| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
25 Mar 2005 09:19:13 PM |
| Object: |
Facts vs. media fictions about Terri's actual condition |
The affidavit extracts below demonstrate the falsity of the old media's
erroneous allegation that 'no one is home' in Terri Schindler Schiavo.
Also, Terri can anticipate and feel pain.
A U.S. judiciary run amok and a shameless American Criminal Liberties
Union are intent on murdering via starvation an innocent/ guiltless and
defenseless woman.
Decency demands that this unjustified, court-imposed death sentence on
Terri Schindler Schiavo be stopped.
What, if anything, will you do to help Terri and stop a judiciary and
ACLU run amok?
action items to help Terri
http://www.terrisfight.org/actionitems.html
From
http://www.hospicepatients.org/terri-schindler-schiavo-docs-links-page.html
from the PDF "Affidavit of William Cheshire, Jr., MD 03-23-05":
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DUVALL
Before me this day personally appeared William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D.,
who, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I, William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D., have personal knowledge of the
facts stated in this declaration and, if called as a witness, I could
and would testify competently thereto under oath. I declare as follows:
I am a neurologist practicing in the State of Florida and am certified
by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. In regard to my
educational background, I received an A.B. in biochemical sciences from
Princeton University, an M.A. in bioethics from Trinity International
University, and an M.D. from West Virginia University. I completed an
internship in internal medicine at West Virginia University, a residency
in neurology and a pain fellowship at the University of North Carolina.
I am also an appointed volunteer with the Florida Statewide Adult
Protective Services team, in which capacity I was called on March 1,
2005, to provide an independent and objective medical review of
allegations of possible abuse, neglect, or exploitation of Ms. Theresa
Marie Schiavo.
Although no one from the Department of Children and Families has
inquired about my personal views about treatment decisions in cases of
persistent vegetative state (PVS), I would like to disclose that I came
into this case with the belief that it can be ethically permissible to
discontinue artificially provided nutrition and hydration for patients
in a persistent vegetative state. Having now reviewed the relevant
facts, having met and observed Ms. Schiavo in person, and having
reflected deeply on the moral and ethical issues, I would like to
explain why I change my mind in regard to this particular case.
.....
Based on my review of extensive medical records documenting Terri's care
over the years, on my personal observation of Terri, and on my
observations of Terri's responses in the many hours of videotapes taken
in 2002, she demonstrates a number of behaviors I believe cast a
reasonable doubt on the prior diagnosis of PVS. These include:
1. Her behavior is frequently context-specific. For example, her
facial expression brightens and she smiles in response to the voice of
familiar persons such as her parents or her nurse. Her agitation
subsides and her facial demeanor softens when quiet music is played.
When jubilant piano music is played, her face brightens, she lifts her
eyebrows, smiles, and even laughs. Her lateral gaze toward the tape
player is sustained for many minutes. Several times I witnessed Terri
briefly, albeit inconsistently, laugh in response to a humorous comment
someone in the room had made. I did not see her laugh in the absence of
someone else's laughter.
2. Although she does not seem to track or follow visual objects
consistently or for long periods of time, she does fixate her gaze on
colorful objects or human faces for some 15 seconds at a time and
occasionally follows with her eyes at least briefly as these objects
move from side to side. When I first walked into her room, she
immediately turned her head toward me and looked directly at my face.
There was a lot of curiosity or expectation in her expression, and she
maintained eye contact for about half a minute. Later, when she again
looked at me, she brought her lips together as if to pronounce the
letter "O," and although for a moment it appeared that she might be
making an intentional effort to speak, her face then fell blank, and no
words came out.
3. Although I did not hear Terri utter distinct words, she demonstrates
emotional expressivity by her use of a single syllable of vocalizations
such as "ah," making cooing sounds, or by expressing guttural sounds of
annoyance or moaning appropriate to the context of the situation. The
context-specific range and the variability of her vocalizations suggests
at least a reasonable probability of the processing of emotional thought
within her brain. There have been reports of Terri rarely using actual
words specific to her situational context. The July 25, 2003 affidavit
of the speech pathologist Sarah Green Mole, MS, on page 6, reads, "The
records of Mediplex reflect the fact that she has said 'stop' in
apparent response to a medical procedure being done to her." The Adult
Protective Services team has been unable to retrieve those original
medical records in this instance.
4. Although Terri has not consistently followed commands, there
appeared to be some notable exceptions. In the taped examination by Dr.
Hammesfahr from 2002, when asked to close her eyes she began to blink
repeatedly. Although it was unclear whether she squeezed her grip when
asked, she did appear to raise her right leg four times in succession
each time she was asked to do so. Rehabilitation notes from 1991
indicated that she tracked inconsistently, and although she did not
develop a yes/no communication system, did follow some commands
inconsistently and demonstrated good eye contact to family members.
5. There is a remarkable moment in the videotape of the September 3,
2002 examination by Dr. Hammesfahr that seemed to go unnoticed at the
time. At 2:44 p.m., Dr. Hammesfahr had just turned Terri onto her right
side to examine her back with a painful sharp stimulus (a sharp piece of
wood), to which Terri had responded with signs of discomfort. Well
after he ceased applying the stimulus and had returned Terri to a
comfortable position, he says to her parents, "So, we're going to have
to roll her over...." Immediately Terri cries. She vocalizes a crying
sound, "Ugh, ha, ha, ha," presses her eyebrows together, and sadly
grimaces. It is important to note that, at that moment, no one is
touching Terri or causing actual pain. Rather, she appears to
comprehend the meaning of Dr. Hammesfahr's comment and she signals her
_anticipation_ of pain. This response suggests some degree of language
processing and interpretation at the level of the cerebral cortex. It
also suggests that she may be aware of pain beyond what could be
explained by simple reflex withdrawal.
