Eugenics in this Newest of Millennia

The Hippocratic Oath written in the 5th century BC in ancient Greece was an oath historically taken by all healthcare practitioners swearing to practice medicine honestly. This oath was meant to encourage integrity among doctors, and ensure the minimization of negative effects their work might have on people.

Hippocratic Oath

• I swear by Apollo the physician, and Asclepius, and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses as my witnesses, that, according to my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and this contract:
• To hold him who taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents, to be a partner in life with him, and to fulfill his needs when required; to look upon his offspring as equals to my own siblings, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or contract; and that by the set rules, lectures, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to students bound by this contract and having sworn this Oath to the law of medicine, but to no others.
• I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgement, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.
• I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.
• In purity and according to divine law will I carry out my life and my art.
• I will not use the knife, even upon those suffering from stones, but I will leave this to those who are trained in this craft.
• Into whatever homes I go, I will enter them for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any voluntary act of impropriety or corruption, including the seduction of women or men, whether they are free men or slaves.
• Whatever I see or hear in the lives of my patients, whether in connection with my professional practice or not, which ought not to be spoken of outside, I will keep secret, as considering all such things to be private.
• So long as I maintain this Oath faithfully and without corruption, may it be granted to me to partake of life fully and the practice of my art, gaining the respect of all men for all time. However, should I transgress this Oath and violate it, may the opposite be my fate.

Translated by Michael North, National Library of Medicine, 2002.

Hippocrates: (c.460-377BC) Great Greek physician on the Mediterranean island of Cos, who founded a medical school there, and is regarded as the “Father of Medicine.”

That is the standard view of Hippocrates. But, in truth, virtually nothing is known of the first physician named Hippocrates. There are considered to have been several by that name, all of them teachers at the famous medical school on the island of Cos. It was in the 5th century BCE, however, that Hippocrates’ name and image began to emerge as a leader in medical research and thought.

Hippocrates is generally credited with turning away from divine notions of medicine and using observation of the body as a basis for medical knowledge.

Prayers and sacrifices to the gods did not hold a central place in his theories; but changes in diet, beneficial drugs, and keeping the body “in balance” were the key.

Central to his physiology and ideas on illness was the humoral theory of health, whereby the four bodily fluids, or humors, of blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile needed to be kept in balance. Illness was caused when these fluids became out of balance, sometimes requiring the reduction in the body of a humor through bloodletting or purging.

The Hippocratic Corpus, or the collected writings attributed to Hippocrates, contains about sixty works on a variety of medical topics, including diagnosis, epidemics, obstetrics, pediatrics, nutrition, and surgery. There are assumed to be several authors, however, probably scattered over several centuries, and different treatises often give contradictory advice.

Hippocrates’ followers wrote over 60 medical books on a broad range of medical topics (including diseases, gynecology, and head wounds). As to the Hippocratic Oath, little is known about who wrote it or first used it, but it appears to be more strongly influenced by followers of Pythagoras than Hippocrates and is often estimated to have been written in the 4th century BCE. Over the centuries, it has been rewritten often in order to suit the values of different cultures influenced by Greek medicine.

Hippocratic Oath: One of the oldest binding documents in history, the Oath written by Hippocrates is still held sacred by physicians: to treat the ill to the best of one’s ability, to preserve a patient’s privacy, to teach the secrets of medicine to the next generation, and so on.

In essence, such an oath would advance moral and ethical thinking and ensure safety of the patient.

Unfortunately, in today’s world, the oath to uphold the ethical standards is taken rather lightly, if taken at all. It has been estimated that only 50% of the British physicians and other healthcare professionals are taking the Hippocratic Oath. Deviation from this ancient tradition in the medical profession has cost countless lives.

But medical negligence or medical error is still a lesser crime than a deliberate violation of the moral, ethical and professional code. A good example of this can be seen in England, where a recent 19 month undercover investigation led by the London Telegraph newspaper has exposed two doctors who agreed to arrange illegal abortions based on the sex of an unborn baby.

“The two doctors were filmed agreeing to arrange terminations for women who requested them purely because they said they did not want to have a baby girl.”

Obviously, it would be one thing to decide to abort the unborn child based on the solid medical examinations confirming high risk for the baby to be born with defects causing lifetime suffering for both parents and a child, and it is another thing to terminate the pregnancy and consequently the life of the unborn but healthy child just because of an unwanted gender.

