June 2, 2019

"In any other area, the left would look at a history like this and ask whether those formal convictions are the only thing that matters, or whether the eugenic past..."

"... still exerts a structural influence on the present. And in any other area of policy [Clarence] Thomas’s point about how legal abortion appears, in the aggregate, to act in racist and eugenic ways would be taken as an indicator that something more than just emancipation is at work. Yes, in their theoretical self-conception, pro-choice institutions are neutral custodians of the right to choose. In theory the genetic-screening industry exists only to provide information. In theory the high abortion rate in black America is just the result of countless individual decisions. But in practice, liberal technocracy still has a 'solve poverty by cutting birthrates' bias inherited from a population-panic age, and abortion-rights rhetoric still has a way of sliding into Malthusian fears about too many poor kids in foster care. In practice the medical system strongly encourages abortion in response to disability, with predictable results. In practice... the disparate impact of abortion on black birthrates is shaped by that reality and others, not just by free choice."

From "Clarence Thomas’s Dangerous Idea/Does anything link the eugenics of the past to abortion today?" by Ross Douthat (NYT). There is this idea in constitutional law that you need to pick one approach to interpretation and use it consistently, across all the issues, and that's what keeps you deciding cases according to law and not policy preferences. An argument can sound completely cogent, but if it's not the kind of argument you always make, it's a lawyer's argument, not a judge's reasoning. Of course "the left" are political actors, entitled to make their lawyer's arguments, and they may not be embarrassed to find themselves switching approaches to constitutional law to use whatever works best to get the outcome they want. It's another matter to show that Clarence Thomas changes his interpretive method this way and that, but there's no practical need to reach Clarence Thomas on abortion rights. You only need 5 to win, and he's the least likely to be in the left's 5. They only need to keep 5 of the remaining 8 away from the Thomas position that — talking about eugenics — seems designed to lure lefties to the right on abortion.

106 comments:

rcocean said...

Just Remember Overthrowing Roe V. Wade does NOT make abortion illegal. It just allows the USA to behave like a democracy and gives the people a voice.

IMO, if you had no Roe v. Wade, only about 10 states, mostly in the South would outlaw abortion. All the Blue states would - or already have - passed State Constitutional amendments enshrining the right to an abortion. Probably 10 purple states would support Abortion - but with significant restrictions on the time limit (First 16 weeks).

And then everyone would be happy. EXCEPT For the totalitarian Left which demands everyone, everywhere, support THEIR view.

chuck said...

Along the same lines, one could easily argue that gun control is aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of black people, which is one reason it is so popular in cities.

n.n said...

The planned parenthood protocol includes selective-child, recycled-child, and dodo dynasties. Immigration reform is a complementary protocol to replace the native population and compensate for the collateral damage forced by planned parenthood. Social progress has engendered the wicked solution and a progressive dysfunction.

Danno said...

Clarence Thomas, the so-called stupid justice because he doesn't jabber away with nonstop questions, looks wiser all the time. He compares very favorably to Scalia in my estimation.

Narayanan said...

Along the same lines, one could easily argue that gun control is aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of black people,

True words indeed if argue == point out

Which is why $20 bill if it portrays Harriet Tubman should glorify her holding a gun as staunch soldier for freedom!

Her life would have been cut short without it.

JAORE said...

"... one could easily argue that gun control is aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of black people..."

There is much to suggest the post civil war gun restrictions had just such a basis.

Narayanan said...

He compares very favorably to Scalia in my estimation.

You have fallen for their trick then ... they Build up the lesser in order to diminish the greater and more enduring.

Bay Area Guy said...

We must protest the entire state of Oregon, until they force Eugene, Oregon to change its racist, white supremacist name.

Mike Sylwester said...

The US Constitution's penumbra and emanations prohibit the state electorates, legislatures and governors from having any say on abortion issues.

Only federal judges have any say on abortion issues.

Amadeus 48 said...

Didn’t Ruth Ginsberg commit a Kinsley gaffe several tears ago and say that Roe was intended to keep too many of the wrong type of people being born? I need to look that up.

Amadeus 48 said...