6. According to the definition of PVS published by the American Academy
of Neurology, "persistent vegetative state patients do not have the
capacity to experience pain or suffering. Pain and suffering are
attributes of consciousness requiring cerebral cortical functioning, and
patients who are permanently and completely unconscious cannot
experience these symptoms."^6 And yet, in my review of Terri's medical
records, pain issues keep surfacing. The nurses at Woodside Hospice
told us that she often has pain with menstrual cramps. Menstrual flow
is associated with agitation, repeated or sustained moaning, facial
grimacing, limb posturing, and facial flushing, all of which subside
once she is given ibuprofen. Some of the records document moaning,
crying, and other painful behavior in the setting of urinary tract
infections.
.....
7. To enter the room of Terri Schiavo is nothing like entering the room
of a patient who is comatose or brain-dead or in some neurological sense
no longer there. Although Terri did not demonstrate during our 90
minute visit compelling evidence of verbalization, conscious awareness,
or volitional behavior, yet the visitor has the distinct sense of the
presence of a living human being who seems at some level to be aware of
some things around her.
As I looked at Terri, and she gazed directly back at me, I asked myself
whether, if I were her attending physician, I could in good conscience
withdraw nutrition and hydration. No, I could not. I could not
withdraw life support if I were asked. I could not withhold
life-sustaining nutrition and hydration from this beautiful lady whose
face brightens in the presence of others.
The neurologic signs are in many ways ambiguous. There is no guarantee
that more sophisticated testing would definitively resolve that
ambiguity to everyone's satisfaction. There would be value, I think, in
obtaining a functional MRI scan if that is possible.
This situation differs fundamentally from end-of-life scenarios where it
is appropriate to withdraw life-sustaining medical interventions that no
longer benefit or are burdensome to patients in the terminal stages of
illness. Terri's feeding tube is not a burden to her. It is not
painful, is not infected, is not eroding her stomach lining or causing
any medical complications. But for the decision to withdraw her feeding
tube, Terri cannot be considered medically terminal. But for the
withdrawal of food and water, she would not die [well, she would not die
now-- everybody dies eventually, sometimes sooner rather than later. We
never know when we will go to meet our Maker. -df].
In summary, Terri [Schindler] Schiavo demonstrates behaviors in a
variety of cognitive domains that call into question the previous
neurologic diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Specifically, she
has demonstrated behaviors that are context-specific, sustained, and
indicative of a cerebral cortical processing that, upon careful
neurologic consideration, would not be expected in a persistent
vegetative state.
Based on this evidence, I believe that, within a reasonable degree of
medical certainty, there is a greater likelihood that Terri is in a
minimally conscious state than a persistent vegetative state. This
distinction makes an enormous difference in making ethical decisions on
Terri's behalf. If Terri is sufficiently aware of her surroundings that
she can feel pleasure and suffer, if she is capable of understanding to
some degree how she is being treated, then in my judgment it would be
wrong to bring about her death by withdrawing food and water.
At the time of this writing, Terri Schiavo, as the result of the
decisions based on what I have argued to be a faulty diagnosis of
persistent vegetative state, has been without food or water for 5 days.
She is thus at risk of death or serious injury unless the provision of
food and water can be restored. Terri Schiavo lacks the capacity to
consent to emergency protective services and must trust others to act on
her behalf. If she were to be transferred to another facility, it would
be medically necessary first to initiate hydration and ensure that her
serum electrolytes are within normal values.
How medicine and society choose to think about Terri [Schindler] Schiavo
will influence what kind of people we will be as we evaluate and respond
to the needs of the most vulnerable people among us. When serious
doubts exist as to whether a cognitively impaired person is or is not
consciously aware, even if these doubts cannot be conclusively resolved,
it is better to err on the side of protecting vulnerable life.
Respectfully submitted,
William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D., M.A., F.A.A.N.
[signature]
Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this 23[rd] day of
March, 2005, by William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D.
[notary stamp and signature]
======================================================================
articles: livelier ones are by Thomas Sowell and William Kristol. Eric
Cohen's is very thoughtful.
http://www.townhall.com
Cal Thomas: Schiavo case matters in symbol and substance
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adfseF68nkocU1%40individual.net
Justifications for taking of human life?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3aj33dF67kgcuU2%40individual.net
any atheists against Terri Schindler Schiavo's being starved to death?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adrlvF69l60hU1%40individual.net
1997 Wesley Smith on Germany's slippery slope slide from devaluing some
human life to a little euthanasia/ killing to mass killings
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net
ACLU: Legal Terrorists
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/27/195402.shtml
Terri Schindler Schiavo Case
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/16/223430.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43463
What, if anything, will you do to help Terri and stop a judiciary and
ACLU run amok?
action items to help Terri
http://www.terrisfight.org/actionitems.html
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: eugenics and the left |
13 Oct 2005 02:27:41 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Dennett wrote that "Baptists should literally be put into cages."
He did not write those words. You are a liar.
---DPM
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: eugenics and the left |
06 Oct 2005 10:22:21 AM |
|
|
On 6 Oct 2005 06:56:27 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <dford3-1128514958.837974.217300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "david
ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/lefteug2.html
http://oh-shut-up/you-troll.html
Do you agree with Dennett that Baptists ought to be put in cages?
Do you agree with Martin Luther that Jews ought to be driven out?
Ronald Numbers on Dennett
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6hihi0pd6bbh9minslv76qrvmrpr3aea7m%404ax.com
Dennett: Baptists ought to be put in cages
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406241903.4c152fe7%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407101059.ab87e1f%40posting.google.com
Yahya and Koster on the use of fear and force
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030811.4e8cd1bd%40posting.google.com
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: eugenics and the left |
10 Oct 2005 09:46:37 AM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On 6 Oct 2005 david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <dford3-1128514958.837974.217300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "david
ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/lefteug2.html
http://oh-shut-up/you-troll.html
Do you agree with Dennett that Baptists ought to be put in cages?
Do you agree with Martin Luther that Jews ought to be driven out?
