Down Syndrome Disappearing In Iceland
19 Aug 2017, 8:32 am
The Germans final solution had foundation as well and quite similar really.
Quote:
From the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum...
"On July 14, 1933, the German government instituted the “Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Diseases.” This law called for the sterilization of all persons who suffered from diseases considered hereditary, including mental illness, learning disabilities, physical deformity, epilepsy, blindness, deafness, and severe alcoholism. With the law’s passage the Third Reich also stepped up its propaganda against the disabled, regularly labeling them “life unworthy of life” or “useless eaters” and highlighting their burden upon society."
"On July 14, 1933, the German government instituted the “Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Diseases.” This law called for the sterilization of all persons who suffered from diseases considered hereditary, including mental illness, learning disabilities, physical deformity, epilepsy, blindness, deafness, and severe alcoholism. With the law’s passage the Third Reich also stepped up its propaganda against the disabled, regularly labeling them “life unworthy of life” or “useless eaters” and highlighting their burden upon society."
It’s interesting that the rationale for aborting the child is that it will eliminate suffering. Suffering is a condition of life. It teaches humility, perspective, and empathy. And most importantly, it allows us to recognize and experience love and joy. This is purely a cost savings measure and it points to a future dilemma. As genetic testing becomes more sophisticated will Iceland decide to eliminate other genetic traits that are potentially costly to the government? Diabetes, heart disease, violent behavior in men? I hear alcoholism is a big problem in Iceland. Are there genetic markers for it? Perhaps a solution is suggested here. Perhaps living with an alcoholic is harder than living with a Downs baby.
Or would Iceland quickly be depopulated? Who knows.
Iceland, cold climate, cold hearts.
Campin_Cat
Veteran
Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.
19 Aug 2017, 7:34 pm
BettaPonic wrote:
This is exciting to me. The people who would have been born to a short, miserable life won't have to suffer.
What if every human, has a purpose? What if a Down's person is NOT so bad-off, that they're miserable, their whole lives, because they're ACCEPTING of their difference? What if a Down's person helps to broaden / improve other people's understanding of people with disabilities? What if, when that understanding is broadened, it also increases people's acceptance / understanding of people with Autism?
What if.....?
_________________
White female; age 59; diagnosed Aspie.
I use caps for emphasis----I'm NOT angry or shouting. I use caps like others use italics, underline, or bold.
"What we know is a drop; what we don't know, is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)
20 Aug 2017, 2:48 am
Campin_Cat wrote:
BettaPonic wrote:
This is exciting to me. The people who would have been born to a short, miserable life won't have to suffer.
What if every human, has a purpose? What if a Down's person is NOT so bad-off, that they're miserable, their whole lives, because they're ACCEPTING of their difference? What if a Down's person helps to broaden / improve other people's understanding of people with disabilities? What if, when that understanding is broadened, it also increases people's acceptance / understanding of people with Autism?
What if.....?
That there is a huge difference between you (and the rest) and me. I want human rights, acceptance, compassion, help, recognition for my struggles, hell, pity for suffering from autism itself.
You all want tolerance, societal praise, celebration, recognition for your supposed gift, identity, pride, and "understanding". Do you think they will ever give better accommodations if you keep saying "Respect my differences, different, no disabled! I am unique and special!"?
We aren't getting any because of this stupid attitude. Down Syndrome btw has been found in higher levels of people who had parents exposed to nuclear radiation (the british testing with people exposed deliberately). So keep exposing people to harmful factors if you want to keep the down syndrome (and autism) quota up.
20 Aug 2017, 11:04 am
johnnyh wrote:
So keep exposing people to harmful factors if you want to keep the down syndrome (and autism) quota up.
Never mind that research has pretty definitively shown autism to be genetic via twin studies, amirite? It's gotta be those vaccines. Because autism is totally worse than polio. Totally.
_________________
But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?
--"Galadriel's Song of Eldamar"
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,790
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
20 Aug 2017, 12:45 pm
Shrapnel wrote:
Quote:
Aug. 17, 2017 1:46 p.m. ET
In the annals of socialized medicine, Iceland has reached a milestone. According to a report this week from CBS News , the island nation’s government-run health system has managed to convince expectant mothers to have an abortion in nearly 100% of cases in which prenatal testing suggests a child will be born with Down syndrome.
“Iceland is on pace to virtually eliminate Down syndrome through abortion,” tweeted CBS News on Monday as it urged followers to tune in for that night’s broadcast.
