Posted on 11/16/2014 6:29:11 AM PST by rktman
In the early years of the 20th Century, the “science” of eugenics spread across America, from pulpits to statehouses, with religious zeal.
The underlying premise of the eugenics movement was that the undesirable traits of parents would invariably be passed on to their children. While the scientific basis for this assumption had little data to support its conclusions, the new “science” was quickly embraced by the American progressive movement and many of the wealthy.
Early funding for eugenics projects came from such wealthy Americans as John Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, and oil magnate and founder of the 3-in-1 Oil Company, James Noah H. Slee, the second husband of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. The term eugenics was coined by Sir Francis Galton, a British anthropologist, progressive and scientist. The Galton family were prosperous Quakers who made their fortune in manufacturing guns.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The Green Party’s main goal is to make the entire planet green again as in no people. Green products are nothing compared to their stated goals of planetary genocide. Read their platform. People aren’t in it except they are of course.
Thank you for your shrill, knee-jerk, arrogant, condescending, and twisted representation of what I wrote. I said it would be pursuant to a court. That means there had been a crime perpetrated against another person. Who? The baby that person had gestated while taking dangerous drugs or knowingly inflicting a fatal disease and producing a child for the purposes of sharing suffering or without regard to sufffering. That is a crime against the child AND the people who pay for the consequences. Considering the magnitude, that perpetrator should be imprisoned. I am suggesting instead that he or she should be tried, and if found guilty, sterilized. There is no violation of due process suggested here. You have been a jerk.
Misrepresentation? Did you or did you not advocate for involuntary sterilization? YES or NO
I said it would be pursuant to a court. That means there had been a crime perpetrated against another person.
No, you are advocating for the taking of freedom where no crime has been committed although you suspect that one MIGHT be in the future.
The baby that person had gestated while taking dangerous drugs or knowingly inflicting a fatal disease and producing a child for the purposes of sharing suffering or without regard to sufffering. That is a crime against the child AND the people who pay for the consequences.
Again, at best you have a SUSPICION that this might happen in a pregnancy and for that you want to involuntarily sterilize someone. And I still find your reference to the "people" paying for it as bizarre.
Moreover, the notion that people who MIGHT pass on genetic traits that some find objectionable or undesirable has been pushed for well over a century by people like you, it's called EUGENICS. Some major proponents have included the Darwin-Huxley family, Margaret Sanger, Hitler and John Maynard Keynes (who also thought of all money as belonging to the "people").
Just out of curiosity, what do you think the reaction will be when eugenicists once again decide that entire classes of people are no longer permitted to be born?
Considering the magnitude, that perpetrator should be imprisoned.
Yes, a mother who takes drugs, etc. and endangers the life of her unborn baby SHOULD be imprisoned. But, that's not what you're advocating, you advocate for the woman to be sterilized because you THINK she might endanger the baby.
I am suggesting instead that he or she should be tried, and if found guilty, sterilized. There is no violation of due process suggested here.
The belief that a woman MIGHT endanger a baby IF she becomes pregnant DOES NOT constitute a crime.
You have been a jerk.
People who push evil agendas like eugenics tend to bring that out in me.
No. In what I am saying, a crime HAS been committed. Pursuant to a pregnancy delivering such a child, AFTER having committed said acts against it, the prosecution would commence to preclude another should that person fail to do so voluntarily. It is a penalty for a crime to prevent another.
Yes, and among the "crimes" for which you advocate sterilization is the POTENTIAL for a baby having certain genetic characteristics which you disapprove of or for two people whose child MIGHT have a genetic condition which some might consider undesirable.
Just curious, will there be some sort of commission that determines which traits are "undesirable"? Will they all have blonde hair and blue eyes or will some "lesser" types be thrown in for good measure?
It is a penalty for a crime already committed, one that is appropriate to the crime and focuses limited resources on the kid that is already here.
Just curious, will there be some sort of commission that determines which traits are "undesirable"?
It is obvious to a physician when a child has fetal alcohol syndrome. I am certain that a second or third opinion would not be difficult; they have plenty of time for observation in the NICU at $50,000 per day and goodness knows how much over that child's lifetime. It is obvious when two people with cystic fibrosis have a child and had been counseled against doing it in their medical chart. It is obvious when a crack baby shows drugs in their blood. At that point, charges should be filed. Should they be found guilty, such is the penalty. It beats putting them in jail for a crime that, considering its magnitude, should otherwise have them incarcerated for a very long time. Would you prefer that?
Stick your projected NAZI fantasies where they belong. Your covetousness of other people's money with which to fund your breast-beating is more than evident.
*****************************
You and others may believe that two people with CF might be advised to consider the implications of having a child given the chance of that child having CF, but that is a far cry from making it a crime and sterilizing them. How is not being born better? There is always the posibility of a cure.
Man is not God.
