Home » abortion, atheism, Blog, eugenics, family, General, Holocaust, human rights, Malthusians, morality, Obama, original sin, philosophy, politics, pro-life, Secular Humanism, taxation » China is beating us at our own game; abortion is a population control measure, no more, no less

China is beating us at our own game; abortion is a population control measure, no more, no less

There are, of course, many people who are pro-choice because they sincerely believe the standard line that abortion on demand is a necessary evil (although sometimes they deny it is evil at all) in order for women to have ‘reproductive freedom.’  These people, I’m afraid to say, are nothing but sincere dupes.  The people that foisted abortion on demand in the ‘civilized’ West were concerned about population control, no more, no less.

The evidence for this is everywhere if anyone cares to look.  For example, the founder of Planned Parenthood herself, Margaret Sanger, sang the praises of ‘birth control’ in language reflective of ‘reproductive freedom’ but she was not shy at all about her true objectives, which was to use ‘birth control’ to improve the race.   Her many remarks of a eugenical sort have been forgotten today by people who don’t wish these grotesque connections to be made or factored into their support of abortion on demand.  For example, in Women and the New Race she wrote:

Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.[1]

See?  Nothing more, or less, than the weeding out of the unfit.  That’s pretty unambiguous.  Stop being a dupe.

It isn’t as though the pro-abortionists have been shy about this perspective.  Sitting Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg probably revealed more than she intended when she reflected on the passing of Roe vs Wade, saying,

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.

Most people would be surprised to hear that this was the sort of reasoning that was prevalent at the time, but for anyone who actually studies the period, it is inescapable.  Seeking to clarify her remarks, Ginsburg attempted to put distance between what she observed and her own views on that perspective in this article.  You would be wrong if you think I am attributing those views to Ginsburg;  for all I know she is just another ‘splendid dupe.’  The point is that these concerns were ‘in the air.’

Some would say (and the linked article above does say) that this is true, but that’s not why we have abortion on demand.  This is mere self-serving mythology.  Sanger’s comments alone are enough to dispel that myth, but a hundred examples more could be offered.  These would almost certainly lead someone to miss the point, because they think that in uttering these comments I am invoking conspiracy theories.  Far from it.

To illustrate, I remember sitting down with someone and talking about the fact that my wife and I did not abort our child, diagnosed in the womb with spina bifida.  He was a bit mortified by this, wondering how we felt about bringing into the world someone we knew would live out only a life of suffering.  In his view, our daughter had a life unworthy of life.  We talked about that for a little bit, investing a solid 15 minutes on the issue of ‘reproductive freedoms’ until suddenly we were talking about the problem of over-population in Africa and what ‘we’ were going to do about it if we did not back abortion on demand and import it around the globe.  He was thoroughly sincere in his outlook, but the conversation wound down rapidly after that when I pressed him on whether or not he supported abortion on demand because of a “woman’s right to choose” or because we needed a ‘tool’ to curtail “growth in populations that we don’t want too many of.”  I don’t think he had ever considered the matter, and I don’t think  he particularly liked considering the matter.  (Incidentally, this young man was on his way to a conservative Lutheran university to become a pharmacist.  Consider my joy.  Bleh.)

This was not a man enmeshed in a conspiracy.  He was a man who had accepted certain assumptions about reality and these led inexorably to justifications of abortion on demand that had nothing at all to do with “women’s rights.”  He was not even aware of the fact that he was actually a eugenicist until I connected his own dots.  Now imagine thousands more just like him, well-meaning and sincere, without a even a smidgen of introspection, slowly winding their way up the layers of power.  They merely act on the logical implications of their logic;  no conspiracy necessary.

In the ‘civilized’ West, we are ‘checked’ from fully acting on the implications of our logic because of our own particular historical trajectory.  We look back at the Holocaust and the eugenic rationales that drove it on, and we strain to find ways to keep alive some of the more ‘tame’ and ‘reasonable’ eugenic measures (eg, incentives to have people sterilized, etc) that have fallen in disrepute.  Utterly blotted out of the modern consciousness is the fact that the Nazi ideology borrowed a great deal from ideologies in America and Britain.  Indeed, in 1934, a prominent American public official named Joseph Dejarnette, lamented, “The Germans are beating us at our own game.”

I believe, like many, that there is a Holocaust underway in the world today that makes the German Holocaust pale in comparison, but in many places (eg, the ‘civilized’ West) it happens out of sight;  out of sight, out of mind.  But in other places in the world, where there is less historical connection to the Nazi Holocaust and other ideological traditions, they happen in plain sight.  Which brings me to that bastion of “reproductive freedom,” China.  You know, that country with population control measures about which VP Biden said, “Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable.”

