Watch this 2 hour documentary and debate me. Abortion is used as a eugenics tool.
Debate Rounds (3)
You are correct in suggesting that it could be a eugenics tool, but it is not. A eugenics tool would be non-optional and any disabilities would cease to exist, however, there are disabilities and African-Americans, so clearly, over the many years of abortion, it has not been used as a eugenics tool. Furthermore, African-Americans are people who emigrate to America after having a nationality of African, if they don't meet those circumstances then they are black and American. Two things that are not mutually exclusive. Thus abortion cannot reduce the numbers of African Americans, unless you are suggesting that abortions nearly always cause people to not emigrate, of course.
To conclude, abortions are a tool to protect children from being born into, and living in, situations where they cannot be looked after. For example, if abortions weren't around, then a child could be taken into care, where they can, and often do, develop psychoses such as depression and paranoia. Abortions CANNOT be used as a eugenics tool when they are optional. Thus, you cannot be right.
First of all you obviously didn't watch the documentary. I'm not saying that eugenics is the only reason behind legalized elective abortion but it certainly is one of them. Is it coincidence that people begun demanding abortion he legalized right after yeh civil rights movement? No. Even today the driving force behind legalized elective abortion isn't women's rights. It's about population control, eugenics and money. Remember the abortion industry is an industry. They sell abortion and their job is to market it and raise the number of abortions. For many pro-choices they hold their views because they believe women should have control over their bodies ect. But the entire pro choice movement didn't start out that way.
A history of eugenics in America.
Sir Francis Galton was a cousin of Charles Darwin. Sir Francis Galton is considered the father of eugenics and even coined the phrase. His family made lots of money off the slave trade but once slavery ended Galton and other White elites wanted to get rid of the now free Black people. Madison Grant, Galton and other eugenasists were willing to be the brains behind the eugenics movement but they weren't willing to promote it publicly. They got a woman named Margaret Sanger to do that. Margaret Sanger was a member of the American eugenics society as late as 1956 as they still had her on their list. In the birth control review she said that colored people were weeds that needed to be exterminated and that birth control would lead to a cleaner race. She also said that the most merciful thing a large family can do to it's infante member is to kill it. In 1926 she attended a kkk rally in Silver lake New Jersey. On page 366 of her autobiography she writes about that experience and how the kkk invited her to 12 more meetings. She also wrote a letter to Clarence Gamble in 1939 saying she didn't want it to get out that they wanted to exterminate the Black race. Clarence Gamble gave lots of the money he got to the North Carolina eugenics board. 32 states had eugenics boards between 1929 and 1983. These boards forcibly sterilized 65,000 people. In 1969 Robert Webber who was president of planned parenthood wrote an article criticizing the Iowa state eugenics board for not doing enough forced sterilizations. In 1972 Donald Minkle the president of the association of planned parenthood physicians wrote an article saying that if people do not want to be sterilized they will be forcibly sterilized.
The American eugenics connection to Hitler
It is believed that American eugenasists have hitler the idea of concentration camps. Even Wikipedia says that American eugenasists influenced hitler. Madison Grant who was a colleague of Sanger wrote a hook which hitler considered his bible. In 1939 hitler personally met with lothrop stodard the president of the American birth control league to discuss eugenics. He also wrote the rising tide of color. Sanger who founded the american birth conform league invited Eugene Fischer to the Geneva conference she organized. Eugene Fischer personally helped hitler round up and sterilize people in nazi Germany and he ran a concentration camp in South Africa. The american birth control league which was founded by Sanger changed their name to planned parenthood in 1942 when Americans begun making connections between them and the nazis.
Eugenics used against Black America today
Today planned parenthood gives out awards in Sangers name every year. Why would they honor a racist eugenasist? Because they don't care about her racism or they approve of it. 78% of planned parenthood facilities are in minority neighborhoods. A study by 3 major universities found that the number 1 factor in locating their facilities was percentage Black. In 1997 Guyana saw a hurricane which called for foreign aid. America refused to send them aid until they accepted our birth control philosophy. Imagine if Ireland saw a national disaster and we didn't give them aid until they legalized abortion. That would be considered a great shame for America. But Guyana was a Black Country so no one cared. Even after hurricane Katrina (which affected lots of Black people) planned parenthood sent 8.1 million dollars worth of birth control to the areas affected. I can't imagine planned parenthood doing this if a hurricane hit a White area like Iowa.
