Posted on 11/27/2004 3:39:14 AM PST by Lindykim
A form of eugenics is being practiced now. Pro abortion liberals have a plummeting birth rate. Good reason to get the whole abortion issue out of politics for good.
There is nothing wrong with "eugenics" as long as participation is voluntary. And to equate "genetic counseling" with something bad is ridiculous.
It's really sneaky, we get a few people from everywhere together and mix them all up. ^^
IOW, he's blaming Hitler on the US.
Barf. :\
Margaret Sanger, the originator of the abortion movement, was a racist and eugenics advocate. She wanted to eliminate poverty by eliminating the poor.
The federal government is prohibited from funding abortion, as it is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. That doesn't seem to stop our politicians from violating it in a wholesale manner on a whole variety of issues.
On the other hand, having liberals off themselves may be worth our tax money.
Ping
The infamous Nuremburg Statutes were modeled on Virginia's eugenics code. Just as the 1968 ban on specified weaponry was almost a literal translation of a Nazi law. Influence runs both ways.
From the Planned Parenthood Mission Statement:
---International Family Planning
Planned Parenthood Federation of America affirms the fundamental right of each individual to manage his/her fertility free from coercion. It is Planned Parenthood's policy:
to support international programs which are designed to increase access to safe and effective means of voluntary fertility regulation;
to advocate and assist in the expansion of voluntary family planning services throughout the world;
to encourage public and governmental attitudes and policies favorable to the continuation and expansion of United States support for international voluntary family planning programs;
to provide leadership in encouraging other countries to address population issues and to develop their own effective voluntary family planning programs;
to assist community groups, agencies, and institutions in developing countries to undertake innovative, effective, and self-supporting voluntary family planning programs.---
Also from their Mission Statement:
---Population
It is the policy of Planned Parenthood Federation of America to advance understanding of the interrelationship between population growth and the quality of human life.
Voluntary family planning programs and sound population policies contribute to the process of socioeconomic development and to family health, particularly in countries where rapid population growth hinders development efforts. Therefore, the Federation is committed to providing education in the communities it serves to enable people to understand the scope of world population growth and its impact on the economic, political, social, and physical environment we all must share.
[Adopted 1984]---
Most of the population conrtol and family planning efforts are being conducted in "developing countries", i.e. populations of color. Is this so different from some of the "outreach" programs advocated by Margaret Sanger and other Eugenics proponents of the Early 20th century?
"Nothing should be done to exclude, infringe, repress, or harm a person because of his genetic makeup."
Sounds like a whole new field for Affirmative Action.
Actually, if we were only a LITTLE BIT selective, by any set of objective measures, about immigration, we would do far better than any eugenics program.
Immigration of PhDs from Russia and Asia is good. Immigration of criminals from Mexico is bad. Even the cost of an airplane ticket is selcetive enough to raise the quality of immigrants.
I am in favour of voluntary eugenics -- I can't imagine why the self-righteous would insist on the duty of people they do not know, to bear Tay-Sachs babies and watch them die, or to perpetuate Huntingtons Chorea or other well known genetic weaknesses in families that choose to end the problem with their own generation. I do not see any problem in encouraging people to have fewer children if they can't support the ones they already have. The law in Georgia that prevented girls from getting more welfare when they had more babies cut the out of wedlock birth rate 40% in the first year of implementation.
We do not insist that the Volkswagen Corporation be dismantled and people forbidden from driving their cars because Hitler had the idea first. And I have never understood the difference between binding burdens on other people and forbidding them from enjoying their pleasures because you in your high mightiness know better than they do how to run their lives.
So??? As long as initial participation in and choice of final result is voluntary, who cares??
But what if it no longer became voluntary? What if insurance companies insisted on genetic counseling prior to covering a pregnancy or a child? Genetically "faulty" children would be excluded from coverage.
As long as it's not mandated by law, it's voluntary. In the case of the hypothetical insurance company--there are sure to be OTHER insurance companies that will offer coverage, although perhaps at higher rates.
As for this story I believe I smell ozone in the air.
Here kitty,kitty,kitty,kitty.....................
The key word is voluntary. Too often, it isn't.
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.