Monday, February 15, 2010

Chapter 4 - Eugenics Gets One Sentence

I'm actually not really enjoying chapter 4 so far. I mean, I agree with the main points Mrs. F-G is making, but frankly, I am tired of reading and thinking about abortion. As a woman who is struggling to get pregnant, and would like nothing better than to be a mother, I have little patience for arguments from people whose claims work like this: A "fetus" is a human being if it's parents or someone else wants it (adoption), but it's not a human being if "no one" wants it and/or it was conceived in less than ideal circumstances, or has "something wrong with it".

I got seven pages into the chapter (pg. 89) when I had to stop reading because I was throwing up a little bit in my mouth. The reason? Well, what else makes one throw up in their mouth other than moral relativism?

"One woman captured the attitudes of many: "I would say my views are true for me, but I can't put that on someone else. I just can't force my truths on other people." How cosmopolitan and liberated of her. Us poor Christian bumpkins sure could learn a thing or two from her about the truth, huh?

"Many other respondents acknowledged inconsistencies in their views, but then fell back on "that's just how I feel." Oh well then, if that's just how she feels, we have to let her walk away with an inconsistent viewpoint about when and how its o.k. to kill human beings, right? I mean, if that's how she feels, she must be correct. *facepalm*

And following right on the heels of the above quoted gem, is this beauty: "Some admitted - privately - that concerns about overpopulation by "poor" and "minority" children influenced their views." Gosh, folks, don't be shy about your desire to eradicate the poor and people of color. No, seriously. You're in good company. Margaret Sanger, you know, the sainted founder of Planned Parenthood, said some similar things.

"Such class-consciousness points to one important reason for promoting birth control for the unfit -- the burden they place on what Sanger, in Pivot, called "the normal and healthy sections of the community." She claims that the healthy classes unduly bear the costs of "those who should never have been born." Indeed, Sanger's movement only took off when the wealthy elite, including the eugenic Rockefeller Foundation, rallied to her side." -Angela Franz

Here is the above quoted article attesting to the same attitude of eugenics and social control by Ms. Sanger and her organization.

Also, this is a short video clip from a longer documentary called Maafa 21, which was created to raise awareness within the African-American community about the eugenic motives of Planned Parenthood. (This is just one clip of about 15.)





Something funny happened on the way through chapter 4: eugenics got one sentence. Perhaps it is because the initial aims of the Sanger/Planned Parenthood movement were birth control and not abortion, Mrs. F-G didn't want to spend any time discussing the eugenic spirit alive and well in these United States. But I'd say that if there are people responding to a study that they support abortion because there are too many poor and minority people, that's cause for alarm. And perhaps, for more than just one sentence.

4 comments:

  1. I agree that when I first started reading the chapter I groaned as she started on abortion. I was at least relieved to read a different outlook on it in the last several pages of the chapter - about how basically our judicial system is basing their decisions on abortion (which is not a right) on economics. I was of course disgusted by this, but it seemed to me she was right, and I was glad to get a break from the moral relativism that, as you point out Sarah, runs rampant!

    I didn't get the feeling that EFG was so much promoting moral relativism as just reflecting it as most people's opinions. I definitely do think it's most people's preferred coping method for hard truths - everyone's entitled to their own opinion, they're all equally valid, and heaven forbid I "judge" someone!

    As for eugenics, now that you point it out, it is strange that she didn't discuss this more. You'd think she'd at least know about it, as she is a researcher. But (at least at this point in her career) she hasn't connected the dots (or isn't willing to).

    Have you ever seen the whole Maafa 21? I want to, but haven't gotten around to it yet. If I watched all 15 parts, would that be the entire thing? (I haven't tried yet because I'm a little bit afraid it will make me really upset!)

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm definitely late to the game on this one. I have no idea what EFG's real position on the whole thing really is, but she seems to still be buying in to some of the lies, even if she doesn't fully stand behind abortion. I hate that it all just refers to new life as "reproduction". I can't for the life of me understand how depriving women of our unique role in bearing life is better and more liberating for us. I absolutely cannot believe our hubris in thinking that we are going to be better off if we decide how our sex lives will be and that the fact that it's not working out so well for us now is because we still haven't shed our traditionalistic moral bindings.

    ReplyDelete
  4. thought I'm behind on my reading I thought I'd add my two cents on something here.

    Moral relativism seems to be looked down on here, and I find that odd that some of us are so quick to judge those who do not wish force their beliefs on others. I would remind us about casting stones. Obviously these people she's quoting do not have perfectly formed opinions about the topics at hand and so they admit to such by saying as much as "at this moment this what I believe, but because I cannot give a strong answer I can not force it on another"

    As to "I can't force my truths on other people", many of us "Christian Bumpkins" could learn a little from that statement in general if not towards the actually topic as our Bible calls us to help those around discover our "truths" by leading good lives and setting a good example, not by forcing our beliefs down the throats of those who are not willing or ready to hear.

    "Many other respondents acknowledged inconsistencies in their views, but then fell back on "that's just how I feel." - Even each of our religions/denominations have inconsistencies because people are not perfect and as I said previously, you convince more people of your cause the less forceful you are (vinegar vs. honey) so I would have to say that yes, sometime you do just have to let them walk away.

    ReplyDelete