Category Archives: Eugenics

Gospel Herald

Bill Nye, The Misuse Of Science Guy: Why Science Doesn't Answer ... Forbes The use of science in public policy has recently been in the news, most prominently in the March for Science at over 600 locations around the globe. 'Bill Nye Saves the World': 'Scientist' Slammed for Promoting Eugenics, Abortion on New Netflix ShowGospel Herald Let's penalize people for having 'extra kids' -- Bill Nye's outrageous ideaFox News David Harsanyi: Bill Nye's repulsive view of humanity | New ...The Union Leader The Ledger -The Daily Dot -The Daily Gazette all 53 news articles »

Excerpt from:

Bill Nye, The Misuse Of Science Guy: Why Science Doesn't Answer ... - Forbes

Foundation makes all the difference. Your personal worldview, where life comes from and why we are here on this planet, really does start in the beginning. As has been widely reported and even mocked on social media, Bill Nye this week suggested that maybe families in the developed world should be penalized for having extra kids. After all, Americans emit more carbon than Nigerians.

Extra kids.As if human beings are like extra pepperoni on your pizza. As if a child werenot a human creation formed by God, worthy of consideration and respect. As if life doesnt matter.

But, see, Bill Nye's foundation is different frommine and probably yours. Bill Nye sees the earth as something to be not just cared for, but protected at every cost at all costs. Something to be worshipped and left pristine. One can only assume, based on this comment, that Bill Nye values the earth more than the humanswho walk upon it every day.

The world is important. All people live on it. We should take care of it. But the argument that the world should be preserved to the extent that people should be eliminated from it defeats the purpose of the planet. God made Earth for people. He set it in the solar system at just the right location, at the perfect angle, on its precise orbit.

To the Left, life is something to be chosen based on convenience. It is valuable only if it is deemed acceptable.

Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heavens and the Earth. He goes on to create everything oceans, land, fish, animals. And then He creates His masterpiece: Adam and Eve. He made them in His own image. He made them with souls. He made them for the very purpose of knowing them because God values human life.

Call it nave or old-fashioned, but the creation is the very beginning of understanding who God is and why we are here. The Earth was made for people, and people in turn should take care of what has been given to them. We are stewards of God's creation, but that should not be confused with idolizing God's creation.

The reasons for having children and the number of children vary. Some couples want to be parents; some are surprised to find out they are going to be. Children are adopted and accepted into families that are biologically not their own. Perspective on birth control and family planning tends to come from personal influences, sometimes financial but often spiritual.

In Genesis 9:7, God tells Noah and his family, "As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it." Can you imagine how Bill Nye would have responded to that command?

It seems that Nye's agenda fits in well with the general thought of the far Left that undermines life and its purpose. To the Left, life is something to be chosen based on convenience. It is valuable only if it is deemed acceptable. It can be euthanized or aborted or limited.

Related:Montgomery Co. Maryland Teachers Attend Official' Seminar on This Religion

But all life is precious, from the moment of conception until the final heartbeat. Not just because of the beauty of the creation, but because of the Creator. The reason for life is to have a relationship with God, to know and worship our creator. By procreating, we experience in a small way the creation of life.

As a parent, one experiences the unfathomable love for another human being. Parents live as if our hearts beat inside another body. It a blessing beyond measure that no government body should have the right to even suggest controlling. As a society views life, so goes the morality of that society.

Related: Trump's Pro-Life Victories in His First 100 Days

Bill Nye's view of life differs from my own. But we were both given the privilege of being born. The utopian existence of a world with no carbon emissions or concrete or structures may be lovely but that perfect planet sounds like a lonely place without people.

Katie Nations is a working mother of three young children from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

View post:

Bill Nye, the Eugenics Guy? | LifeZette - LifeZette

Bill Nye "The Science Guy" has come under fire after proposing an unusual solution to climate change: penalize American families for having "extra kids".

The episode "Earth's People Problem" is part of the Netflix series "Bill Nye Saves the World." During the 30-minute show, Nye asked one of the panelists if it would be a good idea to have the government penalize having "extra kids."

