The Instigator
Con (against)
5 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

American Abortion is a method of Racial Eugenics

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 523 times Debate No: 74897
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Dilara has made the point that the only reason for Planned Parenthood and endorsement of abortion is to ensure the Black population remains under control. In fact, Dilara states that anyone who believes otherwise is a fool - willful or otherwise.

However, that is factually incorrect - as should be obvious by the fact Dilara is using the repeatedly debunked statistic: "50% of all black pregnancies end in abortion". That statistic comes a pro-life advocate who apparently sucks as basic math. The actual number is "32%" of black pregnancies compared to "13.9%" of white pregnancies are terminated via induced abortions. This makes sense as black females have twice the number of unintended pregnancies as non-Hispanic white females.

Part of this is that black females tend to exist in the lower levels of social economics and unintended pregnancies are more prevalent amongst lower economic stratum. Another part is quite simply a lacking of options - it is cheaper to abort then it is to raise a child for many. It is cheaper still to prevent a pregnancy then to abort. And that's important for both America's health and it's finances. Which is why Planned Parenthood is federally supported in part. But wait supposedly Planned Parenthood was founded by a racist woman and that's where the conspiracy comes into play.

Except no - while she did say some seriously politically incorrect things... she wasn't being racist. She was being ruthlessly pragmatic - like the kind of person who says that humanity needs to be culled to save the earth. And that's something I do disagree with - however, none of that is specifically targeted at blacks or other minorities and the woman's been dead for ages. So her personal concerns hold little water in terms of "proof".

Effectively Planned Parenthood is an organization that by their own words - "provide a wide range of family planning and sexual health services, for both men and women, including all forms of birth control, annual exams for women, breast and cervical cancer screenings, STD testing and treatment, HIV testing, urinary tract and yeast infections, vasectomy counseling, abortion, and more." And that is majorly important for most communities, but especially those communities that have been left without many choices in terms of healthcare and the like.

In closing I have to say... I need to go to bed... so I'm done. Your go Dilara!


Thanks for debating with me.
I want to get one thing straight. I do not believe that all people Involved in the abortion industry are eugenasists. I don't even believe that most people who are involved in the abotion industry are eugenicists. In fact I bet that a very very small percentage of people who are ukvikved ij wbortion are eugenasists. Today most people who do avortions or council women before abortions, who run abortion clininc ect are in it for other reasons. 50 years ago this was not the case.
Margaret Sanger, who founded planned parenthood wrote on page 366 of her biography about a klan meeting she attended in silver lake new jersy. she bragged abut how she was invited to 12 other klan meetings. She also called poor people human weeds who needed to be exterminated. There's no denying that Margaret Sanger was very racist but the queshtion is did she found planned parenthood because she wanted to reduce them of blacks and poor people? The answer is Yeas. Planned parenthood today is a health service witch does many great things such as sex ed, std testing and cancer screenings (they also suck babies out of their moms wombs but that's only 3% of what they do)But planned parenthood didn't start out this way. It begun as a eugenics group. It's founder Sanger was a racist and their first president lothrop stoddard had a personal meeting with hitler in December 1939. Eugene fischer was a colleague of sangers and had been involved in nazi sterilization programs in Africa. As late as 1969 planned parenthood was still an avoceted of eugenics. That year director robert weller wrote an article in an Iowa news paper saying that the Iowa state eugenics board was not doing enough forced sterilization. Iowa was just one of the 30 states that had eugenics boards. These boards sterilized people were seen as unfit to have children-poor, unemployed, black ect. It's estimated that these boards sterilized 60,000 people-even with out their knowledge or against their wil.
In 1969 garet hardy a professor at university California wrote an article calling it insanity to rely on voluntary sterilizations. In 1980 he received planned parenthood a highest award.
Maafa 21 is a 2009 documentary with this info. Watch the first 30 minutes or so and you'll learn a bit more about the racist orgins of in the abortion industry.
Debate Round No. 1


Hi, Dilara! I appreciate you clarifying your position about the current edition of Planned Parenthood. Unfortunately, you have muddied your argument rather seriously - which only helps to prove my point that American Abortion is not a method of Racial Eugenics. I'm going to do that by breaking your argument down into four cogent points and rebutting them.

1.) "The past behavior of those associated with Planned Parenthood holds more importance than it's current behavior."
2.) "Experience with a group widely disliked today (Nazi or KKK) holds more water then actions taken."
3.) "Because Eugenics is "bad" and someone supported it, Everything they do must be bad."
4.) "Eugenics means "racism" because a poorly done movie says so" - and here I'll have to apologize in advance because I am not going to be kind regarding this type of lazy intellectualism.

