Eugenics–the thought that we can improve the human race through genetic engineering–has been around since the 19th Century; it started by taking God out of the picture (naturalism). It quickly joined hands with Darwinian evolution and the modern penchant for progress. It came to full flower in Germany, of course; yet, it has been in the U.S. since the 19th Century and is still being promoted by liberals today (Planned Parenthood, for instance).
Thanks to Angela at http://bondedtogether.wordpress.com/, who pointed out yet another instance of eugenic thinking at the elite level of U.S. academics. This time, Obama’s science czar (what’s with all these czars? we’ve got more czars than Russia ever had… )–anyway, Obama’s science czar argued for forced abortions and sterilizations to depopulate our pristine planet. Of course, he and his co-authors now disavow their positions, but read this article for the full story.
The blogosphere is lighting up with conversation and debate over Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comments related to eugenics. In case you haven’t heard, she said,
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.
The two burning questions, which the reporter did not ask, are (1) Which populations do we not want too many of and (2) who is the “we” who gets to decide this eugenicide? About the press’ ineptitude, I like this quote from Damian Thompson at the UK Telegraph:
You might think the New York Times might want to trumpet its exclusive. But the mindset of that pompous, prickly, boring, self-regarding publication is so overwhelmingly liberal that it didn’t even realise it had a story on its hands.
These questions need to be answered, of course; it is frightful that our Supreme Court may have on it a woman whose views are akin to Margaret Sanger’s. At least, the thought bothers me. See the GR story here.