Sheila Liaugminas
It’s not a stretch to see Justice Ginsburg’s remarks in the New York Time’s interview as saying that.
In fact, she did say that.
Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.
http://www.mercatornet.com/sheila_liaugminas/view/more_abortion_fewer_undesirables/
Showing posts with label eugenics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label eugenics. Show all posts
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Friday, May 01, 2009
Forcing the Poor to Stop Having Children
by Daniel Patrick Moloney
“Family planning services reduce costs.” That’s what Speaker Nancy Pelosi told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week. She was defending a provision in the original stimulus bill that would have spent hundreds of millions of dollars for birth control. Republicans had criticized this provision, and so the Speaker responded that promoting contraception among poor people would both stimulate the economy and save the government money on welfare payments.
As the video clip shot around the web, public reaction was intense, and overwhelmingly negative—how could anybody think that preventing poor people from being born was the moral way to help poor people out of poverty? It had the air of eugenics about it, as if she were saying that one generation of poor people is enough. Even the liberal partisan Chris Matthews thought Pelosi’s position resembled China’s one-child policy. In response to the backlash, the President told Pelosi to remove the contraception funding from the stimulus bill.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2009.05.01.002.pdart
“Family planning services reduce costs.” That’s what Speaker Nancy Pelosi told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week. She was defending a provision in the original stimulus bill that would have spent hundreds of millions of dollars for birth control. Republicans had criticized this provision, and so the Speaker responded that promoting contraception among poor people would both stimulate the economy and save the government money on welfare payments.
As the video clip shot around the web, public reaction was intense, and overwhelmingly negative—how could anybody think that preventing poor people from being born was the moral way to help poor people out of poverty? It had the air of eugenics about it, as if she were saying that one generation of poor people is enough. Even the liberal partisan Chris Matthews thought Pelosi’s position resembled China’s one-child policy. In response to the backlash, the President told Pelosi to remove the contraception funding from the stimulus bill.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2009.05.01.002.pdart
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Homo Sapiens, Get Lost
Anti-humanism comes to Hollywood.
By Wesley J. Smith
When Aldous Huxley wrote his prophetic 1932 novel, Brave New World, he envisioned a dystopian future in which mankind would become, in the words of bioethicist Leon Kass, “so dehumanized that he doesn’t even realize what has been lost.”
Huxley believed we would evolve into a society steeped in radical hedonism — where drugs would be used to erase every negative emotion and promiscuity would be not just common but the norm. He also saw us as becoming profoundly utilitarian and eugenic, depicted in his novel by genetically engineered babies being decanted through a cloning-type process rather than being born, and then propagandized rather than educated, so as never to question the existing order. Huxley’s Brave New World is a society without families, without the old and sick — who are done away with rather than cared for — and without real purpose other than experiencing transitory pleasure.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTZkZmFmMGU4MzAzYThjOTBhMjNmZmQyNGMxZTM4Zjc=&w=MA
By Wesley J. Smith
When Aldous Huxley wrote his prophetic 1932 novel, Brave New World, he envisioned a dystopian future in which mankind would become, in the words of bioethicist Leon Kass, “so dehumanized that he doesn’t even realize what has been lost.”
Huxley believed we would evolve into a society steeped in radical hedonism — where drugs would be used to erase every negative emotion and promiscuity would be not just common but the norm. He also saw us as becoming profoundly utilitarian and eugenic, depicted in his novel by genetically engineered babies being decanted through a cloning-type process rather than being born, and then propagandized rather than educated, so as never to question the existing order. Huxley’s Brave New World is a society without families, without the old and sick — who are done away with rather than cared for — and without real purpose other than experiencing transitory pleasure.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTZkZmFmMGU4MzAzYThjOTBhMjNmZmQyNGMxZTM4Zjc=&w=MA
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Instinct to protect
Sheila Liaugminas
This sounds like science fiction. Only I can’t imagine making it up.
It was jarring the day I read it. But even more so after considering the case of Baby OT (see post below).
A couple is suing a hospital for keeping their baby alive.
http://www.mercatornet.com/sheila_liaugminas/view/instinct_to_protect/
This sounds like science fiction. Only I can’t imagine making it up.
It was jarring the day I read it. But even more so after considering the case of Baby OT (see post below).
A couple is suing a hospital for keeping their baby alive.
http://www.mercatornet.com/sheila_liaugminas/view/instinct_to_protect/
Monday, February 16, 2009
Green eugenics
by Bill Muehlenberg
Population control has gone from culling the ‘unfit’ to finding the whole human race a nuisance.
Who wants to be a eugenicist? Not President Barack Obama, I’m sure, and yet his reversing of the Mexico City Policy, which banned US foreign monies from going into organisations which perform or refer women for abortions, makes him an accomplice of a movement whose great aim, in the words of patron saint Margaret Sanger, is to stop the “unfit” breeding.
Continue...
Population control has gone from culling the ‘unfit’ to finding the whole human race a nuisance.
Who wants to be a eugenicist? Not President Barack Obama, I’m sure, and yet his reversing of the Mexico City Policy, which banned US foreign monies from going into organisations which perform or refer women for abortions, makes him an accomplice of a movement whose great aim, in the words of patron saint Margaret Sanger, is to stop the “unfit” breeding.
Continue...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)