Is Eugenics Ever Okay?

[YMix]

Just wait. Obamacare will resolve that presently

Aren't you the guy who predicted a massive teabagging and got teabagged instead?

Edit: Sorry, I thought that was a Mr. Perfect post. It certainly looked like it. Nevertheless, I doubt Obamacare will solve that problem for you.

[Mr. Perfect]

All the more reason to remain neutral.

If only you would.

I don't read any of those websites, except for some BBC news now and then.

My comments in no way were meant to imply that MSMleft memes are restricted to those media product outlets. You are evidence that they spread far and wide.

[Mr. Perfect]

Well no. The Labor Front union and Hitler's 4 year economic plan are leftist by all definitions of leftism I can find. Add to that single payer hc and gun bans well 2 + 2 =4. Don't shoot the messenger.

I know, I know. Every society in the history of this world was leftist, right? I'd say we've done a pretty good job all things considered, although we could do a lot better. Too bad we've never tried any of this right-wing stuff that you keep talking about. Who knows, it might have worked.

America tried the right wing stuff and it took us straight to number 1. I'm happy for you guys to remain number 2. Very happy.

[YMix]

America tried the right wing stuff and it took us straight to number 1. I'm happy for you guys to remain number 2. Very happy.

When did your country try the right-wing stuff?

[Mr. Perfect]

Most of our whole history. Read the Constitution sometime, it's full of right wing limited government principles which were adopted and used for over a century. We did have a setback with Woodrow, he created the Fed which then caused the Great Depression which caused the New Deal, which hampered economic recovery for nearly a decade. What was left of free enterprise powered us for a couple of decades and we made great gains. Then we struggled with some leftist monetary policy for nearly a decade, the 70's, which destroyed a lot of lives, almost destroying mine and my familys'. I swore destuction upon liberalism unto the 7th generation. Reagan came along, injected the country with rabid capitalist (ask any Democrat, they'll tell you) ideology and we enjoyed a near 30 year economic boom without human precedent. I swore fealty to Reagan and his party unto the 7th generation.

You guys? Not so much.

Oh, and we never had single payer for the masses, just a small portion (retired seniors). And now we never will, yay! And pretty good gun laws. Not perfect, but hopefully we'll get there soon.

[YMix]

Then we struggled with some leftist monetary policy for nearly a decade, the 70's, which destroyed a lot of lives, almost destroying mine and my familys'. I swore destuction upon liberalism unto the 7th generation. Reagan came along, injected the country with rabid capitalist (ask any Democrat, they'll tell you) ideology and we enjoyed a near 30 year economic boom without human precedent. I swore fealty to Reagan and his party unto the 7th generation.

How biblical.

[Mr. Perfect]

Just wait. Obamacare will resolve that presently

Aren't you the guy who predicted a massive teabagging and got teabagged instead?

Edit: Sorry, I thought that was a Mr. Perfect post. It certainly looked like it. Nevertheless, I doubt Obamacare will solve that problem for you.

No I did not predict that. I predicted at the best Romney had a 51% chance and I don't think I ever made an actual prediction there, too close to call. My predictions did much better than Tinker, who thought bams would win by nearly 10% and take back the house. So I did better than him.

You may struggle because you argue against an imaginary Mr. Perfect and not me. It happens a lot. People often respond to what they think I wrote and not what I wrote. Very Freudian messages in there.

[YMix]

No I did not predict that. I predicted at the best Romney had a 51% chance and I don't think I ever made an actual prediction there, too close to call. My predictions did much better than Tinker, who thought bams would win by nearly 10% and take back the house. So I did better than him.

You may struggle because you argue against an imaginary Mr. Perfect and not me. It happens a lot. People often respond to what they think I wrote and not what I wrote. Very Freudian messages in there.

http://spengler.atimes.net/viewtopic.ph ... w=previous

[Mr. Perfect]

Did you... check the date on that.

[YMix]

Did you... check the date on that.

Yup. It's right between the elections of 2008 and 2012. I can probably dig up more quotations. I definitely remember you being pretty pumped up in 2012. Well, before the election.

[Mr. Perfect]

Did you see that I did not predict a teabagging that went the other way. That what you posted does not support what you said in any way.

[Mr. Perfect]

Aren't you the guy who predicted a massive teabagging and got teabagged instead?

This never happened except in your imagination.

[Taboo]

I'm just gonna ignore the tired cliches on whether Hitler, enemy of communism, was "left-wing" since he clearly wasn't, even if some of his policies were taken wholesale from the book of interbellic American progressives.

