Jamiet the master of the selective quote. we have on this thread someone supporting infanticide of the disabled. I write a post around eugenics and Sanger and the cherry picker goes to work.

fulhamish, you've never answered the questions I've posed to you. How am I a supporter of eugenics? When have I ever advocated for eugenics?

Did you finish reading that article?

Yes. It's twelve years old and presupposes that abortion is wrong and that abortion motivated by reason of wanting not to have a child with a disability is especially wrong. That's all fine and dandy, but I don't see its relevance here.

You missed out completely the context of the disabled, abortion and eugenics. It is there and you barely have to skim read to find it. You also missed the point that it is authored by a disabled person and contains multiple references to Down's syndrome and those who it affects. Interesting isn't it that among the most strident pro-life voices are those arising from the disabled and the ethnic minorities. Less heard, but just as relevant are women who are concerned about gendercide. Indeed I urge all men to speak to their female friends/wives/mothers/daughters on this subject. They might get a response that surprises them - I know that I did.

Why do you make the point of its publication date?

No, I got the context and all that. It still presupposes that abortion is wrong, so it didn't really do much for me.

I also fail to see how it proves that I am a eugenics supporter, however. Which is why I asked you to define eugenics and show how my posts demonstrate that I meet the criteria you yourself would set out in that definition. I note that this is something you have as of yet failed to do.

I point out its publication date because it is specifically critical of medical practices from its time—practices which might not be in place at this time.

"Interesting isn't it that among the most strident pro-life voices are those arising from the disabled and the ethnic minorities."

Not particularly interesting. Additionally, I am an ethnic minority, and I am not a pro-lifer.

Why is your default position to ignore an article that presupposes the opposite of what you believe ('wrong' as you put it)? I have read plenty of articles that presupposes abortion is 'right '(presumably that is your position). We all must battle with confirmation bias, but it appears as though you are not even open to the possibility.
When you say it is not interesting that disabled people, black people, women (context gendercide), often express strong pro-life positions it does display perhaps a lack of sympathy or even empathy. Eugenics and abortion in those contexts have indeed been strongly linked in the past (ref. Margaret Sanger) and many (including me) believe in the present too - that is the answer to your question. I have put it in so many different ways I do hope that you have got it now.

It's not my default position to "ignore" the article. All I'm saying is that I'm unmoved because there is not yet any justification for the ground on which it stands. Pro-choice articles which presuppose the opposite—that abortion is right—are just as unhelpful.

When I say it's not interesting that the "most strident" pro-lifers are people with disabilities and ethnic minorities, I do so because I think it's not a novel concept. Beyond that, it's an unsupported premise—what proof have you offered aside from the few anecdotes in that article?—and in no way engages with anything we were talking about.

"Eugenics and abortion in those contexts [abortion being a tool to remove marginalised minorities] have indeed been strongly linked in the past (ref. Margaret Sanger) and many (including me) believe in the present too - that is the answer to your question. I have put it in so many different ways I do hope that you have got it now."

That is decidedly not the answer to my question. I asked what your definition of eugenics is and how you can fit the things I've posted into those categories. Your responses have been to post an article that is at best tangentially related and to ignore the very specific questions I asked.

But I believe I understand your position. You think that abortion is commonly used as a tool of eugenics, and that supporters of abortion might have closet eugenicist thinking. This is silly and erroneous reasoning. Just because eugenicists support the use of abortion doesn't mean everyone who supports the use of abortion is a eugenicist.

At last some common ground, well a little, ''You think that abortion is commonly used as a tool of eugenics, and that supporters of abortion might have closet eugenicist thinking.''

Yes absolutely, have you seen the figures on Down's Syndrome births? I ask you bluntly are you supportive of the decline? Forgive the blunt question, but you on record as being a qualified supporter of infanticide. Would that, for example, encompass, Down's births? Unexpected genders? Dark skins? Where do you draw the line? And would you draw the line in a different place before and after birth, if so why?

These are questions that we must as a society face up to. Fetal genetic testing is getting ever more sophisticated and non-invasive. Does choice encompass, for example IQ, how about flat feet? I could go on and on, but I trust that you get my point. Eugenics and abortion are not as easily partitioned as you suggest and this issue will become more acute as time progresses.