We see how far Joe Biden’s support for a woman’s reproductive ‘liberty’ goes… and we conservatives still have to put up with asinine and infantile charges that we are the ones engaged in a war on women.  But I digress.

The point is that China is merely “beating us at our own game.”  If today the US was in a position where ‘one wage earner’ is taking care of ‘four retired people’ the veil of justification for abortion on demand, that it has anything to do with a woman’s reproductive freedoms, would slide into oblivion–at least among those who have risen so high in the ranks of power that they believe they have the responsibility to manage the herd.  You know, people like Biden, who feel acutely the problems posed by managing large populations.

Today I was directed to this link which revealed some of China’s ‘one child’ policy in action.  Large banners are sprinkled around the country with statements such as:

  • If it should be aborted and is not aborted, your house will be destroyed and your cow will be taken.
  • Even if you bleed enough to make a river, you must not give birth to an extra child!
  • If you should get sterilized and you don’t, you will be detained and prosecuted. If you should abort and do not abort, your house will be torn down and your cattle will be led away!
  • Call back those who are located far away, dig out those who are hidden, Those who are pregnant outside the policy absolutely must have labor induced. Those who should be sterilized absolutely must be dragged down
  • If you are supposed to wear an IUD but don’t, or are supposed to have your tubes tied but don’t, you will be arrested on sight!

How is this our ‘own’ game?  It has been well documented now how the ‘voluntary’ sterilization programs of the United States were often punctuated with threats that if people did not get sterilized, they would lose their children or their benefits.  (Hence Ginsberg’s belief that Roe vs. Wade was supposed to be a way to subsidize abortions through Medicaid).

Through a bizarre twist of fate, Roe vs. Wade was decided on the basis other than public health, and this has served to block overt expressions of abortion on demand as a tool for balancing the books in America.  It would be a grave mistake, however, to think that this is a game that America has abandoned.  There are many reasons to think that ‘public health’ rationales could surface again in a heartbeat if conditions changed.  It isn’t as if that rationale was ever repudiated, and as my conversation with the would-be pharmacist illustrates, it lurks beneath the surface even now–just typically applied to other countries, and not our own.

If you really want to make sure that the horrors that China is inflicting on its own people do not visit the ‘civilized’ West than the roots of the abortion on demand philosophy have to be pulled up completely–every last one of them.

I propose we start with the illusion that abortion on demand is legal in this country because those that have the power to make it legal or illegal care about a “woman’s reproductive freedom.”  In reality, all this turns out to be is the rationale du jour that gives them the tools they need if they believe, in their own discretion, to manage the population–and cull the herd.  It’s sort of like voluntarily giving them the stick they’ll beat you with.  Here’s an idea:  don’t give them the stick at all!

In short, stop being a dupe.  Before you get us all beaten, if you please.

Thanks.


[1]
                 Margaret Sanger, Woman And The New Race (New York:  Truth Publishing Company, 1921), 229.

 

Share

19 Responses to China is beating us at our own game; abortion is a population control measure, no more, no less

  1. The people that foisted abortion on demand in the ‘civilized’ West were concerned about population control, no more, no less.

    This ignores a rather fundamental issue. Abortion on demand wasn’t “foisted” on the West. Some Western women wanted it, and they fought for, and won, for that right.

    Irrespective of the motives of the people who granted the right, or the people who provide the service itself, the wishes of the women actually having the procedure almost certainly have nothing to do with population control. Well, only in the narrow sense that they want to control the “population” of their own family. But they can hardly be said to be acting to control the population of the planet as a whole, can they?

    How many 20 year old women do you think have an abortion because they’re concerned about over-population?

  2. It was different in Europe, granted, but in the US, I think ‘foisted’ is the right word. Remember, that prior to Roe vs. Wade, abortion was not illegal–or legal. It was decided on a state by state basis. Roe vs. Wade was not a piece of legislation backed by elected officials who in turn were there by virtue of a majority vote. It was decided by just 9 men in black robes. By ‘Some’ American women, we actually mean “just a small handful”, but they had the ear of the court. This caused a huge amount of resentment that persists to this day.

    I have read many liberal pro-choicers argue this very point, saying that Roe vs. Wade was “wrongly decided.” So, I feel pretty confident in that word, especially as it pertains to the US.