I'm gonna come out and say that in some cases, eugenics is obviously right and currently widespread. There are tests that can be performed on embryos in-utero to test for a variety of deadly or debilitating maladies, and plenty of currently available in-vitro fertilization options to help parents avoid things like Tay-Sachs disease. Who in their right mind would want to subject a child to this: "The child becomes blind, deaf, unable to swallow, atrophied, and paralytic. Death usually occurs before the age of four"?

As our medical understanding advances, and the genetic and epigenetic factors underlying certain characteristics become more and more clear, this sort of prenatal screening or in-vitro selection will naturally become more and more widespread. We know that there are some genetic factors that influence some people towards violent criminal behavior. While being a violent psychopath might have been advantageous in our violent past, it is now a burden on the individual, his (since they're usually male) family and the wider society in general. While obviously these measures should never be compulsory, i believe it would be criminal to deny parents the chance to screen out potentially deadly or debilitating pathological traits from their offspring. When rearing a child is a million dollar affair, why stack the cards against yourself from the get-go. There's nothing sacred about letting random chance decide this for you.

I suspect that not undergoing screening will become the niche option of fundamentalists and other loonies vaguely bordering on criminal in terms of public perception, right alongside home-births without proper medical supervision.

[Doc]

Tatoo Which of the 25 demands are right wing and which are left wing?

viewtopic.php?p=66826#p66826

No one here has been willing to address them directly. Carte blanc denial of what the Nazis were left wing or doesn't cut it. As for it being tired cliches that simply denies the history. The Nazis were not only a socialist party, they were a nationalistic socialist party. They opposed the communists who were supported by Stalin. Who they made a mutual defense pact with. Stalin then ordered all of his agents in Germany to turn themselves in to the Nazis.

As for pre-natal screening et al Basically you re talking about ending life no matter how you choose phrase it. That is left wing and also in playing God can lead to really terrible things. Look at China's one child policy. Now there is a excess of spoiled angry young men that want a war of conquest. Is pre-natal screening ok for economic reasons? Because people simply do not want the change of life style associated with having a baby?

That can have unintended consequences as well In Spain for example the population is dropping and immigrants are no longer immigrating to Spain.

To the point:

http://www.euronews.com/2013/12/20/spai ... k-to-1985/

Spain moves to roll abortion laws back to 1985

20/12 22:58 CET

For anti-abortion activists, it has been an historic day for Spain.

They are delighted that the government wants to change the law back to what it was in 1985, making it much harder for women to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

New legislation proposed by the ruling conservative People’s Party would see abortions allowed only for victims of rape or where there is a risk to the mother-to-be’s physical or psychological health.

Pro-choice campaigners are outraged and they, too, made their feelings clear as the government bill was unveiled.

Mariqueta Vazquez was among a group of abortion rights demonstrators protesting outside government headquarters.

“Ideology? Let each one of us have her own,” she said. “It is not compulsory to have an abortion for people who don’t want to. There are always lots of reasons why women have an abortion. They don’t want to. No woman wants to!”

Opposition Socialists says they will fight the proposed new law which would roll back reforms the party made when it was in government. But the bill is expected to easily pass in parliament where the People’s Party has an absolute majority.

The law would make Spain among Europe’s most restrictive countries on abortion.

How can eugenics ever be morally acceptable when there is no limit on how eugenics is applied? How is eugenics not left wing? It screams out that it is left wing. Its history is left wing. Yet every time eugneics is applied by the left it has ended in death, disaster, and atrociously inhuman conditions.

AS for criminality via genetic pre-dispostion the by far largest factor least currently is lack of a two parent family. Since Abortion on demand was made the law of the land men no longer feel responsible for babies when the woman has a choice. No need to be responsible. Not even before conception. Another left wing failure. The message from the left consistently has been "if you are a burden you are less than human. Go away and die we don't want you" "We don't want the responsibility"

[Taboo]

Tatoo

Boo, paleface.

Which of the 25 demands are right wing and which are left wing?
viewtopic.php?p=66826#p66826

I don't give a lavender. Not the topic of the thread either. If you want to do revisionist rants on Hitler, do it somewhere else.

As for pre-natal screening et al Basically you re talking about ending life no matter how you choose phrase it.

Yes. I'm perfectly ok with that. I don't consider preventing a short life of terrible suffering and disability to be a negative. Not to mention the terrible anguish, mental pain and trauma needlessly inflicted on the parents. If you think that there's something sacred about relying purely on the genetic lottery, then why have a pretty, smart and diligent spouse? That's tampering with the genetic lottery too.

That is left wing and also in playing God can lead to really terrible things

Such as less horriby disfigured and suffering children, and more healthy babies. Horrible. Truly.

