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 ...
If that is how far you have to go to have an argument, then you don't have one.
Then what do you call it?
Because it most certainly is.
Give it a pretty name, dress it up pretty, it is still the same old utopian BS.
I know.
It is the same argument you are using.
“We must do X to avoid Y”
All based on hypotheticals.
“Well, this MIGHT happen, so we MUST force compliance! Kill the children, it’s for the children!”
Only in this case, it’s sterilize/abort to prevent hypothetical maybes.
You have yet to demonstrate any hypocrisy, slander or misconstruction on my part. For the record, I don't have any respect for those who advocate eugenics.
So is the cost/benefit of technology while children suffer for the lack of basic care.
Again, eugenicists always try to obscure their agenda under the guise that it will save money.
No, it is not. I provided a definition of eugenics and made clear the distinctions between that and what I am saying. By your kind of logic, all killings with guns are murder.
Yes, it IS.
You can dress Cthulhu in a dress, but he’s still a squid headed monster.
Call it what you want, it is still eugenics.
The old National Socialist German Worker Party put it as a way to save money too...yet some insist on following their methods.
Perhaps you should read this:
Harry Laughlin's "Model Eugenical Sterilization Law"
Laughlin's model was employed throughout most of the United States and used by the Nazis as the model for their laws and is virtually identical to what you propose.
bump
Using laws to control breeding in order to “better the species” is exactly eugenics.
Please stop.
You provided PART of a description, but it was not complete.
There is "positive" eugenics which involves the promoting reproduction among people with genetic traits considered to be positive (the whole blue-eyed, blonde-haired Aryan approach).
Then there is "negative" eugenics which involved preventing persons with perceived negative traits from reproducing, this is done by abortion, sterilization or simply extermination.
Case in point. Take a pregnant woman who is addicted to drugs and gives birth to a baby who is born hooked. People are naturally upset. They say “why do we allow this woman and others like her to do this?”. Well in a perfect world we would not. If we saw a pregnant woman snorting meth (or how ever one does meth) we'd arrest her and put her in jail until the baby comes. If she gives birth to a baby that is born hooked we'd put her in jail until she can't have children or give her the option of drug rehab until she's totally clean. However that is the perfect world. Does not always happen.
So people get upset at seeing babies “born hooked” and say lets sterilize the mother so she can't do this anymore. Well okay that only makes sure no more babies are “born hooked” but meanwhile the mother is till in the back alley shooting up. What about her? Is no one going to help her? Is her life not worth anything? Maybe the best thing for her would be jail or forced into a mental health facility.
Also at this point you must consider that if she is forced into sterilization that opens the door for it to be abused. Such is the case of that “three generations of imbeciles”. That imbeciles was a woman with trisomy 21 who was raped. They sterilized her so if she was raped in the future, and she more than likely was, she would not become pregnant. Have I made my point?
More likely that they fear Heaven. I hope you do as well.
It is unseemly to invoke the Torah in advocating your position, Carry_Okie. The Torah forbids sterilization and certain birth control practices precisely because of the command to be fruitful and multiply, and because G-d created the earth to be filled with humans, not to be desolate.
In the strict sense it is also forbidden to castrate any male being whatsoever, though in these times non-Jews receive leniency in their castration of animals.
You can’t tell the difference between a criminal who has committed a violent crime and someone who has not even been born and grown to adulthood?
You really lack even a basic compression of language.
The eugenics charge is accurate.
There is a difference between children and people who commit violent felonies. Even if you lack the capacity to understand that.
If she is forcibly sterilized and later is rehabilitated then no good was done that exceeds the harm done.
And so many young pregnant drug addicts are driven into heavy substance abuse by abuse in their homes that there is far too much hypocrisy in the same society that didn’t protect her from that demanding the right to sterilize her now.
****************************************
Is it your contention that it is kinder to deny someone the opportunity to live than to take any chance whatsoever that they may be treated badly during their lifetime? Isn't life full of challenges, regardless of a person's mental capacity?
Jeepers ...
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.
!["60000 Reichsmarks … this is what this person suffering from hereditary defects costs the Community of Germans during his lifetime … Fellow Citizen, that is your money, too … Read ‘[A] New People’ … The monthly magazines of the Office for Race Politics of the NSDAP"](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_orkXxp0bhEA/Sx7xVINGJGI/AAAAAAAAYbU/pzw2N8oTmKo/s1600-h/091208-nazi-eugenics.jpg){kind=link}