Okay those are the four basic points of my opponent's argument... so here is my rebuttal (with facts!). Ready? Let's go!

1.) "The past behavior of those associated with Planned Parenthood holds more importance than it's current behavior."

There is a term for this sort of idea and it's called the "Genetic Fallacy" whereby the origins of a thing are used as proof for or against it. In this case the idea is that because the founder of Planned Parenthood had some ties to Eugenics and the Klan therefore Planned Parenthood must be a racist conspiracy.

The funny thing is my opponent has already conceded the point that the origins of this organization have little if anything to do with the current presentation or behavior of the group. However, they continue to bring these things up - and that's on point with making an ad hominem attack as it fails to present reasonable support for their position. The more so as Eugenics more often had to do with class warfare then race.

Case in point Sanger's support of birth control lies in the death of her (white Irish) mother which she blamed on having too many children (11 children after 18 pregnancies in 22 years). And that line of thinking could be read on Tumblr right now - Tumblr which is generally not known for cheering on "Black Genocide". And what was Sanger's first response to that idea? To champion the usage of contraceptives which was a violation of the law - and to attack the problem of back alley abortions (which are dangerous and harmful). So actually - review of the founder's behavior and focus don't support the Pro position at all.

2.)"Experience with a group widely disliked today (Nazi or KKK) holds more water then actions taken."

This damnation via association and it's as much a fallacy as the previous point. Because to be quite honest without context everything someone does or subscribes to could be painted as a major sin. In this case, it should be noted that Pope John was part of the Hitler Youth and that Henry Ford (who desperately wanted to work with George Washington Carver) supported the Nazis (because he hated Jews) and that Coca-Cola (invented by a black man), IBM, Kodak, Hugo Boss, and Random House Publishing were all heavily tied into the Nazis. Heck Central Park in New York saw over 30,000 American Nazi supporters show up in force to celebrate what they hoped was an imminent Nazi victory.

So by the logic of this point... Americans, Ford vehicles, and any number of other products are inherently evil and should be damned as eugenic and/or racism in nature. Do you see how that would be problematic? The more so as the viewpoint of these groups as seen from a modern stance loses a great deal of nuance. For example, the Nazi of Germany were the Occupy Wall-street of their time - except that they were successful. Furthermore they revived a failing state - one that was failing due to unfair demands made by the victors of the First War. I mean if you look on here you can see that many individuals do not think Germany should be blamed for the events of the First War. Therefore within that time period they would seem to be a net good - particularly as anti-Jewish sentiment was both common and popular.

As for the Klan... she was a guest speaker - and also the Klan is pretty equal opportunity (or was) in regards to hate. It's not like she rode about in a hood or burned crosses. And even if she did the substance of the first point rebuttal remains true - the founder of a group is less important than the actions of the group. For example, America was founded by rich, racist, sexist, classicist white males... but that doesn't mean America should be condemned as the Ur example of such.

3.) "Because Eugenics is "bad" and someone supported it, Everything they do must be bad."

There are two points to my rebuttal here:

a.) Eugenics is functionally incorrect as talent, comportment, morality, and ability cannot be determined in any real manner via the process of genealogy. A poor man's son might be president, and a king's son might be a moronic criminal. That said the underpinnings of Eugenics i.e. that some people shouldn't breed are generally accepted by most people. Because logically criminals, the genetically disadvantaged (say Huntington's Disease or similar), and those incapable of caring for themselves (the disturbed, the imbecilic, and the criminally immature) should not breed. It's only when trying to target certain groups in practice that morality (generally supported by emotion) comes into play. As such Eugenics cannot be said to be correct, but cannot be said to be immoral as a philosophy or school of thought.


b.) This is the subset of the "Hitler did "blank"" fallacy, wherein just because someone did something "bad" all their actions must be viewed as immoral. However, as per my first point Eugenics cannot be shown as bad. And even if it could be it cannot be used to show that no action of Sanger is good. Which is intellectually sloppy considering Sanger is considered the founder of birth control in America - which is considered by most individuals to be an act of Great Good. Furthermore even my opponent concedes that Planned Parenthood is a net good in the community (black or otherwise).

4.) "Eugenics means "racism" because a poorly done movie says so" - and here I'll have to apologize in advance because I am not going to be kind regarding this type of lazy intellectualism.

As a child I was introduced to the cartoon, "The Bear Who Wasn't A Bear". And I'll always remember the lesson: "Just because somebody says it doesn't make it true." This is especially true when looking at the reasons for a thing. The movie is supported by Pro-lifers which makes it suspect already. It is to the benefit of the Pro-life movement to discredit Planned Parenthood - even though only 3% of their services are geared toward abortion.