Look at China's one child policy.

Not even remotely connected to eugenics. That's pure population control.

Now there is a excess of spoiled angry young men that want a war of conquest.

Again, nothing to do with eugenics, but thanks for the Spengleroid.

Is pre-natal screening ok for economic reasons?

You understand that screening is not an automatic abortion, do you? For instance, in certain Jewish families (and you HAVE to like Jews and wish them well as a Spenglerite, right) there's a 1/4 chance of Tay-Sachs, so a few cells are taken from the embryo and some tests are done, to see if the baby will survive her 5th birthday or not. For me, the choice between abortion now or 5 years of terrible suffering is quite clear.

Because people simply do not want the change of life style associated with having a baby?

Since the parents are having a baby and going thorough the trouble of ordering a screening, I would say it is safe to assume that they are quite ready to have a child and are willing to change their lifestyles for her.

That can have unintended consequences as well In Spain for example the population is dropping and immigrants are no longer immigrating to Spain.

That's because of shitty government, shitty economics, and people choosing NOT to have children. It has nothing to do with genetic screenings. I'm sure this made sense to you as you wrote it, somehow.

et every time eugneics is applied by the left it has ended in death, disaster, and atrociously inhuman conditions.

Well, luckily for us, it's applied by thousands of happy Jewish parents with no government compulsion.

AS for criminality via genetic pre-dispostion the by far largest factor least currently is lack of a two parent family.

Ok... I'm sure the next sentence will follow logically from this one...

ince Abortion on demand was made the law of the land men no longer feel responsible for babies when the woman has a choice. No need to be responsible. Not even before conception. Another left wing failure. The message from the left consistently has been "if you are a burden you are less than human. Go away and die we don't want you" "We don't want the responsibility"

Ok. So let me get this straight. Not only does your post contain no factual information on eugenics, but you commit these amusing logical atrocities, such as:
1) Single parenthood is a leading cause of crime.
2) Women who get pregnant outside of a stable relationships often wish to abort the baby, so as not to become a single mom.
3) Therefore, we should ban abortions.

Yup, your logic is impeccable.

[Doc]

Tatoo

Boo, paleface.

My apologies My eyes don't work all that well and I missed the typo Taboo.

Which of the 25 demands are right wing and which are left wing?
viewtopic.php?p=66826#p66826

I don't give a lavender. Not the topic of the thread either. If you want to do revisionist rants on Hitler, do it somewhere else.

Of course you don't give a lavender I was answering your rant on Hitler with facts and I take it you are declining to address the Nazis 25 demands. Not to mention this thread being about eugenics which certainly no conversation on eugenics would be complete without mentioning the Nazis at length. They are arguably known as much as anything for eugenics

As for pre-natal screening et al Basically you re talking about ending life no matter how you choose phrase it.

Yes. I'm perfectly ok with that. I don't consider preventing a short life of terrible suffering and disability to be a negative. Not to mention the terrible anguish, mental pain and trauma needlessly inflicted on the parents. If you think that there's something sacred about relying purely on the genetic lottery, then why have a pretty, smart and diligent spouse? That's tampering with the genetic lottery too.

That is left wing and also in playing God can lead to really terrible things

Such as less horriby disfigured and suffering children, and more healthy babies. Horrible. Truly.

Not truly at all. Just your personal opinion that I believe is wrong. You may think you know what's best for others without thinking to ask them. But who are you to be Judge jury and executioner?

Look at China's one child policy.

Not even remotely connected to eugenics. That's pure population control.

n

How is it not related ? It is directly related Too many poor suffering children so make having more than one illegal. Though nice try at diverting from my point

Now there is a excess of spoiled angry young men that want a war of conquest.

Again, nothing to do with eugenics, but thanks for the Spengleroid

Diversion from the point again. You apparently have no answer other trying to make insults How typical

Is pre-natal screening ok for economic reasons?

You understand that screening is not an automatic abortion, do you? For instance, in certain Jewish families (and you HAVE to like Jews and wish them well as a Spenglerite, right) there's a 1/4 chance of Tay-Sachs, so a few cells are taken from the embryo and some tests are done, to see if the baby will survive her 5th birthday or not. For me, the choice between abortion now or 5 years of terrible suffering is quite clear.

You understand that parents deciding such thing is not automatically eugenics, do you? Again you are resorting to what you feel is a personal insult as a diversion. Shame on you.

Because people simply do not want the change of life style associated with having a baby?

