Eugenics is the study of the possibility that the quality of the human race can be improved by encouraging people with "desirable" traits to reproduce while at the same time discouraging reproduction among those with "undesirable" traits. It was practiced by the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s and continues to this day.
The link between eugenics and the modern abortion movement is no conincidence. Margaret Sanger, founder of the American Birth Control League (which eventually became Planned Parenthood), was a huge fan of eugenics. In 1932, she wrote an essay entitled "A Plan for Peace," in which she called on Congress to create a Parliament of Population. The objective would be to "direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and to direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of the individuals." One of the methods for accomplishing this goal was "to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."
Today, eugenics carries with it such a negative connotation. We're more enlightened, so we call it "reproductive freedom."
Abortion is already being used to "filter out" undesirable kids. Last year, the LA Times ran an opinion piece entitled "The Abortion Debate Brought Home." The author, Dan Neil, boasts about the decision he and his wife made to selectively murder two of their four children. They did so because the in-vitro fertilization process resulted in four babies: two girls and two boys. And since no one in the history of civilization has ever given birth to more than two children at once, they concluded that two of them had to go.
So, they did what any concerned parent would do: they had genetic testing done to see which of their kids would be less of a hassle to raise. In the end, they decided to off the boys. As Neil explains, "Some studies show offspring of older fathers (I'm 47) run a higher risk of autism, and males are four times as likely to be autistic." What a brave and loving father!
Oh, but the decision wasn't all that easy. Neil "had reservations about bringing girls into the world now, when forces seemed to be aligning to disenfranchise them (nine of 10 GOP presidential candidates favor reversing Roe vs. Wade)." He wasn't too keen on the idea that his daughters would "have to fight the battles their mothers and grandmothers fought." (Come on. I'm sure Mom would be more than happy to teach them how to burn their training bras.)
Neil wishes there were more doctors out there willing to murder children and that those of us who have a problem with infanticide should just lighten up. He goes on to express his gratitude to the Hippocratic Oath-breaker who butchered his two sons -- withholding her name, of course, "for fear that she might be terrorized by some gun-toting antiabortion extremist." He concludes, "For our part, we are grateful that she was out there. Without her, we wouldn't have been able to have a family. When Roz and Viv grow up, I hope one day I can introduce them to her. I think she'd be proud."
You're quite a guy, Mr. Neil. I suppose the rest of us should be on our knees, thanking you for not bringing two potential freaks into the world. Who knows? Those boys could have turned out to be just as sick and twisted as their father. I don't know about your anonymous "doctor" friend, but I am certain that Margaret Sanger would be proud.
The link between eugenics and the modern abortion movement is no conincidence. Margaret Sanger, founder of the American Birth Control League (which eventually became Planned Parenthood), was a huge fan of eugenics. In 1932, she wrote an essay entitled "A Plan for Peace," in which she called on Congress to create a Parliament of Population. The objective would be to "direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and to direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of the individuals." One of the methods for accomplishing this goal was "to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."
Today, eugenics carries with it such a negative connotation. We're more enlightened, so we call it "reproductive freedom."
Abortion is already being used to "filter out" undesirable kids. Last year, the LA Times ran an opinion piece entitled "The Abortion Debate Brought Home." The author, Dan Neil, boasts about the decision he and his wife made to selectively murder two of their four children. They did so because the in-vitro fertilization process resulted in four babies: two girls and two boys. And since no one in the history of civilization has ever given birth to more than two children at once, they concluded that two of them had to go.
So, they did what any concerned parent would do: they had genetic testing done to see which of their kids would be less of a hassle to raise. In the end, they decided to off the boys. As Neil explains, "Some studies show offspring of older fathers (I'm 47) run a higher risk of autism, and males are four times as likely to be autistic." What a brave and loving father!
Oh, but the decision wasn't all that easy. Neil "had reservations about bringing girls into the world now, when forces seemed to be aligning to disenfranchise them (nine of 10 GOP presidential candidates favor reversing Roe vs. Wade)." He wasn't too keen on the idea that his daughters would "have to fight the battles their mothers and grandmothers fought." (Come on. I'm sure Mom would be more than happy to teach them how to burn their training bras.)
Neil wishes there were more doctors out there willing to murder children and that those of us who have a problem with infanticide should just lighten up. He goes on to express his gratitude to the Hippocratic Oath-breaker who butchered his two sons -- withholding her name, of course, "for fear that she might be terrorized by some gun-toting antiabortion extremist." He concludes, "For our part, we are grateful that she was out there. Without her, we wouldn't have been able to have a family. When Roz and Viv grow up, I hope one day I can introduce them to her. I think she'd be proud."
You're quite a guy, Mr. Neil. I suppose the rest of us should be on our knees, thanking you for not bringing two potential freaks into the world. Who knows? Those boys could have turned out to be just as sick and twisted as their father. I don't know about your anonymous "doctor" friend, but I am certain that Margaret Sanger would be proud.
Labels: Abortion, Culture/Society, Family
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home