Patricia Heaton, a television actress best known for her role on the program, “Everybody Loves Raymond,” tweeted a clarification in response: “Iceland isn’t actually eliminating Down Syndrome. They’re just killing everybody that has it. Big difference.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/In the annals of socialized medicine, Iceland has reached a milestone. According to a report this week from CBS News , the island nation’s government-run health system has managed to convince expectant mothers to have an abortion in nearly 100% of cases in which prenatal testing suggests a child will be born with Down syndrome.
“Iceland is on pace to virtually eliminate Down syndrome through abortion,” tweeted CBS News on Monday as it urged followers to tune in for that night’s broadcast.
Patricia Heaton, a television actress best known for her role on the program, “Everybody Loves Raymond,” tweeted a clarification in response: “Iceland isn’t actually eliminating Down Syndrome. They’re just killing everybody that has it. Big difference.”
While CBS News might view Iceland as a liberal success story, there's room for doubt.
Funny, I always thought eugenics was characteristically a practice of the right.
Eugenics is wrong, whether it's endorsed by the right or left, but in the past it's been the right that has been mostly associated with that abhorrent practice, as they've been the ones wanting to weed out the "weak and imperfect."
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,790
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
20 Aug 2017, 12:51 pm
johnnyh wrote:
Campin_Cat wrote:
BettaPonic wrote:
This is exciting to me. The people who would have been born to a short, miserable life won't have to suffer.
What if every human, has a purpose? What if a Down's person is NOT so bad-off, that they're miserable, their whole lives, because they're ACCEPTING of their difference? What if a Down's person helps to broaden / improve other people's understanding of people with disabilities? What if, when that understanding is broadened, it also increases people's acceptance / understanding of people with Autism?
What if.....?
That there is a huge difference between you (and the rest) and me. I want human rights, acceptance, compassion, help, recognition for my struggles, hell, pity for suffering from autism itself.
You all want tolerance, societal praise, celebration, recognition for your supposed gift, identity, pride, and "understanding". Do you think they will ever give better accommodations if you keep saying "Respect my differences, different, no disabled! I am unique and special!"?
We aren't getting any because of this stupid attitude. Down Syndrome btw has been found in higher levels of people who had parents exposed to nuclear radiation (the british testing with people exposed deliberately). So keep exposing people to harmful factors if you want to keep the down syndrome (and autism) quota up.
So where did Down's Syndrome come from prior to the nuclear age?
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,459
Location: Long Island, New York
20 Aug 2017, 1:41 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Funny, I always thought eugenics was characteristically a practice of the right.
Eugenics is wrong, whether it's endorsed by the right or left, but in the past it's been the right that has been mostly associated with that abhorrent practice, as they've been the ones wanting to weed out the "weak and imperfect."
Eugenics is wrong, whether it's endorsed by the right or left, but in the past it's been the right that has been mostly associated with that abhorrent practice, as they've been the ones wanting to weed out the "weak and imperfect."
You thought wrong
Eugenics and the Dark Secret of the American Left
Quote:
Fernald was no ordinary school. Set up in 1848 with funds from the Massachusetts State Legislature, the institution was designed for the incarceration of “feeble-minded” children. Throughout the early 1900s, hundreds of thousands of low-intelligence (though not necessarily ret*d) children were warehoused at Fernald in unspeakable conditions.
Treated like animals and denied any affection, these “human weeds” were considered genetically inferior from the rest of society.
In his book The State Boys Rebellion, Michael D'Antonio shows that one of the purposes behind the Fernald school was to prevent these “idiots” from reproducing and diluting the gene pool. Margaret Sanger, icon of the American left and founder of Planned Parenthood, put it even more succinctly: “The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind.”
The ideology behind Fernald was supplied by the American Eugenics movement. It
was customary for American liberals of the 1920s and 30s to identify human
beings as either hereditarily valuable or inferior. Taking Darwin’s theory of
natural selection and applying it to human society, they typically classed Jews,
Gypsies, Blacks, Native Americans and those of low-IQ as harmful to the human
gene pool.
In his New
York Times bestseller Liberal
Fascism, Jonah Goldberg shows that before Hitler gave eugenics a bad
name, almost all the leading progressive intellectuals of the early 20th century
interpreted Darwin’s theory as a writ to “interfere” with human natural
selection. Indeed, when the National Socialist sterilized over 50,000 “unfit”
Germans, a former advisor to Teddy Roosevelt exclaimed, “The Germans are beating
us at our own game.”
Although contemporary left-wingers have tried to
hush it up, it is a fact of history that the National Academy of Sciences, the
American Medical Association, the National Research Council, Planned Parenthood
and the pre-1960's Democratic Party, all supported the right of the US
government to engage in Eugenic selection, while thirty states adopted
legislation aimed at compulsory sterilization of certain individuals or classes.
