Arkansas Citizen Participation in Government Act.16-63-502

Jan 3, 2006

Eugenics Is False Science

Eugenics is false science. It is about the selective prevention or encouragement of births for social, racial, or political ends. When promoting anti-natalist measures, such measures are often hidden beneath rhetoric about freedom of choice or reproductive health.

When eugenic goals demand increased fertility, those goals may be advanced in the name of national power, race survival, or even family support programs (including maternity leave, day care, childcare allowances, etc. as in much of Europe today) which would be considered progressive if not for the intent behind them.

Eugenics is not about reproductive freedom. It is, in fact, the antithesis of reproductive freedom because it is essentially concerned with competitive fertility. As such, it is similar to -- but not identical to -- population control. The distinction here is that eugenics supplies a biological or genetic interpretation to its means and aims. If it is a particular race that is to targeted, for instance, the eugenicist will first offer a "scientific" basis for such a plan --usually consisting of statistical "evidence" that the disfavored group is less capable of achievement, more prone to anti-social behavior,or otherwise disproportionately responsible for a prevalent social problem. Most importantly, the eugenicist will insist that this"inferiority" is hereditary -- that "excessively" high birthrates among these people will lead to a general decline in the quality of the society as a whole.

Thus the eugenicist will argue the legitimacy of a public policy that minimizes procreation among certain groups, while often simultaneously promoting greater fertility among other segments of the population.

It should be added that an activity designed to influence levels of fertility is not the only tactic available for use under a eugenic program. High rates of incarceration (especially where a large number of young adults are concerned) may be tolerated precisely because imprisonment results in a loss of reproductive opportunity.

Eugenic goals also extend to immigration when an exclusion policy selects by ethnicity or class. As was made abundantly clear under the Nazi program of mass genocide, a well-functioning eugenics operation is never satisfied for long with modest results.
It is almost inevitable that whenever such policies are found "useful," increased activity of the same sort will be seen as "more useful."

The word eugenics comes from the Greek for "good genes", general meaning.
Therefore, any policy that is thought by advocates to stimulate the prevalence of "good genes" is considered eugenic in its effect.

Another term -- dysgenic -- is applied to a situation in which the undesirable elements, like Creoles both "old blood and new"(OLD BLOOD CREOLE: Ethnic/National Creole that has maintained a significant genetic/cultural diversity of three or more generations. NEW BLOOD CREOLE: "mixed- raced" individuals with little to no cultural support born within one to two generations of "single-raced" to "tri-racial/"one dropped"multiracial parents") grow at a greater rate than the rest.

Finally, it should be pointed out that eugenics can be broken down into several distinct philosophies. Social Darwinism is a term commonly applied to class-based eugenics. Please take the time to research the true and complete theories of Darwin. His early examples actually use the IRISH so-called race, as the contemporary example of genetically undesirable dysgenics of his particular time. Please choose to acquire a complete understanding of their sinister activities throughout history. Also, his cousin, as one of the original advocates/founders of eugenics.

Google to find out more. "De-ignorize" your culture so that this Age of Clarity, doesn't pass you by!

The operative theory here, is that wealth is spontaneously distributed throughout the society according to the merits of the individuals within the society. In other words, the Social Darwinist believes the wealthy are rich because of inherent traits that make them successful. The poor, on the other hand, are said to be destined to want precisely because they are of "inferior stock." Thus, in the mind of the eugenicist, any effort to promote economic justice has a dysgenic effect because it only encourages breeding among so-called inferior types.

This kind of thinking can be found in advocacy of such contemporary proposals as the "family cap" for welfare parents,certain efforts to halt teen pregnancy, and the flap about and "illegitimacy."

Likewise, racial eugenics defines people from different regions of the world as having unique "evolutionary characteristics" which makes one group more suited to certain pursuits than another. This is the ideology behind The Bell Curve and similar publications that have aroused controversy in the past few years.

Some proponents of eugenics cite physical or mental disabilities as a cause for limits to reproduction. In terms of policy, they are more interested in stigmatizing the alcoholic, the drug abuser, or the mental patient than in seeking authentic forms of treatment and measures that would influence the economic or social environment in which such problems flourish. This form of eugenics has made inroads into many of the more legitimate sciences such as human genetics and bio-ethics. Indeed, eugenics is especially dangerous in this area because of the opportunity to apply obvious truths -- the fact that children inherit physical features from their parents, to name one -- to political issues, such as "criminal tendencies" or an"underclass" culture, in a way that results in discriminatory policies.

The following eugenics databases are a compilation of the names of influential persons who have belonged to eugenics associations (the British eugenics society and its American counterpart), their affiliation with other organizations, their interests and fields of study, and their contribution to literature. It is meant not only to show the prevalence of this kind of ideological thinking and their application to supposedly unrelated fields of study, but also to illustrate how little the fundamental philosophy has changed over the years. It is also hoped that access to this information will encourage others to study the field of eugenics and to recognize it for what it is.

1: Sci Context. 1998 Autumn-Winter;11(3-4):493-510. Related Articles, LinksEugenics is alive and well: a survey of genetic professionals around the world.Wertz D.A survey of 2901 genetics professionals in 36 nations suggests that eugenic thought underlies their perceptions of the goals of genetics and that directiveness in counseling after prenatal diagnosis leads to individual decisions based on pessimistically biased information, especially in developing nations of Asia and Eastern Europe. The "non-directive counseling" found in English-speaking nations is an aberration from the rest of the world. Most geneticists, except in China, rejected government involvement in premarital testing or sterilization, but most also held a pessimistic view of persons with genetic disabilities. Individual, but not state-coerced, eugenics survives in much modern genetic practice.MeSH Terms:Abortion, Eugenic/psychologyAsiaAttitude of Health
Personnel*AustraliaCubaData CollectionDirective Counseling*Disabled
Persons/psychologyEugenics*EuropeGenetic Counseling/psychology*Genetic Diseases,
Inborn/prevention & controlGovernment RegulationHumansInfant,
NewbornInternationality*Mandatory ProgramsNeonatal Screening/psychologyNorth
AmericaPremarital Examinations/psychologyPrenatal Diagnosis/psychologyResearch Support,
U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.South AfricaSouth AmericaSterilization, Reproductive/psychologyGrant
Support:NO1-HD-1-3136/HD/NICHDRO1-HG00540-02/HG/NHGRIPMID: 15168676 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Did the Surgeon General Know?

Hugh S. Cumming was U.S. Surgeon General from 1920 to 1936, the period when the Tuskegee Syphilis Study began, under the U.S. Public Health Service. He was succeeded by Thomas Parran, who was Surgeon General during twelve years of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, from 1936 to 1948. In 1944, Parran wrote an extensive paper on how to reorganize the U.S. Public Health Service for the next ten years.Venereal disease takes only one page out of well over 500 pages; the subject was minor in the government's organizational scheme. But Parran was an expert on syphilis; he wrote two books about it. He was keenly aware of the devastation caused by the disease, and wrote about the need to treat patients at all stages.However, the Tuskegee syphilis study, in which hundreds of poor black men with syphilis were left untreated so that researchers could observe the course of the disease, went forward while he was running the Public Health Service, and reports about the progress of the study went to the PHS regularly. This cruel experiment is among the most outrageous abuses of trusting patients in medical history.