Today 50% of Black pregnancies end in abortion. Coincidence?. Even though Blacks make up 12% of the population they account for 36% of the abortions. Once again this is because planned parenthood has most of their facilities in Black areas.
Watch the documentary.
Secondly, you keep talking about sterilisations, which was a eugenics tool. Abortions and sterilisations are very different things, and it seems that you are confusing them.
Abortions today are not used as a eugenics tool, and I would like to begin by analysing your first argument: " They sell abortion and their job is to market it and raise the number of abortions."- http://america.aljazeera.com... follow this link.
I typed in "abortion adverts" into Google and I found none. So I ask you to not throw sophisms around, it benefits no one and wastes time. As of 2012 it was made legal to advertise abortion in the UK, but no adverts have ever been placed on primetime television.
"A study by 3 major universities found that the number 1 factor in locating their facilities was percentage Black."- Sure, I'll just swallow this one without any citations or links(!)
I have no new arguments that weren't stated in my first comment, but this debate is beginning to get on my nerves- your points are long and irrelevant. You throw sophisms at me and do not use sources. Too much information is being put into this debate without considering its worth-A KKK member's opinion is going to be biased is it not? The same way the documentary by Mafaa21 on Youtube is biased, and this is beginning to annoy me, and I'm sure other readers too.
As such, you can have your debate, but I refuse to argue repetitively against sources that cannot be trusted.
A by Johnson is a Texan who used to work at planned parenthood. Her website has the quotas where each planned parenthood clinic gets more money if they do more abortions. Abortion adverts-no directors of clinics.
Abortion doesn't have to be optional to be used as a eugenics tool. I allready told you that 78% of planned parenthood clinics are in minority neighborhoods. As for the university studies the names are in the documentary which you didn't watch. 50% of Blacks are aborted. That's because of planned parenthoods locations.
The first groups to speak out against abortion were the black panther party and the Nation of Islam. They saw it as BLack genocide. Legalized abortion is used as a way to keep the Black population down. Abortion clinics are mostly in their communities.
Watch the documentary at some point in your life.
Have a terrible thanksgiving and don't waste your time. It's sad you can't accept the truth that your part of a eugenics movement.
I will thoroughly stay out of any future debates that you propose, especially if you use Islamic groups as evidence, considering that in Islam, it is the belief of Muslims that it is one's duty to have children under Allah's command, so obviously they will be opposed to abortion, it does not even back your argument that abortion is used as a eugenics tool, it simply (and wrongly) states that "abortion is black genocide" which it can't be anyway, considering that a genocide involves the forceful extermination of a race, not an optional one.
Furthermore, research shows that black people in America are often poor, and so can't afford children: http://blackdemographics.com... at the bottom of the page, a table shows that black families earn around 30% less than the rest of America.
You are simply reading too much into the subject without considering other factors.
Debate concluded. Thank goodness.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: So this was a mess, obviously. I'm giving conduct to Pro because both debaters lost their composure at various points over the course of the debate, but only Con didn't follow the rule inherent to the resolution. Pro didn't say anything about how that constituted an automatic loss, so it comes as a conduct point. Arguments go to Con. All of Pro's points are highly correlative without ever proving the resolution true. His arguments are either attempts to link the ways abortion is used in the here and now to the ways it was used in the past, or attempts to establish that things going on right now somehow showcase that definitive link. I'm sure it's better explained in the 2 hour documentary, but it's not explained well enough here. Con tells me that eugenics cannot possibly be optional, and while I have some concerns with regards to that point, Pro never thoroughly counters it. And since Pro never presents evidence to show that abortion is forced on anyone, I vote Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.