Eugenics and the Left

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | 9/25/03 | John Ray

[MEGoody]

"We should be at least as concerned with improving our species by whatever means (eugenics and genetic engineering), as we are with domesticated animals."

Who gets to decide what 'improving' means?

[twigs]

Abortion is the modern version of eugenics.

I personally believe that that is a major reason why abortion is such an important plank of the left, although they would never admit it. Womens' rights is just a smokescreen for the hardcore left, IMHO.

[Little Ray]

Just 'cause Hitler endorsed an idea shouldn't automatically discredit it. For instance, Volkswagens and autobahns were pretty good ideas. (On the other hand, the Maus was pretty stupid, as was the Sturmvoegel.)

The person(s) paying for the upgrade or modfications would get to decide what is an improvement. Some are improvements seem obvious, and others might be more subtle - I'd would be more worried about the QA process myself. The ultimate process of selection would be the achievements of the "improved type." You don't think there would be just one standard do you?

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Just 'cause Hitler endorsed an idea shouldn't automatically discredit it.

Although I'm sure Hitler's eugenic ideology doesn't put you off, most of us find your and Adolf's idea about breeding and culling a better human race to be completely abhorrent.

[MEGoody]

"Just 'cause Hitler endorsed an idea shouldn't automatically discredit it. For instance, Volkswagens and autobahns were pretty good ideas."

Strange that you would equate human beings to cars and roads.

[Little Ray]

Certainly the idea of the State culling its population is revolting (though I might the something like the LA riot an intriguing opportunity...), but that was not what I was suggesting. My objection is to the Feds subsidizing the least competent and least productive segments of our population through various forms of welfare, while simultaneously making it difficult through taxation for more productive individuals to raise families.
Needless to say, when you subsidize something you get more of it: deliberately or otherwise, that is a eugenic process, and a pretty ugly one, too. I'd like to that reversed or, at least, neutralized.

[Little Ray]

LOL. Thats a non sequitur if I ever read one...

[Little Ray]

I guess I'll be culled. I can't edit for beans.

though I might the something like the LA riot an intriguing opportunity

Should read

though I might consider something like the LA riot an intriguing opportunity

[Ronaldus Magnus]

My objection is to the Feds subsidizing the least competent and least productive segments of our population through various forms of welfare, while simultaneously making it difficult through taxation for more productive individuals to raise families.

Eugenicists always reveal their real motivations when they start applying words like "superior", "competent", and "productive" to classes of people (and you have used all three just in this thread!). Since a family of four who makes under $34,000 per year doesn't pay any federal taxes and is therefore taking in far more than they contribute, let's just sterilize everyone making less than that. They aren't "productive", right? That will leave more room in society for your kind of "productive" people.

Needless to say, when you subsidize something you get more of it: deliberately or otherwise, that is a eugenic process, and a pretty ugly one, too. I'd like to that reversed or, at least, neutralized.

Yeah, forget sterilization. It takes too long to see the results. Let's just round them up and put them in death camps.

[Little Ray]

I'm not worried about 'em paying any taxes. I'm worried about net recipients of tax monies. You shouldn't be able to breed on the taxpayer's dime. If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

I'm worried about net recipients of tax monies. You shouldn't be able to breed on the taxpayer's dime. If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.

Yeah, you're right. Let's just sterilize everyone who receives any form of tax revenue. Better yet, just shoot them in the back of the head. Just be sure to come back and tell us when one of your children gets injured or something and goes on the welfare roles. I'm sure your kind will be the first to step up and do society the favor.

[Little Ray]

I propose to stop giving 'em money, you see that as mass executions; I guess that puts you in league with the folks who believe that cutting funding for the NEA would be "censorship" or that trying to reduce idiotic standards at EPA is trying to "poison the children."
When you come up with a rational argument instead of a straw man, I'll take up the discussion again.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

When you come up with a rational argument instead of a straw man, I'll take up the discussion again.

This ceased being a rational argument when you made the murderous suggestion:

We should be at least as concerned with improving our species by whatever means (eugenics and genetic engineering), as we are with domesticated animals.

Just what do you think eugenics is?

[hrhdave]

>>When Jewish couples screen themselves and/or their embryos for Tay-Sachs, that's eugenics, but it isn't Nazism.<<

You res[ond: Sure it is. A strange answer. Are laws against consaguinity --marriage between closely related individuals-- all Nazi-like in your book? C'mon. There's no compulsion and there is good sesne. When a man and a woman carry the Tay-Sachs gene trait, they're too closely related, don't you think?

[Romulus]

Don't be obtuse. This isn't about consanguinity, which in any case is easily determined before marriage and whose determination does not require the murder of innocents.

To follow where your logic leads, we should have to believe either that Jews should not marry Jews, or else that Jews should murder Jews. Either way, it's Bad For The Jews.

[FierceDraka]

Why stop there? Why not also when applying for a government job? Or enrolling in a public school? Or voting?

Your lack of imagination disappoints me.

Surely you're not suggesting that welfare parasites should be allowed to spread their worthless, lazy, bloodsucking genes to another generation, are you?

Government job, yes. When voting or enrolling in public schools, ummm, I have to vote Nay. I'm more interested in minimizing stupidity than depopulation.

[Romulus]

Government job, yes.

There ya go. That's what I call moving the ball. Now surely government jobs includes the military. And (let's be honest), what with the size of Medicare and Medicaid, most health care workers are really working for the government too. This is so cool! Anybody else you want to round up? Indians on reservations?

[MEGoody]

"LOL. Thats a non sequitur if I ever read one..."

Perhaps. But bringing up Volkswagons and the autobahn when discussing eugenics was a bit out of place, so why not.

[hrhdave]

Tay-Sachs screening is done before marriage. All Tay-Sachs trait carriers are descendants of a single 17th century Jewish ancestor. So in that respect, it is a matter of consanguinity.

[Romulus]

That's interesting, but using the same standard for consanguinity would have made human reproduction impossible in most communities throughout history, inlcluding today.

But as you point out, Tay-Sachs screening is done before marriage, so it's a bogus excuse for murdering your own children.