Since the parents are having a baby and going thorough the trouble of ordering a screening, I would say it is safe to assume that they are quite ready to have a child and are willing to change their lifestyles for her. [/quote]

Except we aren't just talking about Tay-sachs one rationalization leads to another and anther It is all about "knowing" what is best for the lives of others. Before you know it someone is coming for you.

That can have unintended consequences as well In Spain for example the population is dropping and immigrants are no longer immigrating to Spain.

That's because of shitty government, shitty economics, and people choosing NOT to have children. It has nothing to do with genetic screenings. I'm sure this made sense to you as you wrote it, somehow.[/quote]

Yeah that is my point as to why the left loves eugenics among so many other idiotic ideas. Then they don't take responsibility for the consequences. Including pregnancies

et every time eugneics is applied by the left it has ended in death, disaster, and atrociously inhuman conditions.

Well, luckily for us, it's applied by thousands of happy Jewish parents with no government compulsion.

Hmmm Above you were claiming that the Chinese government compulsion to limit each couple to one child wasn't eugenics Now you seem to be implying government compulsion is eugenics. Which is it? And just to be clear Jewish parents deciding for their own child is their own business. You do understand that parents making choices for their child is not automatically eugenics , do you?

AS for criminality via genetic pre-dispostion the by far largest factor least currently is lack of a two parent family.

Ok... I'm sure the next sentence will follow logically from this one...[/quote]

Be careful didn't your mother warn that if you roll your eyes too far they will get stuck?

ince Abortion on demand was made the law of the land men no longer feel responsible for babies when the woman has a choice. No need to be responsible. Not even before conception. Another left wing failure. The message from the left consistently has been "if you are a burden you are less than human. Go away and die we don't want you" "We don't want the responsibility"

Ok. So let me get this straight. Not only does your post contain no factual information on eugenics, but you commit these amusing logical atrocities, such as:
1) Single parenthood is a leading cause of crime.
2) Women who get pregnant outside of a stable relationships often wish to abort the baby, so as not to become a single mom.
3) Therefore, we should ban abortions.

Yup, your logic is impeccable.[/quote]

There you go again. denying responsibility for the consequences. I find it hard to believe you are so obtuse as to not understand I am talking about the consequences of eugenic/left wing ideas/policies when I say "men no longer feel responsible for babies when the woman has a choice." So no need for them to be responsible and get married. Women on the other hand tend to give birth and keep the baby as they are more connected to it. Not to mention past government support. If you want to argue that this has not lead to more single mothers raising kids then go ahead try as you might.

[Taboo]

Of course you don't give a lavender I was answering your rant on Hitler with facts and I take it you are declining to address the Nazis 25 demands.

Not mentioning Hitler when talking about Eugenics is like not mentioning Napoleon when talking about planetary motions: perfectly normal.

Not to mention this thread being about eugenics which certainly no conversation on eugenics would be complete without mentioning the Nazis at length. They are arguably known as much as anything for eugenics

Yeah, and I'd figured that completely swamping the first 5 pages in "Hitler was a socialist, really" rants was about enough.

As for pre-natal screening et al Basically you re talking about ending life no matter how you choose phrase it.

Yes. I'm perfectly ok with that. I don't consider preventing a short life of terrible suffering and disability to be a negative. Not to mention the terrible anguish, mental pain and trauma needlessly inflicted on the parents. If you think that there's something sacred about relying purely on the genetic lottery, then why have a pretty, smart and diligent spouse? That's tampering with the genetic lottery too.

<Doc stays quiet as a mouse peeing on cotton>

I see. When you have no answer, you simply ignore the argument.

That is left wing and also in playing God can lead to really terrible things

Such as less horriby disfigured and suffering children, and more healthy babies. Horrible. Truly.

Not truly at all. Just your personal opinion that I believe is wrong. You may think you know what's best for others without thinking to ask them. But who are you to be Judge jury and executioner?

It's not my personal opinion. It's the opinion of tens of thousands of parents who rationally and correctly and ethically choose to do these tests. Out of the trillions of possible genetic combinations of two parents' DNA, why allow the risk of a deadly or disfiguring disease? Sounds almost criminal to me.

Look at China's one child policy.

Not even remotely connected to eugenics. That's pure population control.

n

How is it not related ? It is directly related Too many poor suffering children so make having more than one illegal. Though nice try at diverting from my point

Eugenics is a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities. Simply passing a law that states that no one can have more than 1 child or face fines does not aim at improving any qualities. It's pure coercive population control, nothing more. Hilariously, when you think about it, Taiwan has the same fertility rate as China with no population policy in place.

