Abortion is Eugenics in Action

Plaffelvohfen

Abortion is a generic medical procedure, Eugenics is a specific set of beliefs... We've got a categorical error in play I'm afraid...

Now, on the merits of Eugenics itself, I'm not convinced either way really... I'm against forced sterilization but not against voluntary selective breeding...

Happy_Killbot

These points about Margaret Sanger, while evidently true I don't think have a lot of credibility in the actual argument, first off because the character of this individual and their extreme values should be irrelevant to the actual topic and second because picking a nut doesn't mean that everyone who supports abortion is automatically a eugenicist.

This being said, I think that a lot of the claims made do have some credibility to them. Abortions do effect poor families at a disproportionately higher rate. However I disagree that this is eugenic, that is a possible secondary effect that I think is irrelevant without significant change.

In order for abortions by low income to have the desired eugenic effect the following must be true

• The poor must have a decreased total fertility rate
• The middle and upper class must have an increased fertility rate
• These effects must be maintained over multiple generations
• The class of the individuals and their offspring must remain constant over several generations

For the first two, we can look at the US census data:


As you can see, fertility rates are roughly inversely proportional to income. What this implies is that lower income families tend to have more income than wealthy families. Therefore, the first two points can be solidly refuted based on data not supporting these claims, and the third point can not be true being reliant on the first two.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/

The fourth and final point however, does have evidence to support it as being true. According to the Pew Charitable trust, about half of all income advantages are passed on to their children, and economic advantages are more likely to persist through wealthy families. What this means is that children raised under better economic conditions are more likely to have better economic opportunity as compared to their poor counterparts.
https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2015/07/FSM-IRS-Report_ARTFINAL.pdf

Based on this data, I would draw a conclusion very different from the one which is presented in the post. Rather than having a eugenic effect, the prevalence of abortions among the lower class is simply going to level off the birth rates along all social classes. This will, instead of being a hindrance to the poor, actually enable them economically.

Why?

Because allowing for access to abortions will remove one of the largest economic hindrances- children- thus giving them the opportunity to work on their careers. In the long run, this will allow for increased social mobility by the lower class into the middle class, and the entire country will become wealthier. By failing to allow for free access to abortions, (I mean to get there, they still have to pay) will suppress the poor economically via childbirth and be a bigger obstacle for them to success. Abortions are not forced in any way, if the mother decides to keep the child she is free to do so, thus it can not be considered "population control" if it is self imposed, but rather would be population control if it is forcefully disallowed.

This principal carries over to the high abortion rates of children with down syndrome and other genetic abnormalities easily detectable during pregnancy. The decision for abortions are still in the hands of the parents, so if they decide they would rather raise a healthy baby than a potentially unhealthy one, then that can only be good for humanity, because nobody has to grow up having down syndrome or some other genetic disease, and the cost is actually less than if the child was allowed to grow up, since the unhealthy child will be replaced with a healthy one.

Vaulk

@Plaffelvohfen

I'm not saying that Abortion IS Eugenics itself, I'm saying that Planned Parenthood was founded by a Eugenics Enthusiast for the purpose of generating a Eugenics based society.  I'm also saying that, while I'm certain you can get abortions elsewhere, Planned Parenthood accounts for the largest provider of abortions while simultaneously having been built on the foundation of Eugenics.  

The case for abortion was made long ago by Planned Parenthood: "While millions of American families struggle individually with the emotional and economic challenges that unintended pregnancy can bring, teen pregnancy poses a significant financial burden to society at large — an estimated $10.9 billion per year (NCPTUP, 2011a).

This is a Eugenic argument.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/2013/9611/7570/Pregnancy_And_Childbearing_Among_US_Teens.pdf

Happy_Killbot

@Vaulk ;

Vaulk said:

@Plaffelvohfen

I'm not saying that Abortion IS Eugenics itself, I'm saying that Planned Parenthood was founded by a Eugenics Enthusiast for the purpose of generating a Eugenics based society.  I'm also saying that, while I'm certain you can get abortions elsewhere, Planned Parenthood accounts for the largest provider of abortions while simultaneously having been built on the foundation of Eugenics.  

The case for abortion was made long ago by Planned Parenthood: "While millions of American families struggle individually with the emotional and economic challenges that unintended pregnancy can bring, teen pregnancy poses a significant financial burden to society at large — an estimated $10.9 billion per year (NCPTUP, 2011a).

