Posted on 07/30/2006 1:25:50 AM PDT by budlt2369
Roe attorney: Use abortion to 'eliminate poor
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1631548/posts
He's right. Let's start with the Kennedy's and the Dodds.
He wanted to speed up this process, same way as animal breeder is using the principles of selection.
"The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can't afford to have babies."
"If the imbeciles in this country ever organize and vote as a bloc, we're finished."
They call themselves PETA.
"Hitler was a child of his time, and a Darwinist.
There is nothing Darwinian about Hitler's atrocities (or any type of forced sterilization program). Natural selection means just what it says: a natural process. Hitler's atrocities were entirely unnatural."
Darwin was a promoter of artificial selection.
"Finally, although the gradual decrease and ultimate extinction of the races of man is a highly complex problem, depending on many causes which differ in different places and at different times; it is the same problem as that presented by the extinction of one of the higher animals- of the fossil horse, for instance, which disappeared from South America, soon afterwards to be replaced, within the same districts, by countless troups of the Spanish horse. The New Zealander seems conscious of this parallelism, for he compares his future fate with that of the native rat now almost exterminated by the European rat. Though the difficulty is great to our imagination, and really great, if we wish to ascertain the precise causes and their manner of action, it ought not to be so to our reason, as long as we keep steadily in mind that the increase of each species and each race is constantly checked in various ways; so that if any new check, even a slight one, be superadded, the race will surely decrease in number; and decreasing numbers will sooner or later lead to extinction; the end, in most cases, being promptly determined by the inroads of conquering tribes.
On the Formation of the Races of Man.- In some cases the crossing of distinct races has led to the formation of a new race. The singular fact that the Europeans and Hindoos, who belong to the same Aryan stock, and speak a language fundamentally the same, differ widely in appearance, whilst Europeans differ but little from Jews, who belong to the Semitic stock, and speak quite another language, has been accounted for by Broca,* through certain Aryan branches having been largely crossed by indigenous tribes during their wide diffusion. When two races in close contact cross, the first result is a heterogeneous mixture: thus Mr. Hunter, in describing the Santali orhill-tribes of India, says that hundreds of imperceptible gradations may be traced "from the black, squat tribes of the mountains to the tall olive-coloured Brahman, with his intellectual brow, calm eyes, and high but narrow head"; so that it is necessary in courts of justice to ask the witnesses whether they are Santalis or Hindoos.*(2) Whether a heterogeneous people, such as the inhabitants of some of the Polynesian islands, formed by the crossing of two distinct races, with few or no pure members left, would ever become homogeneous, is not known from direct evidence. But as with our domesticated animals, a cross-breed can certainly be fixed and made uniform by careful selection*(3) in the course of a few generations, we may infer that the free inter-crossing of a heterogeneous mixture during a long descent would supply the place of selection, and overcome any tendency to reversion; so that the crossed race would ultimately become homogeneous, though it might not partake in an equal degree of the characters of the two parent-races."
Darwin ch 7
Darwin did not write much of his political views, but I distinctly recall a comment of his indicating a belief that it is society's obligation to take care of those who cannot support themselves. He never proposed anything remotely resembling eugenics.
Darwin did not coin the phrase; Herbert Spencer did. Supposedly Darwin detested it, but in time realized that it had so become part of the vernacular that resistance was futile.
Unless you are some kind of racist/eugenicist who doesn't view deliberate racial discrimination as an evil agenda, you should retract your statement above since it is factually in error. The first immigration quotas were entirely racist in their nature and intent. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was completely race based and the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924 were explicitly structured to favor Caucasians and preserve the existing racial balance.
I see the difference between exclusion (zero immigration) and quotas (a positive real number) as infinite... a black and white kind of a thing.
The establishment of quotas let people in legally unlike the exclusion acts which... well... excluded people from entering legally.
The immigration laws changed with time.
The first laws were exclusion acts (1882, 1917, 1924 and 1934). You can call those evil and I will not disagree. Since I specifically mentioned quotas and the exclusion acts allowed for no quota, then I wasn't referring to the exclusion acts.
Starting with the Magnuson Act (1943), quotas were set. Following that, additional acts set other quotas and then changed the quotas from race-base, to nationality-based, to preference-based. Since I specifically referred to quotas, I was referring to the set of laws which included quotas.
The progress from the early race-based exclusion acts to current day preference-based quotas was begun by reversing exclusion and setting quotas. IMO, quotas were good not evil.
Your ultimatum regarding retraction of my statement that, "immigration quotas were not created to impose an evil agenda," or be considered a racist/eugenicist is ignorant and insulting.
Go ahead and grant yourself the high ground morally or factually, I won't argue with you anymore - I'll just quietly consider you a pompous ass.
"I see nothing in that text that "promotes artificial selection." It describes his observations and inferences drawn from them. Why you see advocacy there is lost on me.
Darwin did not write much of his political views, but I distinctly recall a comment of his indicating a belief that it is society's obligation to take care of those who cannot support themselves. He never proposed anything remotely resembling eugenics."