Diversion from the point again. You apparently have no answer other trying to make insults How typical

Well, when you rant about millions of Chinese going all "yellow horde" on us a la Spengler, it having nothing whatsoever to do with eugenics, what is there to do but laugh heartily?

You understand that parents deciding such thing is not automatically eugenics, do you? Again you are resorting to what you feel is a personal insult as a diversion. Shame on you.

Quite contrarily. Parents voluntarily deciding to select the most likely to develop into healthy embryos out of the millions of potential mom-dad egg-sperm genetic combinations is exactly what eu-genics ("well-born-ics") is supposed to be all about.

If you weren't so busy foaming at the mouth about Hitler, we could have a grown-up conversation about where to draw the line (can parents alter their genome to add in extra height, select gender, eye or skin color, give a change at extra intelligence and lung capacity?) How and who should get to regulate these, and how to control proliferation of such tech underground for modifications we decide are unlawful. Etc. Or we could have another 5 pages about how Hitler was really a leftist, for the 87th time on Spengler forum et descendants.

Except we aren't just talking about Tay-sachs one rationalization leads to another and anther It is all about "knowing" what is best for the lives of others. Before you know it someone is coming for you.

I think you need to do a better job describing the path from Parents avoiding deadly genetic diseases in their offspring to Black cars coming to take me away at night.

Yeah that is my point as to why the left loves eugenics among so many other idiotic ideas. Then they don't take responsibility for the consequences. Including pregnancies

Well, a cursory glance at US statistics show that:
a) US has 500% higher teenage pregnancies (>31 per 1000) compared to Spain (6 per 1000) (Link)
b) US has a 70% higher abortion rate (29 per 100,000) than Spain (18 per 100k)
c) The Bible belt has higher teenage pregnancy and abortion than less religious parts of the US.

If I were a Christian, I would tell you to look up some old saying about motes and beams in various people's eyes.

Well, luckily for us, it's applied by thousands of happy Jewish parents with no government compulsion.

Hmmm Above you were claiming that the Chinese government compulsion to limit each couple to one child wasn't eugenics Now you seem to be implying government compulsion is eugenics. Which is it? And just to be clear Jewish parents deciding for their own child is their own business. You do understand that parents making choices for their child is not automatically eugenics , do you?

Parents making decisions about the genetic makeup of their child by a)Deciding whom to marry and b)Doing genetic tests on fertilized cells or in-utero embryos is precisely what eugenics is all about.

Nazi racist pseudoscience and self-defeating Chinese population policy are simply more incompetent government bungling, that should keep (or be kept by vigilant citizens) well away from this field.

Be careful didn't your mother warn that if you roll your eyes too far they will get stuck?

I had to stop reading your post several times for exactly these health reasons.

There you go again. denying responsibility for the consequences. I find it hard to believe you are so obtuse as to not understand I am talking about the consequences of eugenic/left wing ideas/policies when I say "men no longer feel responsible for babies when the woman has a choice." So no need for them to be responsible and get married. Women on the other hand tend to give birth and keep the baby as they are more connected to it. Not to mention past government support. If you want to argue that this has not lead to more single mothers raising kids then go ahead try as you might.

Well, in the same dreaded Spain that you were mentioning as an example of moral and family decay, 7% of kids are raised in single-parent families. The value for the US: 27%. Yeah. Link. Motes and beams, motes and beams all the way.

[Doc]

Of course you don't give a lavender I was answering your rant on Hitler with facts and I take it you are declining to address the Nazis 25 demands.

Not mentioning Hitler when talking about Eugenics is like not mentioning Napoleon when talking about planetary motions: perfectly normal.

Not to mention this thread being about eugenics which certainly no conversation on eugenics would be complete without mentioning the Nazis at length. They are arguably known as much as anything for eugenics

Yeah, and I'd figured that completely swamping the first 5 pages in "Hitler was a socialist, really" rants was about enough.

Facts not rants

As for pre-natal screening et al Basically you re talking about ending life no matter how you choose phrase it.

Yes. I'm perfectly ok with that. I don't consider preventing a short life of terrible suffering and disability to be a negative. Not to mention the terrible anguish, mental pain and trauma needlessly inflicted on the parents. If you think that there's something sacred about relying purely on the genetic lottery, then why have a pretty, smart and diligent spouse? That's tampering with the genetic lottery too.

<Doc stays quiet as a mouse peeing on cotton>

I see. When you have no answer, you simply ignore the argument.

I answered below.

That is left wing and also in playing God can lead to really terrible things

Such as less horriby disfigured and suffering children, and more healthy babies. Horrible. Truly.

