Elon Musk (father of 11) supports their cause. Thousands follow their ideology. Malcolm and Simone Collins are on a mission to make it easier for everyone to have multiple children. But are they really model parents?
Eugenics has always been about genocide against the other. I honestly think if birth control was only available for colored people then conservatives wouldn’t have a problem with it. Abortion too. Liberals and even well meaning progressives will sometimes fall into the trap of pitching abortion and birth control as a part of the solution to poverty. Not realizing that they’re actually saying the poors aren’t allowed to have family.
Edit: I don’t like how I worded this but I’m also finding it hard to express what I’ve observed and the problems I’ve noticed with it. I’m very much for access to birth control and abortion for everyone. The issue I have is when people want to discourage people from having kids if they’re not wealthy as a part of solving poverty. And somehow I get the feeling that the bar is often high for low income black and brown people. Like the aspiration towards progressivism is there but there’s still some unchecked racism and classism leading towards support if eugenics. Not to mention I see a lot of support for out and proud eugenics against disabled people and neurodivergent people.
Liberals and even well meaning progressives will sometimes fall into the trap of pitching abortion and birth control as a part of the solution to poverty.
But access to abortion and BC does help alleviate poverty. When women are unable to choose to not have unwanted pregnancies and children, it does create a serious strain on them and their community, exacerbating poverty and everything associated with it. That isn’t some idealist liberal delusion, it’s very well documented reality.
Edit, adding:
I honestly think if birth control was only available for colored people then conservatives wouldn’t have a problem with it. Abortion too
It’s just the opposite. One of the main reasons reactionaries tend to be so anti-abortion is because forcing women to have unwanted children helps to perpetuate poverty, locking communities into a cycle of impoverishment they can’t escape. Meanwhile, those who are rich and white have access to abortions whether they’re illegal or not, which is by design. If a rich old gammon-chud’s daughter gets pregnant and she doesn’t want to keep it, he’s likely to help her quietly get an abortion even as he ensures people of color never have that kind of opportunity. Wealthy white people want (and generally have) the freedom to do whatever they want while they simultaneously limiting the freedoms of poor BIPOC people, all to maintain or strengthen the white supremacist system.
Liberals will contribute to the creation and maintenance of a economic system that causes poverty and forces certain people to avoid having children, and then throw up their hands and say “it’s very well documented reality” as though they haven’t created the very problem family planning eugenics is intended to alleviate.
To imply that abortion is the cure for poverty or that not having access to it is the cause is indeed false and a typical liberal refusal to look at the broader systems. But to deny how much unwanted pregnancy, along with the health risks and increased mortality rate that come with it, the burden on poor communities to provide adequate care for children when they are already overworked, etc, all contribute to and worsen poverty is absurd, and just as much a failure to recognize material reality.
I think I chose the wrong wording in my original post, I’ll update for clarity but I just wanted to say I agree. I’m by no means against universal access to abortion and birth control. I just see it being talked about in a way that isn’t priotizing the well-being and actual desires of minorities and low income households. And sometimes in the name of outright unashamed eugenics by advocating for abortion if the child would end up being neurodivergent or physically disabled.
I honestly think if birth control was only available for colored people then conservatives wouldn’t have a problem with it. Abortion too.
No, if the poor POC population dries up, so does their cheap labor. But they just want more bourgeois to keep the poors from out-populating them in revolutionary numbers.
But they just want more bourgeois to keep the poors from out-populating them in revolutionary numbers.
I think there are a lot of conservatives that are more scared of being outnumbered than they are scared of missing their labor pool. Especially amongst working class conservatives that see immigrants as competition in the job market.
Of course you’re right, their way of life is sustained in large part by the very people they want to get rid of, which is a huge contradiction.
It’s because the child is viewed as a luxury and an “unnecessary” expense. That’s the message my Texas sex ed module in health class sent. Abstain (rather than cover all forms of birth control) because you’d otherwise have a baby and pay $700 in rent while at minimum wage.
