Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Go Back   Dallas-Mavs.com Forums > Everything Else > Political Arena

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-04-2007, 12:17 PM   #1
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default The "I *Heart* Eugenics" Thread

just a little light-hearted conversation to take our minds off more important and depressing considerations:

What's so wrong with eugenics, anyway? link
CAMPAIGNERS last night warned couples “not to play God” with a revolutionary home test that reveals an unborn baby’s sex at six weeks.

They fear the £189 kit will create a massive leap in abortions if would-be parents are not having the gender they want.

Michaela Aston, spokeswoman for the charity LIFE, said: “This test is very dangerous. It could lead to babies being aborted simply for being the ‘wrong’ sex.”

And Julia Millington, of the Prolife Alliance, said: “There is a real risk that some people would choose to abort babies of a certain gender.”
this is really interesting..........

I mean, it's ok to kill a baby, right? And it's the woman's choice, right? Why can't, or why shouldn't the woman be able to kill the baby if it's a girl but not kill the baby if he's a boy?

IOW, if abortion is all cool, what is objectively wrong with killing little girls and saving little boys?
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24

Last edited by alexamenos; 05-04-2007 at 12:22 PM.
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 05-13-2009, 10:05 AM   #2
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

took a couple of years, but I thought I'd see something like this sooner or later....

A big victory for Eugenics in Sweden

The logic is inexorable (it's not a life after all...it's a choice) -- if abortion is cool then there is nothing objectively wrong with basing abortion decisions on gender....

...or race or mental capacity....
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24

Last edited by alexamenos; 05-13-2009 at 10:06 AM.
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2009, 10:10 AM   #3
Usually Lurkin
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,195
Usually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos View Post
took a couple of years, but I thought I'd see something like this sooner or later....

A big victory for Eugenics in Sweden

The logic is inexorable (it's not a life after all...it's a choice) -- if abortion is cool then there is nothing objectively wrong with basing abortion decisions on gender....

...or race or mental capacity....
All it will take is a little thought policing, alexamenos ("You only go to jail if your motivation was X.") and we will be able to keep all our ethical values lined up nicely.
Usually Lurkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2009, 10:32 AM   #4
bobatundi
Golden Member
 
bobatundi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 1,648
bobatundi has a reputation beyond reputebobatundi has a reputation beyond reputebobatundi has a reputation beyond reputebobatundi has a reputation beyond reputebobatundi has a reputation beyond reputebobatundi has a reputation beyond reputebobatundi has a reputation beyond reputebobatundi has a reputation beyond reputebobatundi has a reputation beyond reputebobatundi has a reputation beyond reputebobatundi has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Interesting to see Eugenics and the abortion debate tied together. I've always thought of it as killing really stupid adults to get them out of the gene pool...or, at least, out of my way on the Tollway.
bobatundi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2009, 11:10 AM   #5
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Abortion and eugenics have a long history together. Love of abortion mostly grew out of the progressive eugenicist movement of the early 1900's.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2009, 11:53 AM   #6
mcsluggo
Golden Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 1,970
mcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant future
Default

"Love of abortion"

wow, that is a mouthful
mcsluggo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2009, 01:00 PM   #7
jacktruth
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: TX
Posts: 1,868
jacktruth has much to be proud ofjacktruth has much to be proud ofjacktruth has much to be proud ofjacktruth has much to be proud ofjacktruth has much to be proud ofjacktruth has much to be proud ofjacktruth has much to be proud ofjacktruth has much to be proud ofjacktruth has much to be proud ofjacktruth has much to be proud ofjacktruth has much to be proud of
Default

Planned Parenthood was started from the Eugenics movement. For some reason, they don't advertize that fact.

Oh, and your US tax dollars provide lots of money to that organization. At least when democrats are in the white house.

Last edited by jacktruth; 05-13-2009 at 01:01 PM.
jacktruth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2009, 01:16 PM   #8
92bDad
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: TX
Posts: 2,505
92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future
Default

I bet there are a few on this board who would choose to abort me if they could.

The beauty of Free Choice...I choose to live and carry on, while others don't have the option to kill me legally.
92bDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2009, 01:43 PM   #9
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacktruth View Post
Planned Parenthood was started from the Eugenics movement.
yeah--Margeret Sanger was a big time eugenicist. The imperative for birth control, in her view, was to stop all the darkies and dummies from breeding so much.

