Apple-Pie Eugenics: War Against the Weak

BreakPoint ^ | 2 Oct 03 | Chuck Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

See if you can guess the source of this quote. "It is better for all the world . . . [if] society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind . . . Three generations of imbeciles is enough."

If you think that this quote came from a Nazi document, you're wrong. It's from Oliver Wendell Holmes's 1927 majority opinion in BUCK V. BELL that upheld a Virginia law mandating the sterilization of the "feebleminded."

Twenty years later, Holmes's words were thrown back in our face by Nazi defendants in the Nuremberg trials. You see, while the Nazis' worst crimes may have ended at Auschwitz, they "began on Long Island."

That's the conclusion of a new book, WAR AGAINST THE WEAK: EUGENICS AND AMERICA'S CAMPAIGN TO CREATE A MASTER RACE written by Edwin Black, who contends that American "corporate philanthropies helped found and fund the Nazi eugenics of Hitler and Mengele."

Eugenics, which literally means "good birth," originally referred to the use of selective breeding to "improve" the human race. Of course, what was meant by "improve" reflected the racism and bigotry of the eugenicists. Blacks, Jews, Eastern and Southern Europeans, the retarded, and even people with brown hair were the targets of the "improvers."

Thus, between 1900 and the mid-sixties, "hundreds of thousands of Americans . . . were not permitted to continue their families by reproducing." Black compares it to "ethnic cleansing," and he's right.

The tools of American eugenics included forcible sterilization, commitment to mental institutions, prohibitions against marriage, and even dissolution of already existing marriages. One Michigan legislator went so far as to introduce a bill calling for the electrocution of severely retarded infants.

Eventually, American eugenics, with help from the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation, Margaret Sanger, and others, found its way to Germany. While "Nazi eugenics quickly outpaced American eugenics in both velocity and ferocity," Black writes, the connection between the two was never lost. As one American eugenicist told the Richmond TIMES-DISPATCH, "the Germans are beating us at our own game."

The Holocaust and other crimes of the Third Reich made eugenics a bad word, and the American connection was quickly swept under the rug. But the attempt to play God "never really stopped."

Today it takes the form of "human genomic science and corporate globalization." Instead of racist declarations, we have "polished PR campaigns" that hold out the promises of biotech: miracle cures and ever-increasing life expectancies.

While the word eugenics is never used, that's what it is. We are intent on eliminating "imperfection" from the gene pool. Even today, children whose "deformities" are discovered in utero are rarely permitted to be born. And as genetic technology improves, the list of those whom Black calls the "never-born" will continue to expand.

If the "abolition of man" is to be stopped, this story must be told. Christians need to pull the truth about eugenics out from underneath the rug and hold it up as a reminder of where playing God leads us. Six decades of denial is enough.

[Zack Nguyen]

The problem is, the line does eventually blur between presenting options, coercion, and outright force. It happens all over the world.

I really don't think it is our business to encourage the underdeveloped countries to stop reproducing. It sounds a bit too much like we regard them as cattle to be manipulated and controlled. The catch is this - it isn't our job to tell someone when or how to have babies; conversly it isn't our government's job to take care of them once they do. That's where private charity comes in.

[First Amendment]

That will never happen, because SSAD (same sex attraction disorder) is not genetic in origin. No study has found it to be so; on the contrary, it is generally due to a broken family, poor bonding with one or both parents, molestation or seduction when young, and more and more - recruitment and indoctrination by media and schools.

[First Amendment]

I know two very smart, athletic genetic biologists who married and had a less than perfect child. They are hesitant to have another. I would have thought their kids would have been perfect.

Your comment about a "perfect" child is noteworthy. A person can have a "perfect" body and be perfectly unhappy, perfectly screwed up, perfectly evil or immoral or destructive. I have a dear old friend who has a child who was born with many physical defects - the girl (who was not supposed to live past 15) is now in her mid 20's - and will never be able to care for herself, speak or even feed herself. Her parents and siblings have loved her unconditionally, and she has brought joy to many. Her spirit shines through her imperfect body.