“What is the doctor to do who is offered a bribe for harming his patient? His two arts each make rigorous and contradictory claims upon him, and there is no evident principle for choosing which should be preferred’’ – reasoned Socrates in Plato’s Republic.

One would think that the voice of one’s conscience would be enough of an evident principle and a basis for action. But apparently, for the ruling elite morality has another meaning.

WAKE UP WORLD says: A Deeper Look Into Oligarchical Thought

The eugenics mindset [the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis] can be tracked back at least 2,700 years to Ancient Sparta, where the unfit and undesirable children were killed at birth. As the result of focusing on selective breeding, excellence and military training, Sparta became a dominant military power of ancient Greece in 7th century BC. Later, in the 4th century BC, a systematic deconstruction of a family unit was proposed and implemented for the “common good and perfection of the state”.

Taking the kids away from their parents at birth, was making the formation of natural bond between child and parent impossible.

Thus abducted children were becoming state property — its assets. This was a great idea for the state and yet, a cause of suffering for the people. Claiming parental rights over the children, the state could send them to war anytime without any explanation or resistance from the people because the people lost their parental rights over their kids at birth. They had no say in their children’s fate simply because their kids were raised by the state and thus belonged to the state.

This article could turn into another book, if I were to elaborate on every point made in what I would call today a “first communist manifesto” in which the ancient Greek philosophers were establishing rules to benefit the rulers and the state, calling it a “City”, by proposing the idea to make common everything that is private.

It is just a glimpse into oligarchical thought:

“Full communism, is the only form of just regime, requires not only the abolition of private property but also the sharing of women and children and the rule of philosophers’’

“All these women are to belong to all these men in common, and no woman is to live privately with any man. And children, in their turn, will be in common, and neither will a parent know his own offspring, nor a child his parent”

“The communism of women and children, by suppressing family ties, serves to emancipate man’s love of the good”

“A father, if he is anything, is the one who engenders the child. A father who did not do so would be a completely artificial entity, at best a substitute for the natural father. Law or convention must take the place of nature in order to insure the possibility of this city”

“In this arrangement of things, marriage means nothing more than a temporary sexual relationship, for there are no private homes, no private children, and the citizens may be expected to have many such marriages”

“Sacred is what is beneficial to the city. Appetizing and frequent sexual relations are to be the reward for excellence in public service; this will motivate the citizens to perform their responsibilities well and will insure that those who are of the greatest virtue will produce the most children, for there are no private homes, no private children, and the citizens may be expected to have many such marriages”

“Just as erotic activity becomes a part of a man’s public duty, so the offspring of the unions must become part of public property”

“The family is abolished, unless one considers the city as one family”

“The intention of the noble lie is furthered: men are finally deprived of everything which they might love more than the city; all men are brothers. But the effect of this is to remove whatever is natural in the family and replace it with an entirely conventional base”

“Children must be led to war on horseback as spectators; and, if it’s safe anywhere, they must be led up near and taste blood, like puppies, then in all these, labors, studies, and fears, the boy who shows himself always readiest must be chosen to join a select number.” ~ Plato’s Republic

I have to say that if I had not read the ancient text myself, written 2,400 years ago, I would think these quotes were coming from Agenda 21 eugenics meetings, or from a destructive cult in which privacy was seen as an obstacle for a common goal agreed upon by the rulers.

And yet, it is what it is.

Apparently, eugenics thought survived through the millennia and simply by looking at our society today we can find an abundance of examples to support this fact.

One of the modern ways to separate children from parents is done through the indoctrination of parents, who are told they were incompetent to raise their own children properly, and for the sake of their kids, they should be raised by the state. By brainwashing the people into submission, the state is continuing to break families and remove healthy kids from their loving parents, displacing them into foster homes where they are being abused, drugged out of their minds by the cocktails made of anti-psychotic drugs, and then go missing.

It is also known that the Child Protection Services (CPS), the main supplier of kids to foster homes, is being paid to confiscate the “living state assets” from the parents and is often conducting its business on false accusations of child abuse.

How many stories have we heard about CPS having taken kids away from good homes?

It hasn’t been long since we have heard the heartbreaking story from Sacramento, CA, where a five month old baby was confiscated from a young and loving Russian couple only because they dared to seek a second medical opinion for their kid! You’ve got to see that video which shows CPS and the goons in uniforms entering their home, while keeping their hands on their guns and shouting: “I’m going to grab your baby..” Based on this and other countless incidences, the question arising is why the CPS is not under serious scrutiny?

