It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by ghaleon12
she does not need surgery. They can accomplish this by giving her Norplant and putting the tablet under the skin in her arm. There is no need to put her under the knife
Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by TedHodgson
When the retarded gal has a child and can not care for it, how about you step up to the plate and adopt it, giving her full access to the child of course. I suppose that the "proper" solution would be to allow her to have children and then have state workers come in and live with her to take care of the child.
Originally posted by dolphinfanClaim 4th Reich and eugenics all you want. How about thinking about a child who is going to grow up with a retarded mother, or is that just life?
It looks like Hitler made it across the Channel after all. Eugenics was the center piece of his grand plan.
In many states, such as Florida, where Isabel was born, babies' DNA is stored indefinitely, according to the resource center.
Many parents don't realize their baby's DNA is being stored in a government lab, but sometimes when they find out, as the Browns did, they take action. Parents in Texas, and Minnesota have filed lawsuits, and these parents' concerns are sparking a new debate about whether it's appropriate for a baby's genetic blueprint to be in the government's possession.
"We were appalled when we found out," says Brown, who's a registered nurse. "Why do they need to store my baby's DNA indefinitely? Something on there could affect her ability to get a job later on, or get health insurance."
According to the state of Minnesota's Web site, samples are kept so that tests can be repeated, if necessary, and in case the DNA is ever need to help parents identify a missing or deceased child. The samples are also used for medical research.... articles.cnn.com...:HEALTH
Originally posted by Maslo
To the people claiming this is eugenics, read the definition of eugenics. Eugenics criterion to reproductive selection is based on the quality of the genome, NOT ability to take care of the children.
Originally posted by MasloWhile these things are correlated, they are not the same.
I'm sorry no. Eugenics IS a social program, not a genetic one, and barely a scientific one. It began that way at its inception, and has been practiced that way every time it is applied. I would counter that eugenics is defined first by societal perceptions and by science second (if at all.) For example (and I do not know if it is the case with the woman in question) but there are circumstances where "the ability to take care of ones children" is a determination made by societal perceptions and not actual ability.
Compulsory sterilization is being used as a method to ensure that this woman with undesirable traits no longer breeds and further drains society. That is eugenics.
genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).