Conservatives, orthodox Roman Catholics and radical libertarians, on the other
hand, were routinely ridiculed for their opposition to such policies.
Treated like animals and denied any affection, these “human weeds” were considered genetically inferior from the rest of society.
In his book The State Boys Rebellion, Michael D'Antonio shows that one of the purposes behind the Fernald school was to prevent these “idiots” from reproducing and diluting the gene pool. Margaret Sanger, icon of the American left and founder of Planned Parenthood, put it even more succinctly: “The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind.”
The ideology behind Fernald was supplied by the American Eugenics movement. It
was customary for American liberals of the 1920s and 30s to identify human
beings as either hereditarily valuable or inferior. Taking Darwin’s theory of
natural selection and applying it to human society, they typically classed Jews,
Gypsies, Blacks, Native Americans and those of low-IQ as harmful to the human
gene pool.
In his New
York Times bestseller Liberal
Fascism, Jonah Goldberg shows that before Hitler gave eugenics a bad
name, almost all the leading progressive intellectuals of the early 20th century
interpreted Darwin’s theory as a writ to “interfere” with human natural
selection. Indeed, when the National Socialist sterilized over 50,000 “unfit”
Germans, a former advisor to Teddy Roosevelt exclaimed, “The Germans are beating
us at our own game.”
Although contemporary left-wingers have tried to
hush it up, it is a fact of history that the National Academy of Sciences, the
American Medical Association, the National Research Council, Planned Parenthood
and the pre-1960's Democratic Party, all supported the right of the US
government to engage in Eugenic selection, while thirty states adopted
legislation aimed at compulsory sterilization of certain individuals or classes.
Conservatives, orthodox Roman Catholics and radical libertarians, on the other
hand, were routinely ridiculed for their opposition to such policies.
President Teddy Roosevelt wrote:
I agree with you if you mean, as I suppose you do, that society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind. It is really extraordinary that our people refuse to apply to human beings such elementary knowledge as every successful farmer is obliged to apply to his own stock breeding. Any group of farmers who permitted their best stock not to breed, and let all the increase come from the worst stock, would be treated as fit inmates for an asylum. Yet we fail to understand that such conduct is rational compared to the conduct of a nation which permits unlimited breeding from the worst stocks, physically and morally, while it encourages or connives at the cold selfishness or the twisted sentimentality as a result of which the men and women ought to marry, and if married have large families, remain celebates or have no children or only one or two. Some day we will realize that the prime duty the inescapable duty of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type.
Should we take down all commerations for him?
Eugenics was popular amoung most Americans of all political stripes by the 1930's due in large part to funding by industrialists.
That was then this is now or is it? I see elements of this type of thinking today.
The Anti vaccine movement is associated with the right wing Alex Jones, Donald Trump types but some of the lowest vaccination rates or in progressive places like Marin County, California
The only place electric shock "therapy" is used today is the Judge Rotenberg Center. It is located in Massachusets. Most of the prisoners are autistic New York City teenagers because the city under its arguably most progressive mayor in history pays the school to send them there.
Autism Speaks was founded in New York City. They are now partnering with Google on the #MSSNG genome database project. Google is now under criticism for political correctness. The Simons Foundation also doing Autism genetic research was also founded in New York City.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,790
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
20 Aug 2017, 2:51 pm
ASPartOfMe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Funny, I always thought eugenics was characteristically a practice of the right.
Eugenics is wrong, whether it's endorsed by the right or left, but in the past it's been the right that has been mostly associated with that abhorrent practice, as they've been the ones wanting to weed out the "weak and imperfect."
Eugenics is wrong, whether it's endorsed by the right or left, but in the past it's been the right that has been mostly associated with that abhorrent practice, as they've been the ones wanting to weed out the "weak and imperfect."
You thought wrong
Eugenics and the Dark Secret of the American Left
Quote:
Fernald was no ordinary school. Set up in 1848 with funds from the Massachusetts State Legislature, the institution was designed for the incarceration of “feeble-minded” children. Throughout the early 1900s, hundreds of thousands of low-intelligence (though not necessarily ret*d) children were warehoused at Fernald in unspeakable conditions.
Treated like animals and denied any affection, these “human weeds” were considered genetically inferior from the rest of society.
In his book The State Boys Rebellion, Michael D'Antonio shows that one of the purposes behind the Fernald school was to prevent these “idiots” from reproducing and diluting the gene pool. Margaret Sanger, icon of the American left and founder of Planned Parenthood, put it even more succinctly: “The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind.”
