Historically you are wrong. Margaret Sanger was definitely a racist and eugenicist. I don’t think most pro-choicers today are racist, but considering how many people believe in aborting children with chromosomal diseases like Down Syndrome, an argument can be made they are unwitting eugenicists.
1 Like
Huckabee says if Trump doesn’t win the 2024 election it will be the last time the election is decided by ballots rather than bullets. It’s the new GOP.
https://twitter.com/acnewsitics/status/1699487386135323092?t=BdoCpkEoDOLynvd_1JGOLg&s=19
1 Like
Because he realizes that only one Republican Presidential candidate since 1988 has gotten the most votes in a Presidential election. And that was George W. Bush in 2004 where he got ~3M more votes than Kerry. In the other 7 elections the Republican candidate got the 2nd most votes but despite that they managed to with the White House 3 times.
And that is constantly brought up to distract from the current pro-choice arguments and good that Planned Parenthood does.
It is as disingenuous as people talking about Republicans being anti-racists because Lincoln.
1 Like
You opened the door to history with your “was always” and subsequent Nazi Germany post. You were just wrong. I know, it is exceedingly difficult for you to say it. So I’ll help you. You. Were. WRONG.
Even though I am pro-life, I can admit Planned Parenthood does some good things. I just wish they’d drop abortion.
Sorry, my “was always” is related to the right-wing argument in the past decadea trotting out that piece of history like it has any relevance to the current Planned Parenthood. I was not trying to claim that this pedantic point regarding one of Planned Parenthood’s founders is not true.
Didn’t realize you were also one of those holding on to this fact like it is some great “gotcha.”
I certainly can’t speak to what you were thinking, only what you wrote. If that was in fact your intent something like:
“The historic eugenic and racist roots of Planned Parenthood are so remote from its motivation today that they aren’t relevant to discussions today.”
Would be a better expression of that intent.
Instead you wrote “always”. And you really haven’t been an actuary at all if you don’t expect pendatry, or being called out on ridiculous exaggerations.
FWIW, today’s white supremacists are very much like the Nazis. They are not pro-life, they are more interested in death and power.
The Jews are in on everything
3 Likes
I am not knowledgable about any of this, so I could be wrong.
Isn’t eugenics about improving the gene pool? Down syndrome isn’t generally an inheritable condition, so why would aborting a fetus with downs improve the gene pool?
1 Like
Not only improving the gene pool, but also deciding who is worthy of living. Perhaps a little conflation, but not really far from eugenicist’s hearts.
1 Like
Deliberated on this because I’m truly not sure. I think certainly most racists are anti-choice. Whether most anti-choicers are racist… That’s a tricky definition because there’s a wide spectrum of racism, but I’d be surprised if the proportion is not high.
1 Like
It actually tips more in the other direction
Removed the fluffy bits to leave the important bits.
Laws limiting abortion, it was believed, would ultimately force middle- and upper-class white women — who had the most access to detect and terminate unwanted pregnancies — to bear more white children. “There were concerns that these other groups were demographically outpacing white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant women. And so they thought to limit the bodily autonomy of white women and limit access to contraception in order to force them to have children. That they felt would keep up with the demographic birth rate,” said Alex DiBranco, the co-founder and executive director of the Institute for Research on Male Supremacism.
In a December 2018 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, a 38 percent plurality of Americans said the U.S. becoming more diverse would “weaken American customs and values.” This way of thinking is especially prevalent among Republicans, who said by 59 percent to 13 percent that having a majority nonwhite population would weaken rather than strengthen the U.S.
