(Psssst..."Population Control" means "eugenics")

Published on December 15, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

I am incensed at the left. While I am no closer to joining the GOP than I am the DNC, it is the left that has infuriated me by manipulating the poor for their support base while at the same time advocating for the extermination against many of the minorities disproportionately represented among the poor.

One such area is in the area of "population control". Almost every dedicated leftist is an advocate of "population control" because it sounds like compassion for the planet, when in fact, it is nothing more than a euphemism for eugenics, which most of us conclusively decided was wrong about 60 years ago.

You see, when you think about population control, you must think about HOW we would achieve it. Well, naturally, we'd need to slow the birth rate through abortion and/or sterilization. Because the latter is so overtly totalitarian, we often opt for the former. But we don't think of what this is doing.

To the advocate of population control, the obvious targets for abortion are those who are less able to fill workforce needs in society. This means anyone born with a birth defect who would questionably bring more cost than benefit. It is a moralistic stance that is governed by the bottom line, not by any moral reasoning. One example of this atrocity is the March of Dimes. In their campaigns, they claim their goal is to "reduce birth defects". And they do. By identifying birth defects in utero, correcting those they can correct and aborting those they can't.

But it goes further. Our inner cities, which are disproportionately represented by minorities, have more planned parenthood clinics than free health clinics. And despite their statements to the contrary, PP's MISSION is to abort unwanted babies. It's just not very good publicity to SAY so.

At the other end of the scale, we have euthanasia. We refer to it as "mercy killing", when that very phrase is questionable. Again, the very old are poor candidates to contribute to society, and an extensive program for population control would target them. And again, the targets would be disproportionately poor.

So, the next time you hear someone spek of "population control", hold your baby a little tighter. After all, if your child isn't of sound genetic stock, it could be their next target.

Comments (Page 1)

stevendedalus

on Dec 15, 2005

Some convincing points but you make it sound like a consiratorial death squad.

bakerstreet

on Dec 15, 2005

It's kind of eerie that the organization quietly formed by Clinton and his creepy flunkies to buy the drug patent for ru-486 is called "The Population Council". The French wanted no part in it's manufacture, so las I heard China was going to be the primary manufacturer. They have a lovely track record with methods of, and attitudes toward, population control...

I think it is kind of sad, given most people feel that those who aren't in the "position" to have children shouldn't have them, which means the poor should be dissuaded from having kids. This could be seen as humanitarianism, in that kids wouldn't be born to struggling families. It could also be seen as social eugenics, as you point out...

Gideon MacLeish

on Dec 15, 2005

steven,

The average planned parenthood worker probably doesn't have such a sinister agenda...but then the average Nazi footsoldier didn't have a sinister agenda either. Frankly, I think the "power behind the throne" of the population control movement is VERY frightening.

Dr Guy

on Dec 15, 2005

Some convincing points but you make it sound like a consiratorial death squad.

Gideon beleives it to be, and based upon their inabilty to be open and honest, I am coming to that conclusion. If it was not conspiratorial, why not state exactly what they mean instead of using obfuscation to accomplish the same ends?

greywar

on Dec 15, 2005

I will call you on this claim as I have done with Col Gene on other occasions in the interest of fairness...

And despite their statements to the contrary, PP's MISSION is to abort unwanted babies. It's just not very good publicity to SAY so.

Just change the topic and this is the sort of declaratory non-proven statement that the "Col" likes to make.

Is there any proof of this? Some non-radical place you could link to to prove it? If not then it rings a bit hollow. If the Left has to prove their points then so should everyone else.

Gideon MacLeish

on Dec 16, 2005

Is there any proof of this? Some non-radical place you could link to to prove it? If not then it rings a bit hollow. If the Left has to prove their points then so should everyone else.

What do you think "abortion on demand" means?

But, to answer your question, let's look at the words of PP FOUNDER Margaret Sanger yet again:

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:
In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

Remember, Sanger is the FOUNDER of Planned Parenthood; the organization was FOUNDED on her philosophies. Not ONE PP activist has EVER spoken out against Sanger's views in these areas. Not ONE.