Furthermore the facts of the film are rather thin - while Sanger said many things that could be seen as racist or awful most of them have been taken out of context. And context matters. Because the first clinics Sanger opened were for White women, particularly Irish and Jewish women. The first Harlem clinic had a clinitale that was half white. On top of that W.E.B. Dubois was a supporter of this work along with the Amsterdam News, and Mary McLeod Bethune, founder of the National Council of Negro Women.

It should also be noticed that Sanger wasn't even a big proponent of abortion - in fact she rather considered it horrible. From her 1920 book she writes: "While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization." She is also famous for stating that birth control does not equal abortion. For her however, birth control provides the mean for women to improve their lot in life and safeguard their health. Remember that she believed her mother died as a result of having 18 pregnancies within 22 years... which honestly is fairly dangerous to be honest.

So this raises the question: How does any of this go together?

If Sanger hates blacks enough to see them all dead, why provide them health services and contraceptives which she believes are good things? And if Sanger hates abortions then how exactly can she be behind a plot to kill black babies via abortions? And considering her black clinics tended to be staffed with black nurses, black doctors, and supported by black pastors... how exactly would such a plan work? In fact, considering the support of Dubois and others - can such a plan realistically function? Only if one believes that black genocide is something an intelligent civil rights minded black would accept... which seems unlikely at best. So what is the angle here?


There is no angle - only propaganda and conspiracy theories that don't hold up to examination.



Did you watch the first part of maafa 21?
1. I'm glad that you understand the racist origins of planned parenthood and that you understand that Sanger did have many racist opinions. But these should not be disregarded because the organization is no longer a eugenics group. Just because the organization is not longer a eugenics group, does many wonderful things for people and overall has lost its racist tendencies, still doesn't mean than it is perfect. It hasn't ridden it's self of all of the racist tendancies. There are still people who work for planned parenthood, not to help women, but because they want to lessen the number of poor and black people in America. In the second half of maafa 21 they show 4 recordings of phone calls that under cover investigates for live action ( a pro life organization) made to planned parenthood directors. In these calls a investigators asks the planned parenthood directors if he can pay for the abortion of a black baby because "there are way to many blacks" and so on. All 4 directors accept.
Today planned parenthood gives a yearly awards in the name of Margaret Sanger. I don't understand why they would call their awards the "Margaret Sanger awards" considering her ties to the klan and nazis.
2. Sanger bragged about how the klan invited her to speak at 12 other klan meetings after speaking at one In silver lake new jersy (page 366 of her biography) she knew what the klan was and what they're goals were. She knew what types of crimes they were prve (especially in the 1930s when the meetings took place) and still she spoke at their event more than a dozen times. Yes she nursed women suffering from induced abortions and miscarriages and she did lots of other things to help people but that doesn't erase the fact that she was heavily tied and supportive of the kkk.
The differed between planned parenthood and coke or ford is that planned parenthood is an organization with a goal--a goal witch now is to provide people with reproductive health care--but began as a goal to lessens the number of poor and. Colored people. Ford motors isn't a political organization and their founders racism nothing to do with what they do today whereas sangers racism has a direct tie with what planned parenthood does today. It's not just what the founder of the group said and did but what other members said and did-lothrop stoddard, Robert weller ect. The group begun as a eugenics group and has had many racist directors and members, especially during the first couple decade of their existence.
4. Eugenics is indeed an evil thing. Forcibly sterilizing people because they are Black poor, uneducated ect is wrong. You are denying them the right to have children--one of the most important human rights. If someone supports this they are evil. If they organization begun as a proponents of this therefor it began as an evil organization.
Eugenics is a very racist thing. Forcibly sterilizing 60,000 people because of their income or race cruel and evil.
As there are people who are trying to keep the black population down they are doing so by stopping them from having kids--promoting birth control.
I'm glad that you understand that Sanger did have racist opinions and that planned parenthood begun and a eugenics group.
Your turn!
Debate Round No. 2


I don't watch propaganda - it's bad for the brain. Also I have had too many commands to watch shoddy YouTube videos from tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists... As such I make it a policy not to watch anything unless it comes from a reliable source.

That said this isn't about my personal habits this is about rebutting your points and making my final argument. So let's get to it!

1.) The first and most important issue here is you keep uttering the same things, but you never bother including any proof to your allegations. Exactly what are the "racist" origins of Planned Parenthood? No where have you shown that, whereas I have actually proved that Sanger wasn't apparently racist. Endorsing Eugenics =/= Racism, because Eugenics = Classicism.

