Tuesday, January 31, 2012

It's happening again. Progressives always reach a place to where they want to kill people.

A few days ago, an article titled "Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists" appeared in a journal for bio ethics. More than anything, note the context. This is being discussed by those who are "the experts" of ethics, by researchers from Duke University and the National Institute of Health. So we're supposed to take this seriously, that this is an enlightened and reasoned discourse on the matter. All of that gets shattered if you look at the verbage they use at the bottom:
This radical conclusion may shock some readers, but the authors are not murderers. They want to bring greater precision to what we mean by killing. Rendering someone totally and permanently incapacitated is just as bad as taking a life, or so they contend. Killing totally disabled patients does them no harm.
"Then killing her cannot disrespect her autonomy, because she has no autonomy left. It also cannot be unfair to kill her if it does her no harm."
Nor, they say, is life "sacred". The only relevant difference between life and death is the existence of abilities – and a brain-damaged person no longer has these.
"[I]f killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong."

So they know full well their proposal is radical, yet they've proposed it anyways. I can't get past the words they're using, they have made a 'good' attempt to soften the ground. Where have I heard such vile nastyness before? Oh yeah! Margaret Sanger. In her 1922 book "The Pivot of Civilization", Sanger incredibly wrote the following:(Page 265)

At the present time, civilized nations are penalizing talent and genius, the bearers of the torch of civilization, to coddle and perpetuate the choking human undergrowth, which, as all authorities tell us, is escaping control and threatens to overrun the whole garden of humanity.

Margaret Sanger also justified her radicalism by cloaking it in science. In 1925, "Birth Control: Facts and Responsibilities" was published. Now, being as this is still under copyright, I can't do anything with it. But Margaret Sanger did, repeatedly, imply or outright say and write things in reference to "human weeds".(as you can see)

This is always how it begins. Go after the "lowest hanging fruit" as they see it. The feebleminded, the neuronic, the idiots and imbeciles, the illiterate, the undesirables, the defectives. Those are all terms that were used by early eugenicists and progressives to denote their superiority above others. As we have seen from history, doctors should not have the power to make these decisions. Even when individuals make this sort of choice is bad enough, as noted by The Blaze, this: is the result of the devaluation of human life. But this kind of thing is nothing new. Let's get back to Margaret Sanger. In 1932, she penned an article titled "MY WAY TO PEACE" (From the Sanger public documents archive)

have Congress set up a special department for the study of population problems, and appoint a Parliament of Population Directors representing the various branches of science.

How nice. A politburo which will decide if you are worthy of life or not. And aptly named! The Parliament of Population.

(f) the whole dysgenic population would have its choice of segregation or sterilization.

(g) there would be farm lands and homesteads where these segregated persons would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.

Yes, you read that right. This is where it always ends up. And note, as I go through all of this, how every bit of this relates back to what those bioethicists wrote just a week ago. They did everything but use the word 'feebleminded'. What Sanger wrote here sounds very similar to this:

"I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board, just as they might come before the income tax commissioners, and say every 5 years or every 7 years, just put them there, and say, sir or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?
If you're not producing as much you consume, or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the big organization of our society, for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of any use to yourself

Would you say Shaw's proposal sounds like a proposal for a Parliament of Population? I think it does. Now, you don't have to go digging very far before you start to learn that Sanger was well acquainted with Fabian Socialism, having relationships with both Havelock Ellis(who was a contributor The Birth Control Review) and H G Wells. All one big happy circle.

Know history, and you know the future. While I don't expect that modern bio ethicists will go around talking about the feebleminded any time soon, I cannot say it won't happen. They're already going around talking about "human weeds". They have already placed themselves on this path. So what's next?

No comments:

Post a Comment