Eugenics & ContrAbortion

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.

3 thoughts on “Eugenics & ContrAbortion

  1. Social Darwinism is taught in our academies and schools from kindergarten to graduate school. Hitler put it in practice, and so does almost everyone educated in our schools and universities. No other worldview is tolerated. We are all effected by this because we all go to school and are brainwashed to think this is the only valid worldview. Even our rich employers are moving their commercial enterprises to China, because of this so-called NEW WORLD ORDER. No wonder many who call themselves the church are really the members of this new order of Social Darwinists. That is why most of our Physicians, Politicians and Judges speak the way they do. They are educated to become hardwired liberals. This effects our entire culture. The only way this will change is “if ” our people decide to change it. Politics is simply a reflection of culture. Do you like what you see?

  2. First of all Garry, it’s affected and affect. I know this coz I graduated from a Social Darwinist elementary school. Next in response to Pacheco, let me just say that he should be careful as the social burden of caring for lame-brained, right-wing idiots is becoming too much to bear. Get a rear view mirror Pach… They’re a comin’ fer ya. I can hear the banjos already.

  3. The twisted part about this debate over eugenics and abortion is that the ethical and morals complications of abortion could be solved by human germline modifications, which is the next logical step of eugenics in a world of emerging biotechnology. However, the moral/ethical implications of human genetic modifications (and its NAZI eugenics connection) also makes it a controversial subject, especially when that technology could be applied beyond “editing” out genetic disorders and taken to improving traits that aren’t necessarily “degenerate.” Nonetheless, besides the moral issues with Christians, there could also be potential conflict with evolutionists that might not see supposed “improvements” to the human genome that are artificial as beneficial. If mankind, after theoretically millions of years in the making through evolution and natural selection, has not been able to fix–through natural selection or adaptations–these germline/reproductive mutations, should science artificially alter it when nature has not been able to? Moreover, the possible side-effects of altering or inserting a gene(s) has not been thoroughly examined yet. So even if gene therapy could cure, let’s say, spinal bifida, there might be long-term affects to other traits or parts of the human genome. You are trading the devil you know with the one you don’t. And even if the currently known genetic disorders are, for the most part, fixed by genetically modifying human offspring, there are other disorders that could arise as a result, or independently, of that gene therapy. For example, smallpox has been a devastating disease for thousands of years that can only be managed, not cured. In 1967, the World Health Organization launched a program to eradicate smallpox on Earth. Smallpox was declared eradicated officially in 1980. In the early 1980s, HIV/AIDS came into the scope of international issues and was recognized as an even more formidable disease that could plague humanity. With all of our modern biotechnology and research, we have been able to identify, classify, suppress, and work to prevent HIV/AIDS, but a cure has not yet been found, and more and more people contract it every day.

    It is ironic to note that while conservatives might say “don’t abort that spinal bifida baby” (which was referred to earlier) they would also be forced to admit that the equally ‘wrong’ genetic modification to fix the disorder would be a preferable alternative to an aborted embryo. Nonetheless, there are still parents who desire no genetic testing or modifying, no abortions, and are content to nurture a child that might seem unfit in the eyes of others. This, of course, would be the ideal for all tip of the right-wing conservatives, but not for the majority of society; so where can a compromise be made?
    When dealing with a controversial issue such as eugenics and gene modification, there is always a point where criticism needs to stop and constructive debate should be made. A line needs to be drawn in the sand about where gene modification stops and nature continues on its course. Personally, I would like to see the technology that could fix genetic disorders, but not be taken into a realm where it is not needed, a gray area of ethics that could be abused, for certainly if the technology was used for anything:

    many would be worried about stereotypical, society-accepted appearance changes (Hitler could have had his Aryan race without all that primitive human-testing)

    the lower and middle classes would be concerned about not be able to afford something that people with more money or access could have, possibly segregating society or even civilizations/continents (Africa, India, China, and other places probably wouldn’t be able to afford genetic modifications on their offspring)

    Christians would see it as questioning, contesting what God has given you

    evolutionists would see it as a change from the course of nature

    and even liberals would be worried that people might remove a gene that might code for homosexuality

    And I must say one more time that despite all these conflicts for people of every background, human genetic modifications is still a largely unknown field. It might have short or long-term side-effects, or it might not work at all. In the end, it might even be that eugenicists (of which there are quite a few whose websites you can find) won’t support human gene modification because it might not benefit humanity after all.

    ~Noah Schlottman
    (I’m up for hire)
    p.s. if you find any other good articles on current eugenics, email me the link, thanks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
5 + 1 =