Abortion: A de-facto eugenic device?

[Thinker]

Was posting on Stormfront today and encountered an article I saw a while ago, but just noticed something new in it this time 'round. So I thought I'd put it here for you eugenics fans to mull over.

Apologies if this has been discussed already.

Data applies to the US:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3422602.html

Some snippets of interest:

Women with incomes below 200% of poverty made up 30% of all women of reproductive age, but accounted for 57% of all women having abortions in 2000: Twenty-seven percent of abortions were obtained by women living below the poverty line, and another 31% by women with incomes of 100-199% of poverty. The concentration of economically disadvantaged women among those having abortions was greater in 2000 than in 1994, when 50% of women obtaining abortions had incomes of less than 200% of poverty.

Abortion rates decreased as income rose, from 44 per 1,000 among poor women to 10 per 1,000 among the highest-income women. In 1994 as well, women with incomes below 200% of poverty had higher abortion rates than higher-income women. However, between 1994 and 2000, rates decreased among middle- and higher-income women, whereas they increased among poor and low-income women.

The abortion rate among college graduates (13 per 1,000) was lower than average; moreover, women with college degrees were the only educational group to show a higher-than-average decline in abortion rates (30%) between 1994 and 2000. The relatively small proportion of pregnancies among college graduates that ended in abortion (21%) and the below-average pregnancy rate account for their low abortion rate. Women with some college had a pregnancy rate that was lower than average, but 38% of their pregnancies ended in abortion in 2000, resulting in the highest abortion rate of any educational group (26 per 1,000).

As an aside, elsewhere on the page it notes that Whites (which I infer are non-Hispanic Whites) have the lowest abortion rates among all US groups.

In a nutshell, it says that women who make the most money and have the highest education have the lowest abortion rates. What's more, their abortion rates have been decreasing during the time period of this study, wheras those of poorer women have actually been increasing.

The low abortion rates among these higher-income and higher-education groups can be largely accounted for the fact that they have lower pregnancy rates than the other groups: Fewer pregnancies = fewer abortions. Nevertheless, the interesting fact that the abortion rates of lower-income groups are nevertheless increasing while American women, as a whole, have been experiencing a decline in abortion rates, indicates than an increasing percentage of American women who have abortions are poorer ones (as my first snippet says).

If poorer (and I assume lower-education) women are aborting their pregnancies not only at *higher* rates, but also at *increasing* rates, do we get some sort of eugenic effect?

Discuss.

[Ahknaton]

It's an interesting finding, but if abortion is immoral then it should not be excused or supported simply because it has eugenic side-effects.

[Felix the Cat]

People obviously screw around more than they did before legal abortion

[sugartits]

I don't think that elective abortion has a significant eugenic effect. The stats show that the lower educated and lower income groups are more sexually irresponsible. They may have more abortions, but I'm pretty sure they have more children as well. It does not matter if they've knocked a few off before choosing not to terminate three or five accidents.

[Thinker]

I don't think that elective abortion has a significant eugenic effect. The stats show that the lower educated and lower income groups are more sexually irresponsible. They may have more abortions, but I'm pretty sure they have more children as well. It does not matter if they've knocked a few off before choosing not to terminate three or five accidents.
Yes, that's true. But without abortion, lower educated and lower income people would have even more children than they do now. So, their proportion in the population would be even greater than they are now. Would this not be considered some sort of "eugenic" effect?

[ZOGsoldier]

The funny part is the lefties love abortion and the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist. She did more to kill minorities than the KKK.

[Niko Bellic]

http://www.blackgenocide.org/

[ZOGsoldier]

http://www.blackgenocide.org/


Damn good site. They provide a rational argument with plenty of Historical proof, but it will be a cold day in hell before the Black Liberals see the light. When they do it will likely be too late, there will be no Black America left and the WNs will have won.

[Ixtab]

Abortion is desirable for the following reasons:

(1) Black mothers are most likely to abort.
(2) Single and underaged mothers are most likely to abort among whites; most criminals have single or underaged mothers.
(3) Pre-natal diagnosis for genetic disorders can be performed, and defective foetuses can be terminated.

[Ixtab]

It's an interesting finding, but if abortion is immoral then it should not be excused or supported simply because it has eugenic side-effects.It isn't immoral. It is moral because it is eugenical.