No.
Do you agree with this Humphrey?:
Humphrey, Nicholas. 21 February 1997. "What shall we Tell
the Children?", Amnesty Lecture, Oxford. Cited in Andrew
Brown, _The Darwin Wars: How Stupid Genes Became Selfish
Gods_ (Great Britain: Simon & Schuster, 1999), 241pp., 172.
Humphrey is an adherent of atheism:
Children have a right not to have their minds addled by
nonsense. And we as a society have a duty to protect them
from it. So we should no more allow parents to teach their
children to believe in the literal truth of the Bible, or that
the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to
knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a dungeon.
Andrew Brown's comments on Humphrey
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406131334.2de61508%40posting.google.com
Ronald Numbers on Dennett
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6hihi0pd6bbh9minslv76qrvmrpr3aea7m%404ax.com
Dennett: Baptists ought to be put in cages
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406241903.4c152fe7%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407101059.ab87e1f%40posting.google.com
Yahya and Koster on the use of fear and force
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030811.4e8cd1bd%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: eugenics and the left |
11 Oct 2005 04:47:40 PM |
|
|
On 10 Oct 2005 07:46:37 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
On 6 Oct 2005 david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <dford3-1128514958.837974.217300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "david
ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/lefteug2.html
http://oh-shut-up/you-troll.html
Do you agree with Dennett that Baptists ought to be put in cages?
Do you agree with Martin Luther that Jews ought to be driven out?
No.
Why not? Wasn't Luther a Christian? Did he not fear and love God?
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: eugenics and the left |
11 Oct 2005 04:56:25 PM |
|
|
AC wrote:
Why not? Wasn't Luther a Christian? Did he not fear and love God?
Mostly he hated Jews. Martine Luether had membership #1 in the Nazi
Partei. #2 went to Richard Wagner, the composer.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lizz Holmans" |
|
| Title: Re: eugenics and the left |
06 Oct 2005 01:09:18 PM |
|
|
On 6 Oct 2005 15:22:21 GMT, AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
Do you agree with Martin Luther that Jews ought to be driven out?
Well, that depends. A nice trip to Disneyland would be fun.
Lizz 'Baby, you can drive my car' Holmans
--
I was too far out all my life
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: eugenics and the left |
13 Oct 2005 04:18:54 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <dford3-1128514958.837974.217300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "david
ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/lefteug2.html
http://oh-shut-up/you-troll.html
Do you agree with Dennett that Baptists ought to be put in cages?
I would prefer it if they were fed to the lions in the Arena.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Lepore" |
|
| Title: Re: eugenics and the left |
10 Oct 2005 03:31:14 AM |
|
|
Nonsense. Hitler was on the extreme right.
The political left attributes social inequality among different population
groups
to the social system not being optimum, obsolete, to be replaced eventually
by a better socioeconomic system in which people will be socially equal.
The right attributes social inequality to "human nature", with some form of
competition being useful to advance the "superior" individuals over the
"inferior" ones.
--
Mike Lepore email remove the 5
http://www.deleonism.org/ -- a socialist forum
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: eugenics and the left |
10 Oct 2005 09:43:02 AM |
|
|
Mike Lepore wrote:
Nonsense. Hitler was on the extreme right.
Who are some other prominent people you consider "on the extreme
right"?
The political left attributes social inequality among different population
groups
to the social system not being optimum, obsolete, to be replaced eventually
by a better socioeconomic system in which people will be socially equal.
"system in which people will be socially equal" in what ways-- examples
of theoretical or actual situations where people are "socially equal"?
Which of these individuals do you consider on the "political left"?:
Gould, John Maynard Smith, J.B.S. Haldane, Richard Lewontin, Marx,
Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Khrushev, Brezhnev, Pol Pot, Castro,
Kim Jong Il, Hu Jintao (head of China's ruling Communist Party), MAO
Zedong.
about Hu Jintao, Gould, Smith, Haldane, and Lewontin
http://english.people.com.cn/data/people/hujintao.shtml
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-32gfjsF3l6o15U1%40individual.net
The right attributes social inequality to "human nature", with some form of
competition being useful to advance the "superior" individuals over the
"inferior" ones.
--
Mike Lepore email remove the 5
http://www.deleonism.org/ -- a socialist forum
Do you consider Mussolini to have been a "socialist"?
Beichman, Arnold. 29 August 2005. "Fascism fantasies"
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/abeichman.htm
Richard Pipes has written that "Bolshevism and fascism
were heresies of socialism." Recalling that Mussolini
began his political career as a distinguished Italian
socialist, Professor Gregor writes:....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Lepore" |
|
| Title: Re: eugenics and the left |
11 Oct 2005 03:02:46 AM |
|
|
Reply to David Ford,
[Mike Lepore]
The political left attributes social inequality among different
population groups
to the social system not being optimum, obsolete, to be replaced
eventually
by a better socioeconomic system in which people will be socially equal.
[David Ford]
"system in which people will be socially equal" in what ways-- examples
of theoretical or actual situations where people are "socially equal"?
There is a range from reformist to revolutionary opinions on the left.
Reformers tend to prefer "foreseeable future" suggestions to improve the
conditions of poorer people, for example, see any speech by
Jesse Jackson. However, there is also a revolutionary perspective,
such as Marx and Engels - a proposal which no country on earth has ever
tried - to make the workplace itself into a republic, with the managers
being the democratically elected representatives of the workers.
Either way, the linguistic pattern is for the word "RIGHT" to refer to
defending economic inequality as something natural, and the word "LEFT"
to refer to the position that economic inequality is the symptom of
institutional
systems being in need of replacement.
The right says things like "those who work hard will get ahead", "the cream
rises to the top", "risk is rewarded", "pull yourself up by your
bootstraps",
etc., and, thereby, inequality as a social structure -- some people being a
demographic group of order-givers and enjoyers of walth, and some people
being a demographic of order-takers and endurers of economic insecurity --
is upheld by law, religion, philosophy, etc.