"Should we have policies that penalize people for having extra kids in the developed world?" Nye asked Travis Rieder, an academic for Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University.

"I do think we should at least consider it," said Rieder, who earlier in the show noted that children in developed countries use 160 times more resources than children in the developing world.

"Well, 'at least consider it' is like, 'do it,'" Nye replied.

Rieder replied, "One of the things that we could do that's kind of least policy-ish is we could encourage our culture and our norms to change, right?"

During the show, Nye, an abortion advocate, also explained how women who have access to educational and professional opportunities tend to have fewer children. Thus, more resources can be devoted to those children: "It's not rocket surgery. It's science!" he said.

However, Dr. Rachel Snow, chief of population development at the United Nations Population Fund, who was also on the panel, hit back at the suggestion:

"I would take issue with the idea that we do anything to incentivize fewer children or more children," she said. "I think it's all about ... human rights. People should have the number of children they want ... and if some families have five or six children, God bless them. That's fine. But most people end up with fewer."

Nye's comments sparked outrage on social media, with many accusing "The Science Guy" of promoting eugenics and abortion: "The replacement level fertility rate is 2.1 children per woman--something that most of the developed world hasn't seen in years," writes Town Hall reporter Christine Rousselle. "It's downright spooky and chilling to say that parents should be 'penalized' for daring to expand their families. If anything, one would think that parents should be encouraged to have more children."

Some countries already do penalize large families - with horrifying results. LifeNews notes that in China, families who have more than one or two children report being coerced or even forced to abort their unborn children, fired from their jobs and penalized with huge fines.

Reads a Reuters report: "For decades, China harshly implemented the one-child policy, leading to forced abortions and infanticides across the country. In recent years, however, the policy has been relaxed, and some couples are allowed to have a second child. Others are permitted a second child if they pay a fine."

While some have praised Nye's new Netflix show, the series has received a staggeringly low IMDb score of 4.4 out of 10: "More drivel from another Cultural Marxist thought bully," reads one review. "The writing is astonishingly simple minded, and the 'science' is puerile and near non existent."

During a February interview with The Gospel Herald, Ken Ham, founder, president, and CEO of the creationist organization Answers in Genesis, Creation Museum, and Ark Encounter, warned that Nye's show intentionally "brainwashes and indoctrinates" young people.

"Bill Nye might think he's the savior of the world, but I've got news for Bill Nye: Jesus is the Savior of the world," Ham said, quoting John 3:16 - "For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

He added, "The Bible makes it clear - we can't save ourselves, we had to have someone come and save us because we're sinners."

Ham suggested that Nye will use his Netflix show to "brainwash and indoctrinate people" by stepping outside of observational science and going into the realm of belief.

"He'll do experiments and things will explode...and then he'll say, 'And science has shown us we evolved from animals millions of years ago,'" Ham said. "Totally different. That's the big danger of it all, that it indoctrinates generations [who believe] that because we do things that go 'poof' and 'bang' and make technology, therefore we've got to believe Bill Nye when he says everything came about by natural processes; that there's no God."

Continue reading here:

'Bill Nye Saves the World': 'Scientist' Slammed for Promoting Eugenics, Abortion on New Netflix Show - Gospel Herald

These days, using the tiniest surgical and biological scissors, we can snip away bad genes and insert good ones.thanks

The most astonishing gene therapy news this year has been the crafting of three-parent babies. The in-vitro fertilization practice, known as mitochondrial replacement therapy, is meant to help women who carry genes for mitochondrial diseases have babies without passing the disorders onto their children.

And then there is the time-worn bugaboo of eugenics. Geneticists and ethicists worry that genetic replacement therapies might be used by the wealthy to reduce diversity (selecting for, say, tall, athletic, blond babies) and enhance things like intelligence and physical prowess, producing a generation of look-a-like transhumans who are far more powerful than people who lack the means and money to do the same.