The ideology behind Fernald was supplied by the American Eugenics movement. It
was customary for American liberals of the 1920s and 30s to identify human
beings as either hereditarily valuable or inferior. Taking Darwin’s theory of
natural selection and applying it to human society, they typically classed Jews,
Gypsies, Blacks, Native Americans and those of low-IQ as harmful to the human
gene pool.
In his New
York Times bestseller Liberal
Fascism, Jonah Goldberg shows that before Hitler gave eugenics a bad
name, almost all the leading progressive intellectuals of the early 20th century
interpreted Darwin’s theory as a writ to “interfere” with human natural
selection. Indeed, when the National Socialist sterilized over 50,000 “unfit”
Germans, a former advisor to Teddy Roosevelt exclaimed, “The Germans are beating
us at our own game.”
Although contemporary left-wingers have tried to
hush it up, it is a fact of history that the National Academy of Sciences, the
American Medical Association, the National Research Council, Planned Parenthood
and the pre-1960's Democratic Party, all supported the right of the US
government to engage in Eugenic selection, while thirty states adopted
legislation aimed at compulsory sterilization of certain individuals or classes.
Conservatives, orthodox Roman Catholics and radical libertarians, on the other
hand, were routinely ridiculed for their opposition to such policies.
Treated like animals and denied any affection, these “human weeds” were considered genetically inferior from the rest of society.
In his book The State Boys Rebellion, Michael D'Antonio shows that one of the purposes behind the Fernald school was to prevent these “idiots” from reproducing and diluting the gene pool. Margaret Sanger, icon of the American left and founder of Planned Parenthood, put it even more succinctly: “The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind.”
The ideology behind Fernald was supplied by the American Eugenics movement. It
was customary for American liberals of the 1920s and 30s to identify human
beings as either hereditarily valuable or inferior. Taking Darwin’s theory of
natural selection and applying it to human society, they typically classed Jews,
Gypsies, Blacks, Native Americans and those of low-IQ as harmful to the human
gene pool.
In his New
York Times bestseller Liberal
Fascism, Jonah Goldberg shows that before Hitler gave eugenics a bad
name, almost all the leading progressive intellectuals of the early 20th century
interpreted Darwin’s theory as a writ to “interfere” with human natural
selection. Indeed, when the National Socialist sterilized over 50,000 “unfit”
Germans, a former advisor to Teddy Roosevelt exclaimed, “The Germans are beating
us at our own game.”
Although contemporary left-wingers have tried to
hush it up, it is a fact of history that the National Academy of Sciences, the
American Medical Association, the National Research Council, Planned Parenthood
and the pre-1960's Democratic Party, all supported the right of the US
government to engage in Eugenic selection, while thirty states adopted
legislation aimed at compulsory sterilization of certain individuals or classes.
Conservatives, orthodox Roman Catholics and radical libertarians, on the other
hand, were routinely ridiculed for their opposition to such policies.
President Teddy Roosevelt wrote:
I agree with you if you mean, as I suppose you do, that society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind. It is really extraordinary that our people refuse to apply to human beings such elementary knowledge as every successful farmer is obliged to apply to his own stock breeding. Any group of farmers who permitted their best stock not to breed, and let all the increase come from the worst stock, would be treated as fit inmates for an asylum. Yet we fail to understand that such conduct is rational compared to the conduct of a nation which permits unlimited breeding from the worst stocks, physically and morally, while it encourages or connives at the cold selfishness or the twisted sentimentality as a result of which the men and women ought to marry, and if married have large families, remain celebates or have no children or only one or two. Some day we will realize that the prime duty the inescapable duty of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type.
Should we take down all commerations for him?
Eugenics was popular amoung most Americans of all political stripes by the 1930's due in large part to funding by industrialists.
That was then this is now or is it? I see elements of this type of thinking today.
The Anti vaccine movement is associated with the right wing Alex Jones, Donald Trump types but some of the lowest vaccination rates or in progressive places like Marin County, California
The only place electric shock "therapy" is used today is the Judge Rotenberg Center. It is located in Massachusets. Most of the prisoners are autistic New York City teenagers because the city under its arguably most progressive mayor in history pays the school to send them there.
Autism Speaks was founded in New York City. They are now partnering with Google on the #MSSNG genome database project. Google is now under criticism for political correctness. The Simons Foundation also doing Autism genetic research was also founded in New York City.
Yes - in the past.
I dare say, though, today's liberals would be far more likely to reject eugenics than would the American far right.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,459
Location: Long Island, New York
20 Aug 2017, 5:15 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Funny, I always thought eugenics was characteristically a practice of the right.
