An interview with one of Quaker's heroes!

[tombogan03884]

Tom, you really don't mean that or you really don't understand the implications- think NAZIs, concentration camps, forced euthanization of mentally disabled, etc......

Yes, I mean that, flush the gene pool.
And don't give me that "Nazi" crap, they did the same things here, short of the camps and ovens.

[fullautovalmet76]

Yes, I mean that, flush the gene pool.
And don't give me that "Nazi" crap, they did the same things here, short of the camps and ovens.

You're right they did do that here, Tom. We are not exempt. In fact, I argue, and Justice Ginsburg would agree, that Roe v. Wade was an extension of eugenics policy.

I think you really should rethink your ideas on this though. Don't think for a second you will be exempt from the list. Remember the people in charge of that program want to make the world in their "image." And you and I do not fit their template either.....

[tombogan03884]

Oliver Wendall Holmes made some very telling comments about eugenics.
To get back (sort of ) to the topic, I haven't put a whole lot of thought into the subject beyond "retroactive abortion" for lawyers and politicians, but I stand by my opinion that if you actually look around at what our "nurturing" of the "less productive classes" has accomplished, it is darn difficult to come up with valid, non emotional, arguments against it.

[Timothy]

Every time I read the thread subject, I see this...

'An interview with one of Quaker's herpes!'

 

[tt11758]

Every time I read the thread subject, I see this...

'An interview with one of Quaker's herpes!'

 

Well, after all these years we still haven't gotten rid of her, so........  Just sayin.   

[Sponsor]

[Solus]

Oliver Wendall Holmes made some very telling comments about eugenics.
To get back (sort of ) to the topic, I haven't put a whole lot of thought into the subject beyond "retroactive abortion" for lawyers and politicians, but I stand by my opinion that if you actually look around at what our "nurturing" of the "less productive classes" has accomplished, it is darn difficult to come up with valid, non emotional, arguments against it.

I think that is getting to the problem.   Stop the "nurturing" and that problem will tend to go away.

Without the government supporting the "less productive classes" they go away, either by starving or becoming productive enough to feed and support themselves, and there won't the generations after generation who are encouraged to bring additional "recipients" into the world for additional income.

Watching folks suffer until they die isn't easy, but it better than condemning generations of their descendants to the Welfare Rolls.

Drawbacks are that those who can't stand to watch the short term suffering can continue supporting the non productive by donating to local charities, but at least they will be doing it with their money rather than ours.

An objection to this plan will come from those politicians who won't think it is advisable to starve a large portion of their core voting block to death.

 

[fightingquaker13]

Herbert Spencer put this forward in 'Social Statics". Many other Utilitarians agred. Charity was irrational, they claimed, let them starve. Well......those underclasses weren't always chosen by self selection. Social policy played a large role. This was particularly true in 18th-19th century England.
The other problem is that Marx was also on board with this. At the end of the day, his theory is that the poor outnumber the rich and when things get bad enough revolution, with only one outcome, will occur. Numbers will determine it.
So I wouldn't be too quick to throw away social programs of the right sort. Education, job training, the GI Bill, Ameri-Corps, etc. Things that are an investment, not a dole. Lets not forget a sane immigration policy and not subsidizing companies to outsource overseas. And yes, a little (or a lot) of birth control spending to tell folks not to have more kids than you can feed is part of that. The octo-mom any one?  
FQ13