Dr. Mercola has called them a “legal child abduction service’’, to which I would add “abduction and trafficking service’’.

Human trafficking and modern slavery are now the biggest criminal activity in the world.

Their revenues eclipsing that of the illegal arms and drug trades. And it’s no wonder with even the unborn being unsafe from these sadistic flesh-traders.

As if it isn’t enough to prey on the desperation and impoverishment of women, these corporate traffickers from Bangkok, Thailand offer the best baby your dollar can buy. The following story broke Feb. 2011.

It might seem like I digress, however, things are well connected and parallels easily drawn.

As it becomes evident, the practice of breaking the family unit by separating children from their parents is seen throughout millennia and still is practiced today, continuously disempowering the individual while empowering the state. Apparently, seeing ‘humans as a herd‘ and treating us like cattle, is an ancient tradition deeply embedded in oligarchical thought.

I encourage you to look deeper into the subject and understand the wicked mindset behind the eugenic movement. And if going back through thousands of years of history would seems to be too much to ask, then try instead to look into the 20th century which had its proponents of the eugenics movement like Margaret Sanger, a founder of Planned Parenthood who spared no efforts to “assist the human race toward the elimination of the unfit’’ went as far as saying, “the most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it”. (“Women and the New Race”, Chapter V – The Wickedness of creating large families.)

This is what she wrote it in her book dedicated to her mother who gave birth to eleven children.

And this is only one example.

As we can now clearly see, social engineering is an ancient technique of controlling the masses, which today is enhanced by technology and science. And as I previously mentioned, both technology and science can be great tools if used and practiced with integrity, however, if hijacked, which seems to be the case, they can become a weapon, infinitely more dangerous than a loaded gun in a child’s hands.

12th November 2014, By Sergey Baranov

Guest Writer and Source at bottom of original copy, WAKE UP WORLD

Questions.org states: The Bible does not specifically mention eugenics, but the idea behind eugenics — that man can better himself by ridding the world of “undesireable” people—is definitely not biblical. God told mankind to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28; 9:1, 7). No exception to that command is given in Scripture. In fact, King Solomon wrote in Psalm 127:3–5 that children are a heritage from the Lord and that the fruit of the womb is a reward from Him.

God gives us life and numbers our days (Job 33:4; 14:5). The sovereign Lord determines whether we live or die. For social engineers to usurp God’s authority in order to create a self-defined “master race” is evil. We are to obey God, not men (Acts 5:29).

English theologian G. K. Chesterton wrote in his 1922 book Eugenics and Other Evils, “There is no reason in Eugenics, but there is plenty of motive. Its supporters are highly vague about its theory, but they will be painfully practical about its practice” (from Chapter VIII, “A Summary of a False Theory”).

Eugenics is a meritless and immoral social engineering experiment with dubious chances for “success,” as defined by its supporters. It is a slippery slope in which Chesterton’s scientific madmen abrogate the authority of God and seek to create their own utopia on Earth. Through abortion and euthanasia, eugenics is simply murder.

Job 24:14 says, “When daylight is gone, the murderer rises up, kills the poor and needy, and in the night steals forth like a thief.”

This is the role of eugenicist: killing the poor and needy and those he deems “unworthy”; preventing a “poor quality of life” (in his estimation) by taking life; denying men’s liberty; and playing God.

“As he went along, [Jesus] saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned,’ said Jesus, ‘but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him’” (John 9:1–3). Who are we to decide who does or does not display the works of God? The Bible tells us to defend the weak (Matthew 25:35–36; Acts 20:35), not to kill them.

The world today seems to be crossing the line into Transhumanism which is a philosophical and cultural position that encourages human advancement through technology. More specifically, transhumanism encourages the use of artificial enhancements to push mankind towards something “more than” human.

Fundamentally, it is a form of Utopianism, the belief that human beings can change themselves and create a heaven on earth. The basic idea of improving the human condition is perfectly compatible with the Bible. In fact, it’s one of the purposes of a Christian lifestyle (John 10:10); but transhumanism contradicts the Bible when it assumes that humanity is completely sovereign and capable of self-directed change without the need for God (Jeremiah 17:9).

Alan Watt is a long-term researcher into the causative forces behind major changes in historical development. His background is that of a renaissance man with a background in three professions, plus having various books published in religions, philosophy, poetry, mainly under pseudonyms. For much of his life (for main income) he was heavily involved in the music industry as a singer/songwriter/performer involved in folk music, blues, pop, rock, and even classical. Also known for his session guitar work, he has played with some of the most well-known artists and groups. Born in Scotland, he watched the subtleties of politics and media as they guided the population of the U.K. covertly into a European Amalgamation. He has been warning the North American people for some years now that the same process of amalgamation is being carried out.