Years not tears. An apt typo, that.

gspencer said...

The now-deceased but quite-brilliant Michael Crichton had some very important things to say about this topic. Found in,

Why Politicized Science is Dangerous

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/why-politicized-science-is-dangerous/

Achilles said...

Amadeus 48 said...
Didn’t Ruth Ginsberg commit a Kinsley gaffe several tears ago and say that Roe was intended to keep too many of the wrong type of people being born? I need to look that up.

"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."

Amadeus 48 said...

Yup. Mollie Hemingway has the details. She said it in an interview with Emily Bazelon (of course) in the NYT magazine.

The truth will out. RBG’s chickens are coming home to roost. Can you believe her snark at Thomas? She ought to review her quotes on this topic. At best, she is guided by The Population Bomb, the best thinking of Carl Sagan in 1968, now routinely ridiculed for its inaccurate predictions and alarmist tone.

Sigh.

Amadeus 48 said...

Thanks, Achilles.

Birkel said...

Cement factories disproportionately in black neighborhoods (a false claim) just proves the Left's arguments. Racism and so forth.

Abortion clinics disproportionately in black neighborhoods (a true claim) proves nothing about the Left's racism.

Square that circle, Althouse.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

We must protest the entire state of Oregon, until they force Eugene, Oregon to change its racist, white supremacist name.

and there's no 'Yuge' in eugenics

Achilles said...

I am pro-choice in that I don't want to give the government the power to make this decision.

The "pro-choice" leftists have turned into ghouls that sell baby parts for profit and selectively eliminate Black and Female fetuses disproportionately.

This is the worst topic ever. Pretty much everyone is wrong and many are just repulsive.

rhhardin said...

Maybe the black abortion rate is higher of any number of cultural things resulting in a higher accidental pregnancy rate.

I don't see the eugenics connection.

Who knows what Thomas is on about. The right to abortion isn't in the constitution in the first place. Who needs a eugenics connection and what would a eugenics connection prove anyway.

Amadeus 48 said...

Achilles—ditto.

rhhardin said...

Disparate impact always calls for a different people analysis first. Maybe average IQ is different, maybe average culture is different, maybe average media brainwashing is different.

Seeing Red said...

Last night I saw the the 3-D image of a parasite at 6 months in the womb.

It was amazing. I saw her face, her umbical cord, etc. in high-definition detail.

THIS is why they lose. Medical progress.

Amadeus 48 said...

I think Thomas was trying to puncture the left’s sanctimony about abortion. RGB isn’t used to being thrown into a bin with the moral idiots of 1927. It’s his version of three generations of idiots are enough.

Amadeus 48 said...

Of course it is RBG not RGB.

Michael K said...

"... one could easily argue that gun control is aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of black people..."

Read the Second Amendment again and remember the definition of "Militia" in 1820. Clue: It did not include slaves.

wildswan said...

In opposing both the Nazi eugenics and the early twentieth century eugenics in the US which forcibly sterilized many women, the argument was made that the government should not take decisions about reproduction out of the hands of the individual. After World War II the eugenicists who had all supported sterilization (and some supported the Nazis) - anyhow, the whole group of eugenicists whirled around and used this argument - reproductive rights of the individual - to argue that the government should not legislate against abortion. Such legislation, cried the mid-twentieth century eugenicists, was an attack on reproductive rights like that of early twentieth century eugenicists (and the Nazis). But the only individual who had rights, (said the mid-twentieth eugenicists) was the woman. Not the father, not the child. In the early twentieth century sterilization cases men had equal reproductive rights with women but not in the abortion cases. So is that an equal application of the argument?

And what about the child?