    There is a lesson here for those who continue to use the courts to overrule the the express will of the people via legislation and referendum and amendments to state constitutions vis a vis ‘gay marriage.’ There is an issue that is superior to the abortion issue as far as popular support goes, where state after state has gone to bat to express in various but definitive ways their rejection of ‘gay marriage’, only to have people in black cloaks come along shut them down.

    There is something called a pyrrhic victory, and I think on issues such as these two, we come very close to seeing them in action, played out over the decades.

    As for your other point, I don’t think it makes any sense whatsoever. Let me get this straight. Let’s take someone like Margaret Sanger, who expressly wanted birth control in order to eliminate the unfit. I quoted one thing in the post, and she said many other comments of a similar nature. All of the ‘birth control’ people did. So, you don’t have a problem with the state deciding to make something a ‘right’ in order to eliminate people they consider defective, just so long as the defective people themselves don’t consider themselves defective?

    I assume you embrace the logic in all similar instances. For example, let’s say that the state thought that black people were a burden to society and wanted less of them. So, they gave the black people the right to have abortions, a ‘service’ they availed themselves of, but not because in doing so they thought they were doing the world a favor by reducing the black population. So, on your view, this is a ‘win-win.’ The state has less black people to deal with and the black women controlled the size of their family.

    You don’t have any problem in this scenario with the state being motivated by such a rationale, so long as the black woman takes away a perceived ‘benefit’?

    And have you not given thought to the possibility that the reason why the black woman thinks she has to control the size of her family at all is because the racists persuaded her that this was the case?

    Now, address this scenario for me in two ways. First of all, as a hypothetical, testing the logic of your proposition. And then, secondly, as a real fact–because it is a real and demonstrable fact that the first advocates of birth control were nearly all white people who wanted fewer black people. Granted, their perspective covered all ‘defective’ people, but as a distinguishable population, the blacks were high on the list.

    Examples could be multiplied endlessly, but a concise expression of this in the mouth of no less of an authority on birth control then Margaret Sanger herself, concerns what she called “The Negro Project.”

    In 1939, her organization began this project (I guess you would call it a ‘service’) on a small scale, and they realized that if blacks knew it had a bunch of white people financing it, they would shy away from utilizing their ‘services.’ To resolve this issue, they hired black doctors and sought to enlist ministers. Sanger wrote, and I quote:

    “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

    This is a pretty unambiguous comment.

    Just a couple of years later, Margaret Sanger would change the name of her organization to Planned Parenthood.

    Now, you tell me: if Planned Parenthood was formed with the express purpose to exterminate the black race, are you ok with that, as long as the blacks wish to be exterminated?

    Is that your position?

    This reminds me of a letter I turned up in my research a few years ago that was written by one of the co-counselors in the Roe vs. Wade decision, Ron Weddington. He was writing to the newly elected Bill Clinton, and I think the letter gives a fine flavor of the motivations for why this lawyer in Roe vs. Wade wanted to ‘give people rights.’ I posted it here:

    http://sntjohnny.com/front/ron-weddingtons-racist-bigoted-malthusian-evil-bill-clinton/720.html

    He brags at the end that he has done his part by having no children, and his wife, likewise, by having an abortion. So, yea, there are some who do think in these terms.

    I totally recommend reading the comments. I called the two who showed up white supremacists, and perhaps they were. Today I would not make that mistake. I have since found many similar, if not identical comments, among liberals, and progressives in particular. You just have to go back past 1960 when it was still ‘cool’ to admit to the world that you are an ass. Today, people like Ron Weddington want to retain the argument, but feel the need to hasten to add, “even though it sounds like I want to exterminate them, I really don’t.”

  3. ooooooooooh, I just had a wicked thought.

    I should change my tune on gay marriage, and start supporting it–not because I want them to have any additional rights, but because gays cannot, by definition, reproduce. By letting them get ‘married’ we will take their genetic tendencies towards homosexual behavior (remember, they are born that way!) slowly out of the picture, since they will not, by definition, be able to procreate. While there will still be an occasional transmission of the ‘gay gene’ in cases where they bring their own reproductive cells to the table, they will always ever be, by definition, just one half of the contributed cells to the new ‘fetus.’ That would make the half-life of homosexuality something on the order of like 100 years, right? In a hundred years, no more gay people!

    All hail gay marriage!

    I assume you have no problem with this line of thought, for it is yours, applied.

  4. No, I’m sorry, but I do have a problem with it…

    Firstly, I fail to see how it in any way resembles my line of thought.

    Secondly, granting marriage rights to LGBTIQ couples will have virtually no impact on the number of LGBTIQ couples having children (in Australia at least).

