[tomder55]

It is important to keep in mind that it wasn't only scientific and academic thinking. Eugenics existed across all political divides at the time. It was generally seen by business, government and a large cross section of the population as sensible and necessary.

Another important point is the idea for that time period was Eugenics by force. If you were labeled of a particular type then you had no choice in the matter. What is also required is to judge these matters in terms of historical perspective.

and today it's an individual choice to kill a baby . With the knowledge we have now ;one can destroy that life if it is not the gender you want ,or if it doesn't have the DNA make up you prefer. I'd say eugenics is alive and well and entrenched in the progressive philosophy.

[talaniman]

Not just the progressives but most females as Catholics have availed themselves of this choice also. What do you think gynecologist for the rich and well to do have been doing forever? Money and power have always given better choices and options and opportunities to those that can afford them.


Poor women, not so much. But then the GOP'ers know that already.

[Catsmine]

Not just the progressives but most females as Catholics have availed themselves of this choice also. What do you think gynecologist for the rich and well to do have been doing forever? Money and power have always given better choices and options and opportunities to those that can afford them.


Poor women, not so much. But then the GOP'ers know that already.

Did you just say that Catholic females avail themselves of abortion?

[tomder55]

Did you just say that Catholic females avail themselves of abortion?

not only that ,he said most Catholic women .

[paraclete]

must have his wires crossed somewhere eh, perhaps he confuses abortion with contraception

[talaniman]

You mean Catholic woman never get D and C's? Of course how would you know since they never tell.

[Catsmine]

You mean Catholic woman never get D and C's? Of course how would you know since they never tell.

You made the claim. Back it up.

[talaniman]

Abortions: Comparing Catholic and Protestant Women

The abortion rate for Catholic women was 22 per 1,000 women; the rate for Protestants was 18 per 1,000 women, according to study author Rachel K. Jones.

Changes in Abortion Rates Between 2000 and 2008 and Lifetime... : Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate abortion rates among subpopulations of women in 2008, assess changes in subpopulation abortion rates since 2000, and estimate the lifetime incidence of abortion.
METHODS: We combined secondary data from several sources, including the 2008 Abortion Patient Survey, the Current Population Surveys for 2008 and 2009, and the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth, to estimate abortion rates by subgroup and lifetime incidence of abortion for U.S. women of reproductive age.
RESULTS: The abortion rate declined 8.0% between 2000 and 2008, from 21.3 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 to 19.6 per 1,000. Decreases in abortion were experienced by most subgroups of women. One notable exception was poor women; this group accounted for 42.4% of abortions in 2008, and their abortion rate increased 17.5% between 2000 and 2008 from 44.4 to 52.2 abortions per 1,000. In addition to poor women, abortion rates were highest for women who were cohabiting (52.0 per 1,000), aged 20–24 (39.9 per 1,000), or non-Hispanic African American (40.2 per 1,000). If the 2008 abortion rate prevails, 30.0% of women will have an abortion by age 45.
CONCLUSION: Abortion is becoming increasingly concentrated among poor women, and restrictions on abortion disproportionately affect this population.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III

[Tuttyd]

and today it's an individual choice to kill a baby . With the knowledge we have now ;one can destroy that life if it is not the gender you want ,or if it doesn't have the DNA make up you prefer.

Yes, I agree with this. It is a very sad state of affairs.

and today it's am individual choice to kill a baby with the knowledge we have now;one can can destroy life if it is not the gender you want, or it doesn't have the DNA make up you prefer. I'd say eugenics is alive and well and entrenched in the progressive philosophy.

Taken as a whole your statement is just an affirmation of the consequence. It is invalid reasoning.

[tomder55]

CONCLUSION: Abortion is becoming increasingly concentrated among poor women, and restrictions on abortion

Margaret Sanger's dream triumphant . She was a racists who despised the poor and was searching for a way to prevent them from reproducing.

[Tuttyd]

Margaret Sanger's dream triumphant . She was a racists who despised the poor and was searching for a way to prevent them from reproducing.

A lot of people were and did. I'm not disagreeing with that.