[However,]Im all for gene therapywithin proper scientific and ethical constraintsEvery day, the practice of medicine keeps people alive who would otherwise die. If we only apply the logic of survival of the fittest to genetic therapy, we might wind up culling valuable lives that human ingenuity could save.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post:Three-parent babies should make us examine our instinct for offspring who share our genes

For more background on the Genetic Literacy Project, read GLP on Wikipedia

Read more here:

Are 3-parent babies products of eugenics or the desire to save lives? - Genetic Literacy Project

Katie wrote yesterday about Bill Nye's rather, um, abrupt departure from his "The Science Guy" persona from the 90s. Nye, the star of a new Netflix show called "Bill Nye Saves The World," also has some rather interesting thoughts on human population. Namely, he mused over the idea that people in the developed world should be "penalized" for having "extra kids" who will then potentially contribute to climate change.

Nye dedicated the 13th and final episode of the first season of Bill Nye Saves The World to discussing overpopulation and how the world's population has grown rapidly since he was a child. After almost gleefully endorsing family planning and contraception services, Nye and a panel of experts sat down to discuss possible solutions to the issue. After it was pointed out that in Niger people tend to have large families but relatively low carbon footprints, it was agreed that this was permissible. Then, Nye dropped this rather curious zinger: "So should we have policies that penalize people for having extra kids in the developed world?"

While one panelist said that he was slightly in favor of the idea, others took issue with the idea of telling a person how many or how few children they were allowed to have. One pointed out (likely correctly) that poorer women and/or minority women would likely be the ones penalized for this "crime."

Nye doesn't explain what he would consider to be an "extra kid." The replacement level fertility rate is 2.1 children per woman--something that most of the developed world hasn't seen in years. It's downright spooky and chilling to say that parents should be "penalized" for daring to expand their families. If anything, one would think that parents should be encouraged to have more children, lest the rest of the world end up like Japan.

It's also rather upsetting to see being a mother and housewife discussed as if it's a negative. Many women find immense joy and fulfillment in being a mom and homemaker. A woman shouldn't be derided or thought of as lesser-than if she chooses this option instead of pursuing a career. It's not a bad thing, nor should it be looked down upon--yet throughout the episode, it was only discussed in a negative light.

It's sad to see someone who was once a childhood hero of mine (let's be honest, "Bill Nye The Science Guy" days at school were always the best days), fall into this disgusting, quasi-nihilist rhetoric. Bill Nye used to be funny and informative. Now he's just cringe-worthy.

And for good measure, here's a list of "extra kids" who I'm pretty happy were born:

1. Celine Dion (youngest of 14 children)

2. Dolly Parton (fourth out of 12 children)

3. Stephen Colbert (youngest of 11 children)

4. Ben Franklin (his father's 15th child and his mother's eighth)

5. Jim Gaffigan (youngest of 6 children)

See original here:

Bill Nye The Eugenics Guy: Maybe We Should Penalize People With "Extra Kids" - Townhall

Most people close their eyes to unpleasantness in their past. Political movements do the same thing on a grander scale. Nowhere is this truer than in the willful blindness of twenty-first-century progressives to their early twentieth-century counterparts embrace of eugenics.

If you have spent any time in the conservative or pro-life movements, it is not news to you that the leading lights of progressive opinion a century ago openly embraced eugenics. Eugenics, the theory that social policies must be enacted to cull the bad genes from society, was popular among progressives across the developed world, including the United States. What constituted bad genes was, according to its proponents, a matter of scientific consensus. Today we would call it racism and classism.

After seeing the end result of such ideas in the Holocaust, progressives naturally sought to bury their connection to this genocidal concept, and succeeded in doing so, at least when they can discredit conservatives who persist in mentioning it. That problem bubbled to the surface last week when Bloombergs economist and writer Noah Smith tweeted, Apparently some people believe that eugenics was the scientific consensus 100 years ago. Sounds like a total myth to me.

That historical denialism did not go unnoticed. The editors of The New Atlantis, among others, pointed out the dangerous historical ignorance at work in that statement. Indeed, they went further than Smith and cracked a book or two to back up their points (see the thread here).

