Thread: The numbers don't lie.

Originally Posted by Morningfrost

First off, this came about in the '20s and '30s, so to call someone out for being racist when the overwhelming majority of people were racist is silly. Also, her intent was more anti-retarded people than it was anti-minority. While she may have believed light-skinned races were superior to dark-skinned races, she still worked with the black community on interracial projects and didn't allow bigotry on her staff. So in other words, she worked on things despite her personal beliefs.

No, Eugenics was not primarily about anti-retarded. Plus you are defending a completely disgusting human being, all to support your view on abortion! Come on man. Let me educate you some more. Here are some actual quotes from Sanger taken from Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, In Her Own Words :

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

Let's be very clear. Sanger wanted to prevent Black and Brown people from being born. Period. You know this is factually true and backed by the evidence. Any assertion otherwise by you just puts you in the same category as the racist, genocidal, disgusting human being you are defending.

Originally Posted by Morningfrost

And as for the claims of abortion being black genocide....genocide is designed to wipe out a race. While abortion has certainly lessened the number of potentially black children, it's done the same with all races. Perhaps not to the same degree, but it's there. By you're own numbers (which I honestly doubt are correct because of issues with medical privacy), 64% of abortions are performed on white women. White people make up 72% of the population, so while they're still less likely to get an abortion than a minority, it's not the vast, overwhelming difference you implied. Minorities make up about 28% of the population (and thus roughly 28% of the female population, rather than the 13% your source quoted), so if they're getting 36% of the abortions they're getting more than the average, but not a lot more.

There are several problems with what you have done here. The first is that you assume equivalency between total minority makeup and the female population. Next, you lump in women that could not or would never have an abortion. Let me repeat the quote from the source I cited since you completely ignored what it said to support your point:

Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions.

Furthermore, as I said already according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion.

Given that the stated purpose as I have quoted with Sanger was to eliminate blacks or as she liked to call them, "human weeds", and prevent their proliferation, I'd say she was pretty damned successful. And suckers like you buy into the bullshit. Of course abortion was a part of a eugenics program designed to keep minorities from proliferating. That's a FACT. It's been widely successful, so let's call it what it is - genocide. If it makes you uncomfortable to hear that because you like abortion that's not really my problem to deal with. I'll stick to the facts.

Originally Posted by Morningfrost

I was only talking about in regards to the child. Murdering the woman would obviously always be a crime. And I provided a source earlier that showed nearly half the states in the U.S. don't automatically consider the killing of a fetus to be murder, and that it depends on development.

Yeah um, no. What you said was:
"In the case of homicide, for example, it doesn't matter how developed the child/fetus is. If it doesn't take a breath, it's not considered homicide, it's considered an illegal abortion. If it DOES take a breath before you kill it, it's considered homicide."

And that is completely, 100% incorrect, and you just contradicted yourself.

Now I think maybe we should get back to the topic of gun control. I have high hopes that you can speak more intelligently about that than you do about abortion.

You want abortion to be legal, ok I respect your right to want that. But if you want it, you need to be intellectually honest about every aspect of the morality of what it is. Frankly, this is the main reason I hate abortion and will never support it. That and, being adopted and born in Torrance, CA - if I had been conceived 4 years later than I was, I probably would have been one of those aborted children.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

That balance of selfishness should only apply to items that are not directly decided when we found this country. Gun control unlike most items has been determined already in our founding documents. So the only selfishness that really needs addressing is from the people that think their way is better then how this country was formed.

So equal rights among Americans was started then? I forgot that women and minorities could vote immediately after the constitution was produced..

No... We changed it later when we realized it was time for a change. I don't hear anyone complaining about breaking the presidential oath on that one..

Oh, now I get it. Thanks.

I don't care so much about the presidential oath as I think the first priority of every president recently has been to A) get re-elected and B) keep his party in the driver's seat when he can no longer be re-elected. I just enjoy the hypocrisy of people that scream "my rights" while infringing on the rights of others.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

True but where in our bill of rights did it discuss either of those items? Those we're passed afterwards which i think we can both agree we were wrong in doing so. Seems like the founding fathers got that one right to begin with as well.

Don't get into technicalities... The bill of rights is part of the constitution so let's not even tread down that path...

I'm just saying that things over time need some resurfacing. I highly doubt that our founding fathers dreamed of mounting miniguns on their homes.

Originally Posted by Warprosper

Don't get into technicalities... The bill of rights is part of the constitution so let's not even tread down that path...

I'm just saying that things over time need some resurfacing. I highly doubt that our founding fathers dreamed of mounting miniguns on their homes.

I highly doubt that our founding fathers dreamed of mounting their stable boy either, so does that mean we should keep that illegal too?

Ba dum boosh.

I just it funny with how everything was becoming more advanced during their time period just as it is ours that people didn't think they thought firearms would also advance. Most of them were kids when the first firearm was invented and they watched it evolve up to flint lock pistols and rifles before they wrote the constitution. Why would they think it was going to stop there?



Shit one of them even got to see the peacekeeper.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I just it funny with how everything was becoming more advanced during their time period just as it is ours that people didn't think they thought firearms would also advance. Most of them were kids when the first firearm was invented and they watched it evolve up to flint lock pistols and rifles before they wrote the constitution. Why would they think it was going to stop there?

For the same reasons we had slaves up until the 1930s. They didn't have a fucking clue about the future.