In her defense, she wasn't quite the goosestepper that most progressives were in this regard -- she didn't want the state to force breeding limits on blacks and the republican rank and file...she just thought that her eugenicist cause could be furthered simply by making birth control free and easy to obtain amongst the undesirable elements of society...

...kinda like Planned Parenthood does now by coincidence.

anyhooo...the earlier point of this thread is that the good liberals in our midst have no basis for complaining against the use of abortion as means of weeding out girls and/or colored folks so long as the act is carried out at the behest of the not-mommy in question.

So anybody up for making abortion free -- or better yet -- for incentivizing abortion amongst latinos? Jews? Nuggets fans?
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24

Last edited by alexamenos; 05-13-2009 at 01:51 PM.
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2009, 02:21 PM   #10
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

this thread has more misinformation in it than the article in the denver post quoting lala and her claim of "racism at the aac" I just read.

first, planned parenthood does not advocate nor promote anything related to eugenics. in fact by way of the health services it offers to poor women, it does just the opposite in regard to "selective reproduction" (eugenics). a sick woman won't carry children to term.

second, sanger did have sympathy for the use of selective reproduction to remove from society inherited traits that were seen as undesireable. however her drive to provide sex education and contraceptives, especially to the lower income classes, was not based on eugenic ideals but on the conclusion that these families were denied economic mobility due to women not being in control of their reproductive decisions, and also that women were enslaved by the repeated pregnancies the lack of sex education and contraception produced.

remember, when sanger began her campaign to provide sex education there literally was none of this education existing. women were denied the ability to understand how reproduction worked, and contraceptives were illegal to manufacture, possess or distribute.

sanger did support forced sterilization to remove from the gene pool "undesirable" inherited conditions. she was not a racist and did not support fascism.

just as we can look at the founders of our country with respect and admiration for their dedication to forming our country with the ideals of individual rights and freedom for all in spite of their owning slaves and denying women their equal rights, so too should we look at sanger as a person who worked to provide women with the right be taught about reproduction, to control their own body, and to allow them and not others the right to decide if they will give birth.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2009, 02:30 PM   #11
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos View Post
anyhooo...the earlier point of this thread is that the good liberals in our midst have no basis for complaining against the use of abortion as means of weeding out girls and/or colored folks so long as the act is carried out at the behest of the not-mommy in question.

So anybody up for making abortion free -- or better yet -- for incentivizing abortion amongst latinos? Jews? Nuggets fans?
the decision to abort is made by the mother for a variety of reasons.

those may be valid in the eyes of the rest of us, or may be selfish or nonsensical.

yet it should be a decision made only by the mother.

point being that the state should have no role in this, either in preventing or mandating an abortion.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2009, 03:25 PM   #12
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Misinformation my ass. Embarassing information is not the same thing as misinformation.

Planned Parenthood grew out of a eugenics movement. Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist:

Quote:
The lack of balance between the birth−rate of the «unfit» and the «fit,» admittedly the greatest present menace to the civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. The example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble−minded, the mentally defective, the poverty− stricken, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit, and therefore less fertile, parents of the educated and well−to−do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem to− day is how to limit and discourage the over−fertility of the mentally and physically defective.
That's a direct quote from Margaret Sanger in her book, The Pivot of Civilization, saying that the biggest problem on earth is how to limit breeding amongst the weak and stupid.

If that ain't eugenics, what is eugenics?
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24

Last edited by alexamenos; 05-13-2009 at 03:42 PM.
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2009, 03:54 PM   #13
bernardos70
Diamond Member
 
bernardos70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 6,652
bernardos70 has a reputation beyond reputebernardos70 has a reputation beyond reputebernardos70 has a reputation beyond reputebernardos70 has a reputation beyond reputebernardos70 has a reputation beyond reputebernardos70 has a reputation beyond reputebernardos70 has a reputation beyond reputebernardos70 has a reputation beyond reputebernardos70 has a reputation beyond reputebernardos70 has a reputation beyond reputebernardos70 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

That quote reminds me of the movie "Idiocracy."

"GO AWAY! 'BATIN'!"
__________________
Let's go Mavs!

Last edited by bernardos70; 05-13-2009 at 03:54 PM.
bernardos70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2009, 04:03 PM   #14
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I love idiocracy.

