Posted on 12/19/2008 10:18:33 AM PST by NYer
Here's how Project Prevention responds to criticism:Folks at downtown's Ronstadt Transit Center on Tuesday afternoon had a way to make a quick $300.
The only stipulation was that the people be drug addicts or alcoholics who agree to long-term birth control.
The group Project Prevention, started by Barbara Harris in 1997, has so far paid more than 2,800 men and women across the nation.
.... Acceptable long-term birth control includes tubal ligation, Depo Provera shots and IUDs for women, or a vasectomy for men. (Tuscon Citizen)
"Those who oppose what we're doing should be willing to step up and adopt a few of the babies," Harris said. "These women can't raise these children."Don't bother mentioning why people might oppose this.
No, but it’s not determined by the doctrines of the Catholic Church either.
Sounds like an excellent program. Those opposing it should be prepared to pay to support the kids who would otherwise be born, since it’s highly unlikely their parents would be supporting them.
A bit harsh for me. However, I would happily support it after one year of welfare! : )
Sheesh, man, they could have five or six more welfare babies in that length of time!
< / sarc >
Eugenics is the theory that some people should not have children because they are inherently defective. They have bad genetics. It assumes that we have the wisdom to breed humans for desired traits. Out of this great wisdom we will force some people to never have children
The program in question assumes that some people engaged in behavior that is demonstrably destructive to themselves and those around them are less likely to be good parents. Are you seriously arguing that this is not the case?
Therefore it’s a good idea to encourage, NOT FORCE, them to choose not to become parents.
If and when they clean up their act, some of these methods are reversible and they can hopefully become good parents.
Frankly, I see nothing different in this from common European practice of encouraging people to become parents by monetary incentive. This is just the flip side.
I never said it was. The FACT is that ALL Protestant denominations condemned contraception prior to the mid-20th Century (Anglicans condemned it as late as 1930, but changed their mind at the 1958 Lambeth Conference). It is no coincidence that this is about the same time that Planned Parenthood was pushing contraception throughout America.
Protestants followed popular opinion while Catholicism did not.
How thoroughly modern of you.
Fewer than 100 years ago not a single Christian church would agree with your statement.
Is it likely that morality was misunderstood for 1900 years, or that society has traded morality for convenience?
Get to the thinking behind the effort. This group is decidinig whom it thinks should breed. That's eugenics.
Say I had a large fortune and I decided that since the black community disproportionately is responsible for crime in this country it would be a good idea to discourage them from breeding.
So I offer $1 million dollars for the successful sterilization of any black man. Voluntarily.
IS there any moral objection to this? It is voluntary.
You can see no difference between discouraging reproduction of a race and discouraging reproduction of those engaged in certain behaviors, regardless of their ethnicity?
I sure do.
Now if you want to encourage voluntary sterilization of criminals, a disproportionate number of whom are black, I have no problem with it.
In fact, the program in question targets druggies, a disproportionate number of whom are black.
But it’s the behavior that’s targeted, not the race.
That’s a huge difference, IMHO.
Also, if you want your program to be truly effective on limiting the number of black people born, you need to target black women, not black men. A small number of fertile black men can keep a large number of black women pumping out black babies. In fact, they’re probably happy to volunteer for the chore.
(Note for those who are sarcasm-challenged: The above suggestions are not meant to be seriously considered for implementation.)
It turns out the crack babies everyone was convinced were doomed to a horrible life were not nearly as badly damaged as we all thought.
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/dec/crack-baby-unfounded-stigma
Fetal alcohol syndrome, OTOH, causes horrible and permanent damage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_alcohol_syndrome
100 years ago most Christian churches:
Supported white supremacy and considered "mixed marriages" immoral.
Opposed women's suffrage.
Taught that masturbation was a mortal sin.
100 years ago, if I'm not off on my chronology, the Catholic Church's official doctrine was that "freedom of religion" was a snare of Satan to be opposed by all loyal Catholics.
200 years ago (almost) all churches supported slavery as part of the normal human condition, supported in this, BTW, by fairly clear Biblical precedent.
Not too much further back than that many Christians believed the Christian thing to do was to burn heretics, or hang 'em, anyway.
We can go on, if you like.
So, yeah, morality can advance in Christian thought.
Which doesn't mean every innovation is automatically an improvement in morality. Sometimes it is indeed a trading of morality for convenience or popularity. Each case should be examined on its own merits, neither accepted or rejected for its history.
More likely that morality was misunderstood for 1900 years!
The point remains the same. The removal of “objectionable” people from society.
No matter how enlightened you think you are, and how laudable your goal (and how agreeable all are on your “Target”) to go down this track is reprehensible.
The same could be said for your parents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.