“What we
as eugenicists have got to do is to ‘scrap’ the old Poor Law with its
indiscriminate relief of the destitute as such and replace it by an intelligent
policy of so altering the social environment as to discourage or prevent the
multiplication of those irrevocably below the National Minimum of Fitness.” Sidney and Beatrice Webb
Fascist has been the traditional sobriquet
applied to the Right by the Left. But the Left itself [2](especially
today) share the same impulses and outlook of fascism when it comes to eugenics
(and also, in the case of national socialism - economics). Eugenics means
filtering from the genetic pool those individuals who are deemed unworthy of the
name human. Unworthy in the sense of an inherited mental or physical impairment
that they, the eugenicists, deem unfit to survive and may prove to be a "burden"
on society.
Now, modern liberal's and socialists
may say this is all true of the past, but today they proclaim themselves more
enlightened, and more than a bit embarrassed by the behaviour of their heroes.
But if I were, for instance, Archibald Church, an MP and member of the Fabian
Society in the 1930's who introduced a Bill in parliament to press for the
sterilisation of “those who are in every way a
burden to their parents, a misery to themselves and in my opinion a menace to
the social life of the community”: and if
I returned for a brief visit to 2013, I would congratulate today's politicians for
the advancement in eugenics that they had created; as well as the scientists
for making it all possible.
Also,
if I were Archibald Church I would award a Nobel Laureate, not to a scientist,
but to one of my own calling- a politician. It would be David Steel who, as a
Liberal MP, introduced the 1967 Abortion Act in parliament that came into law.
The act was introduced on the back of back-street abortions that brought
ignominy, or, even in a few cases, death to those who were its victims, which,
needless to say were tragic.
Since
the 1967 Act, the embryo has lost all status, while eugenics has flourished. We
were told that the Abortion Act would mean no more than the destruction of a
few thousand embryos a year. We now know, in 2013, that the act has resulted in
over 240,000 abortions conducted each and every year. Which tells me that
abortion is being used merely as another form of contraceptive which not only
cheapens life, but encourages the belief that the embryo is mere waste matter,
like toilet paper filled from the residue of a wiped arse.
BUT IF HEALTHY embryos are being
disregarded in such a lazier-fare manner - then what about the unhealthy
embryos. Well, while the healthy ones are subject to a time limit, those deemed
eugenically flawed can be destroyed at any time before or soon after their
birth. If this is not an act comparable to Nazism, then I know not what is.
To
help justify such an arrangement needs professional ethical legitimacy, and it
comes from Alberto Giubilini and
Francesca Minerva[3]
who wrote a piece in the Journal of Medical
Ethics, and sees new born babies
as not actual persons and therefore subject to post-natal abortion.
These two
reprobates, for what else can we call them, are the perfect follow-up to
Nazism. They consider that any human being born that cannot comprehend their
environment as fully functioning human beings, has no entitlement upon life.
This does not only include the physically or mentally disabled, but also any
fully fit child immediately after birth (including themselves). At least the
Nazis picked and choose who they experimented upon and sent to the gas chambers.
They argue that
not only does the foetus not have any automatic right to any kind of human status,
they also consider that the new born are equally bankrupt of such an identity,
and killing a newly born child would be no different from killing a 14 week
foetus. Rather than being "actual persons", newborns were merely
"potential persons". They then proceed to make their case.
My point is that
advocating a time line of abortion which includes birth, is being made today
because back in the 1960s, Steel's Abortion act set time limits on abortion and
judged those limits to be based on the same criteria[4]
used by Giubilini
and Minerva, who prove the same criteria can be used equally to allow us to "abort" the newly born.
We
see the lengths we can go to once abortion is legalised, and how far it can be
extended on the Abortion acts ethical
criteria. While Giubilini and Minerva may not find much support (at the
moment), David Steel has opened a Pandora's box.
THERE IS ONE group of people however, that can
be killed off and their deaths remain
within the law. These are those born "severely" disabled. Now,
"severely" covers many a cruel state handed down by either God or
natural selection, depending upon your beliefs. But one such disability brought
about by a missing chromosome is Down's Syndrome.
It
is an injustice to those with Down's syndrome to regard them as
"suffering", as they are not; they are just different. But the
criteria of "severely" disabled set down by government, which was
meant to cover the most excessive forms of pain and suffering, has been applied
to those with Down's Syndrome to reassure the prospective mothers by so-called
medical councillors.
Of
those pregnancies diagnosed with Downs, 90%
are terminated. Only a eugenically inclined culture would ever consider
such a situation. But there is something darker afoot because what Giubilini
and Minerva are advocating, applies
today with those who have Down's Syndrome.
This
is eugenics pure and simple; and it is happening, not in a fascist society, but
in one that has been run by a liberal establishment for nearly 60 years; an
establishment that has increased its powers over that time until it now serves
as a hegemony over the whole culture.
Eugenics
is indeed an ugly concept, but one which both Left and Right have subscribed
too. But today's Right cannot be described as fascist regarding eugenics. The
right today are anti-abortion. The Left believe in the women's right to choose,
and in giving her such a right, the law has allowed millions of aborted
foetuses to be sent to a very, very, early grave; as well advancing the procedure
beyond it original purpose.
[1]
She called for the sterilisation of the,
"hopelessly rotten and racially
diseased".
[2] By the "Left" I mean
liberals and socialists.
[3]
Minerva was the Roman goddess of wisdom, and the arts… an excellent liberal cv.
[4] As
they put it: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of
a foetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the
attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
No comments:
Post a Comment