    Can you expand on how your argument is mine, applied?

  5. You said:

    “Irrespective of the motives of the people who granted the right, or the people who provide the service itself, the wishes of the women actually having the procedure almost certainly have nothing to do with population control.”

    Which, translated into reality means, “Even though the people who granted the right wanted to eliminate blacks, poor people, defectives, and reduce the number of people on the globe, the people who have the abortions aren’t thinking about those things, so what’s the problem?”

    You are clearly saying that the reasons that motivated the first proponents of ‘birth control’ are of no consequence since, on your view, the people who utilize ‘birth control’ today do not have the same motivations.

    It so happens that the reasons that motivated them was because they literally wanted to severely reduce the number of certain races and definitely wanted to eliminate people with birth defects altogether. In the 60s and 70s, this wasn’t a nice thing to say aloud, and it was probably for this reason that instead they shifted their rhetoric to ‘over-population’–their methods and target audiences, oddly enough, did not change. This is no big deal to you since, well, 20 year olds aren’t getting abortions out of concern for over-population.

    On the same logic, you should not be concerned then that if people began advocating for gay marriage, giving them that ‘right’ to get married but only because they think it will reduce the number of gays. The gays who get married won’t be thinking it as a way to contribute to their own extinction, so what’s the problem?

    You’re getting what you want–gay marriage–what is it to you if the people who advocate for it because they hope that by allowing it they’ll actually reduce the number of gays? Or, what if they advocate for gay marriage not because they want gays to have the ‘right’ to ‘marry’ in order to curtail ‘over-population’?

    Your comment that it would have “virtually no impact” is entirely besides the point. Let’s say that these people believe it will, and that’s what motivates them. What’s your problem with it? You didn’t have a problem with people getting abortions despite the fact that the ones who first advocated for it did so out of little interest for a woman’s ‘reproductive rights.’ Why do you suddenly care now about the motives?

  6. Basically what you’re saying Timmy is – So what if some people were dishonest and duped me? Why should I care? It doesn’t matter. I’m fine with that, so long as those similarly duped are willfully going along with it!

  7. EB, can you please explain how that in any way even remotely resembles what I actually said.

  8. The same way SJ gave a translation to your statement – you don’t seem to think that an agenda that you may fine reprehensible matter, so long as there are other more ‘acceptable’ (to you) reasons that just so happen to convince other’s to carry said agenda out.

    It’s like saying the racial bigotry and eugenic motivations of the Nazis that fueled the Holocaust wouldn’t matter if all those Jews, gypsies, etc. turned out to be suicidal and would have killed themselves willfully. Then ignoring that maybe said groups of people would only consider wanting to die because the Nazis provided plenty of reasons to be so miserable in the first place.

    It’s the same situation with abortion. Eugenicists can’t round up people they consider ‘unwanted’ and eliminate them the direct way, so they’ve just taken to trying to convince the rest of society to do the deed for them by appealing to any other motivation that is more palpable to the masses.

    We say those who fall for these other reasons without knowing what’s REALLY the driving motive behind the practice are being duped.

    You say the true motivation doesn’t matter because people are doing it for the other more ‘palpable’ motivations the eugenicists provided.

    Clearly this means you’ve been duped, and you don’t care that you or others have been duped, because you are sincere in the reasons eugenicists used to dupe you in the first place.

    That’s how my statement resembles what you said.

  9. It’s like saying the racial bigotry and eugenic motivations of the Nazis that fueled the Holocaust wouldn’t matter if all those Jews, gypsies, etc. turned out to be suicidal and would have killed themselves willfully.

    Hahaaaaa, wow… that’s just… wow.

    Yes, EB, you are right. On the one hand, there’s me saying that it is not quite true to say that “abortion is a population control measure, no more, no less”. On the other hand, there’s your version of what I said, which is that it’s OK to round up people against their will, steal all their possessions, pull out their fillings, put them on a train, send them to a concentration camp, tell them you’re giving them a shower, and then gassing them… as long as they’re suicidal. Clearly, those two statements are exactly the same.

    Both of your “analogies” completely misunderstand what I said. AGAIN. Misinterpretation and shtty analogies seem to be becoming a habit.

    Where did I say “the true motivation doesn’t matter” (EB)? Where did I say that “the reasons that motivated the first proponents of ‘birth control’ are of no consequence” (SJ)?

    I simply pointed out that, in his rush to classify abortion as “nothing more or less” than a population control measure, SJ hasn’t factored in the motivations of the people having the abortions at all. I’m not saying the providers’ motivations don’t matter. You guys are saying the motivations of the consumers’ don’t matter.