I must note, I have posted this information many times over. My view that Sanger was a eugenist is well established, and, as yet, NOT credibly challenged. All of these source citations come from Sanger's OWN words, so to say it rings hollow is to ignore the facts on this one, grey.

cactoblasta

on Dec 17, 2005

So what? The people who make the greatest use of birth control (and the ones most likely to use RU-486) are the children of the wealthy or middle classes who want a career. That's the biggest group for abortio

Gideon MacLeish

on Dec 17, 2005

cacto,

First, I would like to see some hard stats showing that is the biggest group for abortion. It may be, but that's NOT the group targetted by the population control movement.

Second...SO WHAT?!? You mean, you don't CARE that Planned Parenthood was started by a eugenist, but rather that the ends justify the means? Well, by that standard, Hitler, Mao and Stalin were some of the greatest humanitarians of all time! I guess that's the true colors of the abortion movement showing themselves for you.

bakerstreet

on Dec 17, 2005

Planned Parenthood is a force trying to shove abortion down into the classes in question. The fact that cacto uses as evidence is actually a social ill that Planned Parenthood claims to combat. It's opposition to PP and the idea of universal low-cost or free abortion that has PREVENTED it from becoming a force of social eugenics.

I'm not even saying it needs to be a direct attempt. We do a lot of things as a society that have inadvertant effects, the very classes in question being one of those effects. I think it is obvious that many in the pro-abortion movement throughout history were pigs interested in liquidating what they thought of as a "poor breeder class", but I don't think that many necessarily feel that way now.

They don't have to for their product of their efforts to have broader implications than they intend, though.

cactoblasta

on Dec 18, 2005

Hmm, most of my answer got cut out. Doesn't really matter though.

You mean, you don't CARE that Planned Parenthood was started by a eugenist, but rather that the ends justify the means? Well, by that standard, Hitler, Mao and Stalin were some of the greatest humanitarians of all time! I guess that's the true colors of the abortion movement showing themselves for you.

No, I don't especially care that Planned Parenthood was started by a eugenist. I don't see how she represents anything except an educated white woman of her time.

Moving along, for the sake of the intellectual exericise I'll accept your claim that PP is a eugenics-based conspiracy.

The thing is they're not forcing anyone to have an abortion. They're acting legally to try and persuade people sure, but they're not forcing anyone. Certain groups are acting to persuade those very same people not to have abortions. They're not forcing anyone either. Their aims are perhaps contrary to your desires, but last I heard they're entitled to have them and to lobby for them to the limit of their finances.

If it's a conspiracy, it's of the most benevolent kind - the kind where force is used far less than simple persuasion and social pressure. How you can compare the murder through death camp of millions of living, post-fetal people, all with functioning nerves and the capacity to feel pain (something not all aborted fetuses develop before death) with a eugenics movement functioning under rule of law is beyond me.

We obviously have totally different views on morality.

Both of those methods are entirely unnecessary. Good health care will reduce birthrates because more children will survive, and appropriate education programs will do the rest. Italy's an example of a country that took it a little far and they haven't sterilised anyone in ages. Japan's the same, although abortions are a little more common in Japan than Italy, perhaps due to the religious background of the populace.

First, I would like to see some hard stats showing that is the biggest group for abortion. It may be, but that's NOT the group targetted by the population control movement

Meh, if it's irrelevent I won't bother googling it. I concede the point - the poor and dispossessed have more abortions in relative terms than the middle class.

I guess that's the true colors of the abortion movement showing themselves for you.

Yeah, it's all about the baby-killing for me. Sometimes I just want to do it all day...

I think we need to look at the issue of population control a little more seriously. If indeed it means a eugenics-based program then really I fail to see what the difference is with not letting the poor have abortions.

Any kind of humanitarian program, whether pro- or anti-abortion, is social eugenics because it artificially prevents the functioning of 'survival of the fittest' rules. Whether you seek to exterminate the genetically unstable and socially undesirable, PP style, or provide for a more diverse gene pool (scientific anti-abortion stance that's rather rare) or have some religious objection to the practice (killing god's children anyone?) it's all just about the same.

