Thursday, November 13, 2008

Adam and Jeremy Say: The people have spoken. part 2

Adam Says: Did you know that proportionately black women commit 3 times more abortions that white women… meaning that black women account for nearly 40% of the nations abortions though they represent roughly 15% of the Nations women. I have been thinking about this a great deal lately.
Did you know that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood (pro-abortion education and lobbying group), is a proponent of Eugenics, an archaic theory that espouses the use of select breeding (like dogs) to create a better breed of Human. This is interesting because Eugenics is the same theory that Hitler used to justify annihilating Jews, and people dealing with disabilities. Eugenics was also behind the purposeful sterilization of black men by the U.S. Government in the 30’s and 40’s. Sanger went so far as to say that minorities and poor people were inferior and should use abortion to help strengthen them genetically. We should also mention that by the turn of this Century blacks had been displaced by Hispanics as the largest minority group in America. Now that has a great deal to do with immigration of Hispanics, but you may also draw a correlation between black women’s choice to kill their children and their statistical decline.

Jeremy Says: not sure how we went from a discussion on a current political issue to social trends and race, but I guess there are entwined. if what you say is true, then I think your theory holds validity. what Margaret Sanger said sounds horrible, but is that really where she was coming from? I've been giving people the benefit of the doubt recently, and there is pretty much nothing positive to say about eugenics. this is a tough issue, and one I've never thought about before really. it would seem true that if you tried to cut down on the # of pregnancies between "inferior" people, it would in turn create a society/culture that is less inferior. is that wrong? yes, because God chooses who is really created in this world, and he can use whatever people group he wants, so ultimately there is no human control. is it wrong ethically? yes, if you are using abortion to prevent the birthing of these "inferior" children. but, other than that, it is wrong to want to better society by saying, "hey, if you're not really fit to raise children the way they should be raised, maybe you should consider not having children." it sound gross coming out of my head, but you see what I'm saying? I mean who can honestly tell someone else, "you are inferior, so don't pro-create."? and that's the other issue, according to America all men are created equal, so there is no way to define someone as "inferior", but I think you can make a case of whether or not someone is fit to raise a child. I guess that's the point of social services. there would really be no need for social services if those people would not get pregnant in the first place, and now we are going in circles. this conversation leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and reminds me of issues we talked about in GNED Ethics class. and although, we might know what is right for us, how do we react to people who might disagree, or people who screw up and are asking for help?

Adam Says: I think we are wrong to say that anyone should not have children. The problem is not that poor people or uneducated people are having children, the problem is that we are not creating outlets for these people and their children to expand themselves past the very narrow paradigm the world is trying to keep them in. There are so many people who are willing to help out the poor and less fortunate, but there are very few who are willing to help them become rich and fortunate. Think about social services, they are willing to give you food, and willing to provide health care and education, but are they willing to teach you how skills that you can market to employers? Are they willing to honestly look at the faults in the current public education system and find creative ways to fix them? Are they willing to make health care cheaper instead of just making health insurance for expensive health care available? The problem, as I see it, is not with the people, but instead it is with the approach. You can’t give people food, housing, health care, and money and expect them to want to move out of their current situation. Instead, you must offer people opportunities and let them work their way out of trouble. Does that make sense? Finally, I seriously think that any measure of targeted, state sponsored birth control or baby killing, in the name of making things better or helping lesser classes of people is an offense to God and His Creation and should be stopped.

Jeremy Says: does the state currently sponsor planned parenthood or any other birth control? I see what you are saying about poor people or uneducated people, but what about druggies and deadbeats, etc. that abuse their children through neglect and other harmful parenting practices? that's more of what I was thinking about when saying that you could make a case for those people in their current state not being able to raise a child....or pro create. as far as offering people opportunities to let them work their way out of trouble, I totally agree... do I have any ideas on how to do that or am I qualified to make proposals on how to do that? no. seems there should be some committee or think tank that is in charge of that. I think it would be to much to expect the president to brain storm that whole operation by themselves. as of right now, I think everyone in America is looking to Obama to all of a sudden have these great/creative/inventive ideas that will fix everything. when he was campaigning, I didn't see really anything of substance from him or McCain that convinced me they had any great ideas to fix the things that are messed up...especially without breaking the few things that are working well.

Adam Says: Federal funding does go to operations that we would consider pro-abortion, like planned parenthood. What about druggies and dead beats? I assume both of us are operating under a intensely Christian world view, and as such I believe both of us feel that no one is without hope, so if Christ refuses to give up on a person why would we give up on them? By telling a person they are so awful that they cannot procreate we are essence telling them that they are so hopeless that nothing they could do would be redeeming, and this especially includes having Children.

Jeremy Says: that is crap! how can the government give tax payer money to organizations like planned parenthood?
you're right, we can't really say, "you're worse then me, so you don't have the right to bear children", but i did say "in their current state" it would be a good suggestion/recommendation for those people that they should not do it. and i guess if they are committing crimes against children such as abuse/neglect, then they are simply guilty of that, and should go to jail...which in a way is taking away their right to have kids.

Adam Says: You are an amazing observer, and yet an awful discourser

Jeremy Says: you really think my casual conversational tone is awful discourse?

Adam Says: No. I think your willingness to let your mind give up on issues is awful for discourse.

No comments:

Post a Comment