Category Archives: Eugenics

Adolf Hitler learned about eugenics from sterilisation clinics in America,according to a renowned academic.

Yale University historian Daniel Kevles, who has recently retired, made the astonishing claim in reference to a string of genetics laboratories which sprang up in America around the turn of the 20th century,according to the BBC.

Although Kevles believes Englishman Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, was the founding father of eugenics in the mid-19th century, the idea was adopted inAmerica as a solution to the social problems caused by mass immigration and urban overpopulation after the country's civil war.

The historian said that "because America seemed to find itself 'degenerating'" due to problems such as povery, alcoholism and prostitution, support for eugenics crystallised in a series of research centres, and the movement "went through the roof"after a landmark legal case in 1927 ruled that sterilisation was valid under the US constitution.

During the 1930sa wide range of perceived ailments and disabilities - blindness, epilepsy and mental illness among them - were treated with sterilisation, and some states continued the practicefor years after the Nazis' crimes had emerged. In fact the state of Virginia continued to sterilise people until 1979.

Intotal it is estimated that up to 70,000 people were sterilised across the United States, in centres such as the Cold Spring Harbour laboratory, an hour away from New York, which is still active today and admits its role in propagating eugenics on its website.

"If you mention the word 'eugenics' many people associate it with the Nazis and the Holocaust," Kevles said. "But this is erroneous.

"In fact, Hitler learned from what the Americans had done."

Continued here:

Adolf Hitler learned eugenics from American sterilisation camps, says historian - talkRADIO (press release)

By Kevin Mahnken

There are three middle schools in Palo Alto, each named after an important figure in local history: Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School honors the co-founder of Stanford University; David Starr Jordan Middle School is named after Stanfords first president; and Terman Middle School memorializes the psychologist Lewis Terman and his son Frederick, a longtime Stanford provost who has been called the father of Silicon Valley.

The Palo Alto United School Districtranks amongthe top districts in the country; according to Californias newaccountability dashboard, the three schools roughly 2,900 students score at the highest levels on Californias math and English exams. It seems safe to assume that the four deceased educators would be gratified by the performance of their namesake schools.

But the admiration doesnt run both ways. Last month, the local board of education voted unanimously to rename two of the three schools by 2018,citing the prominence ofDavid Starr Jordan and Lewis Terman in Californias early-20th-century eugenics movement. They will also add a unit on the history of eugenics to the districts high school curriculum.

The decision is the latest flash point in a national debate over figures from Americas past whose views though often not those they were famous for are no longer acceptable, and the institutions that share their names. The phenomenon has attracted attention especially among colleges and universities, whose presidents and student activist groups have clashed over the veneration ofWoodrow WilsonandJohn C. Calhoun statesmen revered by previous generations but repugnant to many today for their attitudes about race. But long before todays undergraduates protested againststatues,auditoriums, andmascotson campus, public school authorities around the country had begun moving away from historical monikers.

According toa 2007 Manhattan Institute reportthat gathered data from seven large states, school naming conventions changed significantly over the past few decades. Prominent people, and especially United States presidents, are adopted much less commonly as signifiers of identity, while hundreds of schools have popped up named after beavers, creeks, mesas, and the space program. According to the reports authors, the shift reflects a desire to avoid the messy arguments over history, but also a modest retreat from the duty of civic instruction.

When Florida features far more schoolsnamed after manateesthan Thomas Jefferson, they argue, the country has moved too far in the name of avoiding dispute.

This community has deep roots, so we did have a lot of alumni who thought that we were dissing the namesakes in a way that was unfair, said Terry Godfrey, the president of the Palo Alto School Board. The fact that both Lewis Terman and David Starr Jordan did great things absolutely, we recognize that, and we know that great men have flaws. But we really felt that once you knew this information and understood their role, how they were a driving force [for eugenics], that changed conversation away from They were men of their times, and a lot of people had the same feelings.

Indeed, California was a eugenics leader, carrying outone-thirdof the nations more than60,000 sterilizationsin the early 20th century. Few were more ardent in their support than Terman and Jordan, who helped make Stanford one of the nations leading universities while also belonging to eugenicist organizations likethe Human Betterment Foundation.

Though these names are only recently being reconsidered, individuals tied to more famous American injustices have been marginalized for decades. Twenty-five years ago, the Orleans Parish School Boardbegan a campaignto strike the names of former slaveholders from New Orleans schools. One of them, controversially, was George Washington.