And even beyond that you haven't shown proof of how Planned Parenthood was ever a Eugenics group? You can't use pro-life propaganda as proof, because for example there are people like James O'Keefe who is famous for faking footage toward a Right-Wing agenda. His most recent and spectacular case is the ACORN tapes where apparently he dressed as a pimp and received help in sexual traffic of a prostitute. Except the unedited tapes prove that wrong. Something tells me something similar is happening here.

As for the Margaret Sanger awards - they are given to those who demonstrate great leadership and integrity. And two of the first recipients are Martin Luther King Jr. and Lyndon B. Johnson - and those two were neither stupid nor racist against black people. Did you know Coretta King accepted for MLK Jr. and that in a speech he wrote he said that he and Sanger had quote: "a striking kinship between our movement (Civil Rights) and [her] early efforts". Unless the Civil Rights Movement was about killing poor black people I'm inclined to believe your points are factually incorrect.

2.) Sanger never bragged about meeting the Clan. She merely gave an account in her book about how far she was willing to go to spread her ideas of female reproductive rights. One of those encounters happened to be with a female support group for the Klan - not the actual KKK.

Which of course, it would not be - Sanger spoke at many black churches and to many black women groups and even at black schools. And in the same book you claim to quote she spoke well of their enthusiasm and self-motivation. Even Edwin Black who wrote "War Against the Weak" firmly states that quote, "Sanger was no racist. Nor was she anti-Semitic."

Also it should be noted here that no Planned Parenthood chapter offered abortions until 1970 (4 years after Sanger) died... which makes sense considering she hated abortions... as I noted above.

It comes back to your points lacking proof and substance and relying on twisting the facts of Sanger's life. It is true that she was a Eugenicist, but so to was W.E.B. Dubois (with his blasted 10%) and Theodore Roosevelt (who did quite a bit of good). And both were heavily politically active in nature. So should we by your logic therefore view the results of their efforts as racist and therefore evil? Are national parks a scourge designed to kill black babies? Are educated blacks a sign of a conspiracy to abort the African-American group from America? Of course not, and it's silly to behave as though such were so.

3/4.) And looking at Eugenics it's self... there is no one path leading to it's goals. Forced sterilization is one path - and it is a path multiple groups have taken. And that includes Israel forcible (but sneakily) destroying the ability of Ethiopian Jews to reproduce. That said it doesn't have to work that way, and even if it did you are factually wrong. Eugenics is classicism not racism.

And as I said there are moral reasons to consider the path of Eugenics. Should someone who has the mental ability of a 3 year old really be allowed to reproduce? Can they care for a child? Will the child be retarded as well? Considering the potential for abuse (particularly neglect) it would seem better to simply prevent the situation entirely. Eugenics would seek to prevent that happening, which is why it was mostly the Progressive crowd (the folks who pushed for 40 hour weeks, banning child labor, and Prohibition) backed it.

5.) Finally I have to urge you not to put words in my mouth - Sanger give no indications of having been racist and you have no proof she was. She was a proponent of Eugenics, but that had little to do with either abortions (1970 remember) or a dislike of the black community (original patient population was white females... like her mother). In short, you are factually incorrect and have nothing to prove otherwise.

As such ALL VOTERS SHOULD VOTE CON. Thanks to my opponent for participating and thank you to anyone who bothered reading through this. Good day!


1. It's interesting that you say you don't watch propoganda. Because most political videos ect are propoganda. Planned parent hoods videos, the NRAs videos, videos let out by various religious groups. What if the info in the propoganda documentary is true?
2. Planned parenthoods first president had a personal meeting with hitler. Sanger had many racist colleagues. I all ready explained up top about the other stuff. The sources for sangers relation to the a klan is on page 366 of her book
Read about eugenics on Wikipedia. Than read about american eugenics in Wikipedia. Forcibly sterilizing 60,000 people is cruel and racist (many of them were sterilized because they were Native American, black, poor, unemployed, or uneducated)
Watch interviews with the people who were sterilized. It's morally wrong.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources were only used by Con, so points to Con for that one. Pro never really refuted any of Con's arguments, and at the end of the debate, gave a very short conclusion, that only addressed Con calling the documentary Pro was referring to as propaganda, which was a very small part of Con's arguments, and an appeal to emotion, telling the audience to watch interviews with people who were sterilized. Pro then claims that this is morally wrong, but provides no evidence. So, Pro essentially dropped the majority of Con's arguments by the end of the debate, whereas Con successfully refuted Pro's arguments that were provided in previous rounds.