"The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest
allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species,
has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is
descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear
of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the
general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the
series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in
various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies-
between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae- between the elephant, and
in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna,
and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of
related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not
very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will
almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout
the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor
Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The
break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it
will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may
hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon,
instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
Darwin ch 6
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_06.html
"It also says he[Darwin] never wrote "survival of the fittest".
Darwin did not coin the phrase; Herbert Spencer did. Supposedly Darwin detested it, but in time realized that it had so become part of the vernacular that resistance was futile."
He did not coin the phrase or the word eugenics. He did use the phrase in Descent of Man.
"Man scans with scrupulous care the character and pedigree of his
horses, cattle, and dogs before he matches them; but when he comes
to his own marriage he rarely, or never, takes any such care. He is
impelled by nearly the same motives as the lower animals, when they
are left to their own free choice, though he is in so far superior
to them that he highly values mental charms and virtues. On the
other hand he is strongly attracted by mere wealth or rank. Yet he
might by selection do something not only for the bodily constitution
and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral
qualities. Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in
any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian
and will never be even partially realised until the laws of
inheritance are thoroughly known. Everyone does good service, who aids
towards this end. When the principles of breeding and inheritance
are better understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our
legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining whether or
not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man.
The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate
problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject
poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil,
but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in
marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the
prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior
members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like
every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high
condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid
multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be
feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise
he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be
more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence
our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious
evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be
open competition for all men; and the most able should not be
prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the
largest number of offspring. Important as the struggle for existence
has been and even still is, yet as far as the highest part of man's
nature is concerned there are other agencies more important. For the
moral qualities are advanced, either directly or indirectly, much more
through the effects of habit, the reasoning powers, instruction,
religion, &c., than through natural selection; though to this latter
agency may be safely attributed the social instincts, which afforded
the basis for the development of the moral sense."
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_21.html
"No one can doubt that this world will some day be exposed to the severest struggles for the existence of mankind. In the end, only the urge for self-preservation can conquer. Beneath it socalled humanity, the expression of a mixture of stupidity, cowardice, and know-it-all conceit, will melt like snow in the March sun. Mankind has grown great in eternal struggle, and only in eternal peace does it perish."
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch04.html
Far from a differing appreciation, you apparently don't even know the definitions. An "exclusion" is a "quota" of zero.
Laws that set quotas (like in the Immigration Act of 1952) allowed immigration, and reversed the previous exclusion acts.
I said nothing about the 1952 act. The three earlier laws I referenced clearly refuted your erroneous statement from post #16:
I see the difference between exclusion (zero immigration) and quotas (a positive real number) as infinite
You poor dear, you must not have done well in elementary mathematics. The difference between any real number and zero is that number, certainly not infinity.
... a black and white kind of a thing.
I am beginning to fear that your foolish absolute understanding of numerals might also reflect a much darker absolute view of races.
The establishment of quotas let people in legally
Your statement is completely false. Prior to quotas all immigration was legal. To the contrary, the establishment of quotas was the beginning of prohibiting people from coming in legally.
unlike the exclusion acts which... well... excluded people from entering legally.
The exclusionary acts were just quotas of zero. You make a false distinction without a difference.
The immigration laws changed with time.
They certainly may have, and in opposition to your quote in post #16, they were racist in origin.
The first laws were exclusion acts (1882, 1917, 1924 and 1934). You can call those evil and I will not disagree.
Then I would hope you would now admit that you were wrong in stating in post #16:
Since I specifically mentioned quotas and the exclusion acts allowed for no quota, then I wasn't referring to the exclusion acts.
You pitiful thing, your problem with elementary subtraction must make it impossible for you to understand that an exclusion is just a specific quota of zero. Don't feel bad, I suspect you can't help it.
Starting with the Magnuson Act (1943), quotas were set. Following that, additional acts set other quotas and then changed the quotas from race-base, to nationality-based, to preference-based. Since I specifically referred to quotas, I was referring to the set of laws which included quotas.
This must be very embarrassing for you trying to excuse your blatant error with more errors. I'll just pretend I don't see your repeated self-contradictions.
The progress from the early race-based exclusion acts to current day preference-based quotas was begun by reversing exclusion and setting quotas. IMO, quotas were good not evil.
I can't imagine living in your world without the ability to grasp simple numerical concepts. It must be more debilitating than illiteracy.
Your ultimatum regarding retraction of my statement that, "immigration quotas were not created to impose an evil agenda," or be considered a racist/eugenicist is ignorant and insulting.
It's all right dear, I will no longer hold you to any standard of reason.
Go ahead and grant yourself the high ground morally or factually, I won't argue with you anymore - I'll just quietly consider you a pompous ass.
I know that living with your condition must be very frustrating. I forgive you for taking out some of your self-loathing in the form of insults against me. I just hope that you feel better now.
I'm not saying they are all factual. I'm say they often hold the prevailing thought of the day.
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.