SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Solon who wrote (66461)3/9/2015 9:49:08 PM
From: Greg or e  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 69300
 
Everyone knows that Eugenics grew out of Darwinism and the observation that Humans had in effect nullified Natural Selection by not allowing the weak, the sickly and the inferior to die or be killed as in the example you gave about the bloody Wolf who had just killed her rivals children. That was the mentality that led Sanger to talk about Sterilizing and imprisoning those she clearly saw as dangerous rivals to her and her friends. The Nazis took the evil of Eugenics to it's impeccably logical conclusions. If you can't follow the logic of your own position that's your fault, not mine.

Even the United States Supreme Court endorsed aspects of eugenics. In its
infamous 1927 decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "It
is better for all the world, if .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….
Three
Generations of imbeciles are enough
" This decision opened the floodgates
for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman.
Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes's words in their
own defense
. - See more at:
historynewsnetwork.org

...........................................................

“Eugenics” ... its historical connotations tie it to the selective breeding programs, horrifying concentration camps, medical experiments, and mass exterminations promoted by Germany's Nazi regime in World War II. ...can related contemporary practices be distinguished, in their aims, forms, justifications, and likely consequences, from the clearly morally impermissible eugenic programs of the past?"

Good question, I say no! You still want to create a Master Race, well all except for the slave drones that you will no doubt breed to be subservient to your every twisted desire. We all know the results will inevitably have YOUR eyes. We have more than enough of you and your kind already, thank you very much! We don't need a bunch of atheists with their morally questionable ulterior motives playing god with other peoples lives.



To: Solon who wrote (66461)3/14/2015 12:51:29 AM
From: Greg or e1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Brumar89

  Respond to of 69300
 
Margaret Sanger’s legacy is not salvageable, so let’s not try.
By Denny Burk on March 11, 2015 in Christianity
Rachel Marie Stone has an eye-popping piece at Christianity Today arguing that Margaret Sanger was not as bad as pro-life people have made her out to be. Never mind that Sanger was a racist eugenicist and the founder of Planned Parenthood. Stone argues that Sanger points us to the humane uses of contraception, and we should be thankful for that part of her legacy.

I don’t think that I am the only pro-life evangelical who will find this utterly unconvincing. In fact, I don’t think I’ll be the only one to be scandalized by this. Sanger’s legacy has a body-count. The attempt to salvage Sanger’s “good” by downplaying Sanger’s “bad” doesn’t pass the sniff-test. It would be like saying, “Yes, that slavery thing was pretty bad, but look at all the wonderful cotton that came from it.”

On top of that, it’s more than a little strange to hear an evangelical echo long-standing feminist tropes defending contraception on the grounds that it “reduces the number of unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion.” And there are grounds for questioning Stone on this very point. Abby Johnson offers a powerful counterpoint, arguing “ Sorry folks. Contraception access increases abortions. And here’s the proof.” Johnson offers a key statistic:

Here’s a statistic from the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s research arm. This stat makes Planned Parenthood look terrible, so I can’t imagine that this is not accurate. They have absolutely nothing to gain by putting this out there: “More than half of women obtaining abortions in 2000 (54%) had been using a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.”


How is it that abortion supporters understand that birth control does not reduce abortion, yet pro-lifers don’t? Birth control was created so that we could separate sex from procreation. How do we not get that, pro-lifers? When you separate the act of sex from babies, of course abortions occur.


If the Guttmacher Institute says that the majority of women seeking abortion in the United States are using birth control, then that raises serious questions about that aspect of Stone’s argument as well.

In any case, it’s a little surprising to see any defense of Margaret Sanger on the Christianity Today website. No matter how you dress it up, Sanger’s racism and eugenics were and are indefensible. Her legacy in Planned Parenthood—the nation’s largest abortion provider—has been notoriously bloody. I just can’t imagine why anyone would offer a defense. Perhaps it makes sense when Planned Parenthood does it, but it makes no sense coming from a pro-life person.