Whooee! Cue Spike Jones:

Der Fuehrer’s Face
Spike Jones and the City Slickers

When Der Fuehrer says, “We ist der master race”
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Der Fuehrer’s face
Not to love Der Fuehrer is a great disgrace
So we HEIL! HEIL! Right in Der Fuehrer’s face
When Herr Gobbels says, “We own der world und space”
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Herr Goring’s face
When Herr Goring says they’ll never bomb this place
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Herr Goring’s face

Are we not the supermen
Aryan pure supermen
Ja we ist der supermen
Super-duper supermen
Ist this Nutzi land not good?
Would you leave it if you could?
Ja this Nutzi land is good!
Vee would leave it if we could

We bring the world to order
Heil Hitler’s world New Order
Everyone of foreign race will love Der Fuehrer’s face
When we bring to der world disorder

When Der Fuehrer says, “We ist der master race”
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Der Fuehrer’s face
When Der Fuehrer says, “We ist der master race”
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Der Fuhrer’s face

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Fuehrer%27s_Face

JB

Hold on, something isn’t right. This is way too out in right field for someone this prominent. And I notice that the guy shares the same name as the leader of this bizarre group (see more).

The entire thread has it….

And, boy oh boy, is there a lot of non-coding, junk DNA in there that illustrates the true nature of this group’s epigenome.

.

Suzanne,

As long as its the choice of the parents and not the government, then that is just fine. You may not agree, but guess what, you aren’t forced to do anything nor are you incented any other way.

But Smith is advocating a situation where someone in government decides what is desirable, what is “beautiful” etc and then uses the public purse to enforce those beliefs. It is premised on the idea that by making those decisions one can design a better “nation” - that one can know the outcomes and shape it better than the decisions of the parent. It is based on the idea that we can even design this desirable society in advance - we can’t.

Smith wants that money to go to white, Christian women. He is advocating the baby bonus version of the Nazi baby farms - Lebensborn.

As for all those Downs kids being aborted, I don’t see any of your ilk lining up to adopt them. As CC has pointed out multiple times, there are thousands of living children with various developmental and social problems awaiting adoption. Why don’t you adopt one? Why doesn’t Pachecco? I mean if you are truly serious, why aren’t you helping those kids already born?

Your desperate attempt to pretend this is somehow equivalent to a woman making a free choice about her body WITHOUT government interference is despicable.

I used to hold you in some regard. I am now just disgusted.

@Throbbin - And not just any Blogging Tory. One of the two co-founders of BT.

I wouldn’t let that get to you, SL … wide-sweeping, ridiculously inaccurate generalizations are what Suzie All-Caps is all about. Or hadn’t you noticed?

Sorry Peter, I know “people” who do parent children with genetic challenges so SUZANNES statement remains an inaccurate and wide sweeping generalization.

“you are going to have to face up to the growth in sexual selection, designer babies and other natal tweaking medical science is making possible”

And yet the problem is, one rarely gets a true “designer baby” from any of this. Apart from sex selection, what kind of “natal tweaking” has medical science made possible?

If you are for freedom, then you must allow people to make choices you wouldn’t make for reasons you don’t like. But that is the real difference here - allowing individuals the right to make their own decisions is far different than having those decision made by others. What occurs is an emergent “wisdom of crowds” balance. Our current abortion law (or lack thereof) in Canada is a perfect, 20-year experiment proving this: 92% of all abortions take place before 12 weeks and 98% before 20 weeks. No doctor in Canada will perform and abortion after 20 weeks (including Morgantaler) on demand and no woman asks for one - late term abortions are only performed when the life of the mother is threatened or the fetus is severely deformed and would not survive after birth. This matches the generally held attitude among Canadians that early abortions are fine but later abortions are not fine. All without a law, all without top-down interference.

So to compare a top-down, centrally managed man-made policy and design with a bottom-up, emergent order is a completely wrong comparison. The tow are not just not the same, they are diametrically opposite situations.