The New Atlantis is a journal about technology and society, and its writers demonstrated the horrible interaction between the two in eugenics. Citing from Edwin Blacks 2003 book, War Against the Weak, they described the scientific consensus on eugenics, with eugenicists firmly entrenched in the biology, zoology, social science, psychology and anthropology departments of the nations leading institutions of higher learning. The belief trickled down to high schools. A 1914 biology textbook, A Civic Biology, written by George William Hunter and issued by the nations largest book publisher, held that:

When people marry, there are certain things that the individual as well as the race should demand. The most important of these is freedom from germ diseases which might be handed down to the offspring. [] epilepsy and feeble-mindedness are handicaps which it is not only unfair but criminal to hand down to posterity. The science of being well born is called eugenics.

In case it is not clear what the author means, he goes on to describe what should be done about families that are not practitioners of the science of being well born.

Hundreds of families such as those described above exist to-day, spreading disease, immorality, and crime to all parts of this country. The cost to society of such families is very severe. Just as certain animals or plants become parasitic on other plants or animals, these families have become parasitic on society. They not only do harm to others by corrupting, stealing, or spreading disease, but they are actually protected and cared for by the state out of public money. They take from society, but they give nothing in return. They are true parasites.

If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe, and are now meeting with success in this country.

Eugenics grew only more popular from there. In 1921, Science magazine published the remarks of Henry Fairfield Osborn, president of the American Museum of Natural History in New York and a leading proponent of eugenics. His slant on the topic was as much political as scientific, bemoaning the influx of immigrants to the United States who are unfit to share the duties and responsibilities of our well-founded government.

He called for eugenics supporters to enlighten government in the prevention of the spread and multiplication of worthless members of society, the spread of feeblemindedness, of idiocy, and of all moral and intellectual as well as physical diseases. Again, this was a prominent scientist who ran a museum in Americas largest city.

It is easy to see why a progressive would be ashamed to have this as a part of his intellectual heritage, but it is harder to understand why progressives have been permitted to sweep it under the rug so completely that even their own adherents have forgotten it. This was not a fringe theory. It was taught without controversy in colleges and high schools across the country, and a consensus of scientists attested to its validity. This was the received wisdom among social scientists, and it soon became the law of the land in many American states.

When something is a widely recognized scientific fact, any good progressive knows it must be made mandatory. Indiana passed the first eugenic sterilization law in 1907, and by the late 1920s a majority of states passed some form of sterilization law to cull the bad genes from society. The most famous of these was Virginias law allowing the sterilization of state asylum inmates without their consent. The law was challenged on equal protection and due process grounds, eventually reaching the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Buck v. Bell in 1927.

Before the appeal was heard, legal opinion followed scientific opinion in judging the law to be just and proper. In a Virginia Law Review note the year before the high court hearing, the author found no objection in the law, suggesting that even if the legitimacy of the science was uncertain, the state should be given the benefit of the doubt. Is there a grave social danger to the transmission of feeble-mindedness to posterity; and is sterilization an effective means of meeting that danger? These questions cannot at this stage of medical progress be answered be answered with any certainty. But simple doubt of the wisdom or policy of a statute is not decisive against its constitutionality.

The author also noted that the procedure could not be considered cruel and unusual punishment because it was not penal but purely eugenical and therapeutic. It was, in other words, for their own good.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmess opinion in Buck v. Bell the following year lacked any of the law review authors humility. Citing the lower court judgment on the facts of the case, Holmes wrote, Carrie Buck is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization.

His reasoning in the decision mirrored progressive opinion across the country. It is betterif instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. Noting that Bucks mother was a resident of the same asylum, Holmes wrote the famous damning statement, Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

The decision made forced sterilization legal, as far as the federal government was concerned. That would be evil enough, but modern research shows that the entire case was based on lies. Author Paul Lombardos Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell lays out the shocking, but ultimately unsurprising, truth that the state had exaggerated the degeneracy of Bucks conditions to make her sterilization easier to perform with legal sanction. Bucks feeble-mindedness was based on the testimony of people who barely knew her. Having a baby out of wedlock made her promiscuous in the eyes of state officials, although the circumstances of her pregnancy would, in modern law, have been called rape.