Alan Watt continues to divulge his fascinating in-depth insights into how culture is created from the top down and used by the elite to manipulate and pervert natural human instincts towards their own ends.

Every change in culture, right down to fashion and music, points out Watt citing Plato, had to be authorized and promoted from the top. This science of mass mind control is still taught today by the insiders and mediums such as television are used as weapons of social control to prevent humanity from ever realizing its full potential.

Watt talks about how the elite technocrats plan for the long term, in 50, 100 and even 150 year cycles in which to implement the different aspects of their agenda, and how each cultural shift was deliberately timed to be implemented at a certain time. The current cultural bombardment surrounds the emergence of neo-eugenics, with big foundations and organizations like the Optimum Population Trust pushing the idea that humans are superfluous, virus-like, and therefore worthless.

Watt discusses how sperm counts across Europe and America have dropped at an alarming rate of up to 80 per cent over the past 50 years, and how the media’s complete ignorance of this crisis proves that it was authorized as a deliberate program of de-population. Watt traces the program back to its origins in the 1950’s, where synthetic female hormones like estrogen were put in baby foods by companies like Proctor and Gamble, as well as baby milk bottles washed with Bisphenol A, the very substance that attacks male genitalia and prevents it from developing properly.

Watt also outlines how Bisphenol A in women’s cosmetic products contributes to toxifying their bodies, leading to an environment for male babies that leads them to have a reduced sperm count or even become sterile.The foundation of the agenda can be discovered in the writings of people like Bertrand Russell and the Huxley brothers, who talked about the need to sterilize the masses as far back as the 1930’s.

Watt also divulges how the elite’s ultimate goal for every human allowed to be born is for them to serve the state and be deceived into accepting this enslavement as a natural form of existence.

The elite’s greatest fear is that the “inferiors” will out-breed the “superiors,” which is why they continually push neo-eugenics and are obsessed with inter-breeding to keep their own genetics intellectually pure.

How Modern Eugenics Discounts Human Dignity

In this modern age, many people are no longer afraid of eugenics.

It is not that they are ignorant of the past. They know all about the movement of the early 20th century that tried to create a better human race by preventing the birth of those deemed “unfit.”

Eugenics literally means “good birth,” and it seeks to “improve” the human gene pool.

The American eugenics movement resulted in the forced sterilization of more than 60,000 Americans in 33 states who were considered unfit to reproduce.

And eugenics did not stop there.

Adolf Hitler was a huge fan of eugenics and brought it to its natural conclusion: the Holocaust of World War II, where millions of the “genetically unfit” were exterminated in an effort to create a “master race.” Those considered unfit were not just Jews, but also the criminal, weak, feeble-minded, insane and disabled (not to mention priests and nuns and those who helped try to hide the Jewish people).

Modern eugenicists do not fear the horrors of the past. They support aborting fetuses with disease or disability, what is sometimes called eugenic abortion. Or they advocate the screening of in vitro fertilization (IVF) embryos for disease and “throwing out” the “defective” ones.

Modern eugenicists argue that what went wrong in the 20th century was government enforcement; it was the fact that the authorities forced their will on the people that made eugenics go wrong.

Modern eugenicists believe improving the gene pool by making sure the genetically unfit are not born is not a dangerous prospect for the 21st century.

The eugenics of today is “benign” because it will be accomplished not by government coercion, but by individual choice — namely the choices of parents to have the best children possible.

Julian Savulescu, chair of the Oxford Center for Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, argues that people should choose the best children by looking at their genetics before they are born.

In his 2002 paper “Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children,” he wrote, “Couples should select embryos or fetuses which are most likely to have the best life, based on available genetic information, including information about non-disease genes.”

So Savulescu argues for the selection of children not just based on health, but also on traits like intelligence and gender. He insists that this is not eugenics, which, remember, means “good birth.” Instead, Savulescu calls this attempt to have the best children a “private enterprise” based solely on parental choice.

This great experiment with individual parental choice based on genetic information is already under way and has had some devastating results. According to Mara Hvistendahl’s groundbreaking book Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls and the Consequences of a World Full of Men, 163 million girls in Asia are “missing.”

They were likely aborted simply because they lacked a Y chromosome.