    Do you know what it means when you say that something is “nothing more or less” than something else, EB? It means that the two things are solely, clearly, unambiguously, exactly, unequivocally, purely, completely, and categorically the same. It should be obvious that the only way SJ’s statement can be true is if the women actually having the abortions were also motivated by population control.

    In the vast majority of cases, they aren’t.

    That’s all I was saying.

    Nothing more, nothing less.

  10. SJ, your marriage equality example is just silly.

    Your comment that it would have “virtually no impact” is entirely besides the point.

    Actually, it isn’t. For me, anyway. If someone wants to grant women the vote because they want to increase the production of nuclear weasopns, then I couldn’t give two shts about their motivation, because it’s completely disconnected from reality. You go right ahead and vote for marriage equality, if you ever get the chance.

    A better analogy than those provided by both of you is gun production. You guys are both gun rights advocates, so answer me this – how would you feel about the right to bear arms if you found out that Smith & Wesson were only manufacturing them as a population control measure? If you found out that every gun manufacturer in the world was only making guns to keep the population down, would you say that guns were a population control measure, no more, no less? I guess you have to. Because the only thing that matters is the motivations of the manufacturer, right?

    Before you jump the… er… gun again, I’m not saying that motivations don’t matter. Quite the opposite, in fact… since my whole point is that you’ve ignored the motivations on the other side of the equation.

  11. “Where did I say “the true motivation doesn’t matter” (EB)? Where did I say that “the reasons that motivated the first proponents of ‘birth control’ are of no consequence” (SJ)?”

    You said it with “Irrespective of the motives of the people who granted the right, or the people who provide the service itself,” as that’s indeed what your statement means.

    “I simply pointed out that, in his rush to classify abortion as “nothing more or less” than a population control measure, SJ hasn’t factored in the motivations of the people having the abortions at all.”

    Essentially the motivations we constantly hear from pro-choicers ARE population control measures either on the scale of society or on the familial level. No one denies the end result of abortion leads to less mouths to feed, and the prime motivator for many people supporting abortion is that they simply don’t want to be the one providing for others.

    “I’m not saying the providers’ motivations don’t matter. You guys are saying the motivations of the consumers’ don’t matter.”

    We’re saying the consumers’ are either less than honest about their true motivations, and/or they don’t realize that they’re going along with the provider’s agenda regardless if they have a different reason for doing so.

    The ultimate end result matters too. We just take note in how it fits remarkably with the provider’s motivations.

    “In the vast majority of cases, they aren’t.”

    Uh, they are. If it’s not population control motivated by racial bigotry, than it’s population control motivated by self-interest or some warped sense of ‘compassion.’ But abortion is indeed “nothing more or less” than a population control measure regardless.

  12. First of all, let’s be clear about just who it was that said birth control was about population control, no more and no less–it was Margaret Sanger I was quoting. Are you saying you know more about the purposes and motivations for her birth control movement then she does? If the woman says it is about nothing more than reducing the number of the unfit and increasing the number of the fit, and she is practically the FOUNDER of the whole stinking thing, then that’s just a reality you’re going to have to deal with.

    That’s really your problem here. There is the world in the way you wish it was and there is the world the way it really is. Those who gave you abortion on demand were highly motivated in their efforts by eugenic reasons. Don’t like it? I don’t really care, because its the truth. Deal.

    Now, let’s say that I grant your argument, it does not address why you should care why I in turn would support ‘marriage equality.’ You seem to be saying two different and contradictory things. First, you said that you would have a problem if I were motivated by a desire to eliminate gay people and that’s why I supported gay marriage, but now you say you’re fine with it.

    You know, it doesn’t really seem profitable to me to invest time debating an important issue with someone who completely reverses themselves in the course of just a few short posts. 😉

    Now, to your example.

    First of all, if I found out that every gun manufacturer was making guns in order to keep the population down, I would actually take an interest in the question, because frankly, I have no intention of being anyone’s dupe. So, now that I said I would actually care, now what are you going to say? You suddenly care that the pro-abortionists wanted to eliminate black people, the defectives, etc, and THIS was their driving force?

    I doubt it very much. I predict some Tim having his cake and eating it too.