According to Blackmun the issue of whether the child had rights rested on whether the child was a "person." And in his answer Blackmun used a criteria which I call the "fractional" person - not a person at all before three months, 1/ 3 or more up to 2/3rds of a person in the third to the sixth months, 3/3 person at viability. This reminds of us how slaves were 3/5ths of a person. Slavery was abolished and with it one would have hoped the concept of the "fractional" person. But evolution can be used to suggest a fractional person, namely the "primitive" person or the unborn child. A "primitive" or less evolved human being is not a cultural designation to a eugenicist; it's not a human being using a bow and arrow versus using a gun. A primitive is person or a group less evolved away from primate ancestry. When born such a human being will have trouble in our highly evolved technological society. That is the basic idea in the racism of the eugenicists, foul and disgusting to read about though it is. Early eugenicists believed that a single drop of black or Jewish blood and you would always have tendency to reel back into the beast. Later eugenicists had a fractional concept based on population genetics. They thought that some in any group were brilliant and the brilliant in all groups should be educated and promoted to run society. And others were on a sliding scale, the IQ scale, children of a lesser god, some of them workers, some of them an inevitable social burden. And the unborn child was also a fractional person so you neatly solve the problem of the lesser beings by aborting their offspring who, you openly say, are lesser humans. Who are some sort of fractional person --- like a slave.

Is that a Constitutional argument?

Rabel said...

"I don't see the eugenics connection."

Look harder. Or just read Douthat's column to the end.

He gently, politely and almost apologetically equated the pro-choicers with the Nazis.

wildswan said...

And the unborn child was also a fractional person so you neatly solve the problem of the lesser beings by aborting their offspring who, you openly say, are lesser humans. Who are some sort of fractional person --- like a slave.

And by a strange coincidence this fractional person theory results in a disproportionate use of abortion and contraception by African-Americans. And a decrease in their numbers. In my opinion no government should subsidize this kind of coincidence. And group leaders should look into the coincidence carefully.

Amadeus 48 said...

On the other hand, the Jukes and the Kallikaks are on the line. Shall I put them through?

Regression to the mean is a tough pill to swallow. So is the second law of thermodynamics.

rhhardin said...

Really bad arguments seem to take on fad-like significance with abortion. Everybody's excited over some new angle that simply doesn't matter.

If it were made to matter, the mistake in constitutional interpretation just gets more tangled. Get rid of the original mistake instead.

Birkel said...

No food stores where blacks live (a false claim) means food deserts. That proves the Leftist narrative of racism by business owners.

No abortion clinics where whites live (a true claim) must therefore mean abortion deserts. That proves the conservative narrative of Leftist racism, if we hope to be consistent.

Where are you, Althouse?

Birkel said...

rhhardin stands in judgment of which arguments are immaterial.
The spectrum doesn't really extend that far.

D. said...

>This reminds of us how slaves were 3/5ths of a person.<

When counting populations for the US house. Otherwise slaves were 5/5 persons census wise.

wildswan said...

When Planned Parenthood was organized, it was done as part of a conference held by the American Birth Control League. The ABCL was led by Margaret Sanger, a member of the American Eugenics Society. The conference theme was "Race Building In a Democracy." The chairman was Henry Pratt Fairchild, former President of the American Eugenics Society. The goal of the Race-Building effort was "quality", unlike Hitler, who wanted "quantity." Now, if the goal is quality, then whatever group is encouraged to use birth control disproportionately is a group not considered "quality". And from the first, these eugenicists were eager to have African-Americans use birth control disproportionately and called for government subsidies and clinics and public health measures to make that possible. The significance of this is downplayed or simply ignored by "historians" of eugenics. You'd think it would be what they talked about and discussed all the time. Nothing.

PS. Hitler wanted more Germans who he saw as, by definition, quality. Not so Margaret Sanger, Henry Pratt Fairchild and the rest of them.

Danno said...

"what would a eugenics connection prove anyway."

If widely disseminated, the eugenics connection could shame and put the pro-choice people on the defensive.

Bob Boyd said...

The left doesn't just disagree about a laundry list of outcomes. They disagree about how we decide. And about how we decide how we decide.

Gahrie said...

Read the Second Amendment again and remember the definition of "Militia" in 1820. Clue: It did not include slaves.

In the 1820's, that clause was considered dicta. It had no effect. The only places that Black people did not have the right to own a gun are places where Democrats passed racist laws to make it illegal.

rhhardin said...

Pro-choice people are pro-choice because the fetus not a person and the woman doesn't deserve the grief. She's not there to raise your ducks.

Where's the eugenics part.

wildswan said...