Houston recently moved to alter seven schools named after prominent Confederates, though the planhas met with some pushback. One of the seven, Sidney Lanier, enlisted as a private in his youth before repudiating slavery and becoming one of the Souths most celebrated poets. His proposed replacement, Bob Lanier (no relation), who was mayor of Houston from 1992 to 1998,carries a mixed legacy of his own, including a record of urban development that uprooted one of the oldest black communities in the United States.

All of which raises the question: If the number of taboo historical possibilities is expanding, who or what will supplant them? Current trends suggest longtime school employees, local markers like street or county names, animals, and geographical features.

We have 17 schools in our system, and theyre not all named after people. Theyre named after landmarks and neighborhoods and people, said Palo Altos Godfrey when asked how the districts two schools would be renamed. I dont know what well pick next, and part of the conversation will be about what person its appropriate to name a school after. But we might just go with the kinds of names we have for our other schools.

The residents of Manatee County, Florida, a target of the Manhattan Institutes sometimes acerbic report, are making the same determination. A six-week suggestion period is underway for naming a new school, though a district spokesman said that almost all of the schools named after somebody are for people of local importance, excepting Lincoln Middle School, which was built during segregation as a high school for black children and had its name grandfathered in.

As this story was being filed, the leading candidate for the new school was the name of a person, though not one that will ring through the centuries: Travis Seawright High School, named after a local livestock agent who inspired students to pursue careers in agriculture.

Read this article:

Want to cause a problem in the future? Name your school after someone famous today - LA School Report

The N.C. Department of Administration sent Brashears a letter March 21 stating the final payment is stalled until further notice.

BRUNSWICK COUNTY -- Local eugenics victim Elnora MillsBrashears still has no idea when her last payment from the state will come, but she has someone new to keep her company while she waits.

The N.C. Department of Administration on behalf of the compensation program for victims of the eugenics program sent Brashearsa letter March 21 stating the final payment is stalled until further notice.

The third and final payment cannot proceed until there is a final determination of the total number of the qualified recipientseligible to get a share of the money, according to the letter. The General Assembly appropriated funds to compensate more than 100 victims in 2013.

The Brunswick County resident was sterilized in 1967 without her knowledge when she was a teenager. Brashearswent into the hospital to have an appendectomy, but had no idea the state also removed her ability to have children. The state eugenic's program sterilized more than 7,000 men and women that were deemed unfit to have children between 1929 and 1974.

Since 2013, Brashearshas received $35,000 of the $50,000 that was promised to her. She is still paying for her husband's burial after he died in May 2016. But she has since remarried. She is also battling esophageal cancer with an upcoming surgery she said could very well be life-threatening.

"I'm going to Raleigh," Brashearssaid. Her husband Randy Brashears said he wants to support her going before officials and telling her story in person.

Randy, a Leland resident, said he met her when he was doing research for his novel about eugenics programs. The two wed in February.

"He's so good to me," Brashearssaid, shaking her head and smiling.

This is not the first timeBrashears received a letter from the state informing her there was another hold on the money. Brashearsis frustrated the payout is being stalled after what she has been through. Some individuals have appealed, claiming they should be compensated as part of the program.Brashearswas sent letters about the hold-up in payments throughout 2016.

She needs the money soon, she said, to continue fixing up her home.

"We understand your frustration in the amount of time it is taking to distribute the final payments to eligible claimants," the letter states. But she said they will never understand her frustration in not being able to have the children and grandchildren she always dreamed of having.

Reporter Ashley Morris can be reached at 910-343-2096 or Ashley.Morris@starnewsonline.com

Originally posted here:

Eugenics victim still waiting for final payment - Wilmington Star News - StarNewsOnline.com

By Dr. Mercola

When most people think of eugenics, the practice of "improving" the hereditary qualities of a race by controlled, selective breeding, they think of Nazi Germany and their attempts to exterminate certain ethnic groups.

But not only did the practice begin long before World War II, and end much later, it also was not confined to Nazi Germany.

In fact, eugenics was widely practiced in many countries, including in the United States as recently as the 1980s.

According to the North Carolina Governor's Eugenics Compensation Task Force Preliminary Report:

"The concept of eugenics was created in the late 1800s by British scientist Sir Francis Galton. The mindset at that time was to use genetic selection used in breeding thoroughbreds and other animals to create a class of people who were free of inferior traits. Indiana became the first state in the nation to pass a eugenics law in 1907."