    Second of all, there is another factor in the abortion issue that I mentioned but you did not incorporate in your analogy, and that is the very real possibility that even the motivations of those who use the service are likewise being manipulated. You assume that because the women using the ‘service’ have different reasons than the ones advocating the ‘service’ that the two things are not causally connected. What if, however, in the very same documents that show the eugenic motivations there are explicit discussions about the fact that the people they want most to eliminate are not going to sit around saying, “Oh, hey, I really am a defective person! I should sterilize myself! For the good of the race, ya know.” What if these documents contain discussions on how to get these people to ‘voluntarily’ carry out these actions? Google “voluntary unconscious selection”+”Frederick Osborn.”

    In other words, there is a distinct possibility that the motivations on “the other side of the equation” were themselves manufactured by these eugenicists.

    From my research, I know this isn’t a possibility, it is an actuality, so I am suitably disgusted, and you should be too.

    To complete the analogy, then, you would need to say, “what if you found out that the gun manufacturers were also manipulating people into thinking that they needed guns in the first place?”

    This is where the analogy breaks down. In the case of abortion on demand, both of these are true–the motivations of the founders are eugenic and the motivations of those using the ‘services’ have themselves been engineered, deliberately, using government dollars, to fulfill the eugenic purposes, whereas in the case of the guns, there is of course no evidence that guns are a population control measure, although we may be able to find evidence of that which some would call propaganda for guns.

    But if evidence of the former surfaced, I would certainly look into it.

  13. Have I crossed into some alternate dimension where no one speaks English, and the laws of logic don’t apply?

    As I said in my previous comment, you still, after several posts, have yet to address the issue that most women do not use abortion as population control. All you’ve done is attempt to show that the original providers of abortion services were concerned with population control. Were they? I don’t know. I’ll take your word for it, because it doesn’t matter. You’ve still completely ignored the motivations of the people who provide the service now, and the women who actually use it.

    Until you show that both the current providers and users of abortion services are only concerned with population control, your argument is invalid. How you can dispute that is beyond me.

    In other words, there is a distinct possibility that the motivations on “the other side of the equation” were themselves manufactured by these eugenicists.

    I’m perfectly happy to grant you that as well. Because there is still the large number of women who fall pregnant at 19, and say “Oh I don’t really want to start my family now, I’ll get an abortion and have kids later”.

    Note that this is very different to “Oh I’d better get an abortion because I’m a eugenicist”, or “I’d better get an abortion because there are already too many people on the planet.”

    Why are those two motivations the only ones you’re willing to consider?

    Lastly…

    First, you said that you would have a problem if I were motivated by a desire to eliminate gay people and that’s why I supported gay marriage, but now you say you’re fine with it.

    Perhaps I wasn’t clear. The “problem” I had was that your example in no way resembled my original comment. It’s a ridiculous comparison. If you want to grant marriage rights to gay people because you think it will result in their elimination, you go right ahead.

  14. “Have I crossed into some alternate dimension where no one speaks English, and the laws of logic don’t apply?”

    Well looking at this:

    “Where did I say “the true motivation doesn’t matter” (EB)? Where did I say that “the reasons that motivated the first proponents of ‘birth control’ are of no consequence” (SJ)?”

    And then we see this:

    “…the original providers of abortion services were concerned with population control. Were they? I don’t know. I’ll take your word for it, because it doesn’t matter.”

    I think we can safely conclude that you were originally from that alternate dimension and have simply crossed over into ours now. 😉

    “I’m perfectly happy to grant you that as well. Because there is still the large number of women who fall pregnant at 19, and say “Oh I don’t really want to start my family now, I’ll get an abortion and have kids later”.”

    In other words these young women want to control the population of their immediate family members by denying it’s growth till they feel like it.

    One can ask what’s their reasons for not wanting to start a family at the time. Financial situation brought on by taxes and an economy controlled by others? Hung up about all the hardship that goes into raising kids that a media and culture saturate society with? Fear of potential medical and psychological problems that the medical community advertise like some End-of-the-World dude off the street?

    All of which being fairly common reasons to persuade others to have an abortion, and all of which happens to be largely under the influence of other people.

    And you just want to brush off the possibility that these kinds of situations and reasoning were manufactured with an eugenic agenda in mind? Seems my genocide-suicide analogy was spot on.

  15. I think we can safely conclude that you were originally from that alternate dimension and have simply crossed over into ours now.

    For someone so reliant on context for their divine revelation, you show a curious lack of appreciation for it in everyday life.

    When I said it doesn’t matter, I meant my criticisms of SJ’s post don’t hinge on conceding the point. That should have been obvious from the the preceding and subsequent sentences.

    If you were any good at comprehension, that is.

    All of which being fairly common reasons to persuade others to have an abortion, and all of which happens to be largely under the influence of other people.

    HAHAHAHAAAA… ah man… that’s unreal.

