Pages

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Eugenics in the Present Tense: The Reality of Eugenics in America Today - Part 1


A few months ago I was discussing pro-life issues in our Sunday School youth group. I raised the issue of eugenics and the Nazi attempt to snuff out the Jewish, non-German, and handicap race because they were viewed as worthless and a drain on our resources. The Germans believed that by only allowing those of pure genes to reproduce, the process of evolution could be sped up and the next generation of man, a superior race free from disease and poverty, could be attained.

The whole eugenic movement was purely Utopian in its purpose. Once the strong conquer (i.e., the Germans, Italians, etc.) and the weak are removed from power, influence, and cease to reproduce, then a new race of man would be born free from the disease infected genes of the less fortunate. But though the goal was lofty, the worldview behind the eugenics movement in Germany was purely racist, sexist, and murderous (to say the least).

At its root, the eugenics movement was born out of an evolutionary worldview. Evolution taught that through the process of death, adaption, and survival of the fittest, mankind and life on Earth would only improve. Evolution, by default, implies Utopianism. When evolution is applied to science and politics, eugenics and war result.

This does not mean that everyone that affirms evolution believe that eugenics and imperialism is moral. However, it is true that evolution is a common thread behind the ruthless murders of the 20th Century. Once The Origin of Species was written, persons immediately began to see the implications of the scientific theory. Evolution went from science to worldview and people began to take the theory to its logical conclusions.

When I mentioned this to the youth they were under the opinion that the age of eugenics was over and a thing of history. And then I told them that they were wrong. Eugenics is alive and well in the United States of America today. Right now. They stared at me as if I was out of my mind. But a brief look at various life issues in America over the decades demands that though Hitler is dead, his eugenic mindset has not.

To prove such a thesis, we need to look no further than the birth of the modern birth control, contraceptives, abortion, and Planned Parenthood movement. As we have established, evolution leads to eugenics, abortion, racism, infanticide, euthanasia and other horrendous acts of murder. The foundation of evolution is that through death, a better species will emerge. Thus, persons like Hitler and Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood who praised Hitler’s eugenic measures) pushed eugenics in order to quicken the next stage of evolution. Only through pure genes untainted with handicaps, disease, poverty, race, or the unfit and unwanted can the process of evolution be hastened. Thus those unfit to live (because of race, socio-economic status, handicap, etc.) should be eliminated through means of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.

The birth of the contraceptive and abortion movement (led by Margaret Sanger) began with this eugenic mentality. Sanger was extremely racist and called for the extinction of blacks, the Chinese, and the poor whom she considered unfit for society. Sanger had ten other siblings and watched her mother die of tuberculosis. Rather than blame the disease for her mother’s death, she “blamed the rigors of childbirth” and after the difficult birth of her own child, she became convinced “of the dangers of the birth process and the problems of poverty she associated with large families.”* Soon afterward, she became a radical socialists that supported abortion, political assassinations, eugenics, population control, birth control, and contraceptives.

Sanger was devoted to Darwinism and his theory shaped her sexual ethic (and her call for sexual liberation from traditional values) and worldview. Sanger was only as radical as her worldview took her. She would go on to become the founder of Planned Parenthood who have performed millions of abortions since its own birth. Though it is tempting to see Sanger as a rare radical, one must not forget the influence that Planned Parenthood has on the culture and our politicians. Many liberal politicians speak at Planned Parenthood hoping to gain their support, such as President Barack Obama who addressed the abortion institution during his run for the Presidency noting that “We know that a woman’s right to make a decision about how many children she wants to have and when – without government interference – is one of the most fundamental freedoms we have in this country.”** Sanger would agree. Likewise, in 2009, Secretary of State and former first lady Hillary Clinton was awarded the Margaret Sanger award from Planned Parenthood. In her acceptance speech, Clinton noted that the work of Sanger remains undone. So though Sanger, on the surface, appears to be too radical to be influential, she continues to shape the direction and policy of the United States.

So through one very influential person, the eugenic goal of Hitler continued. Instead of concentration camps, America has promoted abortion clinics and pro-choice politicians and ideals. The American abortion movement was rooted in the eugenic attempt to remove from society those considered unfit for society.