Prognosis[edit]
The prognosis for cystic fibrosis has improved due to earlier diagnosis through screening, better treatment and access to health care. In 1959, the median age of survival of children with cystic fibrosis in the United States was six months.[93] In 2010, survival is estimated to be 37 years for women and 40 for men.[4] In Canada, median survival increased from 24 years in 1982 to 47.7 in 2007.[94]
Of those with cystic fibrosis who are more than 18 years old as of 2009, 92% had graduated from high school, 67% had at least some college education, 15% were disabled and 9% were unemployed, 56% were single and 39% were married or living with a partner.[95] In Russia the overall median age of patients is 25, which is caused by the absence or high cost of medication and the fact that lung transplantation is not performed.[96]
Source: Wikipedia
We can all die at any time. Vast improvements have been made in the treatment and quality of life of those with CF. Those improvements might never have been made if we had simply given up and sterilized those who carry the gene.
There you go with the whole "limited resources" mantra that's invariably brought out by eugenicists.
It is obvious to a physician when a child has fetal alcohol syndrome. I am certain that a second or third opinion would not be difficult; they have plenty of time for observation in the NICU at $50,000 per day and goodness knows how much over that child's lifetime.
So, you consider it impossible that a woman can turn her life around and give birth to a healthy baby later?
It is obvious when two people with cystic fibrosis have a child and had been counseled against doing it in their medical chart. It is obvious when a crack baby shows drugs in their blood. At that point, charges should be filed. Should they be found guilty, such is the penalty.
So, you consider having cystic fibrosis or any other condition that medicine counsels against to be a "crime"?
Stick your projected NAZI fantasies where they belong.
The only fantasies here are the ones that YOU have about bringing back eugenics.
Your covetousness of other people's money with which to fund your breast-beating is more than evident.
So, opposing involuntary sterilization in people with certain genetic conditions is "coveting other people's money"?
The child committed no crime before the forced sterilization of the mother.
Carry-okie, you are as staunch an advocate for eugenics as has ever graced this forum.
I have archived this thread to my hard drive for future reference.
I'm still trying to understand how having cystic fibrosis is a crime. And if it is a crime, what's to stop the Erbgesundheitsgerichte eugenics board from adding other conditions such as nearsightedness or skin color.
Carry-okie, you are as staunch an advocate for eugenics as has ever graced this forum.
In all fairness, there was a troll several years ago who actually used the phrase "three generations of imbeciles are enough," and meant it.
It's comforting to know that you don't take enough interest in your wife's work to know that NICU stands for Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. I hope that means you have nothing in common with her. It would be tragic for children in NICU to have any contact with someone who views them as diseases who should have been prevented.
I can't believe you could think your genocidal views on eugenics would gain any acceptance here. How did you ever come to entertain such thoughts, much less embrace them?
That is fascinating! illuminati to the core.
“As I get older the difference I see is that the advocates for one need to be slid through a wood chipper into a pig trough, where as the advocates for the other need to be drenched in napalm and catapulted into a blast furnace.”
As the Holiday season approaches, it is so very nice to observe compassionate conservatism overflowing.
;-)
Life is an IQ test. Note China has not sanctioned reproduction of mental deficients for many generations.
Note also that the Chinese also have a higher average IQ than Americans, and that was before we started importing low IQ Latrinos and subsidizing reproduction of the urban blacks dwelling in the shallow end of the IQ pool.
‘Tis a quandry - what is the value of a Stephan Hawking versus a population of ‘droolers’? Questions, questikons.
Most perplexing question: Who decides - government with subsidies or parents?
I have compassion for babies. People who would kill them outright, or who would forcibly sterilize prospective parents because the kids could be less than perfect need killing.
Eugenics is evil every time it’s suggested.
I am real comfortable with that assertion.
“Stick your projected NAZI fantasies where they belong. Your covetousness of other people’s money with which to fund your breast-beating is more than evident.”
Perhaps the Yiddish shtick of “With your gelt and my guilt, we can do great things.” is more descriptive?
“Those improvements might never have been made if we had simply given up and sterilized those who carry the gene.”
I really must insert into this thread an observation. Carry_Okie and others, including myself, are rising the issue that with modern medical testing, a catastrophic genetic disease can usually be spotted long before birth.
There is another, and closely related issue, specifically that parents who deliberately birth children with genetic diseases usually ask, make that demand, that others pay for their child’s medical bills.
Why should I be billed for the raising of a child I neither fathered nor wanted? I
Is not such a tax in the same realm of oppression as taxing me for another religion which I do not believe in?
Had we not allowed government into medical charity, this issue would not exist.
Looks like the Founders were correct when they severely limited government.
Put me in a room with one hundred of these elitist jerks, selected at random, and I’ll me more intelligent that at least 99.99999% of them.
Just remember what Churchill said about liberals. If a person reaches 40 and is still a liberal, they have no brain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