Bucks daughter, also judged by the state to be of subpar intelligence, was eight months old when that assessment was made. Lombardo interviewed Carrie Buck shortly before her death in 1983, and found her to be of normal intelligence. She was no danger to society; what she was, was poor and fertile. The progressive state could not accept that.

The widespread certainty in the justice and necessity of eugenics among scholars and legislators in the early twentieth century is beyond dispute. Concealing that historical truth is almost a requirement for the modern version of the progressive movement, however, because of the undeniable parallels between the eugenics movement and the current pseudo-science of the Left.

Declaring a scientific consensus to have been achieved and insisting on an end to discussion might seem familiar.

Declaring a scientific consensus to have been achieved and insisting on an end to discussion might seem familiar because it is identical to the way the Left talks about man-made global warming and treatments for transgender people. The thread of eugenics, also, is uninterrupted between the progressives of then and the abortion movement of today.

Planned Parenthoods founder, Margaret Sanger, was a leading eugenicist. In 1921, she wrote that the unbalance between the birth rate of the unfit and the fit [is] admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization and that the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective. Time magazine sought to put this fact in context in a 2016 article, noting that in the 1920s and 1930s, eugenics enjoyed widespread support from mainstream doctors, scientists and the general public. Yes, yes it did.

Everything about 1910s and 20s progressives echoes in their modern intellectual descendants a century later. Absolute trust in government to do what is right. Certitude in their own scientific correctness, despite having seen settled science become unsettled with each generation. Knowing what is best for their fellow citizens, and the willingness to use force to overrule doubt and dissent. Even Hunters statement that all the Europeans are already doing it, so it must be good. But most of all, there is the repeated theme, the fervent belief that some people are not people, not really, not in any way that would make them deserve rights and liberty.

The progressive cause is helped by silence on this point, a silence so vast that even educated men like Noah Smith are ignorant of the movements past. Progressivism is relentless in its pursuit of an ideal future full of perfected humans. They can only achieve that by concealing the crimes of the past.

Kyle Sammin is a lawyer and writer from Pennsylvania. Read some of his other writing at kylesammin.com, or follow him on Twitter @KyleSammin.

Read more here:

Refusing To Believe Early Progressives Loved Eugenics Will Not ... - The Federalist

Please sign in or subscribe to read more articles

Bringing you the best journalism, comment and analysis in Scotland, wherever and whenever you need it, in any format. AD-FREE subscriptions now available too. Now with 'Ad-Free' Premium option.

Please enable cookies to read the full article.

You've read articles in the last 30 days.

Sign-in to read more or subscribe for unlimited access

Subscribe for unlimited access

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in re cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis ure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ivelit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Exc

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis ure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

See the rest here:

The Welfare Reform Act smacks of return to murky world of eugenics - Herald Scotland

Eugenics is the philosophy and social movement that argues it is possible to improve the human race and society by encouraging reproduction by people or populations with desirable traits (termed positive eugenics) and discouraging reproduction by people with undesirable qualities (termed negative eugenics). The eugenics movement began in the United States in the early part of the 20th century; the United States was the first country to have a systematic program for performing sterilizations on individuals without their knowledge or against their will. It was supported and encouraged by a wide swath of people, including politicians, scientists, social reformers, prominent business leaders and other influential individuals who shared a goal of reducing the burden on society. The majority of people targeted for sterilization were deemed of inferior intelligence, particularly poor people and eventually people of color.[1]

In the early 20th century, many scientists were skeptical of the scientific underpinnings of eugenics. Eugenicists argued that parents from good stock produced healthier and intellectually superior children. They believed that traits such as poverty, shiftlessness, criminality and poor work ethic were inherited and that people of Nordic ancestry were inherently superior to other peoples, despite an obvious lack of evidence and scientific proof. However, eugenicists were able to persuade the Carnegie Institution and prestigious universities to support their work, thus legitimizing it and creating the perception that their philosophy was, in fact, science.

