deep thinking

I would love to be able to keep posting happy things. But every once and awhile, there are things that just break your heart a little and you need to share them. Today in Biotechnology, we were talking about the topic of Eugenics. We were discussing events like the Holocaust, and the ideas of a man named Goddard, who classified people under the term "feeblemindedness" (idiots, imbeciles and morons--for things like not being able to speak correctly or write--which was very bias towards those that were educated and rich). My professor touched on the ideas that were discussed to "deal" with the problem these people bring to society, such as limited immigration and deportation. Then he started on the subject of sterilization. THEN he introduced the fact that in 1933 the Compulsory Sterilization law was passed. I was blown away. I have been blown away in my many years of school by awful events of history, but somehow it's still surprising when I learn about one that I have never known before.

This law forcefully sterilized 250,000 people in 3 years because of "defective genetic traits". The first big case known as Buck vs. Bell was a woman who was institutionalized for being "feebleminded" and "promiscuous", and her 7 month old daughter was described in the same light.

The judge Oliver Wendel Holmes supported this case explaining:

"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.Three generations of imbeciles are enough"

Historians later found out that she was not feebleminded, nor promiscious, but was hidden in the institution because she was raped by a family member of her adoptive parents. And her child grew up to be on the honor role.

This and other events of history are described as Eugenics, and the word generally has a negative conotation. But are we practicing it now? This all led into the topic of New Eugenics-->the possibility that it still exists. But is it the same? Genetic testing and genetic screenings of unborn babies...aborting babies with genetic diseases like Downs Syndrome and Cystic Fibrosis. How is this all related to eugenics of the past like compulsory sterilization and the Holocaust? This is a very loaded and layered topic, and it could be discussed for eternity. But it is a real thing, that is an issue rolling up quite fast. My generation especially will have a lot of roles in the decision making of these topics.

Something to ponder, in the least.