The left says things like "the playing field has been unequal", etc., to
explain
the origin of different people having different degrees of socioeconomic
power.
Obviously, Hitler and his collaborators were on the far right.
Both his racial superstition and his violent opposition to all socialists
and
labor union organizers show that Hitler believed that inequality among
population groups was normal and supportable.
Those who claim that Hitler was on the left are mistaken about how
these terms related to the political spectrum have been used since
the1700s.
As for your request that I comment on all the historical people you listed,
I'm sorry but I would like to abstain from that at this time. I'll just say
that people like Stalin and Mao, who claimed falsely to be "socialists"
but then instituted new kinds of class rule, with themselves as the
emperors, are in another category that can't be labelled neatly by
the terminology of the spectrum from left to right. The traditional
categories for naming things are inadequate.
Mike Lepore http://www.deleonism.org/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: eugenics and the left |
10 Oct 2005 10:00:03 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
"system in which people will be socially equal" in what ways-- examples
of theoretical or actual situations where people are "socially equal"?
Social equality will happen when everyone is dead.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tracy Hamilton" |
|
| Title: Re: eugenics and the left |
05 Oct 2005 10:18:29 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/lefteug2.html
The document cited discredited itself at the very
beginning by asserting that Hitler was a socialist.
If he can't get that right, why should I think he can identify
anybody on the "Left" correctly, specifically eugenics
advocates? Is it really "Left" to advocate not giving
indiscriminate charity, or "Right"?
Also in the first paragraph, Hitler's interest was
not building up the Master race, but preventing its degeneration
by mixing in inferior "races". Not inferior *individuals*, which
was the focus of most eugenics (particularly mentally inferior,
as measured by IQ tests).
Tracy P. Hamilton
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: eugenics and the left |
06 Oct 2005 08:54:14 AM |
|
|
Tracy Hamilton wrote:
david ford wrote:
http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/lefteug2.html
The document cited discredited itself at the very
beginning by asserting that Hitler was a socialist.
Which of these individuals do you consider "socialist"?:
Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Khrushev, Brezhnev, Pol Pot,
Castro, Kim Jong Il, MAO Zedong?
Is Hu Jintao (head of China's ruling Communist Party) "socialist"?
http://english.people.com.cn/data/people/hujintao.shtml
Do you think _Origin_ "discredited itself... by asserting" some
erroneous claims?
Dawkins, Richard. 1989. _The Selfish Gene_ (Oxford: Oxford
University Press), 352pp., 195:
Much of what Darwin said is, in detail, wrong.
surrounding material in
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=u2k2i0dlm2htnq42avhemsueaqi7pje2mh%404ax.com
If he can't get that right, why should I think he can identify
anybody on the "Left" correctly, specifically eugenics
advocates?
Good point. Do you think Darwin stated anything "correctly," and if
so, what are some things he stated "correctly"?
Is it really "Left" to advocate not giving
indiscriminate charity, or "Right"?
I don't know. Do you consider Margaret Sanger on the "'Left'... or
'Right'"?
Sanger founded what went on to become Planned Parenthood.
Quote Archive of 1184 Quotes
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1126836980.382631.17030%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Do you think the "Left" has a penchant for employing government
coercion to achieve its dreams of a future utopian society?
Does the "Right" have such a penchant?
Which of these individuals do you consider on the "Left"?:
Humphrey, Dwyer, Dennett, Dawkins.
Have Humphrey, Dwyer, Dennett, and Dawkins gone around [LM]"behaving
like idiots"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-36ptr0F53hkerU1%40individual.net
Do you consider the ACLU on the "Left"?
ACLU victory over Yeshiva University
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1128529347.082645.193140%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Also in the first paragraph, Hitler's interest was
not building up the Master race, but preventing its degeneration
by mixing in inferior "races". Not inferior *individuals*, which
was the focus of most eugenics (particularly mentally inferior,
as measured by IQ tests).
I don't understand. Hitler _was_ interested in:
"building up the Master race,"
"preventing... degeneration by mixing in inferior 'races,'" and
"preventing... degeneration by mixing" in of "inferior *individuals.*"
"Inferior 'races'" _are composed of_ "inferior *individuals.*" Duh.
2004 Kater:
Himmler, a former chicken farmer..., was ruled by very
strong beliefs regarding the application of breeding
theories to humans-- by way of positive selection for the
"Aryans" and negative selection for their natural enemies,
the Slavs, Gypsies, and Jews.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1126752603.953619.262940%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Hitler's human breeding plan using selection + mutations
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1124684179.251743.95950%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1124731489.829229.220700%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Haeckel re: Jesus; Fest on "Social Darwinism in Hitler's thought"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1125598958.059080.62950%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
"inferior 'races'. Not inferior *individuals*, which was the focus of
most eugenics"
Compare
Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life_ (London: John Murray), 513pp.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Sanger: segregate the anti-social and feebleminded |
06 Oct 2005 03:07:09 PM |
|
|
Margaret Sanger founded what went on to become Planned Parenthood.
Barton, Dennis. 2003, 2 November 2004. "The Anti-Christian Roots of
Nazism"
http://www.church-in-history.org/pages/booklets/roots(n)-1.htm
http://www.church-in-history.org/pages/booklets/roots(n)-2.htm
From the 2nd URL:
_CHAPTER 6_
SUPPORTERS OF EUGENICS
A. Introduction
Hitler's economic successes gained him considerable admiration in many
countries, but some people went further and were in sympathy with the
basic principles of Nazism. It is very noticeable that these people
were also in the forefront of attacks on Catholic teachings. It is
relevant to recall a few examples.