The eugenics movement became widely seen as a legitimate way to improve society and was supported by such people as Winston Churchill, Margaret Sanger, Theodore Roosevelt and John Harvey Kellogg. Eugenics became an academic discipline at many prominent colleges, including Harvard University, Dartmouth College, University of Washington and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), among many others. From the outset, the movement also had critics, including lawyer and civil rights advocate Clarence Darrow as well as scientists who refuted the idea that purity leads to fewer negative gene mutations. Nevertheless, between 1927 and the 1970s, there were more than 60,000 compulsory sterilizations performed in 33 states in the United States; California led the nation with over 20,000. Experts think many more sterilizations were likely performed, but not officially recorded.[2]

Adolf Hitler based some of his early ideas about eugenics on the programs practiced in the United States. He was its most infamous practitioner; the Nazis killed tens of thousands of disabled people and sterilized hundreds of thousands deemed inferior and medically unfit. After World War II and the Holocaust, the American eugenics movement was widely condemned. However, sterilization programs continued in many states until the mid-1970s.

Today, safeguards have been established to ensure that the ethical implications of new technologies are discussed and debated before being employed on a large scale. In this way, the benefits and advances arising from scientific research and medical procedures can be achieved both ethically and humanely. Examples of the efforts of the United States government to ensure that progress in science, research and technology proceeds in an ethical and socially acceptable manner include the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, well known for the development of the Belmont Report, and the Ethical, Legal and Social Issues (ELSI) program housed in the National Human Genome Research Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Many people fear that new advances in genetics could lead to a new era of eugenics. However, these advances lead to sometimes difficult ethical questions, particularly related to reproductive technologies and embryo screening. As science advances, what traits might people be able to choose or select against? Is it acceptable for prospective parents to have a say in which embryos are implanted in a womens uterus for non-medical reasons? Is it acceptable for society to dictate this decision to prospective parents? Many of the breakthroughs have saved lives and will continue to do so on a grander scale, and we, as a society, need to discuss the complex issues related to genetic technologies. Debate and discussion can be illuminating even though complete consensus about the intersection of genetics and society will be difficult.

This lesson provides students with a historical overview of the American eugenics movement and highlights some of the advances and breakthroughs that have been achieved through genetic and genomic research. Many people fear that new advances in genetics, particularly embryo screening and analysis of fetal DNA, could lead to a new era of eugenics. The goal of this lesson is for students to start discussing these topics so that they can understand the complexity of the issues and engage in conversations that contrast the dangers of eugenics with the benefits that can come from genetic information.

Download lesson plan: Word documentorPDF Download slideshow: PowerPoint slides

Vermont Eugenics: A Documentary History

This lesson uses primary source documents to explore issues of race, gender and class in the 20th century. It is intended to extend the ideas explored in History, eugenics and genetics. The goal of this lesson is for students to use original sources to understand how the eugenics movement used propaganda to enter mainstream America to promote its agenda, and use critical thinking skills to analyze and interpret the sources.

Download lesson plan: Word documentorPDF Download slideshow: PowerPoint slides

Read the original post:

What is eugenics? pgEd

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Asked by a TMZ reporter to elaborate further on the topic, Cannonsaid, Yeah, its population control.

When pressed further, theAmericas Got Talenthost said Planned Parenthood engages in modern day eugenics.

The 36-year-old TV star first accused Planned Parenthood of inflicting real genocide on black Americans during an interview last week with The Breakfast Clubradio show.

Hillary was sneaking and cheating, Cannon said.Think about all the stuff they did with Planned Parenthood and all that type of stuff. That type of stuff is to take our community and forget gentrification, its real genocide, and its been like that for years.

Cannon appears to be referring to Planned Parenthoods genesis in the early 20th century.

Planned Parenthood wasfounded by eugenicist Margaret Sanger in October 1916. More than 100 years later, the taxpayer-funded organization performs over300,000 abortions per year in the United States making it the countrys largest abortion provider.

According to the2010 census, some 79 percent of Planned Parenthoods abortion facilities arelocatedwithin walking distance of black or Latinoneighborhoods.

Of the 59 million abortionsperformedsince the Supreme CourtsRoe v. Wadedecision in 1973, more than18 million of them have been of black children. Today, about30 percent of all abortions in the U.S. are performed on black women, while another 25 percent are performed on Hispanic women,Breitbart News hasreported.

