Skip to comments.Eugenics - the evil root of abortion
Posted on 01/24/2010 9:53:58 AM PST by wagglebee
A documentary and expose' on the abortion business has caught the attention of some members of Congress.
The documentary, Maafa 21, traces the history of Planned Parenthood to its founder, Margaret Sanger, who believed in eugenics -- controlling and eliminating certain population groups, especially including minorities such as African-Americans. Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics produced the film. He says the project has proven itself effective after having been shown and discussed by a number of churches and media outlets.
"We're seeing committed people who are on the pro-choice side coming over saying, 'This thing has totally, completely turned me around on the abortion issue. I never knew any of this stuff was going on. I never knew anything about this eugenics and black genocide aspect of abortion,'" explains Crutcher.
(Excerpt) Read more at onenewsnow.com ...
follow the money and expose them.. names ... not organizations. where they live what they do .. their families.. expose them..
Holdren also once wrote that a baby was not yet a human being. From the story:
The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being, John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, wrote in Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.
This is radical personhood theory, beyond Peter Singer even, in which full moral status may not accrue until years after birth.
This could be bad. Cass R. Sunstein, just appointed by President Obama to be regulatory czar, is a big quality of life guy in determining the cost/benefit ratio of government regulations. This is the executive summary of a paper he wrote back in 2003 for the Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, entitled Lives, Life-Years, and Willingness to Pay. From the paper:
In protecting safety, health, and the environment, government has increasingly relied on cost-benefit analysis. In undertaking cost-benefit analysis, the government has monetized risks of death through the idea of value of a statistical life (VSL), currently assessed at about $6.1 million. Many analysts, however, have suggested that the government should rely instead on the value of a statistical life year (VSLY), in a way that would likely result in significantly lower benefits calculations for elderly people, and significantly higher benefits calculations for children. I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people. The hard question involves not whether to undertake this shift, but how to monetize life-years, and here willingness to pay (WTP) [what one would pay to obtain a good] is generally the place to begin In fact, a focus on statistical lives is more plausibly a form of illicit discrimination than a focus on life years, because the idea of statistical lives treats the years of older people as worth far more than the years of younger people.
Why do I think she was a democrat? Everyone knows they are a friend to Blacks.
As an aside, there was an awful lot of research done, especially in Germany, on aspects of eugenics in the 1920s, and many of those books were reprinted in English in the US (some of which had striking looking Art Deco covers.)
Oddly enough, Germans were mostly interested in twins who had been separated at birth, or at a young age, and were raised apart from each other by different families. They went over many details in their lives, trying to find odd coincidences that might have been based in genetics, *despite* their upbringings.
In the US, idealistic immigrant communities tended to concentrate in just one county in western New York State. One such community, the Oneida, decided to practice eugenics in the form of selective breeding of some of its members.
This was known as “Oneida Stirpiculture”.
Of the 58 children produced just by pure guesswork on the part of the community founder and a committee for that purpose, a large number of children grew up to become important national leaders in the US.
However, the end of the Oneida community was a blessing in disguise, as had the experiment continued, the community was close to a “genetic inbreeding collapse.”
When you play with fire...
Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was the ultimate white supremacist
The Oneida community eugenic policy was not done haphazardly. The founder had people voluntarily agree to participate by letting him select their appropriate partner, based on his (albeit weak) understanding of heredity. He could also chose to give you no partner, if you were deemed unworthy.
The history of the children resulting from these unions was generally quite good. There are several reasons for this. The children in the community were well cared-for, with adequate food and education. Furthermore, people who join such cultish groups are often very imaginative people, possibly not the dumbest around. In this case, the group had religious inspiration, like almost all the communistic societies of the 19th Century in this country. There were hundreds of such experimental settlements. They all lacked one aspect of modern totalitarian socialism: people could leave any time they wished. Virtually all such settlements are now extinct, except for the Hutterites.
Oneida was dissolved by its founder, Rev. Noyes, because he became fed-up with the continuous internal political bickering. The property of the group was turned over to a joint-stock company (a corporation) which continued making silver-plate tableware. Perhaps if you look on the back of some old spoons you will see “Oneida” written there. I think that the company still exists.
Sanger even gave a speech to the Klan.
When you pull back the curtain all of these people have the same agenda.
You notice they are not talking about women controlling their own bodies anymore.
It is now having the GOVERNMENT provide abortions.
I don’t think I need to point out where THAT will head.
Their human breeding experiments were just lucky guesses, as human genetics is vastly more complicated, and the time frame of the experiment was so short, *and* there was no multi-generational failure loss involved. This severely muddies the water between nature and nurture.
This can be said because right now, the government of China is trying much the same thing, with a much larger genetic field, yet they are *not* having good luck. Their selection standards fit their prejudices, and they stubbornly use those prejudices despite evidence that they are not producing superior offspring.
Sanger hated Irish, Blacks, Catholics and people who she deemed were “weeds”.
And the left treats her as a goddess. Typical of the left to idolize people like Che,Castro,Marx,Mao, and other people who were the greatest mass murderers in history.
They should feel shame, but it isnt in thier genes.
Shame ...not in the Dummies vocabulary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.