It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Worldwide Eugenics Operation: Professor Openly Calls For the Sterilization of the “Unfit”

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Famous People With Genetic Disorders:

Abraham Lincoln:


Famous people who suffer from genetic diseases such as hemophilia have often drawn great public attention and curiosity. The successes of such people have inspired members of society to pursue excellence in their areas of specializations despite their delicate health conditions.



Abraham Lincoln reigned as the first President of the United States for close to four years. He is favorably remembered for giving great leadership directions during the Civil War of the 1980s and for his Emancipation Proclamation that led to the freeing of Confederate slaves.


It has also been postulated that Lincoln had Marfan syndrome:


In 1962, a Los Angeles physician diagnosed a 7-year-old boy with Marfan syndrome, a dominant genetic disorder that leads to a whole variety of complications, including early death from a ruptured heart. The patient was an indirect descendent of Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln left no direct progeny), and the physician speculated that perhaps Lincoln had the same disorder.


Stephen Hawking:


Stephen Hawking - Professor Stephen Hawking is a well-known example of a person with MND, and has lived for more than 40 years with the disease. Stephen Hawking: The internationally renowned Physicist, has defied time and doctors pronouncements that he would not live 2-years beyond his 21 years of age when he was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS); also known as Lou Gehrigs disease. The symptoms are very similar to those of CP, Hawking cannot walk, talk, breathe easy, swallow and has difficulty in holding up his head. Hawking, 51, was told 30 years ago, when he was a not-very-remarkable college student. Read more: www.disabled-world.com...


Pope John Paul II:


Pope John Paul II - (18 May 1920 2 April 2005) Pope John Paul II reigned as the 264th Pope of the Roman Catholic Church and Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City from 16 October 1978, until his death, almost 27 years later. On 13 May 1981 John Paul II was shot and critically wounded by Mehmet Ali Ag(ca, a Turkish gunman, as he entered St. Peter's Square to address an audience. He was rushed into the Vatican complex, then to the Gemelli Hospital, where Dr. Francesco Crucitti, a noted surgeon, had just arrived by police escort after hearing of the incident. The Pope had lost almost three-quarters of his blood, a near-exsanguination, despite the fact that the bullets missed his mesenteric artery and abdominal aorta. He underwent five hours of surgery to treat his massive blood loss and abdominal wounds. John Paul II's health suffered a major blow after the first failed assassination attempt. He went on to a full recovery, and sported an impressive physical condition throughout the 1980s. Starting about 1992, however, his health slowly declined. He rarely walked in public and began to suffer from an increasingly slurred speech and difficulty in hearing. Most experts agreed that the frail pontiff suffered from Parkinson's disease, although it wasn't until 2003 that the Vatican finally confirmed it. Read more: www.disabled-world.com...


These are just a very few people who have made an indelible mark on history, and have also suffered from some form of genetic disorder. Were there parents sterilized because the state deemed them "unfit" to propagate, no one would have ever heard of Abraham Lincoln, Stephen Hawking, or Pope John Paul II.




posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
One of the worst crimes of world war 2 was the fact that whenever anyone starts talking about eugenics, people immediately bring up nazi's.

The concept is perfectly fine...it is natural, it is darwinian...remove over time defective aspects of humanity and breed in positive traits.

So my question is this...should we focus on the betterment of the human species over time, or should we focus on being politically correct so not to make a fuss?

I think some unfit people should be sterilized...there are plenty of babies to adopt, but if you have some major genetic issue that is being passed down, why not try to stop that?

One could say that vaccines and cures is a form of eugenics...but because it has a different label, it is seen as a positive...What if a cure to some genetic abnormality also caused sterilization...would it be unheard of to give that cure out...instead let the person die because its less nazilike?
This is an excellent post.

I do not see anything wrong with trying to better ourselves as a species. I am just very cautious as to who gets the label of unfit. Ther needs to be a very good reason to sterilize someone, especially against their will.