B. America
It is widely known that Margaret Sanger (1879-1966) fought bitterly
against Catholics in her position as leader, both in America and
internationally, of the Birth-Control Movement. It is less well known
that her motivation was not one of love and compassion for the poor,
but to promote a form of eugenics similar to that of Nazism. In early
life she did engage in social work but was converted to eugenics by
Havelock Ellis during 1914 ((ED 17)), and devoted the rest of her life
to its promotion. During 1919 she coined the slogan: 'more children
from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of
Birth-Control', and in 1921, 'Birth-Control: to create a race of
thoroughbreds.' ((ED 12)).
In 1923 Sanger called for the poor to be sterilised, the issuing of
licences to those permitted to 'breed', and for the encouragement of
'successful types' to have children ((ED 10)). The following year
Hitler called for the sick and those with hereditary disease to be
prevented from having children, the limiting of 'settlement
certificates' (for those moving to new territories) to the racially
pure, and financial assistance to 'healthy women' so as to encourage
them to have children ((AH 367-8)). Hitler's attitude to the 'mentally
unhealthy and unworthy' was kinder than that of Sanger. He wrote that
education must teach 'that it is no disgrace, but only a misfortune
deserving of pity to be sick and weakly, . . .' ((AH 368)). But
Sanger taught that Eugenicists must steel themselves against feelings
of pity and sentimentality ((ED 42, 62 and 64)). She labelled the poor
as: 'human weeds' ((ED 15)).
In 1932, the year previous to Germany opening its first 'Concentration
Labour Camp' for reforming 'undesirable' individuals, Sanger published
her 'Peace Plan' for America. This called for:
1. A stop to the immigration of all Catholics, Jews and other
'feebleminded' people.
2. The segregation, for the rest of their lives on farms under work
instructors, of all 'feebleminded' Americans who refused to be
sterilised.
3. The keeping of other 'anti-social groups' on these farms until they
had been 'reformed' ((ED 21-2)).
As Sanger classified 70% of Americans as feebleminded ((ED 20)), her
plan was of massive proportions. It was to be administered by the
Anglo-Saxon elite, so as to prevent the numerical superiority of
'Slavs, Latins and Hebrews' ((ED 17 and 19)). She opposed Democracy
((ED 26 and 56)) and Trade Unions ((ED 84)), because they gave power to
low class 'morons'. The most 'insidiously injurious philanthropy' of
all was, in Sanger's view:
"To supply free medical and nursing facilities to slum mothers; that
such women are visited by nurses and receive instruction in the hygiene
of pregnancy; that these women would be guided in making arrangements
for their confinements; and that slum mothers would be able to see a
doctor to make their childbearing safe". ((ED 44)).
With the aid of money provided by the Rockefeller Foundation in 1925
((ED 111)), she organised the first world population conference ((ED
109)), entertaining the leading American anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic
and anti-Black racists ((ED 109 and 111)). Regarding the British
factory worker, she believed that 'Compared with the African negro the
British sub-man is in several respects markedly inferior' ((ED 47)).
In 1921 an American immigration act was passed which discriminated very
heavily in favour of 'northern' Europeans and completely excluded
Asians. Calvin Coolidge, the American President who quickly signed
this Act, had earlier publicly declared, "America must be kept
American. Biological laws show. . . that Nordics deteriorate when
mixed with other races." ((DJK 97)). The Act was widely acclaimed by
eugenicists in America ((DJK 97)), and by Hitler in 'Mein Kampf' ((AH
400)).
In April 1933, the month following Hitler obtaining power, Sanger
published a special issue of her 'Birth Control Review' devoted to
eugenic sterilisation. Prof. Ernst Rudin, who was to become the Nazi
specialist in Human Genetics, contributed an article urging quick
action to prevent the multiplication of bad stocks ((ED 22)). In the
same issue, Paul Popenoe, who was deeply involved In Sanger's Birth
Control League, praised the Nazis and called for the sterilisation of
one million Americans ((ED 22)). Another member, Leon Whitney,
defended and welcomed the forthcoming German law and called for the
restriction of the propagation of those physically, mentally and
socially inadequate ((ED 23)).
Harry Laughlin, a pantheist member of the League who believed 'god' was
some sort of 'universal ether', also contributed to the special issue.
He composed the 'Model Eugenic Sterilisation Law', which was used by
the Nazis as the basis for framing their own law. In recognition of
his work, Heidelberg University, the Nazi centre for discussing racial
problems, presented him with an honorary doctorate of medicine in 1936
((DJK 118 and ED 24)). When Hitler's law was passed, the American
Eugenics Society said it showed great courage and statesmanship ((DJK
118)).
Lothrop Stoddard, on Sanger's Board of Directors for years, wrote 'The
Rising Tide Of Color Against White Supremacy', which was reviewed
favourably in Sanger's 'Birth-Control Review' ((ED 109)). Later he was
permitted to sit-in on the Nazi Eugenic Supreme Court. He reported
'The Sterilisation Law is weeding out the worst strains in the German
stock . . . ' ((ED 13)). He was honoured by being granted a
personal interview with Hitler ((ED 109)).
Henry Fairchild, head of Sanger's 'Population Association Of America',
asserted in 'The Melting Pot Mistake' that Jews were a threat to the
Nordic stock ((ED 109)). In 1937 he joined Eugen Fischer to write a
foreword for a German racist book ((ED 111)). Fischer was Hitler's
advisor on race hygiene and Sanger invited him to America ((ED 111)).
The front page of Sanger's main publication sported the slogan 'A Sure
Light In Our Racial Darkness' ((ED 40)). Sanger believed in astrology
and numerology, and had a strong affinity to Indian mysticism. She was
a member of the Rosicrucians ((ED 19)), and the symbols of this occult
sect were printed on the front of her 'The New Generation' ((ED 38)).
C. Britain
.....
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"In 1937 he joined Eugen Fischer to write a foreword for a German
racist book ((ED 111)). Fischer was Hitler's advisor on race hygiene
and Sanger invited him to America ((ED 111))."