"rhhardin said...

If it were made to matter, the mistake in constitutional interpretation just gets more tangled. Get rid of the original mistake instead."

Well, Rh, I think we have to have an argument to go before the Supreme Court. I don't think they'll just repeal Roe v. Wade because we wish for it. But if we can make the origins and the actual practice stink to high heaven, the Court may push the issue back to the states. There in the states the actual practice would be clearer and would matter more to people because it was their own state and their own laws. Then Planned Parenthood which is getting almost all the Title X money in a sneaky way could be defunded. You could argue about abortion because it wouldn't be "settled" by the Supreme Court. In that way you could work for the cultural change we need.

Molly said...

Population Bomb: by Paul Erlich, not Carl Sagan. This does not in any way undercut the point made by Amadeus at 7:13.

rhhardin said...

The origins of abortion have to do with not wanting to be pregnant.

wildswan said...

"rhhardin said...
Where's the eugenics part."

Eugenicists like Alan Guttmacher, a vice President of the American Eugenics Society, led the effort to legalize abortion. Planned Parenthood, which founded by eugenicists, provided muscle. African-Americans are disproportionately using birth control so that their numbers are decreasing. It's eugenics all the way down being sold like tobacco with slogans. Do you think talking about the Marlboro Man stopped cigarettes from being addictive and cancer causing? Same with "choice" [for the woman only, not the man, not the child].

Birkel said...

rhhardin will continue to battle the Spectrum.

rhhardin said...

Eugenics was a fad, this eugenics argument is a fad. Nobody thinks anymore.

There's probably more thinking in the original eugenics movement. If we do this and this and this the world would be better. Probably wrong but at least they were thinking. They weren't up on systems theory, if anything can go wrong it will.

A proper eugenics movement would have more jews, not fewer.

wildswan said...

"rhhardin said...
The origins of abortion have to do with not wanting to be pregnant."

The origins of rape have to do with wanting sex. But rape hasn't been legalized because it's recognized that there are twp persons involved, not just one.

rhhardin said...

Everybody's numbers are decreasing. The birthrate is below replacement. That's the reason ultimately why abortion will be make illegal, just to get the birthrate up.

It's like the draft but for women.

rhhardin said...

If you want to argue that the fetus is a person, that's not a eugenics argument.

That's the regular old right-to-life angle. It's wrong but it's the regular argument.

wildswan said...

"A proper eugenics movement would have more jews, not fewer."

They realized that. The mid-century eugenics movement had Harry Shapiro as President and Alan Guttmacher in a different year as vice President. Jan Bruell, a former concentration camp inmate was on the Board of Directors; Curt Stern, a member. And so on.

rhhardin said...

Is there any instant in pregnancy when the fetus is not a person, to a right to life person. You have to ask so that you know what you're arguing with, before you start taking it down.

rhhardin said...

But then the Nazis got rid of the jews. So we can drop Nazis out of the argument. Progress.

rhhardin said...

You can drop all of eugenics out by pointing out that people agree with something for different reasons. If he has a bad reason, it doesn't mean that I have a bad reason, even if I agree with him about something.

wildswan said...

rhhardin said...
If you want to argue that the fetus is a person, that's not a eugenics argument.

The eugenicists said the fetus was not a person in order to further their eugenic goals. All the same, the argument they picked out was necessarily congenial to their mindset and their overarching ideology. Otherwise it would have collided further down the road with some other principle they hold. But to say this or that group is inferior and without rights is always a go-to position in eugenics

rhhardin said...

I say the fetus isn't a person and I'm not a eugenicist.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger rhhardin said...

... They weren't up on systems theory, if anything can go wrong it will.

The only people who seem to think this way are individuals, and not all of them.
One criticism of the 2008 crash I have not seen closely examined is that this was not supposed to happen. By putting experts in charge of the economy, we were supposed to avoid crap like this. If the economic experts could not prevent this, why are they still in charge of global & national banking? How are their phoney-baloney jobs justified?

rhhardin said...

You can't reverse implications without negation. If eugenicists say a fetus isn't a person, then someone who says a fetus is a person isn't a eugenicist. That's okay.