To consider the condition of the body and brain the only factors in deciding whether (usually someone ELSE'S) a life is worth living is a shallow, materialistic viewpoint. Everyone who is conceived has a right to be born and live their natural lifespan. To make decisions in this arena is to play God the controller and can have only bad results.

[First Amendment]

It's quite another to allow them to breed out of control, to allow them to vote and to elect them to public office in a frenzy of mindless compassion.

Take away the welfare and associated social "safety net", and the problem will take care of itself. No need to play God. And besides that, the world is not perfect, never has been, never will. There will always be people who other people don't like or consider a burden, or undesirable. You or I may be among such groups at times. Is this a reason to kill someone or control their freedom?

[First Amendment]

. Though in serious criminal cases, like child rapists and other severe child abusers and vicious murderers, who've been duly convicted by a jury, I also support "coerced" sterilization.

Yeah - sterilization by firing squad!

[TopQuark]

The problem is, the line does eventually blur between presenting options, coercion, and outright force. It happens all over the world.

As I said: you are confused between incentives and coersion,.

I really don't think it is our business to encourage the underdeveloped countries to stop reproducing.

Which part of the previous post were you unable to read. No one is stopping them from reproducing; rather, one helps them to be in control of that process to the extent that they are able to bear its consequences.

I shall not write further, since you are either unable to read (which is possible since you misunderstand the meaning the words) or chose not to.

[jimt]

While eugenics is horrible, its reverse, which we practice now, is equally so.

We subsidize the dregs of society having babies they can't afford or properly raise.

One particular piece of welfare slime I know of has NINE kids, each of whom is either mentally or physically defective, or both, or in prison. Her kids live in horrible squalor, filthy, poorly clothed and poor fed.

While sterilizing her may be too evil to contemplate, paying this scum welfare is utterly ludicrous. She should be jailed for neglect and her parental rights stripped.

I would advocate the same for people who stay on any form of public assistance for over two years (private charity would not count). Take their kids and jail the parents. A parent who after release has another child they can't/won't care for should go through a repeat incarceration of a longer term, working up to life in prison.

No one has a right to force others to suppport their kids. Every child has a rightful claim on our support, but the scum who irresponsibly bear them do not. They are thieves.

[Mr. Silverback]

Dead on, VOA. cpforlife was kind enough to post the whole story (with appropriate graphics) in post 29. Definitely worth the read.

[GovernmentShrinker]

will never be able to care for herself, speak or even feed herself.

Everyone who is conceived has a right to be born and live their natural lifespan.

It's quite a stretch to speak of a "natural lifespan" when discussing a 20+ year old who has never been able to feed herself. If people freely choose to unnaturally extend the lifespans of severely ill or disabled relatives or strangers, at their own expense, and as long as it's not in contravention of the expressed wishes of the person being sustained, that's fine. But this unfortunate young lady's "natural lifespan" ended a couple of decades ago.

[Mr. Silverback]

California's situation, and this nation's, have nothing to do with eugenics or the lack thereof. We are suffering from the malady of oversized government, which the Founders warned us about, early and often. If we waved a magic wand and changed all the retarded and handicapped folks to able-bodied folks, there would still be a massive underclass expecting government handouts, a massive number of working people whose vision of compassion involves a lot of people sitting at Formica desks shuffling papers, and a whole lot of politicians ready to serve those desires in order to gain votes.

If you think sterilizing a bunch of mentally handicapped people will get us out of the mess we're in, you're losing your mind. And if you think that elected public servants like say, Maxine Waters and Robert Byrd are feebleminded, then you missed the moral context. These people are not stupid, they are evil servants of an ideology that killed at least 160 million people last century. That's not retarded, that's diabolical.

[jimt]

poor fed = poorly fed

[jimt]

Up to a point (as long as the fetus is still dependent exclusively on the mother for survival), I'd say the power to end a life should rest with the people who started it...

