Posted on 11/27/2004 3:39:14 AM PST by Lindykim
Now THAT I have never understood. How selfish of a woman who has an affliction to kill her child just because he will have the same problem!
And I repeat---so what?? It's STILL ultimately her (or their, assuming a married couple) choice. It is the DUTY of any physician or counselor to point out the "worst case" possibilities. I know if "I" was being counselled, I would expect to be told such.
"Eugenics", it should be pointed out, has been a standard practice of the human race since time immemorial. The weak did not survive, and were often helped on their way, the Roman practice of exposure for defective infants, for example. It is only in the scientific age, and the increase in wealth it has brought, that we have the luxury to name and discuss such things.
Read the book. The Nazis were very impressed with our US eugenics programs, especially the forced sterilization of criminals and "mental defectives" in the period between 1900 and the 1930s, and that our US Supreme Court *upheld* the sterilization of prisoners as *constitutional* in 1924, in the Buck vs. Bell case.
The US eugenics laws were mostly overturned *after* WW II - because people saw where they led (to the gas chambers.) But before WW II, the US thought it was OK. So in a way the US did provide inducement and a fine example for Hitler.
Nope. This is a scholarly publication that is *well* worth the read, and a good reference for the 20th century history section of the home book shelf. Note that its review is published in a *conservative* site.
Zotting is fun, but not everything one disagrees with is worthy of a zot.
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.