Posted on 07/15/2003 12:32:37 PM PDT by NewDestiny
Thought it was Margaret Sangster. Her whole concept of 'planned parenthood' was to get minorities to stop reproducing so much. Seems she succeeded, and even got them to think that she was on their side.
I have always been pro-choice (though not very vocal about it), but now that I see that abortion, rather than education, is the tool she preferred, I don't think I can support that cause anymore. I still think that in cases of incest, rape, or mortal danger to the mother, the choice should remain with the mother and her family. But to people who want to screw indiscriminately, they should face the consequences without government support (welfare). Maybe that sounds racist, but I don't think so.
I've always beleived welfare should exist for those who want to help themselves, not those who take advantage of the system. Problem is, there is no perceived advantage to personal responsibility. Why bother with education or a career when you can simply crank out babies and get a monthly check?
This is the great illusion. This is why the pro-life message must be communicated with love and compassion, not hatred, violence, or simply Scripture. The system we have today is designed to keep the poor and the uneducated that way, not a "helping hand" that it is touted to be.
I cannot be the only one who sees it this way. But if I am not, why is there not an outcry? Instead of demeaning remarks about "welfare ho's", why is there no public rebuttal that sheds truth while preserving their dignity?
I hear the argument, "well, it's their fault that this is happening". True, but only because THEIR LEADERS have been deceived as well. *sigh* I'm finding it very hard to contain my disgust.
I have to say, however, that Eugenics exists alive and well today. What else is it when a woman gets an amniocentesis and finds out her baby has Down's, CF, or any number of genetic diseases or abnormalities. It seems benign, but it is the same. Genetic abnormalities occur in every species on the planet. Who are we as humans to deny a natural phenomena from happening?
I've always beleived genetic variation was God's way of teaching us acceptance of each other. Whether it is skin color, intelligence, height, weight, whatever. To do otherwise is rejection of God's will, IOW self-will run riot. If we continure, there will be hell to pay. We already know what heppens when the genes are restricted. Abnormalities, physical and mental occur, even though evidence would suggest that "pure lineage" would stay that way.
One more comment, and I'll get off my soapbox. Thank you for the page that listed people and corporations that give money to the Eugenics cause. Unfortunately, I can't really boycott them because they are so pervasive. But I will certainly tell everyone who will listen.
I don't know. I didn't mention it, I believe it was someone else. Also, I think the word is Aryan. The origins of the Aryans are rooted in ancient history as a race of white human beings with blonde hair and blue eyes. Hitler and Nazi Germany supposedly started the concept of eliminating all other races except the Aryans.
This was not even the reason they were killing the Semitics, and most of the "Nazis" were not anywhere near Aryan. Hitler himself could hardly be called blonde haired and blue eyed by anyone not afflicted by total blindness. The concept that Hitler wanted to exterminate all 'jews' is wrong anyway. History is always written to serve the needs of the immediate and not the truth of the past.
I'm a product of public education, but I never liked it. I was never able to explore my own ideas, only those sanctioned by the school. Unfortunately, I'm finding the same to be true about college work as well. Everything is supposed to be "research based", but I can only conduct my research from "approved sources". I can't tell you how frustrating that is.
You know, 1984 comes to mind when you mention revisionist history. If you tell a lie long enough, and to enough people, eventually it will be known as truth. The subversive aspect of that is the minor details get changed, little by little until the whole story becomes completely perverse from the original.
What is secular humanism? I know what the words mean, but what are it's concepts?
I guess I'm part hippie in that respect, just no bong resin over here...
You may want to read "None Dare Call it Education" by John Stormer
Interview with John Stormer: None Dare Call it Education—Part II
Eagle Forum Book of the Month
"The Conspiracy of Ignorance: The Failure of American Public Schools" by Martin L. Gross
Darwin also beleived in God, he was not an atheist. I didn't learn that in school, though.
Social Darwinism is a concept that was probably dreamed up by Sanger and her a-hole buddies.
bttt
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.