Eugenics is wrong, whether it's endorsed by the right or left, but in the past it's been the right that has been mostly associated with that abhorrent practice, as they've been the ones wanting to weed out the "weak and imperfect."
Eugenics is wrong, whether it's endorsed by the right or left, but in the past it's been the right that has been mostly associated with that abhorrent practice, as they've been the ones wanting to weed out the "weak and imperfect."
You thought wrong
Eugenics and the Dark Secret of the American Left
Quote:
Fernald was no ordinary school. Set up in 1848 with funds from the Massachusetts State Legislature, the institution was designed for the incarceration of “feeble-minded” children. Throughout the early 1900s, hundreds of thousands of low-intelligence (though not necessarily ret*d) children were warehoused at Fernald in unspeakable conditions.
Treated like animals and denied any affection, these “human weeds” were considered genetically inferior from the rest of society.
In his book The State Boys Rebellion, Michael D'Antonio shows that one of the purposes behind the Fernald school was to prevent these “idiots” from reproducing and diluting the gene pool. Margaret Sanger, icon of the American left and founder of Planned Parenthood, put it even more succinctly: “The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind.”
The ideology behind Fernald was supplied by the American Eugenics movement. It
was customary for American liberals of the 1920s and 30s to identify human
beings as either hereditarily valuable or inferior. Taking Darwin’s theory of
natural selection and applying it to human society, they typically classed Jews,
Gypsies, Blacks, Native Americans and those of low-IQ as harmful to the human
gene pool.
In his New
York Times bestseller Liberal
Fascism, Jonah Goldberg shows that before Hitler gave eugenics a bad
name, almost all the leading progressive intellectuals of the early 20th century
interpreted Darwin’s theory as a writ to “interfere” with human natural
selection. Indeed, when the National Socialist sterilized over 50,000 “unfit”
Germans, a former advisor to Teddy Roosevelt exclaimed, “The Germans are beating
us at our own game.”
Although contemporary left-wingers have tried to
hush it up, it is a fact of history that the National Academy of Sciences, the
American Medical Association, the National Research Council, Planned Parenthood
and the pre-1960's Democratic Party, all supported the right of the US
government to engage in Eugenic selection, while thirty states adopted
legislation aimed at compulsory sterilization of certain individuals or classes.
Conservatives, orthodox Roman Catholics and radical libertarians, on the other
hand, were routinely ridiculed for their opposition to such policies.
Treated like animals and denied any affection, these “human weeds” were considered genetically inferior from the rest of society.
In his book The State Boys Rebellion, Michael D'Antonio shows that one of the purposes behind the Fernald school was to prevent these “idiots” from reproducing and diluting the gene pool. Margaret Sanger, icon of the American left and founder of Planned Parenthood, put it even more succinctly: “The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind.”
The ideology behind Fernald was supplied by the American Eugenics movement. It
was customary for American liberals of the 1920s and 30s to identify human
beings as either hereditarily valuable or inferior. Taking Darwin’s theory of
natural selection and applying it to human society, they typically classed Jews,
Gypsies, Blacks, Native Americans and those of low-IQ as harmful to the human
gene pool.
In his New
York Times bestseller Liberal
Fascism, Jonah Goldberg shows that before Hitler gave eugenics a bad
name, almost all the leading progressive intellectuals of the early 20th century
interpreted Darwin’s theory as a writ to “interfere” with human natural
selection. Indeed, when the National Socialist sterilized over 50,000 “unfit”
Germans, a former advisor to Teddy Roosevelt exclaimed, “The Germans are beating
us at our own game.”
Although contemporary left-wingers have tried to
hush it up, it is a fact of history that the National Academy of Sciences, the
American Medical Association, the National Research Council, Planned Parenthood
and the pre-1960's Democratic Party, all supported the right of the US
government to engage in Eugenic selection, while thirty states adopted
legislation aimed at compulsory sterilization of certain individuals or classes.
Conservatives, orthodox Roman Catholics and radical libertarians, on the other
hand, were routinely ridiculed for their opposition to such policies.
President Teddy Roosevelt wrote:
I agree with you if you mean, as I suppose you do, that society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind. It is really extraordinary that our people refuse to apply to human beings such elementary knowledge as every successful farmer is obliged to apply to his own stock breeding. Any group of farmers who permitted their best stock not to breed, and let all the increase come from the worst stock, would be treated as fit inmates for an asylum. Yet we fail to understand that such conduct is rational compared to the conduct of a nation which permits unlimited breeding from the worst stocks, physically and morally, while it encourages or connives at the cold selfishness or the twisted sentimentality as a result of which the men and women ought to marry, and if married have large families, remain celebates or have no children or only one or two. Some day we will realize that the prime duty the inescapable duty of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type.
