Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Eugenics is an interesting and controversial topic. Basically it's the belief of bettering the human species by not allowing people with certain disabilities reproduce and not performing life saving surgeries or otherwise taking herculean efforts to save babies with serious genetic faults. In regards to the infants, the concept was seen as saving them from a lifetime of misery-and, my thought, saving the rest of the population from paying for their care. Forced sterilizations were common in institutions for both the mentally retarded and mentally ill. Eugenics was popular in the 1930s and 1940s and had well known supporters such as Charles Darwin (no surprise there-survival of the fittest and all) and quite surprisingly Helen Keller. Although I'm sure many people will think I'm wrong, or immoral, or going to hell in a hand basket, I agree with a lot of the thought behind eugenics. Some people...many people... should not be allowed to reproduce. I deal with some people who are a complete drain on society and whose existence is a burden to all. Better that they should never have been born. As for some other people, honestly, what quality of life do they have? Of course, this does not mean that all developmentally disabled or mentally ill people fall in this category. Certainly not. A lot of mentally ill people have a great life and make a positive difference in the lives of many. They can and do lead productive lives. But there are others who you see who never had a chance-families riddled with disease, born while their mothers were institutionalized themselves. The problem is-how do you know if the children will be able to lead a great life or just one of pain and suffering. An interesting and volatile question and debate.