'Hey look, a Starbucks.'
'This is no time for a hot latte.'
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2009, 05:00 PM   #15
bernardos70
Diamond Member
 
bernardos70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 6,652
bernardos70 has a reputation beyond reputebernardos70 has a reputation beyond reputebernardos70 has a reputation beyond reputebernardos70 has a reputation beyond reputebernardos70 has a reputation beyond reputebernardos70 has a reputation beyond reputebernardos70 has a reputation beyond reputebernardos70 has a reputation beyond reputebernardos70 has a reputation beyond reputebernardos70 has a reputation beyond reputebernardos70 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

At the danger of derailing this thread any further, I'd like to clarify that the quote you posted, alexamenos, is what reminded me of Idiocracy. The quote was just a freebie. Kinda like this one:

Doc: "Right, kick ass. Well, don't want to sound like a d*ck or nothin', but, ah... it says on your chart that you're f*cked up. Ah, you talk like a f*g, and your sh*t's all retarded. What I'd do, is just like... like... you know, like, you know what I mean, like... pffffffttt"
__________________
Let's go Mavs!

Last edited by bernardos70; 05-13-2009 at 05:01 PM.
bernardos70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2009, 05:11 PM   #16
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos View Post
Misinformation my ass. Embarassing information is not the same thing as misinformation.

Planned Parenthood grew out of a eugenics movement. Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist:

That's a direct quote from Margaret Sanger in her book, The Pivot of Civilization, saying that the biggest problem on earth is how to limit breeding amongst the weak and stupid.

If that ain't eugenics, what is eugenics?
"weak and stupid"?? that's how you interpert "mentally and physically defective"?? wow, THAT's unique.

that book was penned in the 1920s. the campaign to provide sex education and contraceptives predates the book by decades, when sanger (and her husband) wrote many pieces on sex education and contraception that had NOTHING to do with eugenics or selective reproduction.

Planned Parenthood grew out of the women's rights movement. the fact that there were eugenic supporters involved does not make planned parenthood a part of the eugenics movement. some kkk supporters may have been involved, and that doesn't make it racist either. for all we know some socialist or fascists were there too, do they make it socialist or fascist too? there may have been some anti-semites there, does that mean that planned parenthood "grew out" of anti-semitism?

no, it doesn't.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2009, 05:30 PM   #17
DirkFTW
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,249
DirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Wait, so what did Sanger mean by "mentally and physically defective"?
__________________


Is this ghost ball??
DirkFTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2009, 05:40 PM   #18
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I'm reminded of the scene in Austin Powers the first:

Quote:
[returning Austin's personal property after reanimating him]
Quartermaster Clerk: One Swedish-made penis enlarger.
Austin Powers: [to Vanessa] That's not mine.
Quartermaster Clerk: One credit card receipt for Swedish-made penis enlarger signed by Austin Powers.
Austin Powers: I'm telling ya baby, that's not mine.
Quartermaster Clerk: One warranty card for Swedish-made penis enlarger pump, filled out by Austin Powers.
Austin Powers: I don't even know what this is! This sort of thing ain't my bag, baby.
Quartermaster Clerk: One book, "Swedish-made Penis Enlargers And Me: This Sort of Thing Is My Bag Baby", by Austin Powers.
I suspect if I could find an affidavit which Ms. Sanger signed in her own blood swearing that she was a eugenicist, you'd find some reason to pretend that it doesn't really say what it obviously says.

Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist -- she may have been at the forefront of the women's rights movement, but she was a eugenicist at the forefront of the women's right movement. She was a eugencist pitching a eugenicists' means to a eugencist end.

Sure, eugenicists such as Ms. Sanger and her ilk had other arguments for birth control, but reducing fertility rates of the 'feeble−minded, the mentally defective, the poverty− stricken' was always at the front and center of the plan.

