(Tea Party 247) – There is a dark and disturbing period of Western history which the pro-abortion left likes to pretend never happened.
This is because it is where the origin of their obsession with killing babies really lies.
LifeSite News explains:
Eugenics, which was practiced far more widely in both Great Britain and in North America than most realize, was the idea that the selective breeding of human beings could produce a better species. This could be done by ensuring that the best specimens produced many children, and conversely making sure that those considered less than perfect did not (eugenics is Greek for “good birth.”) These practices, understandably, fell out of favor when the Third Reich implemented them on a state-wide scale and added the practice of wide-scale extermination to forced sterilization. It is a scarcely mentioned fact that it was Sir Francis Galton who first proposed the idea of benevolent concentration camps of a kind as a place to put populations of people deemed unsuitable for breeding.
This was, of course, the eugenics movement, which plenty of abortion proponents still adamantly defend, using euphemisms and buzzwords like “eradicate disease” and “overpopulation” and “women’s health” and “reproductive justice.”
They’re defending murder and their ideology is godless and immoral.
So go figure that they have allies in bigshot atheist Richard Dawkins, who claims not to support eugenics but basically just defended it.
For some strange reason, famous anti-theist and author of The God Delusion Richard Dawkins decided to resurrect the eugenics debate this weekend, tweeting on February 16 that “It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.”
As the outrage began to spread across the Twittersphere, he added a few hasty clarifications: “For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy. I simply said deploring it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work. Just as we breed cows to yield more milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven forbid that we should do it.”
Heaven forbid, indeed. It appears that even an atheist must appeal to a higher power when he wants to condemn something heinous. “A eugenic policy would be bad,” Dawkins went on. “I’m combating the illogical step from ‘X would be bad’ to ‘So X is impossible.’ It would work in the same sense as it works for cows. Let’s fight in on moral grounds. Deny scientific facts & we lose—or at best derail—the argument.” He did not explain why it was so important to resurrect a debate about whether the selective breeding of human beings would work, or why he decided to do so.
There is, of course, a very good reason that people are so outraged by Dawkins’ assertion, and that is because, despite his protestations, he has come out as a champion of eugenics in the past. At one point, he tweeted that “Abortion to avoid birth defects is not about eugenics. It’s about the avoidance of human suffering.” He ignored the fact that this is one of the key arguments that the eugenicists—including the Nazis—used to justify their mercy killings. History is clearly not his strong suit.
Featured image credit: Mike Cornwell – flickr.com/people/mrccos/