Since many connect crime to poverty, many pro-abortion advocates encourage in poor socio-economic situations to abort their child. Likewise, since those born with diseases, bad genes, or handicaps are considered a drain on societies resources, pro-abortion advocates encourage children diagnosed with "less than perfect genes" to be aborted. The belief is that if the poor and the sick are aborted than we can eliminate both. This is the same goal that the eugenic scientists and politicians in the first half of the 20th Century had.

Here are a few examples that illustrate the eugenic worldview behind abortion. Prior to his inauguration to his first term, President-elect Bill Clinton received a letter from Ron Weddington, the lawyer that represented “Roe” in the infamous Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court case, regarding how he, as President, can cut down on poverty, crime, and health costs in America. His solution was to eliminate such “unfortunate people.” He went on to add:

Some years ago another Southern Governor, when asked about the possibilities for prison reform, supposedly said something to the effect of, ‘Well, I don’t think we’re going to get very far until we get a better class of prisoner.’
Well, I don’t think you are going to get very far in reforming the country until we have a better educated, healthier, wealthier population . . .
But you can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country. No, I’m not advocating some sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people. Crime, drugs and disease are already doing that. The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can’t afford to have babies.

There, I’ve said it. It’s what we all know is true, but we only whisper it, because as liberals who believe in individual rights, we view any program which might treat the disadvantaged differently as discriminatory, mean-spirited and . . . so Republican . . .
And, having convinced the poor that they can’t get out of poverty when they have all those extra mouths to feed, you will have to provide the means to prevent the extra mouths, because abstinence doesn’t work . . . It’s time to officially recognize that people are going to have sex and what we need to do as a nation is prevent as much disease and as many poor babies as possible . . .
No, government is also going to have to provide vasectomies, tubal legations and abortions . . . RU 486 and conventional abortions. Even if we make birth control as ubiquitous as sneakers and junk food, there will still be unplanned pregnancies. There have been about 30 million abortions in this country since Roe v. Wade. Think of all the poverty, crime and misery . . . and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario.***

Clearly, the abortion lawyer sees the connection between abortion and eugenics. By getting rid of those unlike us, society will be better off and free from their poverty and sickness. Furthermore, government won't be forced to take care of all of the mouths to feed on welfare or support through government paid health care programs.

Likewise, in an interview with the New York Times current Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg said regarding Roe vs. Wade and abortion, “Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.” Here, Ginsburg connects abortion to population control. In order to control the population from getting out of hand, society has to determine who is allowed to reproduce and limit how many children couples are allowed to have (this latter population control device is being played out in China with disastrous results).

Finally, while President Barack Obama was campaigning for the presidency said that he supports abortion because if his own daughters were to have sex, he wouldn't want them to be "punished with a baby." To Obama, some children are unwanted for the sole purpose that they are inconvenient to the mother, the family, and society at large.

So far we have said nothing about euthanasia, infanticide, sterilization, or other eugenic attempts to control who reproduces and lives. But does anything else need to be said at this point? The birth of the abortion movement has clearly been linked to eugenics. This does not mean that everyone who has had an abortion over the past 37 years believes or supports eugenics. However, once one studies the movers and shakers in the abortion movement in America, the link is clearly apparent.

In part 2, we will look at specific statistics that prove that directly or indirectly, abortion is attacking particular races and persons considered unfit to live. It is truly appalling to think that we are systematically encouraging particular people, out of simple prejudice, to become extinct. Margaret Sanger and many in the eugenic movement in America would be proud.


*Schweikart and Allen, A Patriot’s History of the United States, 531.
**Taken from Toner, Democrats Attack Bush on Women's Health Issues, New York Times. Click here.
***The image of the original document can be viewed here.
****Much of the above is taken from an upcoming book I am currently writing.


For More:
American Thinker - This Isn't Eugenics . . . No, Wait!
The "Personhood" of Animals: The Argument is Made . . . Again
Colson: The March of Death
Hitler Is Alive And Well: Repeating the Mistakes of the Past
Post a Comment