I'm afraid you're the one spreading the misinformation here by denying the centrality of eugencism in Sanger's world.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2009, 05:45 PM   #19
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkFTW View Post
Wait, so what did Sanger mean by "mentally and physically defective"?
stupid and weak.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2009, 06:14 PM   #20
bobatundi
Golden Member
 
bobatundi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 1,648
bobatundi has a reputation beyond reputebobatundi has a reputation beyond reputebobatundi has a reputation beyond reputebobatundi has a reputation beyond reputebobatundi has a reputation beyond reputebobatundi has a reputation beyond reputebobatundi has a reputation beyond reputebobatundi has a reputation beyond reputebobatundi has a reputation beyond reputebobatundi has a reputation beyond reputebobatundi has a reputation beyond repute
Default

maybe we should just all pray more.
bobatundi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2009, 09:27 PM   #21
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkFTW
Wait, so what did Sanger mean by "mentally and physically defective"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos View Post
stupid and weak.
gee, you need to put a call into the genetic research dept at ut southwestern and tell them your theory that "stupid and weak" are inherited traits.

they would really enjoy it...not that they would be laughing at the joke mind you, but laugh they would.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2009, 09:48 PM   #22
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos View Post
I suspect if I could find an affidavit which Ms. Sanger signed in her own blood swearing that she was a eugenicist, you'd find some reason to pretend that it doesn't really say what it obviously says.
you seem to have a reading comphrehension issue. should I rewrite my post in simpler terms for you?

Quote:
Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist -- she may have been at the forefront of the women's rights movement, but she was a eugenicist at the forefront of the women's right movement. She was a eugencist pitching a eugenicists' means to a eugencist end.

Sure, eugenicists such as Ms. Sanger and her ilk had other arguments for birth control, but reducing fertility rates of the 'feeble−minded, the mentally defective, the poverty− stricken' was always at the front and center of the plan.

I'm afraid you're the one spreading the misinformation here by denying the centrality of eugencism in Sanger's world.
you are not a very well versed person in the history of women's rights, nor of sanger.

let's see...her first writing was a column for a nyc rag titled "what every girl should know". uh, it wasn't titled "what every strong, intelligent, wealthy girl should know". it was directed to all girls, rich and poor, smart or not smart.

no eugenic philosophy there.

then there was the "the woman rebel", from wikipedia: "with the slogan "No Gods and No Masters" (and coining the term "birth control"[6][7]) and that each woman be "the absolute mistress of her own body."

let's see, if a woman is in total control "of her own body", how can there be any support for someone other than that woman deciding if she would reproduce or not? and if there is no person other than the woman making these decisions- a role critical to the philosophy of eugenics, where another person decides for the woman if she can reproduce or not- how can there be any link to a eugenic ideal in the writing? answer is there can't.

then there was the writing "what every mother should know". again, it's "every mother", not "what every genetically acceptable mother", not "what every well endowed mentally mother"....it's every mother. no eugenic thought there either.

sanger's embracing of eugenic occurred late in her career, and it was not the basis for her campaign for women's reproductive rights which began decades prior to her advocating the eugenic ideal.

nor was it the basis of the many men and women who worked in the late 1800s and early 1900s to provide women the right to sex education and access to contraceptives.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2009, 11:51 PM   #23
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog View Post
let's see...her first writing was a column for a nyc rag titled "what every girl should know". uh, it wasn't titled "what every strong, intelligent, wealthy girl should know". it was directed to all girls, rich and poor, smart or not smart.

no eugenic philosophy there.

then there was the "the woman rebel", from wikipedia: "with the slogan "No Gods and No Masters" (and coining the term "birth control"[6][7]) and that each woman be "the absolute mistress of her own body."
She made some statement somewhere along the way that weren't unmistakeably eugenic, therefore she really wasn't a eugencist. This is your argument?

How about something else from The Pivot of Civilation(1922):

Quote:
There is but one practical and feasible program in handling the great problem of the feeble-minded. That is, as the best authorities are agreed, to prevent the birth of those who would transmit imbecility to their descendants.
"Feeble-minded" here is a catch-all phrase commonly used by eugenicists of the day...sort of means everything from really dumb to learning disabilities to mentally retarded...anyhoo...I think it's fair to say that someone who advocates the possibility of improving the qualities of human population by discouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits is, by definition, a eugenicist.

That she may not have always made her arguments on starkly eugenic lines doesn't mean she wasn't a eugenicist, it just means she didn't always make her arguments on strictly eugenic lines.

The main point of the book-->

Quote:
The great principle of Birth Control offers the means whereby the individual may adapt himself to and even control the forces of environment and heredity....Birth Control must be recognized...not "merely as the key of the social position," and the only possible and practical method of human generation, but as the very pivot of civilization. Birth Control which has been criticized as negative and destructive, is really the greatest and most truly eugenic method, and its adoption as part of the program of Eugenics would immediately give a concrete and realistic power to that science. As a matter of fact, Birth Control has been accepted by the most clear thinking and far seeing of the Eugenists themselves as the most constructive and necessary of the means to racial health.
Which is to say, if we can keep the dummies and darkies from breeding so much we won't have to deal with all the damn problems they create.