1933 H.J. Muller: "Hitler is said to have studied the Baur Fischer
Lenz
book [_Human Heredity_] very seriously, and to have been won over to
it"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1127262825.691025.245670%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Quote Archive of 1184 Quotes
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1126836980.382631.17030%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
"Sanger published her 'Peace Plan' for America. This called for:...
The keeping of other 'anti-social groups' on these farms until they had
been 'reformed' ((ED 21-2))."
Have Humphrey, Dwyer, Dennett, and Dawkins gone around [LM]"behaving
like idiots"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-36ptr0F53hkerU1%40individual.net
Dobzhansky and Simpson on bigotry
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9908202237180.716616-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Yahya and Koster on the use of fear and force
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030811.4e8cd1bd%40posting.google.com
The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National
Socialism
Stefan Kuhl
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195149785/ref=pd_sim_b_2/002-5908785-4252004?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a
Master Race
Edwin Black
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1568583214/qid=1127752108/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-5908785-4252004?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
The Unfit: A History of a Bad Idea
Elof Axel Carlson
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0879695870/ref=pd_sim_b_1/002-5908785-4252004?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
Eugenics and Other Evils: An Argument Against the Scientifically
Organized State
G. K. Chesterton
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587420023/ref=pd_sim_b_3/002-5908785-4252004?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: eugenics and the left |
06 Oct 2005 10:21:42 AM |
|
|
On 6 Oct 2005 06:54:14 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Tracy Hamilton wrote:
david ford wrote:
http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/lefteug2.html
The document cited discredited itself at the very
beginning by asserting that Hitler was a socialist.
Which of these individuals do you consider "socialist"?:
Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Khrushev, Brezhnev, Pol Pot,
Castro, Kim Jong Il, MAO Zedong?
Well Marx and Engels are definites, Lenin and Trotsky getting a little
dimmer, Stalin was simply a dictator, Kruschev a slightly nicer dictator,
Brezhnev liked cars but as far as ideaology went, I don't think he really
had one, Pol Pot was a maniac, Castro is a dictator, Kim Jong Il is a
god-king, and good ol' Chairmon Mao started out as some sort of Socialist
but pretty much just became a dictator.
Is Hu Jintao (head of China's ruling Communist Party) "socialist"?
http://english.people.com.cn/data/people/hujintao.shtml
I don't think there's more than a handful of real Communists left in China.
Probably a few more socialists, but the country has been steering away from
the far left since Mao's death.
Do you think _Origin_ "discredited itself... by asserting" some
erroneous claims?
Dawkins, Richard. 1989. _The Selfish Gene_ (Oxford: Oxford
University Press), 352pp., 195:
Much of what Darwin said is, in detail, wrong.
surrounding material in
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=u2k2i0dlm2htnq42avhemsueaqi7pje2mh%404ax.com
Care to give the entire quote, David?
If he can't get that right, why should I think he can identify
anybody on the "Left" correctly, specifically eugenics
advocates?
Good point. Do you think Darwin stated anything "correctly," and if
so, what are some things he stated "correctly"?
Is it really "Left" to advocate not giving
indiscriminate charity, or "Right"?
I don't know. Do you consider Margaret Sanger on the "'Left'... or
'Right'"?
Sanger founded what went on to become Planned Parenthood.
Quote Archive of 1184 Quotes
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1126836980.382631.17030%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Do you think the "Left" has a penchant for employing government
coercion to achieve its dreams of a future utopian society?
Does the "Right" have such a penchant?
Which of these individuals do you consider on the "Left"?:
Humphrey, Dwyer, Dennett, Dawkins.
Have Humphrey, Dwyer, Dennett, and Dawkins gone around [LM]"behaving
like idiots"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-36ptr0F53hkerU1%40individual.net
Do you consider the ACLU on the "Left"?
ACLU victory over Yeshiva University
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1128529347.082645.193140%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Also in the first paragraph, Hitler's interest was
not building up the Master race, but preventing its degeneration
by mixing in inferior "races". Not inferior *individuals*, which
was the focus of most eugenics (particularly mentally inferior,
as measured by IQ tests).
I don't understand. Hitler _was_ interested in:
"building up the Master race,"
"preventing... degeneration by mixing in inferior 'races,'" and
"preventing... degeneration by mixing" in of "inferior *individuals.*"
"Inferior 'races'" _are composed of_ "inferior *individuals.*" Duh.
And modern genetics has pretty much robbed any notion of "superior" race of
any weight at all. Oh, and the superior nature of whites hardly began with
Hitler. By golly, no less than many of the signers of the Declaration of
Independence were racists who believed firmly in the superiority of whites.
2004 Kater:
Himmler, a former chicken farmer..., was ruled by very
strong beliefs regarding the application of breeding
theories to humans-- by way of positive selection for the
"Aryans" and negative selection for their natural enemies,
the Slavs, Gypsies, and Jews.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1126752603.953619.262940%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Hitler's human breeding plan using selection + mutations
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1124684179.251743.95950%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1124731489.829229.220700%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Are you saying selection is wrong because Hitler attempted to use it?
Haeckel re: Jesus; Fest on "Social Darwinism in Hitler's thought"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1125598958.059080.62950%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
"inferior 'races'. Not inferior *individuals*, which was the focus of
most eugenics"
Compare
Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life_ (London: John Murray), 513pp.
Yes, well, eugenics has been tossed out, and you'll note, it's evolutionary
and genetic research that's done it.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: eugenics and the left |
06 Oct 2005 09:18:19 PM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On 6 Oct 2005 06:54:14 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Tracy Hamilton wrote:
david ford wrote:
http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/lefteug2.html
The document cited discredited itself at the very
beginning by asserting that Hitler was a socialist.
Which of these individuals do you consider "socialist"?:
Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Khrushev, Brezhnev, Pol Pot,
Castro, Kim Jong Il, MAO Zedong?