In passing In have mentioned gendercide several times now and you studiously avoid responding. If you want to leave that is fine, but I am interested to hear your views on the rights and wrongs of this large scale practice (hopefully without a wishy washy plea to education).

"Yes absolutely, have you seen the figures on Down's Syndrome births? I ask you bluntly are you supportive of the decline?"

I have not seen the figures on Down's Syndrome births, but if they are on the decline, I am supportive of this. Would you rather an increase?

"Forgive the blunt question, but you on record as being a qualified supporter of infanticide. Would that, for example, encompass, Down's births? Unexpected genders? Dark skins? Where do you draw the line? And would you draw the line in a different place before and after birth, if so why?"

It's up to the parents in consultation with doctors.

"Eugenics and abortion are not as easily partitioned as you suggest and this issue will become more acute as time progresses."

As of yet, you have not provided a definition of eugenics. My understanding of it is that it involves macro-level policies specifically aimed at some sort of genetic purity or specific genetic outcome. That is to say, the goal of eugenics is to make a stronger human race, and the means of achieving this involves an element of strong state coercion.

Abortion as I see it practised is the individual decision of individual women, and as such, has no broader societal aim. Even if you believe, as I think you do, that doctors coerce women into having an abortion, this does not mean that there is any macro-level policy aimed at purifying the human race. Even the justifications given in the article you linked do not approach eugenics; they are typically framed in terms of how difficult life will be for an individual family or for an individual.

"In passing In have mentioned gendercide several times now and you studiously avoid responding. If you want to leave that is fine, but I am interested to hear your views on the rights and wrongs of this large scale practice (hopefully without a wishy washy plea to education)."

The motivations of a particular abortion might be suspect, but I don't see this as a justification for prohibiting the practice entirely. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater (or placenta!). Ultimately, the decision is that of the mother, and it's not up to me to prevent it from happening. If you would like to stop women from aborting girls, then simply prohibit the tests for gender or prohibit doctors from revealing the results of the test. Of course, this should also be supplemented with education and/or a strong welfare state, but that's another matter entirely.

Fact Check: Was Planned Parenthood Started To 'Control' The Black Population?

http://tinyurl.com/o3wjtmg

You and your tinyurls. You're getting almost as bad as bo.

I haven't used TinyURL in a long time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fertility-clinics-destroy-embryos-all-the-time-why-arent-conservatives-after-them/2015/08/13/be06e852-4128-11e5-8e7d-9c033e6745d8_story.html

"Both IVF and abortion involve the destruction of fertilized eggs that could potentially develop into people. But only abortion concerns women who have had sex that they don’t want to lead to childbirth." - parity, there is not...

@ orathaic
"parity, there is not..."
No, there is not, and this is a Bad Thing.

"IVF patients make less-attractive targets because we don’t challenge the expectation that women want to be mothers."
And this is a failing of the pro-life crowd. To the extent that the pro-life message depends on emotional appeal, it's much harder to sell banning the death of embryos that don't have any tell-tale signs of human anatomy or physiological functioning than it is to sell banning abortion. There may be, then, strategic reasons for pushing the debate on abortion rather than on IVF embryos, though I can't particularly see any logical ones. (I will leave aside the "going after the poor and downtrodden" argument, which may be an accurate description for some but not for me or anyone I know.) I'm especially mystified by those who oppose abortion but ACTIVELY SUPPORT donation of IVF embryos to researchers. I fail to see how that can be a compelling position. (I'm not sure how numerous holders of that position are, but I've encountered their opinions before, and I'm sure they haven't disappeared in the meantime.)

To be fair, there ARE a lot of pro-life folks (myself included) who want to ban the destruction of embryos that are created through IVF, since it's essentially abortion by another name. I don't care if it's the only apparent/available option to overcome infertility and the couple needs to conceive far more than they intend to bring to birth, and I don't buy the "there's nothing more to be done with them after the parent couple is finished having all the children they want, and you wouldn't want these embryos going to waste when there's so much good that can be done with them, would you, hmmmmmm?" argument. Of course I wouldn't want them going to waste. Who would? But if John and Jane Doe are going to put together multiple children in a controlled and asexual environment, then John and Jane are just as responsible for those children (and seeing that they are raised either by John and Jane themselves or by someone else who wants them) as John and Jane would be if they had conceived multiple children by the usual sexual means. The fact that they made more children than they planned to raise themselves--by whatever means--does not relieve them of the responsibility to actually see that their children are properly cared for. The power to donate away their children for the purposes of scientific research--irrespective of its convenience or its potential to lead to some breakthrough in some branch of knowledge in the future--should certainly not be granted to them.