Not truly at all. Just your personal opinion that I believe is wrong. You may think you know what's best for others without thinking to ask them. But who are you to be Judge jury and executioner?

It's not my personal opinion. It's the opinion of tens of thousands of parents who rationally and correctly and ethically choose to do these tests. Out of the trillions of possible genetic combinations of two parents' DNA, why allow the risk of a deadly or disfiguring disease? Sounds almost criminal to me.

Parents deciding things on their own is certainly not eugenics. Being coerced or forced is.

Look at China's one child policy.

Not even remotely connected to eugenics. That's pure population control.

n

How is it not related ? It is directly related Too many poor suffering children so make having more than one illegal. Though nice try at diverting from my point

Eugenics is a science

that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities. Simply passing a law that states that no one can have more than 1 child or face fines does not aim at improving any qualities. It's pure coercive population control, nothing more. Hilariously, when you think about it, Taiwan has the same fertility rate as China with no population policy in place.

Understand this. EUGENICS IS NOT A SCIENCE IT WAS/IS A PROGRESSIVE SOCIAL MOVEMENT. No ifs, no ands, no buts about it.

Eugenics is to science as Al Gore is to Einstein. A belief system that is at best tragically wrong. At worst criminal.

Diversion from the point again. You apparently have no answer other trying to make insults How typical

Well, when you rant about millions of Chinese going all "yellow horde" on us a la Spengler, it having nothing whatsoever to do with eugenics, what is there to do but laugh heartily?

You understand that parents deciding such thing is not automatically eugenics, do you? Again you are resorting to what you feel is a personal insult as a diversion. Shame on you.

Quite contrarily. Parents voluntarily deciding to select the most likely to develop into healthy embryos out of the millions of potential mom-dad egg-sperm genetic combinations is exactly what eu-genics ("well-born-ics") is supposed to be all about.

If you weren't so busy foaming at the mouth about Hitler,

I made no mention of Hitler in the above. IE You are wearing your Hitler diversion pretty thin.

we could have a grown-up conversation about where to draw the line (can parents alter their genome to add in extra height, select gender, eye or skin color, give a change at extra intelligence and lung capacity?) How and who should get to regulate these, and how to control proliferation of such tech underground for modifications we decide are unlawful. Etc. Or we could have another 5 pages about how Hitler was really a leftist, for the 87th time on Spengler forum et descendants.

My my you seem to have issues about Spengler forums to rant so much about them.

Except we aren't just talking about Tay-sachs one rationalization leads to another and anther It is all about "knowing" what is best for the lives of others. Before you know it someone is coming for you.

I think you need to do a better job describing the path from Parents avoiding deadly genetic diseases in their offspring to Black cars coming to take me away at night. [/quote]

I am not talking about parents deciding things for themselves leading to them coming to get you. I am talking about people so incredibly arrogant they think they know what is best for the lives of others coming to get you.

Yeah that is my point as to why the left loves eugenics among so many other idiotic ideas. Then they don't take responsibility for the consequences. Including pregnancies

Well, a cursory glance at US statistics show that:
a) US has 500% higher teenage pregnancies (>31 per 1000) compared to Spain (6 per 1000) (Link)

I already covered this here:

viewtopic.php?p=67187#p67187

It is the consequence of failed left wing social policies.

b) US has a 70% higher abortion rate (29 per 100,000) than Spain (18 per 100k)

apparently you don't do statistics That is a 50% higher rate not 70% In the US abortion on demand is the law of the land.

c) The Bible belt has higher teenage pregnancy and abortion than less religious parts of the US.

You mean among the less desirable population.

If I were a Christian, I would tell you to look up some old saying about motes and beams in various people's eyes.

Not interested in judging anyone but those that would judge Moon beam.

Cold hearted orb that rules the night
Removes the colours from our sight
Red is gray and yellow, white
But we decide which is right
And which is an illusion

Pinprick holes in a colourless sky
Let insipid figures of light pass by
The mighty light of ten thousand suns
Challenges infinity and is soon gone
Night time, to some a brief interlude
To others the fear of solitude

Brave Helios, wake up your steeds
Bring the warmth the countryside needs

Well, luckily for us, it's applied by thousands of happy Jewish parents with no government compulsion.

Hmmm Above you were claiming that the Chinese government compulsion to limit each couple to one child wasn't eugenics Now you seem to be implying government compulsion is eugenics. Which is it? And just to be clear Jewish parents deciding for their own child is their own business. You do understand that parents making choices for their child is not automatically eugenics , do you?

Parents making decisions about the genetic makeup of their child by a)Deciding whom to marry and b)Doing genetic tests on fertilized cells or in-utero embryos is precisely what eugenics is all about.