Well Marx and Engels are definites, Lenin and Trotsky getting a little
dimmer, Stalin was simply a dictator, Kruschev a slightly nicer dictator,
Brezhnev liked cars but as far as ideaology went, I don't think he really
had one, Pol Pot was a maniac, Castro is a dictator, Kim Jong Il is a
god-king, and good ol' Chairmon Mao started out as some sort of Socialist
but pretty much just became a dictator.
Suppose someone is a "dictator"; does that mean that that person isn't
a socialist?
Who are all the socialists you're aware of that have headed up a
country?
Is Hu Jintao (head of China's ruling Communist Party) "socialist"?
http://english.people.com.cn/data/people/hujintao.shtml
I don't think there's more than a handful of real Communists left in China.
Probably a few more socialists, but the country has been steering away from
the far left since Mao's death.
Do you think _Origin_ "discredited itself... by asserting" some
erroneous claims?
Dawkins, Richard. 1989. _The Selfish Gene_ (Oxford: Oxford
University Press), 352pp., 195:
Much of what Darwin said is, in detail, wrong.
surrounding material in
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=u2k2i0dlm2htnq42avhemsueaqi7pje2mh%404ax.com
Care to give the entire quote, David?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
From: catshark <catsh...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Quote Mine Project: Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated
Equilibria Quotes
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:19:01 +0000
Message-ID: <u2k2i0dlm2htnq42avhemsueaqi7pje2mh@4ax.com>
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:33:09 +0000 (UTC),
(Chris
Krolczyk) wrote:
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408111834.500d422a@posting.google.com>...
It's nice to know that you can't even respond with anything
better than "I know what you are, but what am I?" these days.
Dawkins, Richard. 1989. _The Selfish Gene_ (Oxford: Oxford
University Press), 352pp., 195:
Much of what Darwin said is, in detail, wrong.
First, it's "IKWYA,BWAI?". Now, it's presenting an edited
quote as a "response". It's amazing how much more pathetic
David's replies have become as of late.
(Since I don't have a copy of _TSG_ handy, anyone want to
tell me the part Mr. Honesty and Integrity here has snipped
from Dawkins' paragraph? Thanks.)
-Chris Krolczyk
It is from Chapter 11, "Memes: the new replicators". The introduction
is
on page 194:
This brings me to the third general quality of successful replic-
ators: copying-fidelity. Here I must admit that I am on shaky
ground. At first sight it looks as if memes are not high-fidelity
replicators at all. Every time a scientist hears an idea and passes
it
on to somebody else, he is likely to change it somewhat. I have made
no
secret of my debt in this book to the ideas of R. L. Trivers. Yet I
have
not repeated them in his own words. I have twisted them round for
my own purposes, changing the emphasis, blending them with ideas
of my own and of other people. The memes are being passed on to
you in altered form. This looks quite unlike the particulate,
all-or-
none quality of gene transmission. It looks as though meme trans-
mission is subject to continuous mutation, and also to blending.
[He then spends a couple of paragraphs explaining why memes may
not be subject to blending depending at what scale you define
"meme" and continues on p. 195-96.]
Similarly, when we say that all biologists nowadays believe in
Darwin's theory, we do not mean that every biologist has, graven in
his brain, an identical copy of the exact words of Charles Darwin
himself. Each individual has his own way of interpreting Darwin's
ideas. He probably learned them not from Darwin's own writings,
but from more recent authors. Much of what Darwin said is, in
detail, wrong. Darwin if he read this book would scarcely recognize
his own original theory in it, though I hope he would like the way I
put it. Yet, in spite of all this, there is something, some essence
of
Darwinism, which is present in the head of every individual who
understands the theory. If this were not so, then almost any
statement about two people agreeing with each other would be
meaningless. An 'idea-meme' might be defined as an entity that is
capable of being transmitted from one brain to another. The meme
of Darwin's theory is therefore that essential basis of the idea
which
is held in common by all brains that understand the theory. The
_differences_ in the ways that people represent the theory are then,
by definition, not part of the meme. If Darwin's theory can be sub-
divided into components, such that some people believe component
A but not component B, while others believe B but not A, then A and
B should be regarded as separate memes. If almost everybody who
believes in A also believes in B -- if the memes are closely
'linked' to
use the genetic term-then it is convenient to lump them together as
one meme.
Thus, Dawkins is not commenting on some absolute scale of Darwin's
"wrongness". He is arguing that whatever Darwin did not get right
(indeed,
*could* not, 150 years ago, get right, especially since Darwin never
knew
about genes, selfish or otherwise) is *insignificant* to Dawkin's
definition of the "Darwinism meme".
David apparently spends so much time underlining and highlighting and
making comments in the margins that he forgets to read for
comprehension.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
It is not best to use our morals weekdays,
it gets them out of repair for Sunday.
-- Mark Twain --
///////////////////////////////////////////////
Do you think _Origin_ [TH]"discredited itself... by asserting" some
erroneous claims?
Dawkins, Richard. 1989. _The Selfish Gene_ (Oxford: Oxford
University Press), 352pp., 195:
Much of what Darwin said is, in detail, wrong.
If he can't get that right, why should I think he can identify
anybody on the "Left" correctly, specifically eugenics
advocates?
Good point. Do you think Darwin stated anything "correctly," and if
so, what are some things he stated "correctly"?
Is it really "Left" to advocate not giving
indiscriminate charity, or "Right"?
I don't know. Do you consider Margaret Sanger on the "'Left'... or
'Right'"?
Sanger founded what went on to become Planned Parenthood.
Quote Archive of 1184 Quotes
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1126836980.382631.17030%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Do you think the "Left" has a penchant for employing government
coercion to achieve its dreams of a future utopian society?
Does the "Right" have such a penchant?
Which of these individuals do you consider on the "Left"?:
Humphrey, Dwyer, Dennett, Dawkins.
