hibbert@netcom.com wrote:
>
> Lee Corbin, Emlyn, Robert Bradbury and others have been talking in a
> relatively calm tone about "eugenics" recently. I just want to point out
> that while it may be possible for some people to use this term calmly, it's
> an extremely loaded term when used in public. It's loaded enough that it
> would really be a good idea to find a better word.
Only among people who have no sense of humor.
>
> While there are people who object to the idea of selective breeding of
> people (which is the same idea as, but a completely different slant than
> some people deciding not to have children with certain genetic
> characteristics), the real strike against the term is that the Nazis used
> it to mean the selective killing of people the government didn't like. At
> this point, there's no way to disassociate the term from that meaning.
>
> I can't imagine why anyone would want to use the term today if they hoped
> to convince others to listen to them calmly. A few people will be able to
> listen calmly, but others will start looking for tar and feathers. Why
> would you want to start a conversation around this word?
Desensitization? While eugenics specifically is about state control of
breeding, what we espouse is entirely the opposite: individual control
over breeding (of natural or artificial nature). An argument can be made
that state policies which forbid private citizens from breeding as they
wish are just as much classifiable as eugenics as state policies which
mandate that private citizens breed as the state wishes....
Isn't it odd that OUR ideas are classified as 'eugenics' by the state
and the luddites, when it is their policies that are eugenics in fact?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:12 MDT