It does not follow though that a person who says a fetus isn't a person is a eugenicist.

wildswan said...

"rhhardin said...
You can drop all of eugenics out by pointing out that people agree with something for different reasons. If he has a bad reason, it doesn't mean that I have a bad reason, even if I agree with him about something."

There's plenty of people who would never agree with eugenics but who, if it was called by another name, go along with it. The policy of mid-century eugenics was to present its agenda under another name and through a front group which recruited people without explaining the eugenic component. Women do have issues about freedom. Is abortion the solution? Is a hook-up culture which makes abortion necessary good for women? Is there a hook-up culture because there is abortion? And - if we are ever going to free of racism, can we just ignore that the disproportionate use of abortion is wiping out the blacks as the racists want? as the eugenicists intended? Is the hook-up culture so worthy of preservation that we should wipe the blacks in order to keep keep the meat market going?

rhhardin said...

There's plenty of people who would never agree with eugenics but who, if it was called by another name, go along with it.

It doesn't matter. Is this hard? There's plenty of people who just don't want to be pregnant.

Birkel said...

Facts are stubborn things.
rhhardin is out to prove he is more stubborn than that.

The Spectrum is unrelenting.

Lewis Wetzel said...

"In any other area, the left would look at a history like this and ask whether those formal convictions are the only thing that matters . . ."
Not true. The left disregards history because it may limit the scope of their power. They will not even admit that the "soft socialism" model will produce diminished economic growth. This is the history of the welfare state, repeated again and again in Europe, and they simply ignore it. They believe that increasing the cost of energy will increase economic growth, fer God's sake.

rhhardin said...

The susceptibility to bogus argument is astounding.

The NYT does it just to disparage Thomas, not because they can't follow the logic.

Fernandistein said...

I think it's pretty funny that people believe that voluntary eugenics is evil. If abortion, overall, is eugenic, that's good - why would dysgenic abortion be better? But the birth rates are still dysgenic.

Birkel said...

rhhardin is a leader of man, singular.

wildswan said...

"There's plenty of people who just don't want to be pregnant."

There's plenty of people who just don't want to be pregnant and who aren't. I wonder how that happens.

rhhardin said...

There's plenty of people who just don't want to be pregnant and who aren't. I wonder how that happens.

Abortion.

wildswan said...

Fernandistein said...
But the birth rates are still dysgenic.

Low income doesn't prove that the people so reporting themselves are dysgenic. Look at Hollywood.

Birkel said...

rhhardin does logic so well he doesn't even admit pre-pregnancy birth control.

The rest of us admit abstinence and the pill are options.

Everybody be quiet.
rhhardin is logicking.

(That's a noun and a verb.)

rhhardin said...

Birth control doesn't always work. You can look up failure rates. They're surprisingly high, over the course of a year.

wildswan said...

Anyhow, Rh
Fun is fun, but you aren't engaging the argument. The question is should we think about the disproportionate use of abortion by the African-Americans when we know that the abortion laws were changed by eugenicists in the hope that if abortion were available to all that the African-Americans would use it disproportionately and wipe themselves out? Now, their numbers are declining, absolutely and relatively. Why not ask how that happens? Is there another issue involving African-Americans where such a question would be disregarded? Why do people say "systemic racism" about every issue under the sun but this one? George Washington who freed his slaves is under fire as a racist today. Don't you think the people who are aborting the African-Americans will be under fire tomorrow? And their allies? What should we do? Why don't we ask that?

rhhardin said...

Disproportionate impact has no bearing on somebody pregnant wanting not to be pregnant. That's all the reason you need to legalize abortion.

Eugenics and so forth has nothing to do with the argument you have to knock down.

As ought to have been obvious from the beginning. It was a Thomas hit piece.

kentuckyliz said...

Remind me again...how the Nazis were pro-choice? Seems like they didn't give a lot of people choice.

Birkel said...

What's the failure rate for abstinence?

Big Mike said...

The ONLY reason anyone disagrees with Clarence Thomas is straight up racism. Racism plain and simple.

rhhardin said...

What's the failure rate for abstinence?