In the end we will be fine if individuals are allowed to make free choices themselves. We get into trouble when others try to impose those choices from above, based on some pseudoscience master plan.

If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. And yeah, it really is that simple. Compared to the number of live births done the old fashioned way, there is no danger in women exercising their control doing any harm to the species.

“And yet the problem is, one rarely gets a true “designer baby” from any of this. Apart from sex selection, what kind of “natal tweaking” has medical science made possible?”

Large numbers of children with Down Syndrome and Spina Bifida have been eliminated from our population. I read somewhere that numbers of DS babies are stable because so many women are having babies past 40.

The people who do terminate Down Syndrome children at some level do not view them or their lives as valuable as genetically typical people. They are told all the medical information– that 25% of DS children die in the first year, that they will have substantial cardiac and other medical issues. Down Syndrome kids are viewed as medical problems, not people. And so parents decide it’s too much trouble (and maybe they’re doing the kid a favour) and they abort.

The flip side is that Down Syndrome kids are some of the happiest, most loving kids around. In the States there are adoption agencies that specialize in adopting out these kids.

In Canada, it’s a bit tough to line up to adopt them, seeing as so few of them are placed.

It’s eugenics: manipulating the gene pool to eliminate undesirables. They did it through forced sterilization, now it’s abortion. Tests for every kind of genetically undesirable traits are being designed.

Abortions for eugenic purposes often don’t make the official abortion stats because after 20 weeks, abortions can be coded “stillbirths”. So we don’t know how many eugenic abortions are done in Canada.

People in India do make bad choices– they eliminate female children. As a result of those bad individual choices, wife-trafficking is practiced. Women from Northern India are kidnapped and practically sold into slavery to men all over India.

I did not say it that eugenics were “state-sponsored”.

Only that they were eugenics.

When you eliminate a human life because of their defective gene pool, that’s eugenics.

Whether a state has a hand in it or not, the culture does. The message is that a human life with certain genes is not as valuable. The proof is in the abortions. When prenatal tests are developed for genetic anomalies, the abortion rates for fetuses with positive tests goes way up.

It’s not that wanting a healthy baby is wrong. It’s that throwing away a human life because of the difficulties his existence poses is wrong. People couch it in benevolent terms– well, mustn’t give birth to this baby because *he’s only going to suffer*. The Nazis couched their eugenics program in those terms, too– no point in letting the defective live. Their quality of life is inferior. Many disabled people are keenly aware that their lives are devalued because people have a fear of suffering, of not living up to physical and intellectual standards and so on, and they project that fear onto those who are disabled. That’s probably the biggest reason why fetuses with genetic anomalies are aborted.

I took Craig Smith seriously. I think it’s wrong. All human lives are valuable. Human life should not be treated as a burden, a problem, a disease, or a useless eater.

“That was when I realized, this: “a human life with certain genes is not as valuable” is, horribly I admit, true.”

Then that makes a mockery of the idea of equality. Human equality is based on the idea that every human life is ontologically the same and therefore deserves the same rights, because human beings generally need those rights.

“Now, I can draw that line regarding the value of differing human lives for me but I will not draw it for anybody else;”

Society has to decide who is worthy of rights. It has to make a collective decision. It can’t be individual.

Letting people die of a disease than deciding in another’s stead that their lives are not worth living, that they are not worthy human beings. That is the essence of eugenics.

Originally Posted By SUZANNE Society has to decide who is worthy of rights. It has to make a collective decision. It can’t be individual

History is absolutely rife with examples of just how wrong that statement is SUZANNE - think about what you said and tell me you still think it’s true.

I will not entertain for the slightest moment that you, or any other individual, or any “group” gets to decide what my rights are. In my life *I* am the authority on that

And that is precisely the point and why I find what Smith said to be horridly repugnant if it is what he believes (and I suspect that he does) and absolutely wrong if he meant it in a sort of “Modest Proposal”esque satire (which I doubt).