Category: eugenics

My Response to Wisconsin-La Crosse Professor Bradley Butterfield’s Column Promoting Abortion in the Name of ‘Women’s Rights’ with Overpopulation the Real Target

On October 4th, UW-L English professor Bradley Butterfield had his guest view defending abortion in the name of ‘Women’s Rights’ and it was clear to me that this was really just a cover for his real agenda, which is population control.  I don’t know him well enough to know if he is even aware of […]

Share

We are all bullies now: Jennifer Livingston, meet Kenneth Krause, Liberal, Atheist, Secular Humanist

When one person calls another person fat, that is bullying. When the government calls two thirds of America’s citizenry fat, we call that being ‘socially concerned.’ Who elected this government? We the people. If Kenneth Krause is a bully, so is the government, and so are all the people who told the government it was ‘ok’ to involve itself in every area of our lives. We are all bullies now.

Share

I Can See the Holocaust from My House

In the decades leading up to one of the most horrific chapters in human history, the leading lights of the day openly discussed bringing about those horrors. Eugenics was posited as the rational position of all intelligent, well-meaning individuals. In journals, newspapers, academic conferences, public health offices and elsewhere, they talked about sterilizing people with or without their consent, segregating them from society, or even exterminating them. And that was in America.

Share

A Glimpse of The Coming Eumemics?

Is it really the case that eugenics is dead and gone? I want you to consider an article that I recently read detailing the views of an ‘expert’ in practical ethics. [update, here is a link to the original essay.  don’t know how long it will stay up.] The second paragraph reads: The expert in […]

Share

The Curse of Genetic Testing Multiplied by 3,500

An article I read today announces that they have found a way to test for 3,500 genetic faults, raising concerns (the article says) about the ethical implications.  The story veers headlong into a sustained bout of research that I am currently engaged in, research that began by wanting to answer the basic question “how does  […]

Share

Reducing Health Care Costs by Reducing Pregnancies

The culture of death is rarely honest about its beliefs and values. All the more reason for those of us in the pro-life community to keep our eye on the ball. If we got rid of abortion on demand, but erected the apparatus that the elites are trying to build, I assure you, the only thing that will change is the group of people that falls under their scrutiny. Probably the old, most certainly the disabled. But also targeted: those who smoke, who drink, who eat sugar, or trans fat, or engage in ‘unhealthy lifestyles.’ I would say that tyranny is right around the corner, but that last sentence should give us the real truth: it is inside the door, and sitting at our couches… and trying to make itself at home, at our own invitation.

Share

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? Or, What is the proper response to killing newborn children because they are a burden to a family… or society?

authors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argue that the same arguments that justify abortion of the fetus on demand likewise apply to the newly born. Here is the abstract:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

Share
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next