This is a Eugenic argument.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/2013/9611/7570/Pregnancy_And_Childbearing_Among_US_Teens.pdf

Is there any argument in that article? I haven't read the whole thing, but skimming over it it seems to be nothing but statistics. Raw data does not an argument make. While any one of these data points could be used to guide or suggest policy, the article you list doesn't seem to do that, although I am willing to be wrong if you can show me where the argument is.

Vaulk

@Happy_Killbot

The issue with your argument is that you're arguing from a strictly traditional Eugenic stance: "X must be true in order for Y to exist otherwise this isn't Eugenics"

There are varying degrees of Eugenics and the term itself is merely a general ideology, not a specific or codified process that must be adhered to else we venture into a totally different realm.  Additionally, there is no prescribed outcome necessary for Eugenics to be present in a society...simply put if it doesn't work that doesn't automatically mean that Eugenics weren't put into practice.  Eugenics as an ideology is not only present but rife from the foundation to the practice today.  

Eugenics
"The science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis".

So if you argue that controlling the number of offspring through abortion can be a good thing because it allows adults to better themselves financially or economically then................. 

Happy_Killbot said:

Because allowing for access to abortions will remove one of the largest economic hindrances- children- thus giving them the opportunity to work on their careers. In the long run, this will allow for increased social mobility by the lower class into the middle class, and the entire country will become wealthier. By failing to allow for free access to abortions, (I mean to get there, they still have to pay) will suppress the poor economically via childbirth and be a bigger obstacle for them to success. Abortions are not forced in any way, if the mother decides to keep the child she is free to do so, thus it can not be considered "population control" if it is self imposed, but rather would be population control if it is forcefully disallowed.

You're making a Eugenic argument right here.  This argument for the control of offspring for the purpose of giving adults the opportunity to rise in economic status is an argument for Eugenics because economic status is a desired heritable characteristic.  Hence my statement: If you support abortion, you support Eugenics.

Happy_Killbot

@Vaulk I would argue, based on your definition that this isn't eugenic because controlling the output fertility isn't changing heritable characteristics. These remain constant, because families are still going to have children, just less of them.

Vaulk

@Happy_Killbot

Then you've missed the part where you advocated for controlling offspring in order to achieve heritable characteristics by adults.

Vaulk

Happy_Killbot said:

@Vaulk ;

Vaulk said:

@Plaffelvohfen

I'm not saying that Abortion IS Eugenics itself, I'm saying that Planned Parenthood was founded by a Eugenics Enthusiast for the purpose of generating a Eugenics based society.  I'm also saying that, while I'm certain you can get abortions elsewhere, Planned Parenthood accounts for the largest provider of abortions while simultaneously having been built on the foundation of Eugenics.  

The case for abortion was made long ago by Planned Parenthood: "While millions of American families struggle individually with the emotional and economic challenges that unintended pregnancy can bring, teen pregnancy poses a significant financial burden to society at large — an estimated $10.9 billion per year (NCPTUP, 2011a).

This is a Eugenic argument.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/2013/9611/7570/Pregnancy_And_Childbearing_Among_US_Teens.pdf

Is there any argument in that article? I haven't read the whole thing, but skimming over it it seems to be nothing but statistics. Raw data does not an argument make. While any one of these data points could be used to guide or suggest policy, the article you list doesn't seem to do that, although I am willing to be wrong if you can show me where the argument is.

Articles do not contain arguments (Or at least shouldn't) they are supplemental to an existing argument and are meant to serve as evidence necessary to support the argument.  Additionally, this is a debate between @plaffelvohfen and I.

Happy_Killbot

@Vaulk We are not changing the traits of the offspring though, so that wouldn't be considered a heritable trait.

I understand where you are going with this because I have read the atrocity that is the bell curve and I get what you are saying, and I will try to explain why it is wrong.

Something is heritable when the likelihood of the offspring having a given trait is directly proportional to the trait being present in the parents, so for example wearing ear rings is technically a heritable trait.

We could therefore conclude that wealth potential is heritable because most people stay in the same economic class of their parents.

Now that that is out of the way, the argument that adult wealth potential is heritable because we are controlling the number of offspring they have is wrong, because we are not modifying the trait in  the offspring, but in the parents.