" then John and Jane are just as responsible for those children "

They are not children, they are unimplanted embyros.

Without IVF they may create many embryos who fail to implant (depending on the specifics of their fertility issue) each one being flushed out of Jane's body when she menstrates.

Many couples have difficulty conceiving, and go months before managing to produce a successful pregnancy. (In ireland i is three miscarriages or two full years before they go investigate) and that will, again, likely result in many unimplanted embryos being washed out of the body.

Women on the contraceptive pill may still ovulate, but their body prevents implantation. Women who take the morning after pill get a triple does of that same drug which prevents implantation. Again, many thousands of uninplanted embryos being washed away.

I don't understand why you don't see the same level of campaiging in these cases. Or better still campaign for better nutrition so poor womb have a smaller chance of miscarrying. Is there any pro-life people campaigning to improve quality of life for pregnant women? Or for the children after they are born?

If you don't consider the quality of life of the born and pregnant women worth campaigning for, then you are not pro-life. You are merely anti-woman, and pro-poverty. If you think unimplanted embryos are actually a bigger issue then you have serious problems with how you sort out your priorities, imo.

There is a difference between abortion and IVF, and that is the intent of the service user. This makes a much bigger difference to the campaign than the biological facts;

All of your following postions depend on them being children, which they are clearly not. But if the parents abandon the 'child' whose responcibility is it to raise them? If any parent abandons a child - which may infact be in the best interest if the child, and/or a sign of post-natal depression... Who? If the state then surely you are arguing for government sponsored surrogacy for all frozen embryos; who are then raised in state run institutions, unless adopted.

Have you any other option?? Would that have the potential to do more harm in the long run? Is my solution the logical conclusion to your position?

@ orathaic

"Or better still campaign for better nutrition so poor womb have a smaller chance of miscarrying. Is there any pro-life people campaigning to improve quality of life for pregnant women? Or for the children after they are born?"
There are a lot of charitable groups that are based in churches and otherwise religiously-motivated. There are a lot of adoption agencies that are faith-based. More would be nice and doing a more-publicized job would be nice, but there are groups doing (trying to do) this work. I don't know if they're particularly focused on improving nutrition for the poor so as to reduce the likelihood of miscarriage (or even if such a tactic would necessarily produce the desired effect), but if it's likely to make an improvement, then it's a good idea.

"If you don't consider the quality of life of the born and pregnant women worth campaigning for, then you are not pro-life. You are merely anti-woman, and pro-poverty."
I would basically agree with this.

"There is a difference between abortion and IVF, and that is the intent of the service user. This makes a much bigger difference to the campaign than the biological facts;"
To what "campaign" are you referring?

"But if the parents abandon the 'child' whose responcibility is it to raise them? ... If the state then surely you are arguing for government sponsored surrogacy for all frozen embryos; who are then raised in state run institutions, unless adopted."
I would think the most likely scenario would be leaving them cryogenically stored and preserved (which is already the default interim status anyway) until their adoption. If they reach the limit of their viability without having been adopted, then I could perhaps be persuaded that donating them for scientific research might be acceptable. But if so, they would have to have gone inviable on their own and not because the cryopreservation was intentionally halted. And if there are "too many" children (or too many "children") for this to be practical, then I have some serious concerns about whether the current manner of practicing IVF is altogether ethical and wonder whether improvements in freezing eggs (rather than embyros) isn't a more acceptable way to go -- even if it is currently more expensive..

The last thing I will say is an additional point with respect to intent. I have no moral objections to natural terminations per se. If there are ways to reduce the number of failed implantations or miscarriages, then they're worth pursuing. But it shouldn't be obscured that there's a huge difference between natural terminations and induced and intentional terminations. Unless there is a clear danger to the life of the mother (as in, for example, ectopic pregnancies), then I have a HUGE moral problem with terminations that are decided upon and purposely instigated by people.