Should we take down all commerations for him?
Eugenics was popular amoung most Americans of all political stripes by the 1930's due in large part to funding by industrialists.
That was then this is now or is it? I see elements of this type of thinking today.
The Anti vaccine movement is associated with the right wing Alex Jones, Donald Trump types but some of the lowest vaccination rates or in progressive places like Marin County, California
The only place electric shock "therapy" is used today is the Judge Rotenberg Center. It is located in Massachusets. Most of the prisoners are autistic New York City teenagers because the city under its arguably most progressive mayor in history pays the school to send them there.
Autism Speaks was founded in New York City. They are now partnering with Google on the #MSSNG genome database project. Google is now under criticism for political correctness. The Simons Foundation also doing Autism genetic research was also founded in New York City.
Yes - in the past.
I dare say, though, today's liberals would be far more likely to reject eugenics than would the American far right.
They would reject the old style sterilize or kill them off eugenics and the direct language. Would they reject the emerging consumer eugenics or less direct eugenics done while being called by another name? I do not think liberals would go for eugenics against racial or ethnic groups or mass sanctioned murder. Not so sure about disabilities especially a disability that helps you think differently or groups that go against their thinking. I have been reading the comments section on the net for almost 20 years now and there is rarely a time when a liberal does not say conservatives are dumb or moron etc. That goes beyond saying my view is right and yours is wrong it is saying liberals are superior people. And like with eugenists science is being used to justify their supremacist thinking
‘Low-Effort Thought’ Promotes Political Conservatism, New Study Says. But if a eugenics technology is not called that and is greatly easing the suffering or curing people of horrible diseases why not expand it to get rid of inferior thinking for the betterment of society?
If Liberals are going to not believe or not care about those claiming that racist thinking is not how they view Confederate statues now because most of them were put up for supremacist reasons decades or a century ago they need to stop ignoring this part of their past. If they are going to think justifications are really just dog whistles to cover their racism they out to think about their current supremacist elements.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
20 Aug 2017, 5:35 pm
AspieUtah wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
I'll say it again: People with Down Syndrome are not destined for a "short, miserable life."
I just don't believe in eugenics---in any shape or form....
I just don't believe in eugenics---in any shape or form....
Yep. I will say it again: When it comes to eugenics, my response to anyone supporting it is "You first."
That's also my response. I've never been a fan of eugenics, ever and I never will be.
_________________
Who wants to adopt a Sweet Pea?
20 Aug 2017, 5:37 pm
AspieUtah wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
I'll say it again: People with Down Syndrome are not destined for a "short, miserable life."
I just don't believe in eugenics---in any shape or form....
I just don't believe in eugenics---in any shape or form....
Yep. I will say it again: When it comes to eugenics, my response to anyone supporting it is "You first."
Which brings mind, why are the "Earth is overpopulated" people still here causing the problem?
_________________
"There are a thousand things that can happen when you go light a rocket engine, and only one of them is good."
Tom Mueller of SpaceX, in Air and Space, Jan. 2011
20 Aug 2017, 8:03 pm
kitesandtrainsandcats wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
I'll say it again: People with Down Syndrome are not destined for a "short, miserable life."
I just don't believe in eugenics---in any shape or form....
I just don't believe in eugenics---in any shape or form....
Yep. I will say it again: When it comes to eugenics, my response to anyone supporting it is "You first."
Which brings mind, why are the "Earth is overpopulated" people still here causing the problem?
That's also what I'd like to know.
_________________
Who wants to adopt a Sweet Pea?
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,790
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
20 Aug 2017, 11:54 pm
ASPartOfMe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Funny, I always thought eugenics was characteristically a practice of the right.
Eugenics is wrong, whether it's endorsed by the right or left, but in the past it's been the right that has been mostly associated with that abhorrent practice, as they've been the ones wanting to weed out the "weak and imperfect."
Eugenics is wrong, whether it's endorsed by the right or left, but in the past it's been the right that has been mostly associated with that abhorrent practice, as they've been the ones wanting to weed out the "weak and imperfect."
You thought wrong
Eugenics and the Dark Secret of the American Left
Quote:
Fernald was no ordinary school. Set up in 1848 with funds from the Massachusetts State Legislature, the institution was designed for the incarceration of “feeble-minded” children. Throughout the early 1900s, hundreds of thousands of low-intelligence (though not necessarily ret*d) children were warehoused at Fernald in unspeakable conditions.
Treated like animals and denied any affection, these “human weeds” were considered genetically inferior from the rest of society.