Have Humphrey, Dwyer, Dennett, and Dawkins gone around [LM]"behaving
like idiots"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-36ptr0F53hkerU1%40individual.net
Do you consider the ACLU on the "Left"?
ACLU victory over Yeshiva University
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1128529347.082645.193140%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Also in the first paragraph, Hitler's interest was
not building up the Master race, but preventing its degeneration
by mixing in inferior "races". Not inferior *individuals*, which
was the focus of most eugenics (particularly mentally inferior,
as measured by IQ tests).
I don't understand. Hitler _was_ interested in:
"building up the Master race,"
"preventing... degeneration by mixing in inferior 'races,'" and
"preventing... degeneration by mixing" in of "inferior *individuals.*"
"Inferior 'races'" _are composed of_ "inferior *individuals.*" Duh.
And modern genetics has pretty much robbed any notion of "superior" race of
any weight at all.
When? And how?
Oh, and the superior nature of whites hardly began with
Hitler.
Agreed.
1871 Darwin: [CD]"the civilised races of man"-- e.g. [CD]"the
Caucasian"-- [CD]"will almost certainly exterminate and replace
throughout the world the savage races"-- e.g. [CD]"the negro or
Australian," as in Australian aborigine-- with the end result being
[CD]"man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407060404.711490be%40posting.google.com
By golly, no less than many of the signers of the Declaration of
Independence were racists who believed firmly in the superiority of whites.
Evidence?
2004 Kater:
Himmler, a former chicken farmer..., was ruled by very
strong beliefs regarding the application of breeding
theories to humans-- by way of positive selection for the
"Aryans" and negative selection for their natural enemies,
the Slavs, Gypsies, and Jews.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1126752603.953619.262940%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Hitler's human breeding plan using selection + mutations
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1124684179.251743.95950%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1124731489.829229.220700%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Are you saying selection is wrong because Hitler attempted to use it?
I assume "wrong" here equals 'incorrect,' and reply 'no.'
Do you think Darwin's theory of natural selection is correct?
Haeckel re: Jesus; Fest on "Social Darwinism in Hitler's thought"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1125598958.059080.62950%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
"inferior 'races'. Not inferior *individuals*, which was the focus of
most eugenics"
Compare
Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life_ (London: John Murray), 513pp.
Yes, well, eugenics has been tossed out, and you'll note, it's evolutionary
and genetic research that's done it.
"eugenics has been tossed out"
When? And by whom?
Do you consider the proposals below illustrative of "eugenics"?
Do you condemn as evil/ bad/ wrong/ immoral the proposals below by the
atheism-adherents Watson and Crick?
From
1979 Schaeffer & Koop on the a-moral implications of atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0504061225.4c675814%40posting.google.com
In May 1973, James D. Watson, the Nobel Prize
laureate who discovered the double helix of DNA,
granted an interview to _Prism_ magazine, then a
publication of the American Medical Association.
_Time_ later reported the interview to the general
public, quoting Watson as having said,
If a child were not declared alive until three days
after birth, then all parents could be allowed the
choice only a few are given under the present
system. The doctor could allow the child to die
if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery
and suffering. I believe this view is the only
rational, compassionate attitude to have.
In January 1978, Francis Crick, also a Nobel
laureate, was quoted in the _Pacific News Service_
as saying,
. . . no newborn infant should be declared human
until it has passed certain tests regarding its
genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests
it forfeits the right to live.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tracy Hamilton" |
|
| Title: Re: eugenics and the left |
07 Oct 2005 11:54:32 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
AC wrote:
On 6 Oct 2005 06:54:14 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Tracy Hamilton wrote:
david ford wrote:
http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/lefteug2.html
The document cited discredited itself at the very
beginning by asserting that Hitler was a socialist.
Which of these individuals do you consider "socialist"?:
Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Khrushev, Brezhnev, Pol Pot,
Castro, Kim Jong Il, MAO Zedong?
Well Marx and Engels are definites, Lenin and Trotsky getting a little
dimmer, Stalin was simply a dictator, Kruschev a slightly nicer dictator,
Brezhnev liked cars but as far as ideaology went, I don't think he really
had one, Pol Pot was a maniac, Castro is a dictator, Kim Jong Il is a
god-king, and good ol' Chairmon Mao started out as some sort of Socialist
but pretty much just became a dictator.
Suppose someone is a "dictator"; does that mean that that person isn't
a socialist?
Given that the idea of socialism is that there should be societal
control of economics, and dictators replace
that with individual control, then yes.
However, I include those dictators who claim through propaganda
to be just be doing what the "workers" (or whatever the putative
controlling group in society is) want.
Hitler, from the beginning advocated the Leader Principle, so his
being dictator was part and parcel of what Nazism was claimed to be.
Not only that, but he left business pretty much alone, not even
putting the economy on a war footing until way too late. LBJ
was not the first to use the "Guns and Butter" approach.
Who are all the socialists you're aware of that have headed up a
country?
France comes to mind real quick.
[snip more Ford tedium]
Tracy P. Hamilton
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tracy Hamilton" |
|
| Title: Re: eugenics and the left |
06 Oct 2005 04:33:25 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Tracy Hamilton wrote:
david ford wrote:
http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/lefteug2.html
The document cited discredited itself at the very
beginning by asserting that Hitler was a socialist.
Which of these individuals do you consider "socialist"?:
Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Khrushev, Brezhnev, Pol Pot,
Castro, Kim Jong Il, MAO Zedong?
All of these people have something in common: They are not Hitler.
Really quite a pointless question, ain't it?
[snip same question, different person, a much better question would
be if Strasser was a socialist!]
[snip Dawkins - Dawkins?]
If he can't get that right, why should I think he can identify
anybody on the "Left" correctly, specifically eugenics
advocates?
Good point.
Of course. Now, will you not refer us to such an idiot again?
[snip]
Do you think the "Left" has a penchant for employing government
c | | | |
