American Abortion is a method of Racial Eugenics

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. and 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? Answer? There is no angle - only propaganda and conspiracy theories that don't hold up to examination. Sources: http://www.redstate.com... http://www.salon.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://theblacktongue.net... http://www.politifact.com...