The baby is dependent exclusively on the parents for survival for several years. Why not allow abortion until age three or four?

[jimt]

None of the reasons you listed give me permission, as an educated white man, to stop a poor African or Asian from having babies. This is done by coercion or trickery in some countries. It is wrong to seek to control others in that way.

The color of the person is immaterial. People who have kids thay can't or won't care for are immoral when they use government to take the fruit of others' labors to support their kids. The proper term is "theft". If it persists, the perps should be jailed. If it repeats, the jail term should be increased each time.

Coercion is entirely appropriate with thieves.

[fortaydoos]

Another troubling fact: so-called Christian republicans who control the White House, Congress and the S.C. have done NOTHING to stop the slaughter. See, that might actually cost a few votes and we cannot have that.

[GovernmentShrinker]

You're completely missing the point. A baby which has already been born can be kept alive by ANYONE who is willing to take on the task. A baby which has not yet been born, and is not yet viable, can ONLY be kept alive by the mother -- and if she is unwilling, then it would require government coercion of her to support another "person". That is a VERY dangerous principle, which leads down the slippery slope to full blown socialism.

[Zack Nguyen]

It never takes folks like you long to descend into insults. (I can't read, etc.) I'll respond with facts.

"No one is stopping them from reproducing..."

I am afraid various governments are doing just that. Consider these links:

http://www.pop.org/main.cfm?id=94&r1=1.00&r2=1.00&r3=0&r4=0&level=2&eid=422

"PRI has case files on 40 women who complained unofficially of abuse by IMSS and other government hospitals and clinics. These cases prove that abuses do occur, tell us of the nature of these abuses and suggests what a systematic survey might yield in terms of nature, type, and frequency of violations of mother’s rights. One woman agreed to a cesarean delivery, but sterilization was performed at the same time, without her consent. Another had two intrauterine devices inserted by the doctor. Double insertion allows the physician to remove one at a later date yet leave the woman unable to conceive."

Forced Sterilization in Mexico

http://www.pop.org/main.cfm?id=207&r1=2.00&r2=2.00&r3=.06&r4=.00&level=3&eid=426

I won't even go into China, where it is abundantly obvious to all what is going on.

The facts are, coercion to stop the poor from having babies is going on. I think it is a natural outgrowth of the belief that says some folks should not have children, and it is our job to stop them.

[jimt]

You're completely missing the point. A baby which has already been born can be kept alive by ANYONE who is willing to take on the task. A baby which has not yet been born, and is not yet viable, can ONLY be kept alive by the mother -- and if she is unwilling, then it would require government coercion of her to support another "person". That is a VERY dangerous principle, which leads down the slippery slope to full blown socialism.

The underpinning of your position is becoming increasingly unsupportable. It will soon evaporate entirely.

It's currently possible to remove a fertilized egg or embryo from the mother and implant it in another woman. I'm not sure the time limit on this but believe it to be three weeks.

"Preemies" are able to survive at earlier and earlier ages. The youngest I've Googled up was 21 weeks.

So the current "window" of "exclusive support" is 18 weeks, and shrinking.

Doctors are at work on artificial wombs.

Besides, the mother exercised her right to "choice" when she performed the act resulting in her pregnancy. After that, I say she's obligated to a third party, the baby.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I've never heard of embryos being transferred and I'm pretty well read up on the subject of assisted reproductive technologies (perhaps it has been done in farm animals, but I'd think with a very low success rate). Once an embryo has implanted -- which is within the first few days after fertilization, and well before a woman would be aware she is pregnant -- it cannot be transferred. If it did become technically feasible to accomplish such transfers, with no more time or discomfort to the pregnant woman than an abortion, then I would agree that it would be reasonable to expect women who wish to terminate their pregnancies to go that route, IF there is a recipient prepared to undertake the pregnancy immediately and at her own expense. At the present time and for the foreseable future, however, this is in the realm of science fiction.