[tomder55]

So why do you challenge my comments and not this one from Clete ?

but it is a long bow to suggest that abortion is made easy to get rid of coloured races.

[Tuttyd]

So why do you challenge my comments and not this one from Clete ?

Because it is a long bow to draw. It gives the impression that eugenics is a policy of PP. If this is the case then within the organization there should be a policy stating this aim. Such documentation should be recoverable. It is the case that such documentation was recoverable from the early part of last century.

It is more likely the case that PP policies may well be contributing to eugenics. But this is completely different to saying that PP HAS a policy of eugenics.

If you can show me a policy of eugenics then I will agree with you, but otherwise dad's link and your previous statement is an affirmation of the consequence.

[tomder55]

it was the stated goal of the founder and the entire reason she created the organization .

[Tuttyd]

it was the stated goal of the founder and the entire reason she created the organization .

Yes, but that doesn't mean it is the stated goal of the organization today.

Many organizations and industries actively supported eugenics in the early part of last century. Does this mean that those organizations that still survive today still support eugenics? Of course not.

[talaniman]

I think women's reproductive needs and rights have come a lot further in 50-70 years. The personal economic and racial aspects cannot be ignored, or dismissed as irrelevant.

[tomder55]

the only thing that has changed is now it's called a right and a choice.

[talaniman]

Are you suggesting we go back to when it wasn't a right, or a choice?

http://www.clutchmagonline.com/2011/...be-sterilized/

North Carolina's eugenics program lasted from 1929 to 1974 (it was disbanded in 1977), and was initially adopted as a way to control welfare spending on poor Whites. However, as the program progressed, Black women became targets. During North Carolina's eugenics program, 7,600 people were forcibly sterilized, 85 percent of them female and 40 percent of them non-white.
Many, like Riddick, didn't know they were sterilized until they wanted to have more children later in life.
NBC's Rock Center reports:

It wouldn't be until Riddick was 19, married and wanting more children, that she'd learn she was incapable of having any more babies. A doctor in New York where she was living at the time told her that she'd been sterilized.
“Butchered. The doctor used that word… I didn't understand what she meant when she said I had been butchered,” Riddick said.

For the past eight years, North Carolina has been trying to right its horrible wrongs. Lawmakers have been working to compensate victims of the state's eugenics program, but so far, only 48 victims have been matched to their records.
This summer, the state held hearings trying to encourage more victims to come forward. Bolstered by the efforts of state politicians like State Representative Larry Womble, the victims of North Carolina's horrible sterilization are finally speaking out.
Despite the daunting task of finding and compensating all 7,600 victims, as Representative Womble pointed out, if the government is “powerful enough to perpetrate this on this society, they ought to be responsible, step up to the plate and compensate.”

[cdad]

Because it is a long bow to draw. It gives the impression that eugenics is a policy of PP. If this is the case then within the organization there should be a policy stating this aim. Such documentation should be recoverable. It is the case that such documentation was recoverable from the early part of last century.

It is more likely the case that PP policies may well be contributing to eugenics. But this is completely different to saying that PP HAS a policy of eugenics.

If you can show me a policy of eugenics then I will agree with you, but otherwise dad's link and your previous statement is an affirmation of the consequence.

I dont think it is such a long bow at all when you examine the history and connections from past to present. The words may have changed and been upgraded to fit a point of veiw but it doesnt mean they have disappeared into history. Planned parenthood was started with blacks and hispanics in mind.

The organization promoted the founding of birth control clinics, primarily for the Black and Latino population, and encouraged women to control their own fertility.

American Birth Control League - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other links that can be followed to bring us from past to present.

Eugenics in North Carolina

The Secret History of American Eugenics part 2 | Thee Monkee Armada Word

Planned Parenthood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[tomder55]

Are you suggesting we go back to when it wasn't a right, or a choice?

You already know my answer to that. I guess you think that a baby has no right to life ;that it's all at the will of the mother. It's not even a matter of father's choice . They have no rights in the decision either . 5th amendment due process ? Don't exist for the baby . A doctor can legally puncture it's head and suck it's brains out .