It is well known that Asians have a preference for sons, but it was not until the West’s ideas of reproductive choice and population control came to the East, along with cheap ultrasound technology, that girls started going “missing” in the millions. This preference for sons found refuge in a worldwide culture that supported a woman’s individual decision about whether or not she wanted to be pregnant. “Reproductive rights” now protect the personal decision to not give birth to a girl.

This death of girls is not a small problem. One hundred sixty-three million girls is the entire population of females in the United States. Speaking strictly, by the numbers, this gendercide has easily outpaced the destruction of human life by any fascist or communist regime.

This devastation was not the result of a great government program to eliminate girls. In fact, governments in China and India have tried to curb sex selection by making it against the law. This epidemic of missing females is instead the result of millions of individual choices.

The choice to have what parents believed was the “best” child for them: a son. And the sum of these individual choices has magnified the prejudice against girls, making the lives of women who survive the womb worse, not better.

With millions of unmarried men unable to find brides, sexually transmitted diseases and crime are on the rise. Hvistendahl reports, “Between 1992 and 2004, China’s crime rate nearly doubled. In India, from 2003 to 2007, rape cases surged over 30% and abductions by over 50%, prompting the government to unveil ‘female-only‘ trains.”

In their scarcity, Asian women have also become commodities to be bought and sold. Parents all over the continent are guarding their girls against kidnappers who would sell them to rich families who want to guarantee a future bride for their sons.

Women are routinely kidnapped and dragged across boundary lines to be forced into the sex industry.

Poor families who could not afford sex-selective procedures are selling their daughters to rich families who could. Individual choices in favor of males are ensuring that women are born only to poor families who cannot afford sex selection.

This, then, increases the chances that those women will be treated as commodities.

In an interview with TrustLaw, gender expert Tanushree Soni from Plan International reports that sex-selective abortion is having devastating consequences for women.

Soni told TrustLaw, “An imbalance of sexes fuels human trafficking and sexual exploitation. It endangers economic development and increases social instability as a growing population of men search for partners.” Worse, she said, “When you see very highly skewed ratios of sex, it’s very likely you’ll get a high prevalence of ‘violence against women and girls‘.”

In the West, we do not have a prejudice against girls. We have a prejudice against the sick, the disabled and the genetically “defective.”

Despite a study that shows 99% of adults with Down syndrome report being happy, a statistic that would likely never be duplicated in the “normal” adult population, 90% of children with Down syndrome are aborted.

Parents are told that they should abort.

Medical professionals insist it is the best thing for their child. I have read countless accounts of parents who were told that killing their child in the womb is the “compassionate, unselfish thing” to do. It is a sad reality that many people, not just in the West, but all over the world, believe that children are better off dead than sick or disabled.

And now we have the technology to screen embryos for all kind of genetic traits while they are still in the lab.

The process that modern eugenicists urge parents to use to have the “best” children is called ‘preimplantation genetic diagnosis’ (PGD).

In PGD, a single cell is extracted from an IVF embryo and then tested to see which embryos make the genetic cut. The embryos that “fail” this test are discarded or donated to research. The ones that “pass” have a chance to be transferred into a womb.

Many medical professionals talk about eugenic abortion and PGD as if these procedures cure or eliminate disease.

However, they do nothing of the sort. They are just attempts at making sure no one with genetic disease is born. Parents still create offspring with genetic abnormalities; these children are just thrown in the trash or aborted in favor of those considered “disease-free.”

Eugenic abortion and PGD quite literally throw the baby out with the dirty genetic bath water.

And what of the West’s cumulation of individual choices?

In the East, these choices mean a deepening prejudice and marginalization of women.

In the West, it has meant a deepening prejudice and marginalization of anyone deemed “defective.”

Women who give birth to a child with Down syndrome have been called “genetic outlaws.” In the Journal of Legal Medicine, one doctor/lawyer suggested prosecution for a mother who knowingly gives birth to a child with Tay-Sachs disease (Lori B. Andrews, “The Clone Age: Adventures in the New World of Reproductive Technology,” p. 161).

The book A Special Mother Is Born is an excellent collection of stories of parents of children who have special needs. It is also a catalogue of mistreatment of these parents and children by medical professionals, the very people who should be there to care for them. These individual choices to have the “best” children have created a society where those who are not perfect are not only marginalized, but have to somehow justify their existence.

It is this phenomenon that led Dr. Jeffrey Nisker, a former PGD provider, to quit the practice.