FollowJerome Hudsonon Twitter@jeromeehudson

Read more:

Nick Cannon: Planned Parenthood Is 'Modern Day Eugenics'

Recent articles in the Commercial-News provided me with some education.

One article reminded me of history I had forgotten: that about 1849, following the Mexican/American War, large portions of the Southwest became U.S. property. Later, I wonder if this information had a connection to eugenics, defined in an editorial by George Will, Eugenics was a progressive cause.

Mr. Will defined eugenics as controlled breeding to improve the heritable traits of human beings; a really disgusting idea, but one that was discussed frequently from 1875 to 1925 and again in the 1994 book, The Bell Curve by Charles Murray. Will reported that Murray was not permitted to speak at Middlebury College because liberal students there failed to recognize that eugenics was originally an idea of progressives, not conservatives. Who knew?

Some of Wills quotes from those supporting eugenics are so outlandish, I will not mention them, but one involved former liberal President, Woodrow Wilson. Wilson, according to Will, had contrasted the sturdy stocks of the north of Europe (Germany, Norway, etc) with those of southern Europe (Spain, Italy) who had, neither skill nor energy nor any initiative of quick intelligence.

President Wilson must have known little about the damage that governments can inflict upon their citizens and/or had little belief in the benefits that individual freedom and a free market can deliver. He must have also forgotten that both Spain and Italy, at one time in their histories, were great and conquering world powers.

Spaniards, Italians, Mexicans, Germans and Americans, black, white and Hispanic, are not stupid people who need, somehow, to be improved; all of us are simply people, human beings, each born with the potential of genius. It is the impact of how people are educated, treated and given freedom to pursue happiness that impacts the skill, energy and initiative of quick intelligence, referred to by Wilson, not their so called inherent traits. Many examples prove this.

Most dramatically was the split that occurred in Germany after WWII. In the blink of an eye, West Germany became a smart, sturdy stock, and had a booming economy, while East Germany eventually collapsed under its own weight, economic development hindered by loss of freedom under Russian rule. Had East Germans suddenly lost their skill, energy and intelligence?

Before 1990, Spanish laws had been imposed to reduce unemployment, limiting workers to 11 total months of work annually. As a result, Spanish businesses needed many extra employees to provide coverage for unexpected overtime and vacations. These rules produced no noticeable benefit. Unemployment in Spain was about 18 percent in 1990 and is still 18 percent, highest in Europe. Why? Unneeded employees means higher prices for goods, less international trade and less capital and incentive for improvements; a result of governmental limitations, not lack of energy among the workers.

I wonder If the American Southwest had not been obtained from Mexico, Would Houston, Phoenix, and Los Angeles be the great metropolises of today or would they be average Mexican cities with many citizens desiring to live in the United States? What is it about that imaginary line that divides Americas wealth from Mexico if not Mexican law? In rural Mexico I observed an economy that seemed to progress into the 1950s, then stopped (1950s dcor, autos, farming, and construction). Yet, a meat casing plant in rural Mexico, similar to Teepak/Viscofan, is operated just as competently by Mexican workers as American workers operate Teepak/Viscofan in Danville.

Yes, America is blessed by many natural resources, but no more than Russia, a country with only one-seventh as large of an economy. Yet another example showing that freedom triumphs over stupid notions of eugenics.

Ron Gore is a Covington resident and former Commercial-News newsboy and scholarship recipient. He can be reached at rgore1942@spamarrest.com. (emails will require a conformation sending if returned to sender).

SHARE YOUR VIEWS

The Commercial-News invites readers and organizations to submit columns for this page. Submissions should be 500-600 words and must include the authors name, address and telephone number. Local topics are preferred. Send submissions to newsroom@dancomnews.com; submit them through the Letters to the Editor function on our website, http://www.commercial-news.com; or mail them to: Commercial-News, c/o PO Box 787, Danville, IL 61832.

More:

Gore: Freedom triumphs over stupid notions of eugenics - Danville Commercial News