It's nice to know Eugenics is still alive and well.
Oh, but this is for the children. Or the lack thereof.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
All material on these pages is ©2003-2010 by Joe Belland, Dave Belland, Tom Adams, Cari Burud and/or Paul Harold except for the stuff that we blatantly stole from other sources. All rights reserved.
FTA: "People say that to me all the time. What if they use the money for drugs? Well, that's their choice"
ReplyDeleteWait, what was the point of this again? Encouraging responsibility? Their attempt to be judgmental ("you're unfit to have children") and inoffensive ("who are we to condemn drug use?") at the same time is nonsensical. It's ok to take drugs, because that's their choice, but if their choice is to take drugs and have kids, that's not ok?
Now, I understand her concern is for the children affected by the drug use of the parent, but wouldn't the money be better spent dealing with the real problem, the drug use, instead of specifically condoning the problematic behavior? It just seems so contradictory. Help them get to rehab or AA or whatever. It would be better for all involved if they sober up, especially if they already have a family.
Quick follow-up: I don't think the originator of the non-profit is motivated by eugenics, but it would be an easy cause for eugenicists to support, depending on the demographics of the people who accept the "help" of the organization.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me to be related to the same mentality that says teen pregnancy is what sexual education should focus on preventing.
ReplyDeleteI was listening to Glen Beck's show a few weeks ago and he had some guest host on. They spent about an hour talking about whether abstinence only education works or not. The consensus between the host and the callers was that it didn't since they all had anecdotal evidense of 15 year old sisters pregnant after having abstinence only education.
Moving beyond the absurdity of their statements (coming from "the most conservative guy you will ever know" as one caller specifically labeled himself), I wanted to call in and get through to point out that their premise was all wrong (not that I would have been able to explain myself well). I couldn't stand that they thought the point of teaching abstinence only was to avoid pregnancy. Pregnancy is awesome no matter who is pregnant. The idea that some 15 year old girl had sex and most likely with some unloving dolt who will not dedicate his life to her and their children, is a tragedy. It is a tragedy whenever anyone has their view of sexuality reduced to an act of self gratification or when someone is reduced to someone else's sexual tool. As far as the pregnancy goes, I think that it doesn't even qualify as a "least of their problems" item. It's the greatest blessing in their life.
I don't understand why a 15 year old girl pregnant can be a tragedy? "She had her whole life ahead of her" is what I think some of those callers implied. Well no one is stopping her from putting the kid up for adoption if she still wants "her whole life" as you put it. Sure she might not, but that again is her choice (just like sex was).
"She'll raise a kid with no father." Again, adoption. Or she could get married. Again, these are choices she could still make just like sex was. Besides, hasn't the sex-ed crowd already accepted Murphy Brown as the ideal mother?
"She'll be humiliated among her schoolmates"... Honestly this is the one where I get least sympathetic. If having sex doesn't label you a slut, but getting pregnant does I don't know what the hell to think anymore. Besides, getting made fun of by classmates for year can occur for audibly farting in the cafeteria let alone getting pregnant. Should we be focussed on teaching how to avoid getting made fun of or should we be teaching kids that high school social stuff doesn't matter and to toughen up?
Honestly. Worst. Glenn. Beck. Episode. Ever.
A good response very well expressed, Tom.
ReplyDelete