[shanemac]

From the Wikipedia entry on Margaret Sanger:

Her thoughts on human development were also laden with racism:

It is said that a fish as large as a man has a brain no larger than the kernel of an almond. In all fish and reptiles where there is no great brain development, there is also no conscious sexual control. The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.

LOL... I'd like to see any public figure get away with saying that these days.:rofl:

[ArmedWhiteGirl]

The funny part is the lefties love abortion and the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist. She did more to kill minorities than the KKK.


The fact Margaret Sanger was 'racist" does not make birth control or abortion bad things. And she did not personally "kill" any minorities. She had her character flaws, but her over all contribution to society was very worthwhile.

:thanks:

[Hartmann von Aue]

The birth control and abortion advocates have done more to destroy the European peoples than any other factor.

Whether white women have fewer abortions than minorities means very little if white women still have fewer children than minorities.

Except of course that this judaized society is full of child-murder advocates.

It seems that most WNs outkike the kike on this issue.

[Starr]

The birth control and abortion advocates have done more to destroy the European peoples than any other factor.

Whether white women have fewer abortions than minorities means very little if white women still have fewer children than minorities.

Except of course that this judaized society is full of child-murder advocates.

It seems that most WNs outkike the kike on this issue.


I am not opposed to birth control, per se, i am opposed to the fact that it is not used sensibly, What needs to be addressed is why so many of our people have no interest in starting a family and wanting to have children. Abortion and birth control being an option is not as much the problem as this, though it does encourage irresponsible behaviors.
With something like abortion it should not be completely overturned, but there needs to be some kind of limitations placed on it.

The fact Margaret Sanger was 'racist" does not make birth control or abortion bad things. And she did not personally "kill" any minorities. She had her character flaws, but her over all contribution to society was very worthwhile.

If you are an anti racist does it bother you to know that much of her intent might have been to cut down on what she considered undesirable elements of the population?

[Lieutenant William Bligh]

You know, after reading some of Sanger's comments in her books, I've got to say, I'm in love. The problem is that for abortion to be useful at all, the better peoples ought to have more children.

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

I am against abortion unless as a very last resort. I think sterilization would be a better option for stupid blacks (not all blacks). I believe abortion takes a life.

[OVERWATCH]

I am against abortion unless as a very last resort. I think sterilization would be a better option for stupid blacks (not all blacks). I believe abortion takes a life.

Right... but the question is regarding abortion and it's eugenics utility.

Abortion should be provided free of charge for couples with a mean IQ less than 150. Any higher than that, and abortion should be extremely expensive, unless there is significant risk of major deficiencies in the newborn.

Morals are often useful and good, but in the case of anti-abortion, they stand in the way of much-needed progress, i.e., the depopulation of humankind to sensible levels, and the elevation of our minds (and bodies).

[Starr]

Abortion should be free if the child is going to be born to people who have any severe mental or physical handicaps and also possibly if they have psychological issues or have shown they are very irresponsible and might be incapable of raising the kid properly. Another thing that definitely has to stop is the welfare,etc. that is given to people who have kid after kid, this just encourages these people to breed time and again. I am not sure what an IQ cut off should be for free abortions. 150, for instance seems a little high. I don't really like the thought of providing free abortions to a decent couple who have an average IQ of 130, for example. these are also the kind of people I do believe it should be made more difficult for. If we are talking about an IQ of 90 or something along those lines then yes.

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

I think people who are smart enough to grasp that they aren't perfect are smart enough to reproduce.

But some blacks are so stupid that they can't even grasp the fact that there is such a thing as improvement. Those are the types who should not.

[Starr]

I think people who are smart enough to grasp that they aren't perfect are smart enough to reproduce.

But some blacks are so stupid that they can't even grasp the fact that there is such a thing as improvement. Those are the types who should not.


the problem, today, is that smarter and more responsible people are going to be the ones more likely to choose an abortion or choose just not to get pregnant at all if everything in their life is not percieved to be perfect. The kind of people who plan ahead,etc.

As a couple of people already mentioned in this thread, among those who should not be breeding and do choose to have an abortion at some point are also the ones who make up for it by having a whole tribe of other kids.

[OVERWATCH]

Free abortions for everyone would go a long way towards making abortion eugenic, so that poor people, who are often intellectually dysgenic, would not have to worry about scraping up a few hundred dollars to get the fetus rooted out.