Let's put this abstractly: Let's say someone is born with two arms as a genetic trait. They might have children who all have two arms, thus we can determine that two arms is a heritable trait. However, if before this individual has kids they lose an arm in an accident, we would still expect the offspring to have two arms. Similarly, if someone changes classes due to better economic situation, then to say that wealth potential is heritable would assume that the kids of this person would have lower wealth potential, however this is not what the data suggests, but rather that when someone changes classes their children end up with the wealth potential of their new class, thus it is not a heritable trait, therefore it is not eugenic to change the wealth potential of the parents.

Vaulk

@Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot said:
I believe you're addressing this backwards.  

Pure Eugenics: If I control for breeding and reduce the number of races that a White Woman may breed with and only allow her to breed with a White Male...then the offspring will directly be affected by the control of "Only White Breeding", the resulting offspring would be directly affected by this and would inherit the White Skin as a controlled "Heritable trait".

Likewise if I control for breeding and only allow breeding after both of my subjects have successfully changed economic statuses into middle or upper class, the the offspring again would be directly affected by this and would inherit middle or upper class economic status as a controlled "Heritable trait".

Eugenics is about improving the Human population by controlling breeding.  Breeding firstly has nothing to do with the offspring but has everything to do with the PARENTS.  A more extreme version of Eugenics might include executing undesirables but simply failing to put an execution rule into the equation does not eliminate Eugenics from this classification.  You cannot affect the offspring without first affecting the Parents under a Eugenics model unless you simply cut out the parents and go directly to eliminating undesirable offspring...which hasn't ever been the strict model of Eugenics.  ALL versions of Eugenics begin with controlling breeding.  In this case, controlling breeding to the point of aborting babies to allow for the Parents to first obtain a higher economic status is in fact Eugenics.

Or simply put: Preventing children from being born to Parents who are impoverished...still Eugenics.

Happy_Killbot

@Vaulk Another thing to consider, would be that if it is eugenic to allow abortions as a means of increasing wealth potential, then it is also eugenic to disallow abortions for the same but opposite  reasons.

The argument would be something like: By banning abortion we control the population by not suppressing the number of offspring had by middle class families, making them economically less well off, thus maximizing the desired heritable trait of poorness.

It falls apart for the same reasons as above, poorness can not be a heritable trait if the thing that is underpinning the trait is also what you are trying to change.

I don't think there is an argument here either way.

Happy_Killbot

@Vaulk No, this still isn't eugenics because it is backwards. Instead of controlling for traits by breeding, you are using traits to control breeding.

I don't think there is a word for that, but eugenics isn't it.

The definition of this new concept would be:

XXX = "The science of improving a human population by controlling heritable traits to increase the occurrence of desired breeding."

Vaulk

Happy_Killbot said:

@Vaulk No, this still isn't eugenics because it is backwards. Instead of controlling for traits by breeding, you are using breeding to control traits.

The science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis".

Yes, controlling breeding to control (Increase) desirable heritable characteristics (Traits).  I think you're just not quite seeing it yet.

And no, getting rid of abortion isn't control just as eliminating welfare isn't forced starvation.  If you artificially insert a system of control into a socioeconomic environment...that's control.  If you then remove that same system of control...that's not control...it's the elimination of control and the allowance of nature to take its course.  

Vaulk

@Happy_Killbot

Happy_Killbot

@Vaulk I'm telling you, this is a novel concept, or at least I have never heard of it before.

We are not using breeding to control traits here, we are using traits to control breeding.

It's reversed, specifically because the changes in wealth would occur without offspring.

In addition, because abortion is voluntary it isn't controlled either, a point I made in that first comment so it still wouldn't be eugenics based solely on that. If people decide not to have kids because of some doomsday cult or something, that's not eugenics, because there is the implication that it is being forced and is not voluntary.

Vaulk

@Happy_Killbot

Ok .

Happy_Killbot

@Vaulk Abortion is not eugenics in any way, you can't just change the words to mean what you want.

P.S. I gaffed in that picture you post. it is supposed to read "No, this still isn't eugenics because it is backwards. Instead of controlling for traits by breeding, you are using traits to control breeding."

MayCaesar

In your later comments you specified that abortion is not eugenics, but Planned Parenthood was founded by a eugenics advocate. I fail to see what Planned Parenthood has to do with abortion in principle, nor is it having been founded by a eugenics advocate makes it into eugenics.

Regardless, the word "eugenics" has a bad reputation, due to it having been performed by multiple totalitarian states by extremely violent means - however, there is nothing wrong with the concept itself. Why would it not be desirable to improve ourselves and our offspring? We do this with everything: with crops, with animals, with technology... Why not with ourselves? It makes sense to research genetic engineering, for example, to make sure that future humans are much more healthy and capable than us. 