Failed relationships. Sex is bonding for some people.

Birkel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Birkel said...

rhhardin talks logic and deflects.
The Spectrum is a harsh mistress who never gets knocked up.

wildswan said...

"rhhardin said...
Disproportionate impact has no bearing on somebody pregnant wanting not to be pregnant. That's all the reason you need to legalize abortion."

There's a man, a woman and a child involved. But you are wearing your blinkers so you you don't see those other two. There's a doctor and a nurse involved. What about their conscience? More blinkers? There's people demanding tax payers fund abortions - but tax payers can't query whether they are funding a genocide? Is your argument: Shut up, he explained?

Birkel said...

Why are all the Planned Parenthood abortion mills located in black neighborhoods.

Why are there abortion deserts in white areas?
It's like Planned Parenthood has an agenda.

Democrats are still the party of anti-black racism.

Birkel said...

wildswan doesn't understand the Spectrum.
It's a one-way street.

rhhardin said...

My argument is that the fetus isn't a person. It's a person in embryo, you could say.

Nothing eugenic about it.

wildswan said...

Birkel said...
wildswan doesn't understand the Spectrum.

You're right. I saw it mentioned and I meant to ask but I got distracted. What is it?

Birkel said...

BTW, it is "disparate" and not disproportionate.

But rhhardin doesn't have to be right.
He's Right.

rhhardin said...

The black birth rate is higher than the white birth rate.

Birkel said...

The Spectrum:

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/on_the_spectrum

Birkel said...

"The black birth rate is higher than the white birth rate" and other non sequiturs.

Spectrum logic.

wildswan said...

"rhhardin said...
My argument is that the fetus isn't a person. It's a person in embryo, you could say."

Your argument is that there are human beings who not persons. You learned that from the arguments in Roe v. Wade which were developed by eugenicists.

Amadeus 48 said...

Molly at 8:19--Thanks! Oops.

Achilles said...

Birkel said...
Why are all the Planned Parenthood abortion mills located in black neighborhoods.

Why are there abortion deserts in white areas?
It's like Planned Parenthood has an agenda.

Democrats are still the party of anti-black racism.


So your answer is to use the government controlled by partisans like you to ban something the government controlled by other partisans is pushing on particular groups of people?

I am sure this will end well.

readering said...

Thomas on eugenics is amateur historian stuff more than constitutional analysis. A criticism of the style of analysis on the Supreme Court today is that there is a lot of amateur history.

Hey Skipper said...

@rhhardin: My argument is that the fetus isn't a person. It's a person in embryo, you could say.


That isn't an argument, that's an assertion.

To make it an argument, you need to tell us specifically when a fetus becomes a person. And how that personhood is negotiable.

Some women get abortions. Some women grieve deeply over miscarriages.

Is the former a fetus, the latter a person?

readering said...

Some grieve over abortions. Some relieved at miscarriages.

Nobody said...

That isn't an argument, that's an assertion

Yes. My “argument” is that all philosophy since maybe Kant or maybe even David Hume has consisted of the “crabs in a bucket” thing where every time a philosopher tries to crawl out of the bucket Hume threw then all into, another philosopher grabs him by the leg and pulls him back in.

Nobody said...

I would say it’s more of a postulate than strictly an assertion though.

Nobody said...

Is there any instant in pregnancy when the fetus is not a person, to a right to life person. You have to ask so that you know what you're arguing with, before you start taking it down.

You can’t really “take down” the assertion that a fetus is a person from conception. You can just say you disagree and have the political power to override it and you are comfortable with your reasoning so you can sleep at night.

“Disparate impact” is something the courts have come up with, and since that is the battleground, it’s a weapon to be used, whether you like it or not.

Birkel said...

No, Achilles.
And nothing I wrote gets anywhere close to what you pretended.

I want the federal government constrained and the proper role of the states expanded.
The federal government includes the federal court system, btw.

So you must ride your hobby horse to some new destination.

My goals for politics:
Free people.
Free markets.

rhhardin said...

It comes from ordinary langauge, what being a human requires. People make the distinction and use it regularly. An embryo is such a marginal case that there's another word to cover it.