I would hope humanity would self police in cases like this however, we are but a selfish species.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


There is everything wrong with the government or some organization deciding who can or cannot procreate, or even live. This pseudoscience has been tried in many countries and has always been proven barbaric.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
well I have a story that I'd like to share.
A couple miles from me there is a mentally
deficient couple in their 40's. Both are mentally
deficient. After their first child was born with
the aid of your tax dollars through medicaid,
the child was born with Down Syndrome.
At this point their Medicaid Case Worker
advised the mother that it might be best
to refrain from having more children due
to the fact that the % was very high this
would happen again. The mother became
very irate that this was suggested to her.
That was 15 years ago, now today the
mentally deficient couple have 5 children
between the ages of 6 and 14, ALL of which
are mentally deficient and are all state sponsored
children. Both parents are on disability and
food stamps feed the children. It is my
guess that all 5 of these children will be
nothing more than a burden to the taxpayers
who pay them to sit around and have more
mentally deficient babies. So now 2
mentally deficient people have produced
5 more, all of it funded by the taxpayer
dime.

In cases like this, I can def see where
sterilization could have benefited society
as a whole but yet on the other hand, these
people do have a right to have children.
So where do you draw the line?

If you eliminated their funding/support
wouldn't the problem solve itself???
Or is it necessary when these folks
don't have the mental capacity to see
or understand what they are doing to
have them fixed or sterilized against
their will. Do you feel that this decision
should have been made for them???

I'm on the fence with this idea.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
I do not see anything wrong with trying to better ourselves as a species. I am just very cautious as to who gets the label of unfit. Ther needs to be a very good reason to sterilize someone, especially against their will.


Can you give a ''good example'' of someone that should get sterilised against their will ?

A criminal ? Someone with a hereditary disease ? Someone who is genetically predisposed towards depression ?


Why on earth should any human being have the power to grant or deny another human the right to have a baby ?

Can we have some specifics from eugenicists, as to just who shouldn't be allowed to procreate, and why ?

There doesn't appear to be any ''betterment to humanity'' in preventing certain people from having babies, so I wonder why pro-eugenicists would use this argument ?



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


No matter what state the parents are in, and if they are truly capable of safe procreation, then they should be allowed to do so.

So what if the State and taxpayers have to pay for the welfare of the children? Would you rather our funds be spent on waging senseless wars and bailing out the rich, or lining the wallets of corrupt govts around the world?

Those children born may NOT have inherited the genetic disorders of their parents, are innocent and are fully capapble of supporting societies within their capacities, so long as we as members of society do not look down on them but to give them a CHANCE at life, either through specialized education or opportunities. No one, no one, needs to be absolutely left behind. Each and everyone of us have a role to play in society.

No to eugenics please...



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


Yes, the argument that some people put a strain on welfare and the taxpayer, is not only selfish and morally reprehensible, but lacking in logic.

Look how much obese people cost the taxpayer, or people that consume alcohol and take drugs.

Not to mention how much mental illnesses such as depression, anxiety and OCD cost the taxpayer.

Following the logic of the eugenicists, then we should sterilise all fat people, all alcohol drinkers, and all people that suffer from depression, just in case they pass on their genetic predispositions on to their offspring.

You're going to end up with the majority of people being sterilised !


No, this can't be the real reason that pro-eugenics types want to prevent certain people that they personally class as ''untermensch'' from breeding.

So, what is it exactly that they find so distasteful about having these ''untermensch'' sharing their precious society with them ?

To answer that question, I believe would take a deeper psychological appraisal of the eugenicists.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
So if they do this who do they think is going to be left to do their slave labor? Who will be left to be the foundation of their mega corporations? There will be nobody left to do their grunt work? SMart thinking.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I'm still waiting for the pro-eugenics types to explain exactly who they deem to be ''appropriate'' for forced sterilisations, and equally importantly, why they consider these people as a valid target for forced sterilisations.

Also, I'm interested in the ''logic'' that they use, to form their baseless claim that forced sterilisations of certain people, that they consider to be ''untermensch'', will be for the ''betterment of society''.

Why are they so coy on the specifics of their immoral viewpoint ?

Is it because there is no logical, moral, or philosophical point, that can support their prejudice ?



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


There are so many things our taxes get used for but things like that are something I'd happily see them used for. Their lives are hard enough as it is and I'm sure their children provide them happiness.

There's such a negative image painted towards disabled people in our world that's geared towards competition and the glorification of the 'top dog'.