In 1927, a landmark Supreme Court case known as Buck v. Bell gave further fuel to the eugenics movement, as the court actually ruled that the state of Virginia could legally sterilize teenager Carrie Buck, who had been sent to the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-minded because her foster parents deemed her a moral delinquent. It was following this ruling that the eugenics movement really took off in the United States.

In all, 33 states operated sterilization programs during the 20th century, at first targeting mostly people in mental institutions. As the years went by, the definition of what was "unfit to procreate" expanded to include not only the mentally ill but also:

Alcoholics

People with epilepsy

People who were blind or deaf, or had other disabilities

Poor people on welfare

Women who were deemed promiscuous

Criminals

People labeled "feeble-minded"

Children who were victims of rape

It's estimated that 65,000 Americans were sterilized under such programs, most often without their consent or knowledge. This may sound incredulous, but at the height of the sterilization program in North Carolina even social workers could make recommendations for who would be good candidates for sterilization, and those recommendations were almost always accepted.

According to the North Carolina Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation:

"North Carolina law during the eugenics period endorsed sterilization of people who had epilepsy, sickness, "feeblemindedness" and other disabilities. Eugenics was a popular movement, especially prior to the World War II, and other states had similar programs.

However, North Carolina was the only state that allowed social workers to petition for the sterilization of members of the public. These local social workers would petition the board to sterilize a person, and the board would make the final decision. Over 70% of North Carolina's sterilization victims were sterilized after 1945 in contrast to other states that conducted the majority of their sterilizations prior to World War II and 1945."

It was not uncommon for poor, often African American, women in rural areas to go to a hospital to give birth and be unknowingly sterilized, often while being told they were having their appendix removed. This happened even to children, including those who had become pregnant by rape.

As ABC News reported:

"In North Carolina, 85 percent of sterilization were performed on women as young as 9-years-old."

The U.S. eugenics practice was not a movement carried out in the back woods or by a few corrupted individuals, it was a government-approved and in some cases suggested procedure. As stated by the North Carolina Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation:

"The concept or term eugenics refers to the intentional and selective breeding of humans and animals to rid the population of characteristics deemed unfit by those administering this practice. In the U.S., eugenics was carried out by individuals, nonprofit organizations and state governments that felt that human reproduction should be controlled.

In the late 1940s, the Department of Public Welfare began to promote increased sterilization as one of several solutions to poverty and illegitimacy. In the 1950s, the N.C. Eugenics Board began to focus increasingly on the sterilization of welfare recipients, which led to a dramatic rise of sterilizations for African Americans and women that did not reside in state institutions. Prior to the 1950s, many of the sterilization orders primarily impacted persons residing in state institutions."

As reported by ABC News, to this day only seven of the 33 states that had sterilization programs have publicly acknowledged or apologized to victims, and only North Carolina has taken steps to compensate victims for damages. While no decision has yet been reached, the suggested compensation for deceptively taking away a person's ability to procreate is floating around $20,000 to $50,000 per living victim.

In 2011, most of the victims have since passed away, but their families are still living with the pain.

How could anyone ever conceive of doing something like this? Well, that question may never be answered, as human exploitation and experimentation at the hands of the government not only existed well into the 20th century, it's still going on today. Right now, virtually everyone reading this is taking part in any number of unethical experiments you are not being told about, involving substances and technologies that stand to seriously harm your health:

These examples may not be as barbaric as forced sterilization, but they are no less deceitful in terms of the impact they can have on your health. You have taken the first step to opting out of these dangerous, population-wide experiments being thrust upon Americans and much of the world and you did that by getting informed. Use your knowledge as your shield to help you make wise choices for you and your family in regard to food, medications and technology.

See the article here:

U.S. History of Eugenics Practice - Mercola.com

For decades, students from Monash University have happily walked past the John Medley Library.

But what they may not have known was the man the building was named after was once part of Victoria's eugenics movement.

John Medley was Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne in the mid-1900s and was a member of the prominent Eugenics Society of Victoria.

The society advocated for sterilising and segregating those people classified as mental defectives, which included Aboriginal people, homosexuals, prostitutes, the mentally disabled, and the poor.

Historian Ross Jones, who studies the history of eugenics in Australia, said the theory was once widely accepted in Australian society.