No it is not. Eugenics is a social movement not a science not parents making free decisions it is all about knowing what is best for the lives of others.

Nazi racist pseudoscience and self-defeating Chinese population policy are simply more incompetent government bungling, that should keep (or be kept by vigilant citizens) well away from this field.

Why don't you say "Progressive pseudoscience"? I mean you are the one compaining about me bringing up the Nazis here more than you like.

Be careful didn't your mother warn that if you roll your eyes too far they will get stuck?

I had to stop reading your post several times for exactly these health reasons.

There you go again. denying responsibility for the consequences. I find it hard to believe you are so obtuse as to not understand I am talking about the consequences of eugenic/left wing ideas/policies when I say "men no longer feel responsible for babies when the woman has a choice." So no need for them to be responsible and get married. Women on the other hand tend to give birth and keep the baby as they are more connected to it. Not to mention past government support. If you want to argue that this has not lead to more single mothers raising kids then go ahead try as you might.

Well, in the same dreaded Spain that you were mentioning as an example of moral and family decay, 7% of kids are raised in single-parent families. The value for the US: 27%. Yeah. Link. Motes and beams, motes and beams all the way.

You are mixing my metaphors. I never claimed Spain was the US I was pointing out that social policies have unintended consequences. Especially left wing social policies. Spain has eliminated most abortions because its birth rate is falling and it is mostly a Catholic country. It does not suffer from the miserable failure of the great society.

[Taboo]

Well, if you start by defining eugenics as the evil things that (Insert Hated Group Here) do, there's no grounds for any discussion. Tada!

[Doc]

Well, if you start by defining eugenics as the evil things that (Insert Hated Group Here) do, there's no grounds for any discussion. Tada!

One thing is for sure it isn't science. It never was. There are plenty of evil things eugenics is not the excuse for. Simply saying there's no grounds for discussion -- that is just a cop out. More like you don't have grounds to place your arguments on. Nor apparently care to find any. Though you had some good points I had to think through Thanks for that.

[Mr. Perfect]

I'm just gonna ignore the tired cliches on whether Hitler, enemy of communism, was "left-wing" since he clearly wasn't,

People keep saying this but provide no supporting evidence whatsoever. Saying Hitler was an enemy of communism is like saying your back up quarterback is the enemy of your football team.

even if some of his policies were taken wholesale from the book of interbellic American progressives.

I would change to "some" to "nearly all" and see the book is the same as leftists from every part of the globe where there are leftists then you will see unavoidably that Hitler was a leftist.

I suspect that not undergoing screening will become the niche option of fundamentalists and other loonies vaguely bordering on criminal in terms of public perception, right alongside home-births without proper medical supervision.

While leftist loonies will decide to eschew child bearing altogether for variously environmental fairy tales. Not that you will see me complaining.

[YMix]

LBJ vs. the Civil Rights Act of 1957
James Taranto digs up some history:

As Bruce Bartlett explains in "Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past" (available from the OpinionJournal bookstore)

And by the way, the failure of the civil rights bill of '57 was not solely Johnson's work. The Anderson-Aiken Amendment, which removed part III of the Civil Rights Act and thus made it acceptable to Southern Conservatives, passed with the backing of 34 Democratic and 18 Republican senators.

[Doc]

LBJ vs. the Civil Rights Act of 1957
James Taranto digs up some history:

As Bruce Bartlett explains in "Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past" (available from the OpinionJournal bookstore)

And by the way, the failure of the civil rights bill of '57 was not solely Johnson's work. The Anderson-Aiken Amendment, which removed part III of the Civil Rights Act and thus made it acceptable to Southern Conservatives, passed with the backing of 34 Democratic and 18 Republican senators.

The actual vote was
D 34-13; R 18-25)

This was the enforcement provision of the house passed bill. The amendment gutted the act of any enforcement mechanisms. Which was the point of amending it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Righ ... #Aftermath

Although passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 seemed to indicate a growing federal commitment to the cause of civil rights, the legislation was limited. Because of the ways in which it had been changed, the government had difficulty enforcing it. By 1960, black voting had increased 3%.[2] Passage of the bill showed the willingness of national leaders to support, to varying degrees, the cause of civil rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Righ ... nd_passage

The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson from Texas, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, whose southern bloc was anti-civil rights and northern members were more pro-civil rights. Southern senators occupied chairs of numerous important committees due to their long seniority. Johnson sent the bill to the judiciary committee, led by Senator James Eastland from Mississippi, who proceeded to change and alter the bill almost beyond recognition. Senator Richard Russell from Georgia had claimed the bill was an example of the federal government wanting to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from civil rights advocates for passing the bill, while also receiving recognition from the mostly southern anti-civil rights Democrats for reducing it so much as to kill it.[6]