It's a compelling argument and she argues it well. No wonder that the eugenics movement made such headway and that Sanger was such a prominent figure....

That's not to say it isn't morally repugnant, but give the devil it's due so to speak.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24

Last edited by alexamenos; 05-13-2009 at 11:57 PM.
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2009, 12:03 AM   #24
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

The very pivot of civilization!

Gosh, that sounds important.
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2009, 12:16 AM   #25
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos View Post
Which is to say, if we can keep the dummies and darkies from breeding so much we won't have to deal with all the damn problems they create.
I think you have a bit of disconnect in your logic here, in that you are conflating birth control with abortion. Your logic implies that Sanger believed that darks and dumbs would be more likely to use birth control than, well, not dark and not dumb. The opposite would seem to be the case. If anything, birth control would seem to increase--by proportion--the amount of darkies and dumbies in the gene pool, given that whities and smarties would be more likely to avail themselves of said method.
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2009, 12:28 AM   #26
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chumdawg View Post
The opposite would seem to be the case. If anything, birth control would seem to increase--by proportion--the amount of darkies and dumbies in the gene pool, given that whities and smarties would be more likely to avail themselves of said method.
Actually...Sanger was very much cognizant of this point--her first clinic was set up in Harlem. She was very much a malthusian who believed that good white folks were good white folks precisely because they kept their numbers low and (accordingly) it's necessary to make sure the darkies and dummies follow suit.

for what it's worth...this is taking my mind off the game tonight.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2009, 04:58 AM   #27
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos View Post
She made some statement somewhere along the way that weren't unmistakeably eugenic, therefore she really wasn't a eugencist. This is your argument?
no, not at all, the point being the work done earlier had no eugenic ideals in them.

you seem to believe that somewhere I've said she wasn't a eugenist, which is not the case in her later years.

and clearly your argument is that due to sanger (and quite a few of the people in the 1920s) embracing eugenics later in life, all their work decades earlier must have been based on that philosophy.

retroactive thought? that's a new concept.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2009, 06:11 AM   #28
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos View Post
Actually...Sanger was very much cognizant of this point--her first clinic was set up in Harlem. She was very much a malthusian who believed that good white folks were good white folks precisely because they kept their numbers low and (accordingly) it's necessary to make sure the darkies and dummies follow suit.

for what it's worth...this is taking my mind off the game tonight.
harlem was not an african american enclave then, mostly newly landed immigrants (jews and italians, with irish as well).

your channeling of sanger seems to be defective on facts. maybe you should seek out a different clairvoyant.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2009, 08:15 AM   #29
Usually Lurkin
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,195
Usually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog View Post
harlem was not an african american enclave then, mostly newly landed immigrants (jews and italians, with irish as well).

your channeling of sanger seems to be defective on facts. maybe you should seek out a different clairvoyant.
I think Jews, Italians, Irish, etc. were all considered different races/ethnicities then.
Usually Lurkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2009, 09:01 AM   #30
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog View Post
no, not at all, the point being the work done earlier had no eugenic ideals in them.
Horseshit

The argument you make might have a little merit if something in her actions changed between her early career (ca 1915) and her later career (1920+), but nothing changed. That is....your argument suggests some disconnect between her early and later career - but there is no disconnect. She was pushing the same agenda and the same actions -- an agenda and actions which were entirely consistent with her avowedly eugenicist arguments presented in The Pivot of Civilation and elsewhere over her long career.

Quote:
harlem was not an african american enclave then, mostly newly landed immigrants (jews and italians, with irish as well).
you might (I'm sure you don't, but you might) note that this is no way rebuts my point -- instead it reinforces my point.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24

Last edited by alexamenos; 05-14-2009 at 09:02 AM.
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2009, 10:32 AM   #31
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos View Post
Horseshit

The argument you make might have a little merit if something in her actions changed between her early career (ca 1915) and her later career (1920+), but nothing changed. That is....your argument suggests some disconnect between her early and later career - but there is no disconnect. She was pushing the same agenda and the same actions -- an agenda and actions which were entirely consistent with her avowedly eugenicist arguments presented in The Pivot of Civilation and elsewhere over her long career.
you sure like to hang your theory on "the pivot of civilization", which as has been said repeatedly came years after sanger began her campaign for sex education and the availability of contraception.