In his book The State Boys Rebellion, Michael D'Antonio shows that one of the purposes behind the Fernald school was to prevent these “idiots” from reproducing and diluting the gene pool. Margaret Sanger, icon of the American left and founder of Planned Parenthood, put it even more succinctly: “The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind.”
The ideology behind Fernald was supplied by the American Eugenics movement. It
was customary for American liberals of the 1920s and 30s to identify human
beings as either hereditarily valuable or inferior. Taking Darwin’s theory of
natural selection and applying it to human society, they typically classed Jews,
Gypsies, Blacks, Native Americans and those of low-IQ as harmful to the human
gene pool.
In his New
York Times bestseller Liberal
Fascism, Jonah Goldberg shows that before Hitler gave eugenics a bad
name, almost all the leading progressive intellectuals of the early 20th century
interpreted Darwin’s theory as a writ to “interfere” with human natural
selection. Indeed, when the National Socialist sterilized over 50,000 “unfit”
Germans, a former advisor to Teddy Roosevelt exclaimed, “The Germans are beating
us at our own game.”
Although contemporary left-wingers have tried to
hush it up, it is a fact of history that the National Academy of Sciences, the
American Medical Association, the National Research Council, Planned Parenthood
and the pre-1960's Democratic Party, all supported the right of the US
government to engage in Eugenic selection, while thirty states adopted
legislation aimed at compulsory sterilization of certain individuals or classes.
Conservatives, orthodox Roman Catholics and radical libertarians, on the other
hand, were routinely ridiculed for their opposition to such policies.
Treated like animals and denied any affection, these “human weeds” were considered genetically inferior from the rest of society.
In his book The State Boys Rebellion, Michael D'Antonio shows that one of the purposes behind the Fernald school was to prevent these “idiots” from reproducing and diluting the gene pool. Margaret Sanger, icon of the American left and founder of Planned Parenthood, put it even more succinctly: “The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind.”
The ideology behind Fernald was supplied by the American Eugenics movement. It
was customary for American liberals of the 1920s and 30s to identify human
beings as either hereditarily valuable or inferior. Taking Darwin’s theory of
natural selection and applying it to human society, they typically classed Jews,
Gypsies, Blacks, Native Americans and those of low-IQ as harmful to the human
gene pool.
In his New
York Times bestseller Liberal
Fascism, Jonah Goldberg shows that before Hitler gave eugenics a bad
name, almost all the leading progressive intellectuals of the early 20th century
interpreted Darwin’s theory as a writ to “interfere” with human natural
selection. Indeed, when the National Socialist sterilized over 50,000 “unfit”
Germans, a former advisor to Teddy Roosevelt exclaimed, “The Germans are beating
us at our own game.”
Although contemporary left-wingers have tried to
hush it up, it is a fact of history that the National Academy of Sciences, the
American Medical Association, the National Research Council, Planned Parenthood
and the pre-1960's Democratic Party, all supported the right of the US
government to engage in Eugenic selection, while thirty states adopted
legislation aimed at compulsory sterilization of certain individuals or classes.
Conservatives, orthodox Roman Catholics and radical libertarians, on the other
hand, were routinely ridiculed for their opposition to such policies.
President Teddy Roosevelt wrote:
I agree with you if you mean, as I suppose you do, that society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind. It is really extraordinary that our people refuse to apply to human beings such elementary knowledge as every successful farmer is obliged to apply to his own stock breeding. Any group of farmers who permitted their best stock not to breed, and let all the increase come from the worst stock, would be treated as fit inmates for an asylum. Yet we fail to understand that such conduct is rational compared to the conduct of a nation which permits unlimited breeding from the worst stocks, physically and morally, while it encourages or connives at the cold selfishness or the twisted sentimentality as a result of which the men and women ought to marry, and if married have large families, remain celebates or have no children or only one or two. Some day we will realize that the prime duty the inescapable duty of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type.
Should we take down all commerations for him?
Eugenics was popular amoung most Americans of all political stripes by the 1930's due in large part to funding by industrialists.
That was then this is now or is it? I see elements of this type of thinking today.
The Anti vaccine movement is associated with the right wing Alex Jones, Donald Trump types but some of the lowest vaccination rates or in progressive places like Marin County, California
The only place electric shock "therapy" is used today is the Judge Rotenberg Center. It is located in Massachusets. Most of the prisoners are autistic New York City teenagers because the city under its arguably most progressive mayor in history pays the school to send them there.
Autism Speaks was founded in New York City. They are now partnering with Google on the #MSSNG genome database project. Google is now under criticism for political correctness. The Simons Foundation also doing Autism genetic research was also founded in New York City.
