Why is Eugenics still being discussed so much?

I've noticed a bit of increase in the discussion of Eugenics in the recent weeks since Obama decided to divulge into health care reform seriously. But there's a major issue I take with this fear mongering.

Eugenics isn't possible, and is obsolete, in the 21st century.

How can this be? Am I crazy? No. It's simply a fact that Eugenics cannot be done in this era any more. For those of you who have not noticed, we are doing things like building sperm cells in labs, turning female bone marrow into Sperm, and going on to research how to create eggs from males. (links: scroll down)

So why do we still discuss Eugenics? I mean, there's no way to go about it. You can't force anyone to be sterile, because within the next 10 years, you won't NEED gonads to be able to reproduce, nor will you need to be viable or sterile.

In addition, we're around 10 years from genetic control of the born as well. We are developing techniques to delete unwanted genes from the newborn, and not allow mental retardation.


So I suppose I just want to know why every one is fear mongering Eugenics? It's not possible in this world anymore. You can't do it.

Legally, how would you go about doing it? Do all you people really expect 300 million Americans to go "Oh hai, look at this new bill. You can't have kids if you're like this characterization"

Seriously, how will it be done? How can you do it?



The simple fact is that in an era of genetic, biological, and enviornmental control, how can a government legally go about operating Eugenics? If they sterilize someone, they just make the necessary gonad parts from bone marrow. If they don't allow the mentally ill to have kids, then the mentally ill get a lawyer and get their rights back. If they don't think you can handle your children correctly and demand you hand them over for a better education, the mother gets media publicity, and we, the trolls of the internet, go about arguing over it, traffic jamming all legislature's ability to do anything.


So, can anyone tell me how it can happen?

Some people say they'll have a chip in you to decide when you can reproduce, or if you can. Yea, well, all I have to do is pass by a magnetic brain scanner an the thing flies out of me, or just go under an electric pulse.

Some say the'll just spray chemicals over a certain area. Yea, how exactly will that go unnoticed?

Some say they'll simply make universal health care so the government can say so. Once again, how? What politician is willing to take the heat of allowing it under their administration? They'll be out in no time, if not killed before the next election. And the government would need as many births as possible for future mind-numbed soldiers for their wars.



So please, I invite someone to tell me why eugenics is still relevant to modern society and how exactly it can be done?

I really view this as if the pope today demanded allegiance from all the kinds and queens of Europe. His power is gone, who would listen? This is no different.

As to me, I believe Eugenics is wrong, but that government ADVISING people that their reproduction might be bad is good. Simply informing them, with no binding need to listen.


www.telegraph.co.uk...

www.medicinenet.com...

[edit on 9-7-2009 by Gorman91]

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 9-7-2009 by Gorman91]

reply to post by Gorman91


Eugenics is not just about conception or pre-birth. It is a philosophy about weeding out the unwanted even after they are born.

Think of Hitler and the handicapped or Hitler and the Jews.

reply to post by grapesofraft


But even that is invalid these days. Handicap people are 1 or 2 decades away from cures.

Not to mention alot of the US' upper class are very social progressive. So how can the common American ignore the contradiction between progressing the rights of minorities, but deleting the rights of the weak?

reply to post by Gorman91


I'll tell you why: because it's Obama's Health Care Reform

You already know what Eugenics is: Survival of the Fittest

How has Obama proposed to keep the health care down , and reform healthcare altogether so that EVERYONE can afford it?

Do not prolong healthcare for;

1. elderly
2. terminally ill
3. mentally ill

In short, if you are about to die anyway or are mentally disabled and do not need to reproduce, the state will no longer pay for you to stay on drugs just to keep you comfortable.

It also promotes Family Planning, which was introduced then funded by elitist like Rockefeller and Rothschild and promoted by Margaret Sanger. This was the rise of abortion clinics, the morning after pill, and condems. What was all that bout? Noneother than POPULATION CONTROL

How does family planning reduce costs to the government?

To answer that, you have to understand how population control fits into their overall eugenics program of reducing the population of the world. Fewer babies being born means fewer babies suckling at the teat of government.

reply to post by ButterCookie


Fewer people means less soldiers, customers, and diversity of thought.

All it does is make more people concentrated, educated, and anti government.

Fewer people means the government has no source of income or military. They have to be harsher on the fewer people. This makes the fewer people closer, more rebellious, and more likely to revolt.


How can you reduce the population without reaching these problems?

reply to post by Gorman91


They do not care


They got rid of the middle class to revert back to the feudal system : Working class and Ruling Class...

They view the 'population problem' as a neusance and something that has to reduced to keep the earths's resources plentiful

reply to post by ButterCookie


The lower class are more likely to revolt then the middle class. one of the reasons the US has been lucky in terms of revolutions is BECAUSE they have so few lower class and such a massive middle class.

The uneducated and poor have nothing to lose, remember.

[edit on 9-7-2009 by Gorman91]

to widen the gap between the commoner and the elite

to enlarge the lower class and basically get the majority on State assistance and eventually, the (Eugenics) universal healthcare

reply to post by ButterCookie


But that's elitist suicide.

In a July 7 New York Times Magazine article ("The Place of Women on the Court"; HT to an e-mailer) apparently scheduled to appear in its July 12 print edition (based on its URL), Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told the Times's Emily Bazelon that "at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."

newsbusters.org...

thought you might find this interesting

who knows what they have been up to.

[edit on 113131p://bThursday2009 by Stormdancer777]

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Well what they think isn't necessarily true. It's simply their opinion, and when has the government's opinion been right in the modern era?

The fact remains that the bigger the US gets, the more stable and rich it gets. The smaller it's been, the poorer and more closer to collapse it's been.