Seeds of inspiration
Sometimes the most useful inspiration comes from the most unusual places. Our ministers probably gain inspiration from the outposts and outback of the country where certain practices might make Victorians look soft on discipline and moral rectitude.
One must indeed say that our politicians always always have our welfare and wellbeing at heart as they seed our thoughts with innocuous ideas which creepily make it into the mainstream.
At first hearing, it all seems like the reasonable common sense application of societal norms to make us all live at peace with each other.
Even so, when such ideas come from the person in charge of security or for translational context – public welfare – it has to be commendable.
Purity is of the essence
At first hearing, the ideas of Eugenics might sound so noble and pure that one would just subscribe to it. The question then becomes what and who determines purity and how that is scored.
It is unlikely, that we would democratically select those to sit at the head of the Eugenic food chain who can then dispense judgment from on high about what is worthy and what is worthless and should be expunged.
Rather, these self-appointed protectors of societal purity would move from consensus to tyranny as the initial appeal of the idea becomes a sinister human extermination agenda that can no more be sustained by reason.
Now, there is no doubt that certain members of society may not know their responsibilities in civility, virtues and parenthood; we have laws to deal with crime, hospitals to deal with illnesses, social welfare to deal with deprivation and abuse – these things help define the advanced civilisation of society, most especially in Western communities.
The state ensures within its resources that all these services are available equally at the point of need so that our comfortable normality does not descend into chaos.
So, it is with interest that I have read this translated piece of inspired logic that has come from one veritable source of social engineering genius – Leefbaar Rotterdam (Liveable Rotterdam).
Target! Aim! Abort!
“I want appoint three specific target groups of whom I find that obliged pregnancy discontinuance (in accordance with the legal failure period) and forced contraceptive from taboo environment must be obtained. This concerns children of addictive parents, (Antillean) teenager mothers and rationally disableds.” Translated from Dutch - electronically.
Basically, the proponent is suggesting forced abortions and compulsory contraception on a number of “undesirables” who make the society we live in dysfunctional.
The primary concern as the story develops is the prevention of child abuse promoted by the “No Kidding” campaign in the Netherlands
Somehow, the proponent has data that suggests that these “appointed”, “specific”, “target” groups are more prone to systemic child abuse.
Indeed children should be protected from parental abuse and what way to prevent child abuse than to nip it in the embryonic stage. A child unborn is a child not abused. I fear for my mind on this matter.
Unfairness in choices
So, addictive parents who are hooked on drugs probably need more help to get them off drugs and the necessary mentoring to see the value of children and the joy of parenthood.
As for the rationally disabled; which in context could mean those who are seriously impaired in functional abilities; they might still be able to rear children within a support network that includes adaptation and rehabilitation for the onerous duties of parenthood. The same job is just as difficult for the fully able parent.
Teenage mothers of Netherlands Antilles origin (a different species?); supposedly are different from those of indigene Dutch descent – well, it just shows how equity in selection and assessment does not sit well with eugenics.
Perish the thought that this has anything to do with an extreme right agenda that flirts with xenophobia.
Some commentators have resurrected the spectre of a modern-day Dr Mengele, I would not deign to offer that flattering comparison.
Helping the unborn child?
Vera Drake in the 1950s helped women in difficulty by performing illegal abortions; the stigma of illegitimate children was unbearable in those times.
Our contemporary Vera Drake in Rotterdam
Thankfully, she has not yet suggested sterilisation – Ah! That is for humans, I meant neutering, for undesirables.
There are no easy answers to the societal problems that allow for these target groups to exist, the welfare of parent and unborn child should have serious determination and careful consideration if this is to become common practice.
As this seed-thought just appeared in a blog where flippant comment might just take like wildfire; it would not be long till one of the ministers of the realm flies the kite to gauge popular opinion.
I do wonder why the chief proponent of Eugenics – Sir Francis Galton never had children – sometimes your ideas might just reveal what you should not be doing lest it turns out wrong.
I rest.
References
Source link which invited commentary – Thanks!
Abortion does not solve social problems – Evaluating the ethics of abortion