And these anxieties over immigration have become explicitly connected to the birth rate in some statements from prominent Republicans. In 2017, when he was representing Iowa’s 4th Congressional District in the U.S. House, Steve King directly made the connection: “You cannot rebuild your civilization with somebody else’s babies. You’ve got to keep your birth rate up, and that you need to teach your children your values.” More recently, in May, Matt Schlapp, the head of the Conservative Political Action Coalition, echoed a similar sentiment when he advocated for a ban on abortion. And in June, Illinois Rep. Mary Miller called the end of Roe a “historic victory for white life” at a rally with former President Donald Trump
it’s likely that we’ll see more women of color die as abortions become more limited, in spite of arguments from some on the far right that a near-total abortion ban is a good thing for people of color, primarily Black people. In fact, according to analysis published in the December edition of the population-research journal “Demography,” a hypothetical total abortion ban would lead to more pregnancy-related deaths among non-Hispanic Black people than among any other racial group. But logic is not the point in many of the mainstream racist arguments around restricting abortion access. “They tried to twist themselves into logical scientific explanations for all of these things. But they basically had to just make stuff up to justify what they wanted, which is for women — especially women of color — to not have any rights,” said Thompson, the historian.
3 Likes
“You need to teach your children your values”.
Not seeing much in the way of admirable values here.
1 Like
That’s so dumb when we have statistics on the actual number of abortions performed.
White women are more likely to have access to birth control and know how to use it properly and are less likely to have an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. They’re also more likely to be supported through a decision to put an unwanted baby up for adoption.
According to this source black women account for 39% of abortions (and about 12% of the population) whereas non-Hispanic white women account for only 33% of abortions (and about 59% of the population). The data is incomplete, but still…
That means (and this is back of the envelope) that a black woman is roughly 6x as likely to have an abortion as a white woman.
Again, I don’t expect eugenicists to be geniuses, but the depth to which they’ve buried their heads in the sand is pretty surprising.
1 Like
Sorry, my post was in response to Rastiln’s. Cooke snuck in there while I was typing.
1 Like
I still haven’t received a good answer for why The Trial of Bitter Water is ordained by God, wherein an abortifacient was administered by a priest in exchange for an offering to the temple, yet God apparently changed his mind later and said “Ope, abortion is bad now”.
My counterargument would be that Old Testament people needed rules like “don’t eat animals prone to disease” simply for survival, and abortions were sometimes necessary because birth could be deadly. (It’s my opinion that particularly in the earlier books of the OT, religion was mostly a tool for populace control so everybody didn’t die.)
Though I leave it to the reader to find the massive problem in the argument that abortion was necessary for a woman’s health.
IMO, this is the sort of true part of the Great Replacement Theory. Low birth rates and high immigration rates imply in a shifting culture.
That could be applied to race, if you cared about race. But it could also be applied to language, religion, politics.
Ideally, the good parts of our culture are worth adopting. Like, someone comes from Russia and is like, “whoa democracy is so much better than Putin.” But that’s probably not always and forever the case. Some dude coming from an anti-feminist culture is probably not going to immediately be like, “feminism is sure cool.”
Further, I don’t think the influx of immigrants is enough to cause a big sudden shift anyway. Just some shift. And more shift if we doubled or tripled our immigration rate. Maybe if you projected over multiple generations, but imo, the world is changing too fast to think that way.
In terms of “shift magnitude”, I think Christians have the most to chew on. Christians in developed nations are not having many babies. And they’re losing their faith. And their children are losing faith. So the center of mass of Christianity, if there is such a thing, is going to shift towards developing nations.
But is that a thing to freak out about? Obviously, I don’t think so. You can believe whatever you want without worrying what the average world Christian is like. But that’s probably not how everyone thinks.
OTOH, I wouldn’t say culture shifting is a complete non-issue. It can be (imo) a pain in the butt to deal with different languages, different religions, different politics. And it can be shocking on a local level if one region (a town or a city) shifts suddenly and dramatically.
2 Likes
Fun fact, as I was randomly reading about this recently: Buck v Bell, the infamous “three generations of imbeciles are enough” case, has technically never been overturned (although effectively gutted by the ADA).
Yes. It’s really hard to believe anyone could that bad at statistics. But so it is.