I am against the state involvement in these things, however; it should be done purely by private means. Hence why people do not advocate for the government forcing abortions on people: this is something Cuban, North Korean and Chinese governments do, and it is a very barbaric practice. But if people choose to abort a child that is likely to have some serious impairment and conceive another one, then that seems like a no-brainer to me: why give birth to a child who will be struggling in life and who the parents will be struggling with, if, with more time and effort, a healthy child can be born instead? Would you be happier if more people around had the Down syndrome? How would it be better in any way?

Dee

****Richard Dawkins made it clear that, while he deplores the idea of a Eugenic policy, Eugenics would work quite well in practice.  It's important to note that Dawkins has drawn unanimous criticism for his statement regardless of his personal views on whether or not it's appropriate to put Eugenic policies into action.

Dawkins made a statement that is 100 per cent accurate but it’s 2020 and we live in an age where many are ready to outraged and offended at anything that challenges their narrow world views .....

Dawkins stated......” Facts ignore ideology,  but heaven forbid that we should do it.

 Dawkins full statement ....

“It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds,” Mr. Dawkins tweeted to his 2.8 millions followers. “It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.

“For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy,” he wrote. “I simply said deploring it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work. Just as we breed cows to yield more milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven forbid that we should do it.

***If however, you support Abortions...then you support Eugenics.

Thats a deeply flawed statement people worldwide who have had abortions never heard of Sanger or eugenics for that matter 

To use your line of reasoning people who accept medical advances made by Nazi doctors and scientists support eugenics also

xlJ_dolphin_473

I agree with Dawkins that eugenics would work quite well in practice. I also support abortion, so there's clearly not much of a debate to be had here. 
I agree with Vaulk that abortion is a type of eugenics. I will now justify those statements.

Eugenics may be necessary to stay on top of the food chain on our changing planet. If evolution can no longer keep up with the pace of climate change, then maybe eugenics can. It would also make humans more intelligent, stronger, faster, etc. thereby enabling us to remain as the dominant species on Earth and not die out. So, eugenics is not ideal, but perhaps necessary.

There is a whole other debate about abortion, so if you have views about that, I would be happy to debate with you on one of the numerous abortion forums.

Abortion is a type of eugenics, at least in medical cases, because by having an abortion, you prevent a genetically malformed child from growing up, having sex, and adding those malformed genes to the gene pool.

Plaffelvohfen

@xlJ_dolphin_473

If one supports eugenics, one consequently support abortion, that is true but the reverse is not... Saying abortion is a type of Eugenics is like saying that a wheel is a type of car... All cars have wheels by design but wheels does not a car make...

xlJ_dolphin_473

Plaffelvohfen said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473

If one supports eugenics, one consequently support abortion, that is true but the reverse is not... Saying abortion is a type of Eugenics is like saying that a wheel is a type of car... All cars have wheels by design but wheels does not a car make...

I disagree with you. Abortion is a type of eugenics, and therefore by supporting eugenics you support all parts of it, including abortion.

Plaffelvohfen

@xlJ_dolphin_473

I'm sorry but you're wrong... Abortion cannot be a "type" of eugenics by definition, abortion is a procedure and eugenics is a philosophical position...

Abortion is a tool used in eugenics sure... But, in the same way, a hammer is not a type of house although it's used in building houses... Saying abortion is a type of eugenics is a categorical error...

xlJ_dolphin_473

Plaffelvohfen said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473

I'm sorry but you're wrong... Abortion cannot be a "type" of eugenics by definition, abortion is a procedure and eugenics is a philosophical position...

Abortion is a tool used in eugenics sure... But, in the same way, a hammer is not a type of house although it's used in building houses... Saying abortion is a type of eugenics is a categorical error...

OK, you win. I can't think of an argument to rebut that, and I probably couldn't even if I wanted to.

We_are_accountable

@Vaulk

Well said, you are 100% correct. Abortion is no different from the Holocaust of Jews, other than the fact that the world is ok with it. People were not ok with killing Jews because this hit too close to home. People had a problem with any Government legalizing Eugenics and the deaths of certain groups after they are born, because they might someday choose you as their next victim.