"The eugenics movement was widely accepted among all the middle class, there were very few people who said anything against it, Dr Jones said.

THE FEED:Are universities doing enough to prevent and handle sexual harassment on campus?

The eugenics theory contributed to many events in Australia's and the world's history now considered shameful such as the White Australia Policy, the Stolen Generation and ethnic cleansing during WWII.

A group of Monash students decided something needed to be done about the John Medley Library, which is run by university's student union.

The proposed name change has been approved by the Monash Student Council, the governing body of Monash Students Association.

Now, the proposal must be approved by the universitys council before anything further can happen.

Jayden Crozier, a student and Indigenous representative on the student union, said the renaming would be a win for all Indigenous students.

"Once we did highlight the fact that he [John Medley] was involved in eugenics and whatnot, it did make people feel a bit disenfranchised by the whole situation, Mr Crozier said.

It just felt like this was the one area there was a black spot on Monash's history.

So, it's good to have it changed and it's a great success for Indigenous students on campus."

Students at Monash got the idea to change the name after the University of Melbourne renamed their Richard Berry Building for the same reason.

Professor Berry was chairman of the anatomy department at that university in the early 1900s and was also a major player in the eugenics movement.

For decades, students and academics have campaigned to change the name of the building, and in December 2016 the University of Melbourne agreed.

Dr Stephen Hagan is an Indigenous rights activist who was involved in a similar campaign in Toowoomba and said renaming sites is a sign of Australia advancing.

"It's a reflection of us growing up and maturing as a nation that we take advice from people who take great offence at the offensiveness of signs and if people change it, well, I think that's a wonderful thing."

However others argue there is a risk of sweeping uncomfortable, but important, parts of Australian history under the carpet by renaming historical buildings.

Dr Jones says he sees that risk with the Richard Berry Building.

"To rename the building and not have some acknowledgement on it that it's been renamed, and some acknowledgement of Berry's part in that history, is to really wipe out part of the story I think, Dr Jones said.

In 50 years, people apart from a few historians people won't remember that that building, the Berry Building, was named after someone who was an important university figure who was also an important eugenicist.

Rename the building, but there should be a plaque on the building telling the story."

WATCH:Australian universities enrolling more students from refugee backgrounds

The university has not put up a plaque yet but says Richard Berry is remembered by a portrait that hangs in the building.

A number of other buildings at the University of Melbourne carry the names of people involved in the eugenics movement, but the university says there are no plans to rename any other buildings.

A university spokesman has acknowledged in a statement the need to review the names of buildings on the campus.

"The university's Reconciliation Action Plan has clearly defined targets for recognising the value and contribution of Indigenous culture across the lifetime of the institution, the spokesman said.

One of these targets includes a revision of the university policy for the naming of buildings and rooms to ensure this contribution is appropriately recognised. There are no other buildings currently being considered for renaming.

However, the university acknowledges there is a need for a broader review of building and place names across our campuses."

Dr Hagan said resistance to changing racist location names is a trend across Australia and he thinks the nation still has a long way to go.

"If you look at history, Australia's a very racist country look at history, Dr Hagan said.

I mean every monument in every city there's some old general or someone who's riding a big horse, and how many blackfellas do you think they shot to have those badges on their uniforms on those old statues?

Australia loves celebrating its racist past."

WATCH:Why are people racist?

Read the rest here:

Link to eugenics spur Melbourne universities to rename buildings - SBS

In 1883, the English statistician and social scientist Francis Galton coined the word eugenics (well-born, from Greek). The term referred to his idea of selectively breeding people to enhance desirable and eliminate undesirable properties. Seen as following Darwins theory of evolution, in the 1920s and 30s eugenics gained important backing in England and the United States. Scientists and physicians spoke and wrote in its support. It influenced U.S. immigration policy, and states like Virginia used it to justify the forcible sterilization of the intellectually disabled.

Todays growing anti-immigrant and white nationalist movements are raising concerns about a return of this long discredited dogma. For instance, U.S. Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) recently tweeted about a far-right movement in Europe, calling Western culture superior and saying, We cant restore our civilization with somebody elses babies. King hoped for an America thats just so homogenous that we look a lot the same.

At the same time, we are seeing an advance in methods of manipulating human DNA that, though they present many benefits, could also be used to advance eugenic goals. This combination of a dubious political agenda and the tools to implement it could take us in uncharted directions.

