Oh, George.Follow

Ah, there's nothing like an attempt to come off sounding intelligent, but instead expose yourself as an ignorant @#%^.

Edited, Nov 20th 2013 5:21pm by idiggory

Randomly pick 5 of your own posts. At least 4 will be excellent examples.

Don't you know that no woman ever died from a back alley abortion, idiggory?

Eugenics relied far more on forced sterilization of "undesireables" than it did abortions, which were still largely illegal around the world.

Pro-abortion is not the same as pro-choice. Pro-choice is a specific reason/argument for supporting legalized abortion. Pro-abortion is the broad position that abortion serves some social good and should be encouraged. It's the difference between why you think people should be allowed to do something, and why you think people should do that thing in the first place.

The two are often incorrectly assumed to be synonymous, but in this case my word choice was not accidental at all.


Oh. And yes, the reason someone would want people to have abortions (which is different than supporting their right to make that choice!) is for reasons of population control. Even the whole "she should be free of the burden of raising a child" is a population control argument if it's in support of abortion and not adoption. Which is why the whole artificial womb thing is interesting precisely because it would break the current cozy arrangement where pro-abortion folks can hide within a more socially acceptable rights movement. Take the rights issue away and what happens?

Edited, Nov 20th 2013 4:24pm by gbaji

You probably don't get around girls much so this might be news to you: there's nine relatively uncomfortable months between conception and when you can give a child away for adoption. A woman making the decision not to undergo those months does not necessarily mean she gives a wet shit about "population control".

I'm sorry. I thought you knew where babies came from

Sure, but there aren't a whole lot of political debates on whether to pass or oppose a law having to do with dinosaurs living in Hollow Earth. Meanwhile, there are political debates and conflicts over whether or not we encourage or discourage abortion within our society.

You asked for an example of this, so here's one: The debate over requiring women to view a sonogram of the fetus before having an abortion. While I'm sure that there are many people who pick sides over the whole "right to choose" angle, we're not actually fighting over the right to make the choice, but whether we take or don't take some action which may influence the rate at which a choice is made. The argument for the sonogram requirement is because statistically fewer women will go through with having an abortion if they are shown a sonogram of the fetus. So by opposing it, you're not really fighting for the "right to have an abortion" but fighting to increase the number of abortions that occur.

That's a clear example of an action that is "pro-abortion" within the context of population control. And it also illustrates the point I made earlier about many people incorrectly conflating the positions of pro-choice versus pro-abortion. I'm quite sure that there are a lot of pro-choice folks who honestly believe that the sonogram issue is about the right to have an abortion itself rather than simply whether we take action to influence that choice. And I've personally been attacked for my position on the issue by people who clearly don't seem to grasp that one can be in favor of the right to make a choice, while opposing the choice itself (btw, this happens on all side of this issue).

So yes, I think there's ample evidence both of a true pro-abortion (population control) agenda *and* the use of the pro-choice argument as a means of concealing this less popular agenda from the public. I could probably find a whole list of examples of this sort of thing as well.

You could spin that BS of population control right around to the say that the Rep. don't want the Middle class and upper class to have abortions so that the pool of tax payers doesn't decrease since we all know the poor have babies so they can buy a Lexus.

I challenge you to find anyone arguing that abortion was a "right" prior to sometime in the early-mid 20th century. That argument appeared right about the same time that the eugenics movements began suffering from image problems (which kinda reached a peak with that Adolf chap in Germany). I suppose we could say that it was a complete coincidence that the same people who 20 years earlier were arguing for enforced sterilization and abortions as means of population control and eugenics started arguing that abortion was a right and encouraging women to fight for that right along with other things like voting and equal pay. It's pretty darn obvious to anyone who isn't blind as a bat that the eugenics folks realized that they needed a new method to get people to adopt abortion, and found it in the suffragist movement.




And yet, planned parenthood, the primary organization associated with "fighting for the reproductive rights of women", just happened to have been founded by a prominent eugenicist. I mean, I suppose it's possible that Margaret Sanger started out fighting for women's rights and then stumbled into the idea that encouraging poor colored women to use birth control and abortions would have the additional benefit of reducing the undesirable/unfit population, but it's far more likely that the process worked the other way. People tend to start with a goal and then look for ways to accomplish that goal rather than the other way around.

Doubly unlikely when you realize that for the claim that she started out as some kind of moral champion of women's rights to be true, we'd have to believe that someone who fought for those rights would then later adopt the position that society would be better off if those women hadn't been born in the first place, but then even later (after Adolph ruined it for everyone) change her mind and decide that they really were worthy of living, but just by coincidence she would focus her organizations efforts to encourage women to embrace their rights to abort in inner city neighborhoods with high minority populations. You know... just a coincidence.

Eugenics found in the women's rights movement a means to push their agenda forward without it being as obvious. Why is this so hard to get? Like I said, there are clear examples of cases where the agenda isn't about the right to abort, but the desire to increase the likelihood that someone will choose to abort. At that point, it's not really about rights anymore, is it?