    Yes, the Federal Reserve, investment banks, and the Federal Government are all in some great big conspiracy to make child raising expensive because they’re worried about over-population.

    YOU’RE A GENIUS.

  16. “Have I crossed into some alternate dimension where no one speaks English, and the laws of logic don’t apply?”

    I have often wondered the same thing.

    EB is right. You have totally contradicted yourself. The plain meaning of your comments betray you. This: “because it’s completely disconnected from reality.” is an additional idea. If you didn’t mean the other stuff about you shouldn’t have said them. But you did say them, and according to the laws of logic and the English language, they mean something–and they contradict.

    “As I said in my previous comment, you still, after several posts, have yet to address the issue that most women do not use abortion as population control.”

    Dead wrong. I have addressed it in two specific posts, including the last one. Again, the English language and laws of logic seem to be flaunted here. By you, Tim. 🙂

    “”In other words, there is a distinct possibility that the motivations on “the other side of the equation” were themselves manufactured by these eugenicists.””
    “I’m perfectly happy to grant you that as well.”

    WAIT! Isn’t my comment here addressing the motivations of the other side? You can’t say I haven’t addressed it AND then copy/paste me addressing it!

    Come on, man.

    “”Because there is still the large number of women who fall pregnant at 19, and say “Oh I don’t really want to start my family now, I’ll get an abortion and have kids later”.””

    Right. But perhaps the reason why they consider abortion as their solution is because this is the option they have been conditioned to consider. Maybe the reason they are pregnant at 19 is because they have been told to have sex as often as they want–its ok if you get pregnant, because you can just get an abortion. Maybe the reason why they don’t want to start a family is because a bunch of liberal progressives have told them that families are oppressive engines of the Bourgeoisie (of course, they don’t use those words any more, and your average 19 year old today probably won’t even know what any of those words mean, except maybe the word ‘are’ and ‘engine.’) Maybe this is all the case because Planned Parenthood makes $500 per abortion but not a dime if there is an adoption, or if people wait until marriage to have sex. Maybe the pro-aborts view each new generation the way the machines viewed the people in the movie, The Matrix: a herd to be managed and occasionally culled, existing only to benefit them.

    I’d say that matters quite a bit.

    And before you say something really stupid like, “Yea, well, what do you know? You don’t know what its like to be that young and find yourself in that situation” know this: my mother had me when she was 16, and I can personally attest to how difficult life was growing up in such a situation. I DO know, because many of the consequences were inflicted on ME. But, ‘time heals all wounds’ and ‘this too shall pass’ and none of those hardships warrant MURDER. But at $500 a pop (minimum), you can see why some would have the incentive to argue otherwise.

    But apparently you don’t care about any of that. As far as you are concerned, if people are manipulated and conditioned to viewing abortion as their SINGLE and SOLE and OBVIOUS ‘choice’ that counts as a free choice.

    “Perhaps I wasn’t clear. The “problem” I had was that your example in no way resembled my original comment. It’s a ridiculous comparison.”

    I already addressed this. I think the comparison is apt based on the plain meaning of your previous remarks. I’m not going to continue to press it though, as the comparison was only made to show how ridiculous your own argument was. The lurker can decide from here.

  17. *facepalm*

    What have I been thinking?!?!?!? I am so glad to hear you say that you think advocating for gay marriage in order to curtail the world’s population is absurd and won’t work. You may be surprised to learn that it wasn’t my idea or thinking at all, but rather spurred on by PLANNED PARENTHOOD.

    During the heyday of the ‘population’ crisis, and before abortion had yet been made legal nationally in the US, the folks at PP were busily trying to figure out how to solve the population problem. Their vice-president, Frederick Jaffe, produced a memo which was distributed to the ‘powers that be’ that included all sorts of ideas–don’t worry, they didn’t believe any of it, they were just spit-balling, right?–including explicit references to manipulating motivations… er, I mean, shaping people’s views… wait, that’s no better… anyway, for example:

    1. Postpone or avoid marriage.

    I believe that resembles your remark about the 19 year old girl who is pregnant. Don’t worry, Tim. That was your thought, not the social engineer’s.

    2. Alter the image of ideal family size.

    Even you must concede the the word ‘alter’ amounts to an explicit call to manipulate people, but of course, you don’t care what THEY think.

    And on and on it goes, but then we find this:

    3. Encourage increased homosexuality.

    Hmmmmmmmmm. Were the experts on population control WITH PLANNED PARENTHOOD silly to think that there was a correlation between homosexuality and the size of the world’s population? Tim seems to think that it would “have virtually no impact” on the resulting number of children if a society embraces homosexuality, and he is much, much smarter than the experts at PLANNED PARENTHOOD. They seemed to believe the opposite.

