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 ...
Personally, I think any crime that might suggest castration as a possible punishment should simply be considered a capital offense.
I have been very clear about this and this is yet another deliberate misconstruction of what I posted.
I advocated the sterilization of persons with genetic defects listed as catastrophic to the child, who had then chosen, after have been advised of such, to produce that child. Once that kid is born, they should be charged, prosecuted, and if found guilty, then punishment should be exacted. You are correct that this is not listed as a statutory crime. I am stating that it should be.
Obviously, you fail to see the difference.
Obviously, you have chosen to neglect the difference.
Forced sterilization was ABSOLUTELY used by eugenicists in the United States and elsewhere.
Guns were used for murder too. That does not make what I proposed to be eugenics.
I agree. I did not advocate that.
Seems to me that as soon as one even begins to weigh societal resources, needs, and benefits against the reproductive capability of the individual person, they have stepped onto the Utilitarian slippery slope that ultimately leads to such things as cattle cars, gas chambers, and crematoria.
I said it was a slippery slope. Perhaps you should read the post to which you are replying more carefully.
Because not only does one then begin to play God, to substitute flawed, short-sighted human understanding and will for God’s will, they find themselves running smack up against one of God’s most important positive commands to all men: “Be fruitful and multiply,” a command that has never been revised or rescinded.
Now I am certain you did not read the post, as I cited the English for p'ru ur'vu as found in Genesis 1:28. "Being fruitful" does not include robbing sustenance and support from the parents of other children. There are thousands of children in this world who will die without that support. Because of our technology and the illegally forced pooling of financial resources capable of being expended on any one case (our lack of meekness before the Lord if you will), we have very difficult choices to make. That's just how things are.
And once we accept the premise that such a list is permissible, what will stop its expansion?
Eugenicists have already tried this and the best known (though not deadliest) result was the Holocaust.
Once that kid is born, they should be charged, prosecuted, and if found guilty, then punishment should be exacted. You are correct that this is not listed as a statutory crime. I am stating that it should be.
The eugenicists have also done this before, the Nazis called it the "Marriage Health Law" and it well parallels your beliefs.
Guns were used for murder too. That does not make what I proposed to be eugenics.
Are you totally unaware of the eugenic sterilization programs that existed in the United States? Are you familiar with the Supreme Court decision in Buck v. Bell?
Indeed.
The whole argument "bad people can abuse or have abused X, so because it's a slippery slope let's ban X or make X taboo" is absurd, because anything and everything can and has been abused by corrupt governments and people - firearms, courts of law, banks, automobiles, etc.
Ah. So we're forced into utilitarianism.
Technology has utility, does it not? It costs money too. As it improves, there benefits and costs. How do we weigh that?
As things are right now, we have "standards of care" that dictate how much should be spent and without much regard for benefit. Insurance companies love it, because it increases the rate base. The pool enlarges.
It's a slippery slope too.
I forget what the forced sterilization programs were called, but men and women who had learning disabilities were forcibly sterilized in the past.
Sanger was proud.
Well, after all that hypocrisy, slander, misconstruction, and disrespect, you now ask a legitimate question and expect a discussion without apology? Really?
Yes it is a slippery slope. So is the cost/benefit of technology while children suffer for the lack of basic care. You think Messiah doesn't care about them?
Best to think of how to manage that slope. I picked one. The devil will be in the details. I still do not understand how you fail to equate the damage done to a child by drugged out parents as compared to pedophiles you would see mutilated.
To which you replied:
I did not advocate that.
But you did, in your post number 76, in which you said the following:
I proposed forced sterilization for a particular class of crimes...
I am reading your posts, even the very long one.
I don’t care if the whole world steps onto the utilitarian slippery slope to destruction, I’m not going along for the ride with them. At least not willingly.
It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts,197 U. S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.
Yes they were. I do not know if it was pursuant to adjudication in every case. Still, are you going to take these children and adults into your home to protect and care for them? That is what the Torah teaches we should do, particularly in preparation for the Sabbath Year. How then, do you propose to protect them from sexual abuse and its consequences?
I recall seeing that.
And that people agree with it..
” I do not know if it was pursuant to adjudication in every case. “
It was not.
Plenty of times people went in for minor things, appendectomy for example, and woke up sterilized.
Or worse, there were no “cover” surgeries.
Just forced compliance.
All in the name of EUGENICS.
And your solution is to prevent them from being born in the first place?
Why not just kill everyone to avoid any possible crime or its consequences?
Your excerpting is a misconstruction. Here is what I also said:
What I proposed is not eugenics.
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.