I’ve had this convo with my wife. Birth control is the only solution they are pitching. When we could be looking at affordable housing, affordable childcare, healthcare, funding schools, cheaper college and vocational programs. Then kids wouldn’t feel like a burden.
They’re worried about the non-whites
Eugenics has always been about genocide against the other. I honestly think if birth control was only available for colored people then conservatives wouldn’t have a problem with it. Abortion too. Liberals and even well meaning progressives will sometimes fall into the trap of pitching abortion and birth control as a part of the solution to poverty. Not realizing that they’re actually saying the poors aren’t allowed to have family.
Edit: I don’t like how I worded this but I’m also finding it hard to express what I’ve observed and the problems I’ve noticed with it. I’m very much for access to birth control and abortion for everyone. The issue I have is when people want to discourage people from having kids if they’re not wealthy as a part of solving poverty. And somehow I get the feeling that the bar is often high for low income black and brown people. Like the aspiration towards progressivism is there but there’s still some unchecked racism and classism leading towards support if eugenics. Not to mention I see a lot of support for out and proud eugenics against disabled people and neurodivergent people.
But access to abortion and BC does help alleviate poverty. When women are unable to choose to not have unwanted pregnancies and children, it does create a serious strain on them and their community, exacerbating poverty and everything associated with it. That isn’t some idealist liberal delusion, it’s very well documented reality.
Edit, adding:
It’s just the opposite. One of the main reasons reactionaries tend to be so anti-abortion is because forcing women to have unwanted children helps to perpetuate poverty, locking communities into a cycle of impoverishment they can’t escape. Meanwhile, those who are rich and white have access to abortions whether they’re illegal or not, which is by design. If a rich old gammon-chud’s daughter gets pregnant and she doesn’t want to keep it, he’s likely to help her quietly get an abortion even as he ensures people of color never have that kind of opportunity. Wealthy white people want (and generally have) the freedom to do whatever they want while they simultaneously limiting the freedoms of poor BIPOC people, all to maintain or strengthen the white supremacist system.
Yes, this is the trap.
Liberals will contribute to the creation and maintenance of a economic system that causes poverty and forces certain people to avoid having children, and then throw up their hands and say “it’s very well documented reality” as though they haven’t created the very problem family planning eugenics is intended to alleviate.
To imply that abortion is the cure for poverty or that not having access to it is the cause is indeed false and a typical liberal refusal to look at the broader systems. But to deny how much unwanted pregnancy, along with the health risks and increased mortality rate that come with it, the burden on poor communities to provide adequate care for children when they are already overworked, etc, all contribute to and worsen poverty is absurd, and just as much a failure to recognize material reality.
I think I chose the wrong wording in my original post, I’ll update for clarity but I just wanted to say I agree. I’m by no means against universal access to abortion and birth control. I just see it being talked about in a way that isn’t priotizing the well-being and actual desires of minorities and low income households. And sometimes in the name of outright unashamed eugenics by advocating for abortion if the child would end up being neurodivergent or physically disabled.
No, if the poor POC population dries up, so does their cheap labor. But they just want more bourgeois to keep the poors from out-populating them in revolutionary numbers.
I think there are a lot of conservatives that are more scared of being outnumbered than they are scared of missing their labor pool. Especially amongst working class conservatives that see immigrants as competition in the job market.
Of course you’re right, their way of life is sustained in large part by the very people they want to get rid of, which is a huge contradiction.
It’s because the child is viewed as a luxury and an “unnecessary” expense. That’s the message my Texas sex ed module in health class sent. Abstain (rather than cover all forms of birth control) because you’d otherwise have a baby and pay $700 in rent while at minimum wage.
I’ve had this convo with my wife. Birth control is the only solution they are pitching. When we could be looking at affordable housing, affordable childcare, healthcare, funding schools, cheaper college and vocational programs. Then kids wouldn’t feel like a burden.