We're in such a mess. Society is rotten and plain wrong on the top levels. It's such an incredibly complicated knot. I do not want to approve a move to sterilize people when it can easily be expanded to fit into an eugenics based agenda.

If our governments would actually spend our tax money for good things, I'm sure we'd be a lot more willing to support our fellow human beings in living.

It's sad to see a drift towards more and more biological control. As if the mental control they already exert isn't bad enough.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
The fact is, that the pro-eugenics people are immoral cowards, without the balls ( pun intended ) to back their opinion up.

All I want to know is:

1. Who do you personally think should be subject to forced sterilisation ?

2. Why do you think these people should be forcibly sterilised ?

3. How will this forced sterilisation contribute to the ''betterment of humanity'' ?

4. How can you encorporate your eugenicist views, within the grounds of an overall moral viewpoint ( if you have one ) ?

5. How would you, from a non-emotional perspective, justify your views ''logically'' ?


Five simple questions.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
The problem with people who advocate eugenics of the unfit on a massive scale is that they never admit their faults and never volunteer themselves, their children, their families, or their friends.

Everyone is all for socially revolutionary ideas when it affects the other guy, but have it intrude on their life and their rights and they suddenly have a newfound opposition to it.

So tell me - how many of you who support this will volunteer? Better yet, how many of you who support this would not fight back if you were the one deemed unfit by the state?

I expect no logical response and a dodging of the questions posed.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
The problem with people who advocate eugenics of the unfit on a massive scale is that they never admit their faults and never volunteer themselves, their children, their families, or their friends.


They are pitiful cowards.

I believe pro-eugenics people have a deep-seated psychological problem, whereby they don't want to see people that they'd consider to be ''untermensch'', because they see their own shortcomings and failings in these people.

They have much the same mentality as a school bully, who hates someone that they think is ''weaker'', because they see themselves in that person.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Once again, when pro-eugenicists are asked to explain their views on the issue, with cold, hard, reasoning and logic, they fail every time.

It's easy to say something ''controversial'' on the issue, about forced sterilisations, but when asked to back it up with any kind of logic, they lack the courage of their convictions.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 04:05 AM
link   
OK, sterlisation of the unfit.

I call unfit parents abusers - whether mentally, physically or sexually.

There is no way of knowing who these are.

So, basically, he is ruling out the mentally unstable (who, I agree, are not fit to be parents).

But the rich and the privileged - there are many among them who are abusers - so is he going to check up on them?



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
So, we're still waiting for the pro-eugenics crowd to ''justify'' their viewpoint.

Sadly, most of them are cowards, and can not justify their stance logically.


Why so coy ?



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I never worry about the worlds population. I 've seen the earth do a fine job at getting rid of large amounts of people in seconds, and she will continue to do so just as she always has.
Eugenics is proposed and supported by those that feel they are superior, and has been going on for a very long time. Thank God, so far, only a few evil people have attempted depopulation on certain levels.
But the most efficent at this is and will always be delivered by our own planet.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
On the surface, this makes sense. Breed out the undesireable traits within our own species. We are cognisant of the long term potentials of selective breeding down to the chromosomal level. Why not apply it to ourselves?

However...

Reproduction/procreation is an extraordinarily powerful driving force within any living creature. In this drive, we are no different than any thing else on the planet. Biologically speaking, it can be argued that it (reproduction/procreation) is rather The Point. In that vein, if one controls procreational rights and parameters one has absolute control.

We are not objective enough to handle the responsibility well. It will always turn into a tool for maintaining power by those in authority positions, regardless of the original intent or justification for such a social policy. In the crudest of terms, they will weild this power over reproduction to ensure the survival of their own offspring over those that they hold said power over. A survival loop that enables them to ensure their own long term genetic supremacy.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   
One of the main problems about eugenics, is that it is completely incompatible within any moral, or civilised, societal framework.

A civilised society is based on treating everyone fairly and equally, and having rules and attitudes based around the ''Golden Rule''.

Clearly, sterilising people against their will, violates this in the strongest possible way.


The argument for eugenics always gets torn to shreds in three ways: morally, logically, and philosophically.


If truth be told, pro-eugenics people suffer from a deep seated psychological problem, largely caused by an underlying inferiority complex.

[edit on 8-9-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join