Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Posted on 12/13/2009 10:10:56 AM PST by wagglebee
Fairly often I’m taken to task by some of my friends for suggesting that state-sanctioned eugenics is alive and well in the 21st century. I have a question to ask them:
Explain to me that what I’m about to report is not eugenics in its purest, simplest, and ugliest form.
First, a standard definition of eugenics:
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics).
The Nazis took eugenics a step further to take care of all those pesky people with medical and other disabilities who were inconveniently alive, believing that they were so debilitated that they had no acceptable quality of life.
The Dutch are now doing the same. (Google translate will give you a close English version).
Read on.
On Monday, a Dutch medical researcher, Hilde Buiting, called for another step down the slippery slope to pure insanity by calling for the government and the medical profession to change the rules on euthanizing newborn infants.
NOTE: I said change the rules, not devise the rules, because euthanizing newborns in the Netherlands has been officially allowed for quite a while, via the so-called Groningen Protocol of 2006.
In 2006 the argument was the same as what I’ll share below: Killing newborns was already happening in Dutch hospitals, but it was unregulated and therefore uncontrolled.
PRESTO!! Develop a medical set of rules that lay out when doctors may kill newborns. The Groningen Protocol makes killing newborn infants OK!! (An act of love and mercy, you understand).
I really wish I were making this up.
So now, in 2009, the Dutch are again pushing toward expanding euthanasia beyond the Groningen Protocol.
Sidebar: The Dutch already have precedent in killing adults to rely on for how they are now trying to justify killing more newborns. Initially, adult assisted suicide and euthanasia was officially only allowed for the terminally ill in unbearable and uncontrollable suffering. Now, years later, adult assisted suicide and euthanasia have morphed to where medical killing can be carried out for a host of other reasons, even if people are not terminally ill and even if they have no physical illness.
With me so far?
Here’s the new proposal from Ms. Buiting:
The current guidelines state that there must be actual grave suffering on the part of the newborn,. . . In practice, physicians look not only to the actual suffering of the sick newborn, but also to the grave suffering foreseen in the future. This reality should be included in the considerations in adapting the guidelines. . . . Given that we in the Netherlands find it important to exercise social control over the active killing of newborns, the guidelines should therefore be adjusted.
See the change? Now they want to kill newborns because of what they might suffer in the murky future.
Oh, and don’t forget about the “social control” part either.
That’s a chilling step past killing newborns that are already suffering, and like the Nazis, this is, as Ms. Buiting so cavalierly noted, a medical and government-sanctioned form of exercising social control.
Again, I ask, how is this not state- and medically sanctioned eugenics?
Prove me wrong, I beg of you, so that I can stop thinking that the unthinkable is now not only thinkable but doable; that we now want to judge newborn infants as so medically disabled that they should be killed by the white-coated, stethoscope-carrying grisly necromancers divining future suffering in order to kill infants now.
And this is EXACTLY what Zero and his "czars" will implement in the United States.
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
“...but also to the grave suffering foreseen in the future.”
I forsee grave suffering in the future for bitch buiting. Guess we’d better perform a retroactive abortion on her pronto.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
BUMP
“Useless Eaters”, based on an article by Mark Mostert:
http://www.regent.edu/acad/schedu/uselesseaters/
CBF here is part of what Mark was alluding to, the ultimate in ‘contraception’ - post-partum abortions. In Europe.
We are fast approaching the point where we will be morally justified in...I better not say it on here.
It’s important to focus not just on “negative eugenics”, but the failures of “positive eugenics” as well. And do not underestimate either, because there is some considerable “natural sensibility” in eugenics.
To start with, eugenics is the flip side of natural selection. All living things cooperate and compete with all other living things, especially in their species, to determine which will survive and reproduce. But this is full of all sorts of ups and downs, and terribly complex.
However, humans in nature do not particularly like all the contests that are foisted on us by disease, parasites, the weather, etc., so we seek to overcome them. This means that we bias the system, so that some who were supposed to lose, win, and some who would have otherwise die, live.
So, in a manner of speaking, medical care, agriculture, clothing, fire, etc., all go against natural selection. And this has long term consequences, not all of which are bad.
But we focus on the bad consequences. We understand that there are people who are born with severely ill health and mental incapacity, and that they are expensive and difficult to keep alive. So the question is, at first, should such people have children, if they will likewise be public charges?
And quickly this becomes the new question: Why is the public paying to keep these people alive? Here is where “negative eugenics” arises.
But there are also many people who want their children to not just survive, but to excel, in the contest of natural selection. This is based on the observation that both plants and animals can be selectively bred to produce a “better” variety of plant and animal. And this is quite true.
However, people are not skilled at selectively breeding ourselves. This means that the teenage girl whose body tells her that a particular boy is attractive, is actually far more likely than any amount of genetic calculation made by scientists, to produce a superior offspring.
How she reaches this conclusion is mysterious, but teenage girls do it all the time. And this is not unique to humans, because this selection is seen throughout the animal kingdom, in a great contest between males and females to produce the best offspring.
And even a farmer who has a gift at cross breeding animals will likely do much better than scientists in picking the best pair to mate.
So even “positive eugenics” is way over our heads, and almost certain to fail.
Having read the attached article (both the original and the one you so kindly supplied), I have to wonder how these scientists would feel about our society’s generational welfare recipients. Holland, and most of the rest of Europe, has a significant population who are drains on the resources of society and do not contribute. Are they suggesting that we should euthanize all recipients of social programs? Or only the ones who don’t vote for them?
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.
