The "I *Heart* Eugenics" Thread

[alexamenos]

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.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

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.

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.

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.

....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.

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.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

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'?

[sike]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

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?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by sike

I completely agree...if the only deciding factor is the "choice" of the mother...who cares what reason guided her choice?

...and if it's not a human that is being aborted, it's certainly not a human of a specific gender (or race) that's being aborted, correct?

[sike]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

...and if it's not a human that is being aborted, it's certainly not a human of a specific gender (or race) that's being aborted, correct?

seems sound. If abortion is only the ending of a potential human...or matter than is not human yet, thus not achieving personhood...then its only potentially male or potentially female or white or black, etc, etc. Certainly the growth's humanity would need to be established if the gender or race were to be considered. If not...its just a female thing or a male thing or a black thing, or a brown thing, or a white thing, etc. But not a person...not a human.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by sike

seems sound. If abortion is only the ending of a potential human...or matter than is not human yet, thus not achieving personhood...then its only potentially male or potentially female or white or black, etc, etc. Certainly the growth's humanity would need to be established if the gender or race were to be considered. If not...its just a female thing or a male thing or a black thing, or a brown thing, or a white thing, etc. But not a person...not a human.

Exactly....if it's not wrong to kill something which is not a human life, how can it be wrong to kill something which is not a human life for the wrong reason?

Now.....I'm not suggesting we should force anyone to get an abortion, but if we subsidize abortion for black people and stupid people--do what we can to help them keep their birth rates down -- that will have the affect of...ummmm....well you know....

....not that there's anything wrong with that!!!

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

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'?

the decision to carry a fetus to term and deliver a baby should not be gender based. the sex doesn't make any difference, does it?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the decision to carry a fetus to term and deliver a baby should not be gender based.

what are the appropriate criteria?

[sike]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

what are the appropriate criteria?

mama still wants to party?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

what are the appropriate criteria?

seems the appropriateness is not a decision for others to make, it a decision of the mother.

your question was why basing the decision to terminate on the gender was unethical. if the mother was evaluating if she should carry to term, the gender of the baby shouldn't have any influence on that decision as it makes no difference. a male or a female baby are identical in all elements save for their gonads.

[sike]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

seems the appropriateness is not a decision for others to make, it a decision of the mother.

your question was why basing the decision to terminate on the gender was unethical. if the mother was evaluating if she should carry to term, the gender of the baby shouldn't have any influence on that decision as it makes no difference. a male or a female baby are identical in all elements save for their gonads.

you just painted with far too wide a brush there, md. You can't possibly tell what "makes no difference" to anyone other than yourself....and I don't think you have ovaries.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

seems the appropriateness is not a decision for others to make, it a decision of the mother.

i'm still not clear on what you're saying...

You say that "the gender of the baby shouldn't have any influence on that decision as it makes no difference." But let's assume for the sake of argument that it does matter to the mother -- clearly it can matter to the mother whether the baby is going to be a girl, or mentally retarded, or kind of like flacolaco.

...if the mother decides she wants to abort the baby because it does not (or will not) have testicles, is that unethical in your view? If so, why?

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

seems the appropriateness is not a decision for others to make, it a decision of the mother.

your question was why basing the decision to terminate on the gender was unethical. if the mother was evaluating if she should carry to term, the gender of the baby shouldn't have any influence on that decision as it makes no difference. a male or a female baby are identical in all elements save for their gonads.

If killing a human is the decision of the mother, then you might as well love Hitler's views as well.

He decided that killing was the decision of the government and based much of his killing on religion.

It is the exact same way of thinking turned to a different direction. This is exactly why the German people allowed the holocaust -- just like you would allow it - it starts in the head with not seeing people as human. Once upon a time slaves weren't seen as human either.

Maybe you would rather the king decide, like maybe the president -- maybe the next one will want all blue eyed to be killed.

Stupid is as Stupid does, and giving the right to kill to a woman just because she is a woman is just as stupid as giving it to you or me.

Abortion isn't any different than killing millions of jews, or slaves. It is just whether or not someone in some government can justify themselves with the killing and make it law.