We can find guidance in two classic works about the dangers of modifying people and labeling them as superior or inferiorthe novel Brave New World (1932) and the film Gattaca (1997). Their publication anniversaries in 2017 are sharp reminders of the costs of embracing any kind of twenty-first-century eugenics.

Could gene-editing be pushing us toward a neo-eugenic world?

Eugenics straddles the line between repellent Nazi ideas of racial purity and real knowledge of genetics. Scientists eventually dismissed it as pseudo-scientific racism, but it has never completely faded away. In 1994, the book The Bell Curve generated great controversy when its authors Charles Murray and Richard J. Herrnstein argued that test scores showed black people to be less intelligent than white people. In early 2017, Murrays public appearance at Middlebury College elicited protests, showing that eugenic ideas still have power and can evoke strong reactions.

But now, these disreputable ideas could be supported by new methods of manipulating human DNA. The revolutionary CRISPR genome-editing technique, called the scientific breakthrough of 2015, makes it relatively simple to alter the genetic code. And 2016 saw the announcement of the Human Genome Projectwrite, an effort to design and build an entire artificial human genome in the lab.

These advances led to calls for a complete moratorium on human genetic experimentation until it has been more fully examined. The moratorium took effect in 2015. In early 2017, however, a report by the National Academies of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine, Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance, modified this absolute ban. The report called for further study, but also proposed that clinical trials of embryo editing could be allowed if both parents have a serious disease that could be passed on to the child. Some critics condemned even this first step as vastly premature.

Nevertheless, gene editing potentially provides great benefits in combatting disease and improving human lives and longevity. But could this technology also be pushing us toward a neo-eugenic world?

As ever, science fiction can suggest answers. The year 2017 is the 85th anniversary of Brave New World, Aldous Huxleys vision of a eugenics-based society and one of the great twentieth-century novels. Likewise, 2017 will bring the 20th anniversary of the release of the sci-fi film Gattaca, written and directed by Andrew Niccol, about a future society based on genetic destiny. NASA has called Gattaca the most plausible science fiction film ever made.

In 1932, Huxleys novel, written when the eugenics movement still flourished, imagined an advanced biological science. Huxley knew about heredity and eugenics through his own distinguished family: His grandfather Thomas Huxley was the Victorian biologist who defended Darwins theory of evolution, and his evolutionary biologist brother Julian was a leading proponent of eugenics.

Brave New World takes place in the year 2540. People are bred to order through artificial fertilization and put into higher or lower classes in order to maintain the dominant World State. The highest castes, the physically and intellectually superior Alphas and Betas, direct and control everything. The lower Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons, many of them clones, are limited in mind and body and exist only to perform necessary menial tasks. To maintain this system, the World State chemically processes human embryos and fetuses to create people with either enlarged or diminished capacities. The latter are kept docile by large doses of propaganda and a powerful pleasure drug, soma.

Like George Orwells 1984, reviewers continue to find Huxleys novel deeply unsettling. To Bob Barr, writing in the Michigan Law Review, it is a chilling vision and R. S. Deese, in We Are Amphibians, calls its premise the mass production of human beings.

The discovery in 1953 of the structure of DNA led to the advent of real genetic science that could change people. DNA editing appears in several films analyzed by the film historians David A. Kirby and Laura A. Gaither in Genetic Coming of Age: Genomics, Enhancement, and Identity in Film. The authors single out Gattaca as showing a society that has so much confidence in the predictive power of genomics that their culture revolves around these expectations. The film provides a lesson in the eugenic effects of editing human DNA. Its title combines the first letters of guanine,adenine,thymine, andcytosine, the base pair compounds essential to how DNA transmits genetic information.

The In-valid Vincent Freeman (Ethan Hawke) tries to blend in as the genetically perfected Jerome Morrow in Gattaca (Columbia Pictures 1997).

The social order in Gattaca, set in the not-too-distant future, is far looser than in Brave New World. It is much like todays world with one crucial change: Genetic science has advanced so that a persons genetic makeup can be easily tested, and it is routine to alter the DNA of an embryo to produce a baby with specified characteristics. The result is a society dominated by genetic destiny.