Yes - in the past.
I dare say, though, today's liberals would be far more likely to reject eugenics than would the American far right.
They would reject the old style sterilize or kill them off eugenics and the direct language. Would they reject the emerging consumer eugenics or less direct eugenics done while being called by another name? I do not think liberals would go for eugenics against racial or ethnic groups or mass sanctioned murder. Not so sure about disabilities especially a disability that helps you think differently or groups that go against their thinking. I have been reading the comments section on the net for almost 20 years now and there is rarely a time when a liberal does not say conservatives are dumb or moron etc. That goes beyond saying my view is right and yours is wrong it is saying liberals are superior people. And like with eugenists science is being used to justify their supremacist thinking
‘Low-Effort Thought’ Promotes Political Conservatism, New Study Says. But if a eugenics technology is not called that and is greatly easing the suffering or curing people of horrible diseases why not expand it to get rid of inferior thinking for the betterment of society?
If Liberals are going to not believe or not care about those claiming that racist thinking is not how they view Confederate statues now because most of them were put up for supremacist reasons decades or a century ago they need to stop ignoring this part of their past. If they are going to think justifications are really just dog whistles to cover their racism they out to think about their current supremacist elements.
Yes, the likes of Margaret Sanger and others of her ilk should have their negative histories presented as well as the positive. We liberals should not be afraid of the truth.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
21 Aug 2017, 12:35 am
Zaarin wrote:
johnnyh wrote:
So keep exposing people to harmful factors if you want to keep the down syndrome (and autism) quota up.
Never mind that research has pretty definitively shown autism to be genetic via twin studies, amirite? It's gotta be those vaccines. Because autism is totally worse than polio. Totally.
You mean the studies where they found only 77% of the time (not 100%), an identical twin will be autistic if the other is? Hmmmm....can you explain the other 23%?
_________________
I want to apologize to the entire forum. I have been a terrible person, very harsh and critical.
I still hold many of my views, but I will tone down my anger and stop being so bigoted and judgmental. I can't possibly know how you see things and will stop thinking I know everything you all think.
-Johnnyh
21 Aug 2017, 12:37 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
johnnyh wrote:
Campin_Cat wrote:
BettaPonic wrote:
This is exciting to me. The people who would have been born to a short, miserable life won't have to suffer.
What if every human, has a purpose? What if a Down's person is NOT so bad-off, that they're miserable, their whole lives, because they're ACCEPTING of their difference? What if a Down's person helps to broaden / improve other people's understanding of people with disabilities? What if, when that understanding is broadened, it also increases people's acceptance / understanding of people with Autism?
What if.....?
That there is a huge difference between you (and the rest) and me. I want human rights, acceptance, compassion, help, recognition for my struggles, hell, pity for suffering from autism itself.
You all want tolerance, societal praise, celebration, recognition for your supposed gift, identity, pride, and "understanding". Do you think they will ever give better accommodations if you keep saying "Respect my differences, different, no disabled! I am unique and special!"?
We aren't getting any because of this stupid attitude. Down Syndrome btw has been found in higher levels of people who had parents exposed to nuclear radiation (the british testing with people exposed deliberately). So keep exposing people to harmful factors if you want to keep the down syndrome (and autism) quota up.
So where did Down's Syndrome come from prior to the nuclear age?
It existed, but we are talking not about direct cause, but provocation of an already existing risk. Enviromental factors add extra percentage points to risk. For autism, a similar case can be made. Otherwise how do you explain that if one identical twin is autistic, the other has a 23-30% chance of not being autistic? It's not 100% even though identical twins share the same DNA. There is something called gene expression which is affected by enviromental influence.
Also down syndrome is caused by a random mutation. Said mutation is vulnerable to risk.
Do people who never smoke get lung cancer? Yes. Does that mean the RISK of lung cancer and smoking has no association? No. There are genetic predispositions, like bullets in a gun chamber. Sometimes the gun will misfire and send a bullet flying out, but it's a hell lot more likely to be shot if something pulls the trigger.
_________________
I want to apologize to the entire forum. I have been a terrible person, very harsh and critical.
I still hold many of my views, but I will tone down my anger and stop being so bigoted and judgmental. I can't possibly know how you see things and will stop thinking I know everything you all think.
-Johnnyh
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Savant syndrome |
26 Mar 2024, 3:42 am |
| Savant syndrome |
16 Mar 2024, 6:31 am |
| Downs Syndrome question |
30 Mar 2024, 11:49 am |
| Question about Asperger Syndrome and tem "Severe Asperger" |
29 Jan 2024, 11:37 pm |