@"But it shouldn't be obscured that there's a huge difference between natural terminations and induced and intentional terminations. "

This goes back to what i said about intent. There is a campaign to control women's bodies, but there is no campaign to stop IVF.

I would propose that, to the campaigners, the intent of IVF is acceptable, because these women are using their bodies in what is considered an appropriate way.

You will note that i'm assuming the campaigners are not that interested in actual embryos destroyed, but more in the mother's behaviour and what is appropriate.

(It should also be said that *some* miscarriages could be prevented with improved nutrition, not all; not necessarily most - the % involved would depend on the current quality of nutrition, for example many of the poorest african countries or north korea may suffer worse than the US or EU does)

You have a valid point about charitable organisations, though there again we have a disparity - the campaign against abortion is one for legal action, ie state intervention. Meanwhile the campaign to reduce poverty is one for personal choice and charitable donations; not state action (which through forced redistribution of wealth would curtail choice - just like banning abortion would curtail choice; the difference being curtailing the choice of wealthy white men vs curtailing the choice of poor mylti-ethnic women)

If the campaigners do care more about embryos than women's choice and empowerment; then they would also pursue whatever esucational strategy leads to the biggest reduction in unintended pregnancies.

The evidence shows that comprehensive sex ed in schools tesults in fewer unwanted pregnancies and this fewer abortions than abstinence only sex ed. So thise organisations (and i'm not saying you are a member of them, but they exist) which promote laws regarding abstinence only sex ed are clearly more interested in controlling women's ability to choose when and how to raise a family (or indeed if they wish to raise a family).

So again i submit my position that the intention of IVF makes a big difference in tese campaigners minds. Not the effect of destroying embryos. It is a political cause, against the empowerment of women.

Now i don't hold frozen embryos in the same esteem that you do. But i agree a line must be drawn somewhere when it comes to abortion. You seem to be ok with natural terminations (there is no need to campaign if the women is going to choose to do whatever she can to keep the pregnancy, right?) but look at cultures where infanticide is 'normal' where it not only happens but is an evolutionary stable strategy.

I am of course talking about cultures where the kill and eat babies just after birth because they can't afford to (breast)feed them at that point in time. This is a 'natural' human behaviour in such circumstances. And those cultures value the life and health of the mother over that of the new born. If the mother gets sick and dies due to malnutrition then the baby and possibly other children will also die. Thus it is evolutionary stable to kill some babies (eatin them also makes sense to recover the lost nutritional investment of the mother) - obviously contraception would be preferable to this, but that is not 'natural' or naturally available.

Now where does this occur? Where is the line drawn after birth? Well it is across a number of cultures which have the same problem. But it is largely a feature of groups living very near the arctic circle (inuits?) where food supply can be scarce.

Within this context, baby-eating is natural and by the relative morals of their culture a moral good. I don't know from where you derive your moral values, but in our 'western' culture there is a common understanding that abortion is bad and should be avoided if possible (i live in ireland where it is illegal in almost all circumstaces) Even were it isfreely available, most women don't choose a surgical option ligthly. I don't see a problem with this value system; or why we need state action to curtail it.

Those individuals who believe an embryo is a child will not choose to abort their's an those who do not share these values will not be forced to follow the other's personal morality.

Where do we draw the line? That is a question worth discussing (everyone agrees we should draw it somewhere). But whether we should enforce our morals on others tha is a question of freedom.

I stand by my position that quality of life should be given higher consideration than it is, and this no child should be brought into this world by a mother who would have chosen to abort - had she been given the option. My main concern being the quality of life of that potential child.

I don't advocate baby-eating, but i do believe i is the natural behaviour for some humans. In that sense the unnatural intervention of aborting a fetus (note not talking embryos here) may be preferable.

I also have very complex long boring opinions on this subject that are of no consequence to anyone ever. Oh boy I could go on allllllllll day!

Thought for the day: You can't have everything. Where would you put it?

I am unclear how groups of savages eating babies is remotely relevant, unless it is to make the idea that those campaigning against abortion are motivated by a desire to control women sound relatively sensible.

Is it right for society to impose morality upon others? Of course it is. Shared morality, more than anything else, is what society actually is. Without the imposition of morality there would be no society.