You can take an embryo as a human and people do that too, if they want the baby. It's part of the ritual of anticipation and planning then, for them, but it's not something that language applies to every embryo, where the usual distinctions still apply. A pro-choice person can see the parents' point of view, nothing's more common. The right-to-life person can't see the other point of view, even though the view is embedded in everyday language.

There's tyranny in that refusal. Call it the application of soul dogma.

Birkel said...

rhhardin believes he can find a pregnant woman who calls what is inside her a zygote, or an embryo.

Perhaps rhhardin should walk up to every woman and wish her congratulations on her embryo.
Normal language might be a surprise.

Scott said...

Here's something that is highly relevant to the discussion about the link between Eugenics and birthrate manipulation:

[i]Persons of mixed blood of the first degree who are exempted from evacuation will be sterilized in order to prevent any offspring and to eliminate the problem of persons of mixed blood once and for all. Such sterilization will be voluntary. But it is required to remain in the Reich. The sterilized "person of mixed blood" is thereafter free of all restrictions to which he was previously subjected.

-----------------

SS-Gruppenführer Hofmann advocates the opinion that sterilization will have to be widely used, since the person of mixed blood who is given the choice whether he will be evacuated or sterilized would rather undergo sterilization.

State Secretary Dr. Stuckart maintains that carrying out in practice of the just mentioned possibilities for solving the problem of mixed marriages and persons of mixed blood will create endless administrative work. In the second place, as the biological facts cannot be disregarded in any case, State Secretary Dr. Stuckart proposed proceeding to forced sterilization.

Furthermore, to simplify the problem of mixed marriages possibilities must be considered with the goal of the legislator saying something like: "These marriages have been dissolved."[/i]

Reference: http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/Wannsee/wanseeminutes.html

Reference section IV of the minutes, this is the conference convened to deal with the 'Final Solution to the Jewish Problem'

harrogate said...

"My goals for politics:
Free people.
Free markets."

Tell it to all the people whose bodies you are trying to control. Tell it to all the people who would be thrown in prison as a result of all this "freedom."

I think you misspelled Freedumb.

Nobody said...

Tell it to all the people whose bodies you are trying to control.

While this argument seems perfectly sensible to you, I am sure, that’s because you wipe from your mind the existence of the second human being involved. It’s like saying that there should be no penalty for murder because the victim is dead, so he or she doesn’t count.

But it’s way easier to assume that the other side are always morons who can’t see the obvious, isn’t it?

Nobody said...

I would be a lot more amenable to arguments based on “natural language” if there wasn’t such a huge effort by the left to warp and change our language to force their reasoning on us without having to make otherwise convincing arguments, thus illegal aliens became just plain “immigrants” the same as ever other immigrant who followed the rules to get here. The Webster’s web site removed the sense of “unborn child” from it’s definition for “baby” and was congratulated for this in the comments. So if you were not an English speaker, and you went to the dictionary to understand the sentence “I felt the baby kick” you would be force to assume that the baby crawled up out of it’s crib and kicked you.

As for “tyranny” That’s the tyranny of dragooning into service words that have generally accepted unpleasant connotations as an imprecise metaphor to describe something you don’t like. See how easy that is? I did it twice in that sentence!

mtrobertslaw said...

There is a question that those who claim that a fetus is not a "person" never get around to answering: How do they know they themselves are "persons"?

Birkel said...

Control?
The things you have to imagine in order to project that onto me!?!

I want the power to return to the states as a matter of federalism.
Less centralized power means a greater sphere of freedom.

So harrogate and Achilles are both wrong about me.

Nobody said...

How do they know they themselves are "persons"?

It comes down to a judge’s ruling, just like Dred Scott.

rhhardin said...

There is a question that those who claim that a fetus is not a "person" never get around to answering: How do they know they themselves are "persons"?

They do things for other people.

Birkel said...

rhhardin does not do anything for me.
Therefore he is unperson.
We can end him.

DEEBEE said...

Thomas’ Taptic has the wonderful side effect of progs suddenly discovering Blackagency. Now let wait, but not hold our breath for their knock9ng down of disparate impact.