At least PP doesn't believe in creating post-9 month abortions.

As for the euthanasia issue you put in the end, I don't really see how that ties into the argument (unless of course the US debate is wildly different to the Oz debate, which I suppose is quite possible). Allowing assisted suicide for those without the strength to push the button themselves doesn't seem so cruel to me. After all, when the painkillers stop working death might seem rather attractive.

Of course if PP suggests the enforced euthanasia of all those above a certain age or with certain illnesses then it's a different matter, but it's still not eugenics. These people have already contributed to the gene pool; killing them now is a little unnecessary in a genetic sense unless you kill their offspring as well. It's more an issue of food supplies.

Gideon MacLeish

on Dec 18, 2005

No, I don't especially care that Planned Parenthood was started by a eugenist. I don't see how she represents anything except an educated white woman of her time.

So, if the Hitler Youth was alive and active as a service organization, you'd support them? Something that starts with such a rotten foundation is ALWAYS rotten, sorry. I guess you think Hitler represented nothing except an "educated white MAN of his time", eh?

Dr Guy

on Dec 18, 2005

No, I don't especially care that Planned Parenthood was started by a eugenist. I don't see how she represents anything except an educated white woman of her time.

That is more chilling than the actual fact. Sorry if I cannot agree with you in any capacity.

cactoblasta

on Dec 18, 2005

I guess you think Hitler represented nothing except an "educated white MAN of his time", eh?

Well, yes. There was hardly any difference between his actual opinions and those of his fellow rulers (for example the British royal family). He just had the courage/madness to make them reality. But someone using soft persuasion to push eugenics is hardly the same thing as a dictator using brutal force to achieve the same ends. It's the whole 'the ends doesn't necessarily justify the means' argument you see.

That is more chilling than the actual fact. Sorry if I cannot agree with you in any capacity.

I don't see what there is to disagree with. Most educated white people of the time believed in eugenics and the inferiority of the lesser races, or at least were willing to tolerate such theories, which I consider to be much the same thing. What do you disagree with exactly? The horrible attitudes of our ancestors? Because I disagree with them too. But there's no point in whitewashing a terrible past (and no, that's not a particularly bad pun), or claiming that our ancestors did nothing right because they were discrimatory bigots.

Something that starts with such a rotten foundation is ALWAYS rotten, sorry

Really? Rome was founded with murderers and thieves (Australia too I might add), and yet was one of the greatest civilisations to have ever existed. The US was founded on the slaughter of its indigenous peoples, yet from the viewpoint of its supporters today is a shining beacon of hope in a dark world. Modern nursing started with Florence Nightingale; now she had some 'interesting' views, and yet without her we would probably still have filthy hospitals. It was the Vikings that gave birth to the Scandinavian countries, who contribute more aid in relative terms than any nations in the world.

Bad people can do good things and create institutions that end up doing good things, even if it is by accident or failure of design. The source of a movement doesn't stop that movement from changing over time. The Catholic Church was begun by a saint but turned into a charnelhouse of sin before gleaning back a little respectability in the last few centuries. Do we say that it could never have been rotten because it was started by a saint? Every organisation with a history has a skeleton either in the closet or dancing in the streets.

cactoblasta

on Dec 18, 2005

So, if the Hitler Youth was alive and active as a service organization, you'd support them?

If they had changed their views, sure. They still do you know - there are boy scout troupes in Germany.

But I don't know why you feel a desperate need to bring Hitler into this. I see no reason to defend his actions when we're talking about someone completely different - an American using soft persuasion.

bakerstreet

on Dec 19, 2005

"But I don't know why you feel a desperate need to bring Hitler into this."

...perhaps it has something to do with liquidating millions of the unwanted and pretending it is for their own good, and stuff like that, cacto. There's something not-so-vaguely Hitleresque about people who'd rather kill the innocent and make them a "problem" than have to actually deal with them as humans...

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!