It is ridiculously unhelpful to invent bogus motivations of the other side in order to make your own position seem more righteous. There are very few bad guys in this debate. Almost all are those who wish to wish to protect people unable to protect themselves.

The point was that some things are natural, and it is human intervention with which we have a problem. (Natural miscarriage vs intentional abortion)

Specifically you can look at the case where a pregnant woman could attempt to starve herself to induce a 'natural miscarriage'. The only difference between that and 'accidental starvation' is the intent. And i am claiming there are those who don't care about poverty, but do campaign against abortion. They have pretty messed up priorities.

I have never understood the division between what is considered natural and what isn't. Humanity and human intent is as much a part of nature as anything else.

I know of no one who doesn't care about poverty. I do know that no one can solve all the problems of the world. We all prioritize, and our priorities are based on our own experience and circumstances. There are many things in this world I consider obscene, but people dedicated to saving what they consider to be human babies is not one of them.

I was that 'natural' occurance ( where i define natural behaviour as an stable strategy which evolution can produce ) to highlight the fact that what is 'natural' isn't necessarily better than the alternative. I believe equating natural with good is a falshood; not that i'm claiming anyonehere has done so, but that it is done regularily (look at the advertising of food companies )

In that sense, i would advocate medical intervention. Likewise i would advocate social intervention to improve the quality of life of the most impoverished. Yes, i admit it, i am a socialist.

Again, i will point out, that if your actual goal was to reduce the number of abortions (deaths in your language) you would support comprehensive sex ed. Yet there is a vocal and politically active group which does both anti-abortion campaigning AND abstinence only sex ed campaigning.

These are the groups whose intentions i am questioning.

That should read *I was raising that 'natural' occurrence...

I feel I should restate at this point that I am in favour of abortion being allowed. Indeed, I think the system as it stands in the UK is about right and my view hasn't really changed since I first realised I had one around a decade ago.

There has been a fundamental change in the debate over that time, however. When I first started paying attention the anti-abortion side seemed to spearheaded by a group of extremist lunatics who painted the pro-choice crowd as murders and refused to even consider the most mild and reasonable arguments. The pro choice group, by contrast, appeared reasonable, caring, and allied with scientific opinion.

The lunatic wing of the antiabortion group still exists, although they are not as prominent as they used to be and don't really feature on this website. The disturbing change is that the pro choice group seem to be developing a lunatic wing of their own. Attitudes have hardened, more extreme positions have been adopted, the revolting habit of painting the other side as monsters has been adopted with great enthusiasm, and despite being firmly on that side of the fence I can't for the life of me make any sense of half of our arguments.

The abortion debate has deteriorated rapidly much to the disservice of those who are impacted, and I find that extremely saddening.

Not that it much matters, but I'll just put out there that my definition of "natural termination" was one that occurred without the involvement of human agency. As for whether "natural" is constituted by "an equilibrium or other stable system produced by evolution," that's quite a different subject. As is the discussion about infanticide and cannibalism in certain societies -- at least with respect to my mention of "natural terminations." With respect to the topic of "where do we draw the line?" it is, of course, quite ON topic.

And i think the 'mothers health' (as it pertains to nutrition) being the justification where this occurs.

I guess i might claim that 'where you draw the line' depends on other circumstances, like the amount of risk to the life/health of the mother.

But if you are willing then to consider these other effects, then calling for government programs to improve nutrition of pregnant women and new borns makes perfect 'pro-life(quality of life) sense.

Then again you need to draw a line somewhere - ie how much government handouts are suitable (in general that discussion extends to free education, but that is a different question)

( NB: I am not calling infanticide a kind of 'natural termination')

The newest Planned Parenthood video discusses the dissection of living babies, and shows a moving baby in a petrie dish.

How do people feel about this?

My views have changed over the years. I have been reluctantly persuaded on the rape and incest points that sometimes abortion is the pragmatic way to go. I do however, balk at the barbarity of the dismemberment second trimester and upwards abortions. This is a barbarity for allconcerned, including the wider society. As a man, however, it is difficult to be dogmatic. I would however take 12 weeks as the maximum upper limit. And perhaps have a guideline if foetal heartbeat, I believe around 6 weeks. Certainly abortion of 20 plus week babies is pornographic in the extreme while their contemporaries are placed in incubators.