in sanger's own words from "what every girl should know":

"my object in telling young girls the truth [about reproduction] is for the definite purpose of preventing them from entering into sexual relations, whether in marriage or out of it, without thinking and knowing. Better a thousand times to live alone and unloved than to be tied to a man who has robbed her of her health or of the joy of motherhood, or welcoming the pains of motherhood...every girl should first understand herself; she should know her anatomy; she should know the epochs of a normal woman's life and the unfoldment each epoch brings; she should know the effect the emotions have on her acts, and finally she should know the fullness and richness of life when crowned by the flower of motherhood."

that is without doubt NOT the words of a person advocating the ideals of eugenics. it is a person who seeks liberty for women to be educated about sex, their reproductive system, and to be empowered to make their own decisions about childbirth.

Quote:
you might (I'm sure you don't, but you might) note that this is no way rebuts my point -- instead it reinforces my point.
you mean this point?
Quote:
She was very much a malthusian who believed that good white folks were good white folks precisely because they kept their numbers low and (accordingly) it's necessary to make sure the darkies and dummies follow suit.
nope, it shows that this point about "darkies" is baseless and contrary to the facts.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2009, 10:45 AM   #32
DirkFTW
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,249
DirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog View Post
you sure like to hang your theory on "the pivot of civilization", which as has been said repeatedly came years after sanger began her campaign for sex education and the availability of contraception.

in sanger's own words from "what every girl should know":

"my object in telling young girls the truth [about reproduction] is for the definite purpose of preventing them from entering into sexual relations, whether in marriage or out of it, without thinking and knowing. Better a thousand times to live alone and unloved than to be tied to a man who has robbed her of her health or of the joy of motherhood, or welcoming the pains of motherhood...every girl should first understand herself; she should know her anatomy; she should know the epochs of a normal woman's life and the unfoldment each epoch brings; she should know the effect the emotions have on her acts, and finally she should know the fullness and richness of life when crowned by the flower of motherhood."
FYI, UPenn also lists "What Every Girl Should Know" as one of Sanger's 1920s+ publications, and thus clearly not indicative of anything. Link
__________________


Is this ghost ball??

Last edited by DirkFTW; 05-14-2009 at 10:46 AM.
DirkFTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2009, 11:30 AM   #33
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

The point mavdog is trying to make (not very convincingly, IMO) is that Sanger used the eugenics movement to further her cause. That is, she wasn't so much interested in eugenics as she was interested in using the eugenicists' movement. (and to keep things in context, eugenicism was a widely accepted thing among progressives and leftwingers back in the day).

I think this interpretation of her life is a bit on the revisionist side of things -- kind of a transparent effort to deny by ommission the collectivist and malthusian aspects of her outlook in order emphasize those parts her work which are more palatable to 21st century Liberal notions.

....kind of like with Lincoln -- we remember today part "a" of his plans - free the slaves!! That much is cool. Yeah Lincoln! Part 'b', where he wanted to ship all of the darkies back to africa, is commonly (and conveniently) forgotten.

but I digress....

My larger point, regardless of whether Sanger was a eugenicist deep down in her soul or someone using eugenicists, is the ease with which birth control (then), retroactive birth control (now), and eugenicism can be melded together. It's a very steep and very slippery slope.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2009, 11:32 AM   #34
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

originally published in 1916.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2009, 12:39 PM   #35
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos View Post
The point mavdog is trying to make (not very convincingly, IMO) is that Sanger used the eugenics movement to further her cause.
nope, never made nor suggested that at all. nice attempt at a strawman tho.

the point that I have made (convincingly I might add) is sangers embracing of eugenics later in her life has no beasring on the movement she championed earlier in her life, that being the drive to stop the prohibition on sex education and the dissemination of contraceptives. the philosophy being that women were merely chattle at the time, and that repeated childbearing not only made such enslavement impossible to free themselves of but also that the repeated pregnancies placed a heavy burden on the entire family in the pursuit of economic mobility.

sanger (and many others at the time) embraced the eugenics philosophy, most were subsequently turned off by the fact that nazism has eugenics as one of its principles, and we saw where that led to.