Genetic augmentation is not available to everyone in this society. Only those with means can pay geneticists to implant assets like good looks or musical ability in the DNA of their children-to-be. Although it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of a persons genetic profile, in practice Valids, those with superior genetic credentials, have every advantage and live desirable lives, whereas the less genetically favored In-valids or De-gene-rates are the Epsilons of this society, who push brooms and clean toilets.

In the story, young Vincent Freeman (Ethan Hawke) is a non-augmented In-valid who is projected to develop serious medical conditions. Through sheer grit and refusal to quit, he physically outperforms his enhanced Valid brother, determined to realize his ambition of becoming an astronaut. The closest he can come, however, is to work as a janitor at the Gattaca Aerospace Corporation, which launches space missions.

Vincent games the system by acquiring the superb DNA profile of Jerome Morrow (Jude Law), a former Olympics swimmer now in a wheelchair because of an accident. After surgery to make himself resemble Jerome (and with Jeromes help), Vincent can pass as a Valid. His passion affects the disabled Jerome, who famously declares: I only lent you my body. You lent me your dream. Now apparently genetically qualified, Vincent is selected for astronaut training. In the final scene, we see him blast off on a mission to Titan, one of Saturns moons.

In a U.S. where medical care is not equally available to all, genetic enhancement will likely be too costly for all but the wealthy.

Any science that professes to predictably change humanity should be carefully weighedor its results may come to haunt us and the new humans we make. Brave New World shows an extremely repressive society whose eugenic system keeps a select group in control. Although such a goal might appeal to the far right, in the near term, at least, it is hard to imagine such a movement gaining the political power to impose a Nazi-like program of gene editing.

Gattaca, however, presents a believable model for the future. It reflects and extends current attitudes toward race and the disabled, and with Americas growing gap between haves and have-nots, its speculations ring true. Buying genetic advantage to give ones child an edge in life would be just a step beyond what parents now dosending a very young child to an expensive private school, for instanceto gain that edge.

In a U.S. where medical care is not equally available to all, genetic enhancement will likely be too costly for all but the wealthy. As in Gattaca, buying enhancement will not be illegal, nor seen as unethical. But it would widen existing health and social inequalities, as expressed in the reactions to the Human Genome Editing report. Those who can afford it would choose mental and physical advantages for their offspring, perhaps including traits such as selfishness or win at all costs personalities that might benefit them but harm society. This would enhance a special group that would not need Francis Galtons selective breeding to make itself superior over time, leaving everyone else as the In-valids.

This approach could also erode Americas racial and ethnic diversity, fulfilling Rep. Kings fantasies. Homogeneity is exactly what would result if a favored group genetically replicates and enhances itself to produce future generations with the same appearance and attitudes, only more so.

In the final analysis, Brave New World portrays a hard eugenics created by a government to suppress human rights, diversity, and opportunities for its citizens. But like the world in Gattaca, our own society could instead display a eugenic element not imposed from above, but arising from our societys dynamics. Unless our society balances the undoubted benefits of gene editing against its equally undoubted risks, the greater danger may come not from authoritarian government but from this soft eugenics.

By: WILLIAM G. LENNOX

The American Scholar, Vol. 7, No. 4 (AUTUMN 1938), pp. 454-466

The Phi Beta Kappa Society

By: Bob Barr

Michigan Law Review, Vol. 108, No. 6, 2010 SURVEY OF BOOKS RELATED TO THE LAW (April 2010), pp. 847-857

The Michigan Law Review Association

By: David A. Kirby and Laura A. Gaither

New Literary History, Vol. 36, No. 2, Essays Probing the Boundaries of the Human in Science (Spring, 2005), pp. 263-282

The Johns Hopkins University Press

Comments are closed.

More here:

How to Understand the Resurgence of Eugenics - JSTOR Daily

Church Militant

March 27, 2017Modern-Day Eugenics Church Militant Pray for Iceland (and people of similar mindset). They know Down syndrome isn't contagious, and that killing the babies isn't going to eliminate it. The next logical step is to eliminate, or at least sterilize, the parents. These things always escalate ...

Continue reading here:

March 27, 2017Modern-Day Eugenics - Church Militant

Recentreportsrevealthat Iceland is aborting 100 percent of their babies diagnosed with Down syndrome. Dr. Peter McParland, an ob-gyn at National Maternity Hospital, the largest maternity hospital in Ireland, affirmed, "In Iceland every single baby 100 percent of all those diagnosed with Down's syndrome are aborted."

