Question, is population control wrong? I had a similar conversation a few years ago after reading an article about a program (run by private entities) that offered services to sterilize habitual drug addicts and prostitutes. This was a US program and it received hate mail and death threats till it finally decided to nix the program. I found the objections to such a program to be baffling. Life is special and sacred in my opinion and as such should be met with forethought and acceptance of the responsibility it brings. The article I read this morning discusses population assistance to developing or poorer countries. Citing programs such as one that offers a choice of sterilization after after a certain number of children have already been born to the individual(s). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15449959 Again I do not see a problem with offering such services. I see clear advantages to preventing additional unnecessary weight to any family, country, economy. Objections to such voluntary programs? Do you think that we have or will experience serious repercussions due to an enormous population size?
So, your hero must be Gerorge Bernard Shaw? Why wouldn't he be if you are a Marxist Socialists. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQvsf2MUKRQ"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQvsf2MUKRQ[/ame]
Of course not. In the States, we have organizations like Planned Parenthood who ensure the black race remain in check. They even get Federal money.
This has been a Left-wing dream for some time now. Abortion clinics in the American inner city are the front lines in the population control effort. "Eugenics As part of her efforts to promote birth control, Sanger found common cause with proponents of eugenics, believing that they both sought to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit."[70] Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, a social philosophy which claims that human hereditary traits can be improved through social intervention. Sanger's eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded.[71][72] In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating.[73] Although Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve her goals.[74][75][76] In contrast with eugenicists who advocated euthanasia for the unfit,[note 9] Sanger wrote, "we [do not] believe that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding."[77] Similarly, Sanger denounced the aggressive and lethal Nazi eugenics program.[72] In addition, Sanger believed the responsibility for birth control should remain in the hands of able-minded individual parents rather than the state, and that self-determining motherhood was the only unshakable foundation for racial betterment.[74][78] Complementing her eugenics policies, Sanger also supported restrictive immigration policies. In "A Plan for Peace", a 1932 essay, she proposed a congressional department to address population problems. She also recommended that immigration exclude those "whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race," and that sterilization and segregation be applied to those with incurable, hereditary disabilities.[71][72][79]" Race W. E. B. Du Bois served on the board of Sanger's Harlem clinic.[80] Sanger believed that lighter-skinned races were superior to darker-skinned races, but would not tolerate bigotry among her staff, nor any refusal to work within interracial projects.[81] Although Sanger's views on race appear archaic from a modern viewpoint, her contemporaries in the African-American community supported her efforts. In 1929, James H. Hubert, a black social worker and leader of New York's Urban League, asked Sanger to open a clinic in Harlem.[82] Sanger secured funding from the Julius Rosenwald Fund and opened the clinic, staffed with African-American doctors, in 1930. The clinic was directed by a 15-member advisory board consisting of African-American doctors, nurses, clergy, journalists, and social workers. The clinic was publicized in the African-American press and African-American churches, and received the approval of W. E. B. Du Bois, founder of the NAACP.[83] Sanger's work with minorities earned praise from Martin Luther King, Jr., in his 1966 acceptance speech for the Margaret Sanger award.[84] From 1939 to 1942 Sanger was an honorary delegate of the Birth Control Federation of America, which included a supervisory role — alongside Mary Lasker and Clarence Gamble — in the Negro Project, an effort to deliver birth control to poor African Americans.[85] Sanger wanted the Negro Project to include black ministers in leadership roles, but other supervisors did not. To emphasize the benefits of involving black community leaders, she wrote to Gamble "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 quote has been used by numerous Sanger detractors, including Angela Davis and the pro-life movement, to support their claims that Sanger was racist.[86] However, according to New York University's Margaret Sanger Papers Project, Sanger, in writing that letter, "recognized that elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow South, unless clergy and other community leaders spread the word that the Project had a humanitarian aim."[87] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics _
Could you expand on that? Birth control options and offering the option of sterilization who could not afford it otherwise equates to Adolf Hitler or worse how?
I imagine their error was in communicating the voluntary nature of the thing and how it was pitched. The correct method is simply to quitly give planned parenthood funding for it. Now everybodies happy!
Th program (though I sure it promoted its purpose) was to offer an option to not have to worry about having any more unwanted children. It was, of course, completely at the discretion of the individual and I believe there is a current program just like it in existence today in America and Briton. I am not aware that Planned Parenthood offers to pay for tubal ligation or vasectomies. The article I posted is not about drug addicts, it about offering long term or permanent reproductive solutions to poor families who would not be able to pay or have access to such options. Everything I agree with on this subject of course hinges on the services being the choice of the individual accepting the contraceptives or surgeries. To everyone throwing out Hitler, eugenics, socialist, and the other rhetoric. I'm not talking about the promotion of one culture over another (nor do I think I even hinted at such anywhere in my post). I'm talking about funding, education, and services offered in terms of reproduction. Why when offering (making the choice available) more permanent solutions like tubal ligation or vasectomies does everyone get their panties in a bunch?
You mean the Nazi eugenics program. Hitler got the idea from American progressives in the early 20th Century.