Quote:
That is, she wasn't so much interested in eugenics as she was interested in using the eugenicists' movement. (and to keep things in context, eugenicism was a widely accepted thing among progressives and leftwingers back in the day).
and rightwingers, and racists in general for that part.

but no, sanger embraced the movement, but not to "further her cause", but rather because she obviously believed in it.

Quote:
I think this interpretation of her life is a bit on the revisionist side of things -- kind of a transparent effort to deny by ommission the collectivist and malthusian aspects of her outlook in order emphasize those parts her work which are more palatable to 21st century Liberal notions.
no, she moved in her philosophy, which happens to a lot of people. sometimes it's a good movement, sometimes it isn't.

Quote:
....kind of like with Lincoln -- we remember today part "a" of his plans - free the slaves!! That much is cool. Yeah Lincoln! Part 'b', where he wanted to ship all of the darkies back to africa, is commonly (and conveniently) forgotten.
cultural relativism...do not attempt to transpose the current ideals onto times long ago where those ideals were not prevalent and attempt to assign right and wrong. it doesn't work.

Quote:
but I digress....

My larger point, regardless of whether Sanger was a eugenicist deep down in her soul or someone using eugenicists, is the ease with which birth control (then), retroactive birth control (now), and eugenicism can be melded together. It's a very steep and very slippery slope.
again, there is no dispute that sanger became a eugenist believer.

people make decisions in regard to their reproduction that may or may not be ethical. abortions, not a good thing in general. abortions based on the fact it is a downs fetus? I certainly understand why one would terminate. abortion due to the "wrong" sex? not very good ethics.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2009, 12:55 PM   #36
Usually Lurkin
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,195
Usually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond repute
Default

while you guys prattle on about cause and effect and which came first . .
Let's keep the basic premise in mind - abortion and eugenics go hand in hand.
My guess would be that whichever is accepted first, the other will naturally follow.
Usually Lurkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2009, 01:28 PM   #37
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin View Post
My guess would be that whichever is accepted first, the other will naturally follow.
certainly - the logic of the leap from one to the other is obvious, and that was kind of the point of the thread in the first place.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2009, 01:40 PM   #38
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog View Post
abortion due to the "wrong" sex? not very good ethics.
Why not? What is objectively wrong with this?

seriously....

I agree that there is something icky sticky eugenicky about it, but I'm seriously asking on what basis you find this to be 'not very good ethics'?
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2009, 03:09 PM   #39
sike
The Preacha
 
sike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Rock
Posts: 36,066
sike has a reputation beyond reputesike has a reputation beyond reputesike has a reputation beyond reputesike has a reputation beyond reputesike has a reputation beyond reputesike has a reputation beyond reputesike has a reputation beyond reputesike has a reputation beyond reputesike has a reputation beyond reputesike has a reputation beyond reputesike has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I found it funny that in the wiki article on eugenics....when discussing those prominant names who were in support of it, the very first name mentioned is..."From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent people, including Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, William Keith Kellogg, Winston Churchill, Linus Pauling[11] and Sidney Webb.[12][13][14] Its most infamous proponent and practitioner was however Adolf Hitler who praised and incorporated Eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf, and emulated Eugenic legislation for the sterilization of "defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

not that being in wiki makes anything true...just a funny aside.
__________________

ok, we've talked about the problem of evil, and the extent of the atonement's application, but my real question to you is, "Could Jesus dunk?"

Last edited by sike; 05-14-2009 at 03:10 PM.
sike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2009, 03:12 PM   #40
sike
The Preacha
 
sike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Rock
Posts: 36,066
sike has a reputation beyond reputesike has a reputation beyond reputesike has a reputation beyond reputesike has a reputation beyond reputesike has a reputation beyond reputesike has a reputation beyond reputesike has a reputation beyond reputesike has a reputation beyond reputesike has a reputation beyond reputesike has a reputation beyond reputesike has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos View Post
Why not? What is objectively wrong with this?

seriously....

I agree that there is something icky sticky eugenicky about it, but I'm seriously asking on what basis you find this to be 'not very good ethics'?
I completely agree...if the only deciding factor is the "choice" of the mother...who cares what reason guided her choice?
__________________

ok, we've talked about the problem of evil, and the extent of the atonement's application, but my real question to you is, "Could Jesus dunk?"
sike is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
got a bit fluffy in here

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.