Abortion killed people just the same, but it killed those who could not defend themselves. This made it ok when the gas chamber was out of sight and the victim was dismembered before anyone could see him. Abortion is a dirty little secret to be hid away from the cameras. You might notice that we have hardly ever seen an abortion procedure on TV.
Isn't it amazing that an issue such as abortion, that has been the most contentious political issue of our lifetime, is not shown to the people so that we can form an educated opinion?

What does the left fear? I thought the Left was big on education? We all know that if this procedure were shown to the masses, many people would instanty become ProLife. Democrats would not stand for this! Abortion is one of the biggest moeny and vote getter for the Democrat Party. They are tied to the hip with Feminist and Abortion groups.

TKDB

Abortion is the mindful byproduct of a love, over a "lifestyle," versus the love over "life" itself.


Adoption, makes the life of a fetus, a winner in life. 

John_C_87

Abortion is a frame waiting for an object to be controlled by entering inside of it.

John_C_87

To have control over the female body a woman would control the ovulation release of an egg for pregnancy. All women are created equal by this creator.

Vaulk

Alright then, apologies for delays due to work.

How does supporting abortion equate supporting Eugenics?

To answer this we must establish first that Abortion is Birth Control.  Next we establish that the Birth Control in the United States today is the result of Planned Parenthood, not only has the organization paved the way for all means of Birth Control in our society but the organization itself is the single largest provider of all types of Birth Control.  Finally we establish the reason Planned Parenthood was created and what fundamental principles the organization was founded upon.

And viola!  We arrive at Eugenics.  

This is most of the reason why I went to such lengths to detail Margaret Sanger's actions leading up to and after the creation of Planned Parenthood.  She is the Mother of Planned Parenthood, she's the reason it exists today and her philosophy (Regardless of who isn't willing to repeat it) was embedded into the organization from the start.  

Sanger held the opinion that birth control was a critical part of the solution to social illness.  “Birth Control . . . is really the greatest and most truly eugenic method” of “human generation,” “and its adoption as part of the program of Eugenics would immediately give a concrete and realistic power to that science.” Sanger argued that “Eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment” could not “succeed” unless they “first clear[ed] the way for Birth Control.” If “the masses” were given “practical education in Birth Control”—for which there was “almost universal demand”—then the “Eugenic educator” could use “Birth Control propaganda” to “direct a thorough education in Eugenics” and influence the reproductive decisions of the unfit. In this way, “the campaign for Birth Control [was] not merely of eugenic value, but [was] practically identical in ideal with the final aims of Eugenics.”

In 1930, Sanger opened a birth-control clinic in Harlem. Then, in 1939, Sanger began the “Negro Project,” an attempt to promote birth control in poor, Southern black communities. She noted that blacks were “‘notoriously underprivileged and handicapped to a large measure by a “caste” system,’” she proposed in a fundraising letter that “‘birth control knowledge brought to this group is the most direct, constructive aid that can be given them to improve their immediate situation.’” In her report titled “Birth Control and the Negro,” Sanger and her coauthors labeled blacks as “‘the great problem of the South’”—“the group with ‘the greatest economic, health, and social problems’”—and developed a birth-control program geared toward this population. She later emphasized that black ministers should be involved in the program, noting, “‘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.’”

You cannot secede Margaret Sanger nor her ideas from Planned Parenthood and you cannot secede Planned Parenthood from Birth Control (That includes abortions).  

Lastly I'm not sure who tried to imply in any way that Abortion is a type of Eugenics.  I'm sure some of our intelligent community members know what they actually meant to say but I'll clarify it here.

Abortion is a process, execution is also a process and both have more in common than they don't.  That said in order to rationally support the process of execution in the United States there are other ideological standards that you must also support such as "Fatal consequences" and things like "Capital punishment".  The list goes on.  Likewise in order to rationally support the process of abortion there are other ideological standards that you must also support...such as the fundamental philosophy that brought about widespread acceptance of Birth Control in the first place..."Eugenics".  There is no denying that Margaret Sanger's ideologies were directly responsible for the eventual acceptance of birth control within the United States.  You can simply choose not to acknowledge that the process you support is built upon a foundation that you don't like to show support for...but that doesn't change any facts about it.

Happy_Killbot

@Vaulk By this same logic, condoms, Viagra, and smooth Jazz are eugenic.

No, this is wrong because Controlled breeding is not the same as birth control.

The first implies that something or someone is making the decisions of who gets to breed and who doesn't. With birth control, the decision is in the hands of the individuals thus it wouldn't really be controlled breeding.

