idea of killing the unfit, expressly denouncing euthanasia as a eugenics tool. .

[snip][end]

Her eugenics views are often trumpeted on many sites, but I would still maintain that calling her a "eugenicist" is mistaken. I'm not sure how much she really advocated it, versus going through the motions of it to help get wealthy WASP foundations that supported eugenics to donate money to her cause... secondly, to whatever extent she held certain eugenic views, like the above, I would say they were not her main focus. Because she spends 10% of her time discussing such matters, and 90% focusing on the rights of women, which were her main concern. She was far more feminist than eugenicist.