If you ever hear pro-aborts shuffle nervously about eugenics and abortion, there’s a reason for that — or at least, there was.
Today, eugenics is becoming a much more acceptable and dignified position among the medical establishment. We saw it flare up during the U.S. presidential elections when the vice president of SOGC piped in at the horrible specter of allowing Down Syndrome children to live:
Dr. Andre Lalonde, executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), is worried that Palin’s decision to give birth to Trig, despite knowing about his condition, could influence other women in similar situations, but who lack the financial and emotional support that Palin had access to.
“The worry is that this will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada,” he said.
Citing his concern for women’s “freedom to choose”, Lalonde said that popular examples about women like Palin, who choose not to kill their unborn children, could have negative effects on women and their families, reported the Globe. (Source)
In the past, pro-aborts would dismiss the clear connection between eugenics and abortion, even when it was pointed out to them that their champion of contraception and abortion was an avowed Eugenicist who once quipped that “the most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” (Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923).
But this connection is not only a historical reality which was played out in Nazi Germany. There is an unmistakable logical necessity between the two movements as well.
“ContrAbortion” and Eugenics both seek to remove the burden and the sacrifice that arise when two people have sex. Eugenics lays the philosophical foundation which permits not only the dehumanization of the human person who has disabilities or belongs to another race, but the social darwinian belief that only the strong should survive. As Sanger puts it:
“Every single case of inherited defect, every malformed child, every congenitally tainted human being brought into this world is of infinite importance to that poor individual; but it is of scarcely less importance to the rest of us and to all of our children who must pay in one way or another for these biological and racial mistakes” (Pivot of Civilization, p. 274).
“No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective” (Woman and the New Race [NY:Blue Ribbon Books, 1920], p.89).
Birth control “is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives” (Ibid., p. 229).
Why are disabled people looked down upon by Eugenicists like Sanger, an increasing number of medical professionals today and the society as a whole?
For one reason only.
Their existence demands much sacrificial love – love that we are not prepared to give. Abortion exists because of a massive vacuum of love.
But why should that stop at the disabled? If the sacrificial burden – emotional, physical, and financial – is too great to bear, why should we stop at the disabled as an excuse to get rid of our problem? If the disabled per se are not the problem, but the fact that we are facing a situation with a lifetime of sacrifice and work, well, then, everyone who is placed in the position of responsibility should have the “right” to terminate an unborn child – whether the baby is perfectly healthy or disabled. But then, why should we stop at an unborn child? There are many elderly who are a constant burden to their adult children too. Shouldn’t these adults get a break also, especially if their parents are really sick and suffering? Why should the pregnant woman and her partner be the only ones with the option of unloading their moral responsibility?
The death peddlers in our culture don’t call it “eugenics” because that label has too much historical baggage. But underneath its shiny veneer is a philosophy which abhors sacrifice and paves the way to elimination of ALL “undesirables” regardless of gender, ability, race, or any other discriminating factor.
If one of your family members declares you “undesirable”, don’t look to the State for support.
Because your number will be up. If you’re too much of a burden, it’s time to terminate you.