MayCaesar

@Vaulk

Regardless of whether the historical background you described is true or not (I do not have enough knowledge to make this kind of judgement), your logic contains multiple errors.

One of them is assuming that Planned Parenthood is responsible for birth control in the US, the implication being that without it birth control would not be here - but basic birth control means existed long before Planned Parenthood was created, and even, dare I say, long before the US existed as an autonomous nation, so it certainly cannot be connected to Planned Parenthood in such a direct way.

Second is that you are talking exclusively about the US, while abortions and birth control in some ways exist virtually everywhere in the world - there is nothing to the history you described that suggests that the US follows a fundamentally unique path in this regard, and if that is not the case, then there is no reason to talk about the US specifically when discussing this subject. 

Third is, you have not really explained how supporting abortion implies supporting eugenics. Eugenics implies the goal to better humanity as a whole through selection process. But making decision to abort your own baby does not have to have anything to do with it and might be just a reflection of your individual desire to not have to raise this particular child. You do not have to be concerned with the future of humanity in order to make this choice.

Finally, the whole idea that the process being built on some foundation means that supporting this process implies supporting that foundation is wrong. There are many good or neutral actions that originally were built on bad foundations - that says something about those foundations, but it says nothing about those actions. Electronic computers were originally designed in Hitler's Germany with the primary objective of assisting the Nazi military conquest of Europe, yet you cannot really draw any connection between using your computer to discuss topics on this website and Hitler's conquest.

I think you are committing what I call the association fallacy, and what some people call "Hitler's maneuver", where you draw some parallels between some historical events and then proclaim those events similar in some way. For example, "Hitler believed that 2+2=4, and you believe that 2+2=4, hence you are similar to Hitler". This is a major fallacy responsible for a lot of problems in the world.

ZeusAres42

@Vaulk

Just a tip, if you want to make a strong analogy then remember that the more similar the two things are the stronger the analogy is.

Vaulk

@MayCaesar

You're making a false equivalence here.

I've said that Eugenics (Which is an ideology) is the fundamental principle behind the creation of Planned Parenthood which is responsible for the pathway for widespread Birth Control in the United States.

You're attempting to take my instance of identifying an ideology that was used to create an organization and comparing it to an inanimate object (Electronic Computer) that was created by an organization to be used for a specific purpose.  

This is so incredibly wrong on so many accounts.  Computers cannot be limited to one specific ideology because they are multi-purposed things.  Similarly a screwdriver has over a thousand different uses and (Theoretically speaking) if it were designed as a weapon to stab people in the heart...supporting the use of screwdrivers wouldn't equate the support for stabbing people in the heart.  This is completely different from support for a very specific ideology...like "Stabbing people in the hearts with screwdrivers is a good idea".  You've gone out of your way to misrepresent my argument by comparing my reference of Eugenics as an ideology to an organization with a goal or an item originally designed for a purpose.  This is a false equivalence fallacy.

I cannot speak to the use of birth control in other Countries as I don't know enough about their histories, but I fail to see how some other Country and what they've done has any impact on the reasons that birth control is widely accepted in the United States today...if there's a reason that it's important...I didn't see it in your argument.  Failing to include any and all instances of a subject in a debate, despite them originating in any other Country in the world does not mean in any way, shape or form that the debate is flawed, the argument is invalid nor does it mean that an error has occurred...if it did then every argument would be wrong.  You're making the case that this evidence of absence is suggestive that my argument is wrong...a fallacy in itself but not nearly as bad form as your nirvana fallacy.  You speak as if you expect me to have taken into account the birth control history of any and all Countries that might represent an earlier period than the United States and when people began using them.  Am I to admit defeat for my lack of inclusion of other Countries and their path to birth control?

Lastly, Planned Parenthood IS responsible for the widespread use and acceptance of Birth Control in the United States.  I never said it always has been or that birth control was never used prior to Planned Parenthood's march.  There very well may be a valid and critical piece of historical information regarding the use of birth control prior to Margaret Sanger's influence in the United States but neglecting to include it and any other piece of information again...does not constitute a failure on my part nor does it mean that my argument is invalid.  Stating that John created the wheel does not mean that the wheel wouldn't exist today without John having invented it...this is exactly what you're accusing me of.  You're saying that, because I've identified Planned Parenthood as the pathway and progenitor of birth control...then I must be implying that, without Planned Parenthood, we wouldn't have birth control today.  This is a straw man fallacy, I NEVER implied that and if this were coming from anyone but you I would shrug it off as a typical accident as many don't quite understand how they fall prey to these errors...but I've been around long enough to know that you know better.

