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.
Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, a social philosophy which claims that human hereditary traits can be improved through social intervention. Sanger's eugenic policies ran to an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family-planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded. She expressly denounced euthanasia as a eugenics tool.
Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent "dysgenic" children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and dismissed "positive eugenics" (which promoted greater fertility for the "fitter" upper classes) as impractical. Though many leaders in the negative eugenics movement were calling for active euthanasia of the "unfit," Sanger spoke out against such methods. She believed that women with the power and knowledge of birth control were in the best position to produce "fit" children. She rejected any type of eugenics that would take control out of the hands of those actually giving birth.
In Africa, for example, some of the fastest population growth in the world co-exists with an infertility rate that in some areas is more than 30 percent.
...One of the saddest realities of infertility in much of the developing world is that it is largely preventable. "Most of the infertility is due to preventable infections," says Inhorn. These infections can be due to sexually transmitted diseases, poor hygiene and harmful health care practices. In addition, secondary infertility can be caused by untreated or poorly treated postpartum complications.
Both men and women in developing countries are exposed to higher levels of environmental and dietary toxins than people in North America. ...(causing infertility)
More to the point: It is such 'upper class' abuse that creates sociopaths and psychopaths - far more often than the 'lower class' examples provided by Professor Eugenics. Moreover, upper class sociopaths have a far greater ability to impact far more people than the lower class variety.
...I DO believe that our attention in this regard must be directed to the ruling class rather than the lower classes, as the ruling class breeds the sociopaths who run our world - raising and educating them in such a manner so that they cannot help but become sociopathic. ...To the great detriment of the entire world, not just a micro-limited bit of it.
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?
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?