A recent BBC documentary, "A World Without Down's Syndrome," gives an in-depth look at the family life of actress Sally Phillips, whose whole family is blessed by raising a child with Down's syndrome. According to Phillips, the purpose of the film is to ask, "What kind of society do we want to live in, and who do we think should be allowed to live in it?"

Phillips also wanted to show the public that raising a child with Down's syndrome is "not only manageable but also an enjoyable experience." This is backed by polls, which showthat most families are enriched by caring for special-needs babies.

The BBC documentary exposes the fact that in the United Kingdom, 90 percent of babies diagnosed with Down's Syndrome are aborted. Denmark is aborting 98 percent of their Down's Syndrome babies, while roughly 90 percent of babies with that condition are killed annually in the United States.

Oklahoma is but one state pushing back against this holocaust. Last week the state's House of Representatives passed the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2017. It still has a long way to go before becoming law, and the majority of other states need to do likewise.

In answering Phillip's question "What kind of society do we want to live in?" there are some societies that practiced eugenics, thinking it was in their best interest to do so. One such society was Egypt in the days of Moses.

In Exodus 1:16, Pharaoh orders the midwives, "When you shall do the office of midwives to the Hebrew women, and the time of delivery is come: if it be a man child, kill it: if a woman, keep it alive." Pharaoh, like the Communist leaders in today's China, decided who lives based on sex. Like Nazi Germany, Egypt decided who should live based on race.

Thank God "the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded, but saved the men children"; for as we read further in Exodus, Moses was saved because of it. He went on to be God's instrument for establishing the nation of Israel from which Christ would come.

God's plans with individuals are far bigger and nobler than our human plans. As God says through the prophet Isaiah 55:8: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts."

Watch the panel discuss the slaughter of the imperfect in The DownloadModern-Day Eugenics.

Have a news tip? Submit news to our tip line.

Like our work? Support us with a donation.

Read more here:

Modern-Day Eugenics - Church Militant

Gene editing technology will inevitably lead to eugenics and thats a good thing, says Adam Cohen, the author of Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck.

Cohens book relates the tragic story of a young woman from Virginia who was forcibly sterilised. Her case went all the way to the US Supreme Court, which concluded, in the notorious words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Three generations ofimbecilesare enough. That case marked the highwater mark of the American eugenics movement. But Nazi atrocities almost completely discredited the idea.

However, writing in an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Cohen, like an increasing number of bioethicists, distinguishes between bad eugenics and good eugenics. The former is totalitarian and involuntary; the latter is individual and discretionary. He strongly supports the idea of embryo editing: This time around, eugenics could be a force for good.

... we should also recognize that there is a crucial difference between the old eugenics and the new. Rather than demonizing unfit people and working to sterilize them, the new eugenics regards their inherited disabilities as treatable medical conditions and seeks to help them have healthy children.

Link:

Making eugenics acceptable again - BioEdge

Two Palo Alto middle schools named after leading advocates of eugenics will be renamed by the 2018-19 school year, school board members unanimously decidedFriday.

Trustees voted 5-0 to rename Jordan Middle School, which is named after David Starr Jordan, and Terman Middle School, which is named after Lewis Terman.

Trustees asked school district officials to return this spring with a recommendation on the process of renaming the schools.

The board initially considered a recommendation to form an advisory committee that will suggest three new names by Jan. 1. Trustees ultimately decided it was best to have school staff determine if such a timeline is feasible before proceeding.

Board members agreed, however, that the districts schools must incorporate a unit about California and Palo Altos role in the history and impact of the eugenics movement into the history curriculum of secondary schools by next school year.

The board also decided that the cost of renaming the two schools, estimated to be up to $60,000, will be paid out of bond funds whenever possible. Funding for curriculum cannot be paid with bond money.

The decision culminates a year-long debate in which proponents of the name changes classified the eugenics movement and its advocates as racist and out of line with the districts values.

The board was acting on the recommendation of a committee established eight months ago to study the issue.

Terman, a former Stanford psychologist, and Jordan,an accomplished scientist and Stanford first president, were among a group that believed the human race could be improved through selective reproduction including forced sterilization.

The movement began when a seventh-grade student at Jordan Middle School wrote a book report on Jordan and shared what he had learned about the schools namesake.

Excerpt from:

Palo Alto: Two schools named after eugenics advocates to get new names - The Mercury News