    Now, has anyone else observed a significant rise in the level of support for homosexuality that is much higher than almost any time in human history, prior to 1969 (when this memo was distributed)? Tim may think that gay marriage will have no impact on the world’s population, and he may be glad that PP pushed homosexuality even if (he feels) they are wrong about that impact, but how do we know that Tim only supports gay marriage IN THE FIRST PLACE because the population control folks set the wheels in motion?

    Does anyone else think that if in the 1970s and 1980s these people had said, “Support gay marriage because in this way we will reduce the world’s population!” this would have successfully won wide acceptance? Or do you think they might have gotten a better response rate by framing it as “marriage equality.” Does anyone think that THEY care what reasons people accept homosexuality, so long as THEY get what THEY want?

    My dear Tim, this video is for you:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE7PKRjrid4

    It is striking how similar your reactions are to just about every line of that video clip.

    So, the question is, Tim, do you want to take the red pill, or the blue pill?

    I have spoken extensively on the Jaffe Memo here:

    http://sntjohnny.com/front/reflections-on-the-jaffe-memo-and-why-religion-and-politics-should-mix-part-one/1662.html

  18. Sorry… I only did advanced English at school. Where did I contradict myself?

  19. EB is right.

    Well that can’t possibly be right, so now I know it’s not me that’s misunderstanding things. Thanks!

    If you didn’t mean the other stuff about you shouldn’t have said them. But you did say them, and according to the laws of logic and the English language, they mean something–and they contradict.

    I have no idea what you’re referring to. Feel free to elucidate.

    WAIT! Isn’t my comment here addressing the motivations of the other side? You can’t say I haven’t addressed it AND then copy/paste me addressing it! Come on, man.

    Ba bowwwwwwwwwwww. Nice try.

    All you’ve done make the ridiculous assumption that everyone who gets an abortion has been tricked into it by people motivated by a concern for over-population. Because that’s what you have to assume to not be forced into en embarrassing retraction of your original idea. For abortion to be “nothing more or less” than population control, everyone who provides the service, and everyone who uses it must be concerned with over-population, or tricked into it by someone else concerned with over-population.

    That’s a conspiracy theory on par with the faked moon landings, 9-11 truthers, and Obama birthers. The idea that everyone who either provides for or gets an abortion has been tricked into it is laughable. Absolutely laughable.

    Even if such an effect exists, it can’t possibly be said to apply to everyone. Not even close. There would still be a sizable number of women getting abortions because they just don’t want a baby. Some people just don’t want babies. Don’t like it? Deal.

    That’s what I meant when I conceded your silly conspiracy theory, but insisted that you still hadn’t addressed my original point. Fine. There are people busy manipulating women into getting abortions to prevent over-population. Whatever. You still can’t say that every woman who gets an abortion has been tricked into it, so your argument still fails. Abortion cannot possibly be “nothing more or less” than population control.

    I may as well say the same about Christianity itself. Every Christian on the planet has been sincerely duped into it by someone else. No one reeeeally believes it because it’s true, it’s just one big trick, played out on unsuspecting dupes. Right?

    Were the experts on population control WITH PLANNED PARENTHOOD silly to think that there was a correlation between homosexuality and the size of the world’s population? Tim seems to think that it would “have virtually no impact” on the resulting number of children if a society embraces homosexuality, and he is much, much smarter than the experts at PLANNED PARENTHOOD. They seemed to believe the opposite.

    Hang on a second… you were originally talking about granting marriage rights to people who were already gay. If that’s what we were talking about, then yes, it is extremely unlikely that marriage rights will affect the number of gay couples having children. But now you’re talking about encouraging the prevalence of homosexuality itself. What are you actually arguing?

    Maybe the reason they are pregnant at 19 is because they have been told to have sex as often as they want–its ok if you get pregnant, because you can just get an abortion.

    I think it more likely they went to an “abstinence only” school.

    Maybe the reason why they don’t want to start a family is because a bunch of liberal progressives have told them that families are oppressive engines of the Bourgeoisie

    Yes, because as we all know, liberals don’t have children.

    But apparently you don’t care about any of that. As far as you are concerned, if people are manipulated and conditioned to viewing abortion as their SINGLE and SOLE and OBVIOUS ‘choice’ that counts as a free choice.

    BA BOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!

    Not what I said at all. This really is getting ridiculous.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*