In a recent article about PGD in The Globe and Mail, Nisker recounts how he realized where PGD would lead: a place where millions of individual choices make a hostile environment for those with disease or disability.

Nisker said, “This is scary to me because I’m one who doesn’t believe in social engineering. If we strive for perfection, we are going to blame people with disabilities. We’re not going to accommodate them or support them with tax dollars.”

Modern eugenicists wrongly believe we can limit the ‘evils of eugenics‘ simply by allowing personal choice to be the guide.

The gendercide in Asia, and its subsequent aftermath for women, is proof that the sum of individual choices can be more disastrous than any government coercion.

The only way to never return to the devastation of the eugenics movement is to reject it entirely. All life is precious and deserves dignity, respect and protection, not just those lives considered the best. All men, women and children have dignity, regardless of their genes or their limitations. The moral way to deal with disease and disability is to treat them. It is not to make sure people with disease and disability are never born.

As Pope Benedict XVI reminds us, the only way to not repeat the horrors of eugenics is to reaffirm our inherent dignity.

A dignity not found in our genetics.

In a 2005 speech at the Vatican, the Holy Father stated, “The people of our time, sensitized by the terrible vicissitudes that have covered the 20th century and the very beginning of this one in mourning, are able to understand that man’s dignity is not identified with his DNA genes and that it does not diminish with the eventual presence of physical differences or genetic defects.”

Rebecca Taylor is a clinical laboratory specialist in molecular biology. She writes about bioethics on her blog Mary Meets Dolly – (MaryMeetsDolly.com/blog/)

So, where does the modern woman fit into the underlying agenda of eugenics; how does feminism act or react?

“By the end of the nineteenth century, many women began to position themselves and the goals of what is often characterized in this period as the “advancement” of women in relation to the ideas of eugenics. This positioning is evident not only within the eugenic project itself—within the texts produced by women arguing for the importance of particular kinds of eugenic social engineering—but, more broadly, across the rhetoric of mainstream feminism. While not every feminist of the years before the vote necessarily saw herself as a supporter of eugenic practices—much religious ideology, notably but not only in the Roman Catholic Church, mitigated against its wholesale acceptance—the notion that the uplift of “the race” could not happen without the uplift of women underpins much feminist rhetoric of the period.

The basic argument of eugenic feminism—that if women had the responsibility to produce the coming race, then society had the responsibility to empower them to do that work—was a persuasive and pervasive one, particularly with regard to the struggle for the vote. Without the vote, women could not act as full citizens; they could not work to ensure the best conditions for mothers and babies and thus could not ensure that the “best” babies would be born. Women, whom eugenic discourse insisted were naturally and necessarily mothers, should also be seen to know best what was needed to maintain the best conditions: as mothers, they “naturally” wanted and were needed to turn their maternal instinct upon society as a whole.

For ‘eugenic feminists‘, this was not only a matter of having babies and working to make “better” babies, but of turning what was widely represented as women’s moral superiority toward social space, and “cleaning up” corrupt social conditions. Some feminists found a good fit in eugenics in part because of the strong correlation between cleaning up as an ideologically feminine impulse and practice and eugenic ideas of mental, moral, social, and “racial” hygiene.

Eugenic feminist ideas in Canada as elsewhere crossed a broad spectrum, from birth control to sexual sterilization of the so-called “unfit,” but all these ideas were represented with reference to the “natural” disposition of women to have the best interests of the society at heart: not self-preservation but “race” preservation; not personal advancement but the advancement of the “race.” ”

” … to being criticized for perpetuating stereotypes of women and seeking to protect the interests and privilege of the ruling Anglo-Saxon class”.

Women’s Suffrage.org

RELATED:

Eugenics in Canada – The Eugenics Archives

Eugenics – Alberta and British Columbia are the only provinces where, for a number of years, the government would sterilize, without their consent, men and women who were mentally ill. READ MORE

Recommended Resources: The War Against Population: The Economics & Ideology of Population Control by Julian Simon and Logos Bible Software.

Are you the woman leader believing in a genderless, equal universal society ready to bring positive change? … or stagnant and locked into the the prison of the ‘haves and have nots‘ thinking, a slave to the ‘eugenics collective’strategy, trapped inside a global oligarchy? Do you believe all life serves a purpose, including those with the challenges of genetic disorders? Do you believe in good vs. evil? Will you Take Action?

YOUR COMMENTS are Important – What is Your Opinion?

Take Action. Private commentary can be sent HERE