Johnson had other reasons for taking his stance. No civil rights act had been introduced into America for 82 years. If this one went through successfully and had support from both parties, it would do his position within the Democrats a great deal of good as he had plans in 1957 to be the party’s future presidential candidate. If he could get the credit for maintaining party unity and get the support of the South’s Democrats for ‘killing the bill’, then his position would be greatly advanced. If he was seen to be pushing through the first civil rights act in 82 years he hoped to get the support of the more liberal west and east coast Democrat senators.

IE Johnson wanted a bill that did little so he could take credit when he ran for president. Which given the very long history of republican support for civil rights was just political show. And just because LBJ's name was not on the amendment does not mean he did not support it and push for it. He did after all want a bill passed. His sole motives related to keeping the Democratic party from fracturing and his run for president.

http://books.google.com/books?id=IBvIFG ... ct&f=false

The bill that Attorney General Brownwell had conceived, President Eisenhower had endorsed, and Knowland and Douglas had promoted in the Senate now belonged to Lyndon Johnson. With the destruction of Part III, no one was more important to the bill's success. No one had more to lose ot gain by its failure or passage. Despite the ease with which the Senate weakened Part III, Johnson dared not celebrate his victory for long. He had only half of Russell's terms. Southerners still demanded a jury trial amendment to Part IV

[YMix]

The actual vote was
D 34-13; R 18-25

Ummm, isn't that what I said?

This was the enforcement provision of the house passed bill. The amendment gutted the act of any enforcement mechanisms. Which was the point of amending it.

Of course.

The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson from Texas, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, whose southern bloc was anti-civil rights and northern members were more pro-civil rights. Southern senators occupied chairs of numerous important committees due to their long seniority. Johnson sent the bill to the judiciary committee, led by Senator James Eastland from Mississippi, who proceeded to change and alter the bill almost beyond recognition. Senator Richard Russell from Georgia had claimed the bill was an example of the federal government wanting to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from civil rights advocates for passing the bill, while also receiving recognition from the mostly southern anti-civil rights Democrats for reducing it so much as to kill it.[6]

Tsk, tsk. Let's see where this quote came from. Oh, look at that!

6^ Caro, Robert, Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, Chapter 39

6nSKkwzwdW4

[Doc]

The actual vote was
D 34-13; R 18-25

Ummm, isn't that what I said?

This was the enforcement provision of the house passed bill. The amendment gutted the act of any enforcement mechanisms. Which was the point of amending it.

Of course.

The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson from Texas, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, whose southern bloc was anti-civil rights and northern members were more pro-civil rights. Southern senators occupied chairs of numerous important committees due to their long seniority. Johnson sent the bill to the judiciary committee, led by Senator James Eastland from Mississippi, who proceeded to change and alter the bill almost beyond recognition. Senator Richard Russell from Georgia had claimed the bill was an example of the federal government wanting to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from civil rights advocates for passing the bill, while also receiving recognition from the mostly southern anti-civil rights Democrats for reducing it so much as to kill it.[6]

Tsk, tsk. Let's see where this quote came from. Oh, look at that!

6^ Caro, Robert, Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, Chapter 39

6nSKkwzwdW4

What I said was that words can explain a lot of things and that the book sounded interesting and I would likely read it when I got the chance. That Johnson made sure the civil rights act of 1957 did nothing. So back at you

6nSKkwzwdW4[/quote]

However you missed the last part of my previous post. (I think you started replying before I had finished editing it.)


http://books.google.com/books?id=IBvIFG ... ct&f=false

The bill that Attorney General Brownwell had conceived, President Eisenhower had endorsed, and Knowland and Douglas had promoted in the Senate now belonged to Lyndon Johnson. With the destruction of Part III, no one was more important to the bill's success. No one had more to lose to gain by its failure or passage. Despite the ease with which the Senate weakened Part III, Johnson dared not celebrate his victory for long. He had only half of Russell's terms. Southerners still demanded a jury trial amendment to Part IV

The act of passage of a bill that did nothing but paper over the differences in the Democratic party made no difference at all per the issue it was publicly intended to address. And if you look at the above link (I had to retype what I posted as the copy function and print screen are disabled.) You will see that Johnson used a lot more of the 'n' word than the "C" word in getting it passed.

And there is that johnson quote about having "N******s voting democrat for 200 years with the great society. That came along with the destruction of the institution of black families.