Vaulk

ZeusAres42 said:

@Vaulk

Just a tip, if you want to make a strong analogy then remember that the more similar the two things are the stronger the analogy is.

No I'm there with you.  I admit I'm not good with analogies and they always sound decent when I think about them and then look abstract or as if I'm "Reaching" when I read them out loud.  I'm working on it.

Plaffelvohfen

@Vaulk

How does supporting abortion equate supporting Eugenics?

To answer this we must establish first that Abortion is Birth Control.  Next we establish that the Birth Control in the United States today is the result of Planned Parenthood................

So many problems in so few words... 

1.  "we must establish first that Abortion is Birth Control"...  False equivalence, misdirection attempt, unsupported...
2.  "Next we establish that the birth control in the US today is the result of PP"... To the question "How does supporting abortion equate supporting Eugenics?", Location (whether you are in the US or not) is irrelevant.. Time (100, 50, 10 years ago, now, or in the future) is irrelevant...  Identity, whether organisational or individual (Planned Parenthood, Red Cross, Sanger, Morgentaler, Benatar, Jesus, Krusty the clown or our moms...) is irrelevant.  All misdirections, false equivalencies, red herrings, etc...I'll call this the fallacy for conciseness sake... 

There was no need to read further (though I did).

Vaulk

Plaffelvohfen said:

@Vaulk

How does supporting abortion equate supporting Eugenics?

To answer this we must establish first that Abortion is Birth Control.  Next we establish that the Birth Control in the United States today is the result of Planned Parenthood................

So many problems in so few words... 

1.  "we must establish first that Abortion is Birth Control"...  False equivalence, misdirection attempt, unsupported...
2.  "Next we establish that the birth control in the US today is the result of PP"... To the question "How does supporting abortion equate supporting Eugenics?", Location (whether you are in the US or not) is irrelevant.. Time (100, 50, 10 years ago, now, or in the future) is irrelevant...  Identity, whether organisational or individual (Planned Parenthood, Red Cross, Sanger, Morgentaler, Benatar, Jesus, Krusty the clown or our moms...) is irrelevant.  All misdirections, false equivalencies, red herrings, etc...I'll call this the fallacy for conciseness sake... 

There was no need to read further (though I did).

1. Abortion is a type of birth control: Additionally, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  This is an argument from ignorance fallacy.
2. Fallacy of Relevance: Taking into consideration the motive, not the claim.  Additionally, when speaking to Abortion in the United States...the historical account of abortion in the United States is relevant, we might just have to agree to disagree.  
3. Appeal to ridicule fallacy: You might not like my argument, but if you limit yourself to ridiculing it instead of arguing it then I suppose we have nothing to debate, I have nothing to learn from you and you have no reason to debate with me.

Thanks for playing.

MayCaesar

@Vaulk

You can support a very specific ideology for multiple reasons, some having absolutely nothing to do with its origins. You cannot connect some ideology's origins to its inherent properties. Hence why I brought up computers as an analogy: the fact that computers' origin is in Nazi Germany does not make, say, modern computers connected to Nazi Germany in any way other than historical.

You need to specify then what exactly you are talking about: abortions in general, or abortions in the US. In the first case, the US can only serve as an illustration of your point, and the point itself cannot depend on any particular country's history. In the second case, you should clarify your title and the beginning of your original post, that does not suggest that you are talking about the US specifically. Lastly, whether you want to talk about the US or not, the fact that abortion and birth control exists everywhere suggests that the specific US history cannot be connected to them and is merely one of the possible pathways to their existence and widespread use.

I think that a lot of these criticisms could be alleviated by just correcting your title properly. The title is the most important piece of any text, and if the title is misleading, then the text is going to be read with some misconception in mind and interpreted differently. That could explain why I am misinterpreting your position.

ZeusAres42

@Vaulk

And basically my point with respect to the abortion debate Eugenics and abortion is really nothing like each other. By the same token, several people often make the weak analogy by claiming that a fetus is the same as a parasite when in fact, they are completely two different things operating in completely different ways. 

In either case, several people just tend to make rationalizations about their positions on abortion whether they be from the pro-choice or the pro-life crowd. My position as always is pro-choice in the sense that I choose not to adopt either dichotomous viewpoints.

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42 ;

I have never heard that analogy here before, who associates a fetus to the parasite?