Some people will never be self-sufficient……
Should we eliminate them?????
Handicaps are mostly recognized as “physical”and/or “mental”……..
While unrecognized, handicaps can be “chromosomic” and often in “DNiAl” leading them, inexorably, to become “economical”……
We don’t see it yet, but we are very close to “economics eugenics” and “economics cleansing”……
Maybe we need to enforce the American Disabilities Act (ADA) and extend it to accept people who, like handicapped newborns, children, teenagers and elderlies, will be incapable to sustain themselves, for the rest of their lives…..
“The ADA is a wide-rangingcivil rights law that prohibits, under certain circumstances, discrimination based on disability. It affords similar protections against discrimination to Americans with disabilities as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and other (i.e., age)characteristics illegal. Disability is defined by the ADA as “…a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.” ”
“Disability is the consequence of an impairment that may be physical, cognitive, mental, sensory, emotional, developmental, or some combination of these. A disability may be present from birth, or occur during a person’s lifetime.”
“Disabilities is an umbrella term, covering impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions. Animpairment is a problem in body function or structure; an activity limitation is a difficulty encountered by an individual in executing a task or action; while a participation restriction is a problem experienced by an individual in involvement in life situations. Thus, disability is a complex phenomenon, reflecting an interaction between features of a person’s body and features of the society in which he or she lives.”
“Eugenics is the belief and practice of improving thegenetic quality of the human population. It is a social philosophyadvocating the improvement of human genetic traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of people with desired traits (positive eugenics), and reduced reproduction of people with less-desired or undesired traits (negative eugenics).“ “The methods of implementing eugenics varied by country; however, some of the early 20th century methods involved identifying and classifying individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, promiscuous women, homosexuals, and racial groups (such as the Roma and Jews in Nazi Germany) as “degenerate” or “unfit”, the segregation or institutionalization of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, euthanasia, and their mass murder. The practice of euthanasia was carried out on hospital patients in the Aktion T4 centers such asHartheim Castle.
Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities, and received funding from many sources. ThreeInternational Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenists with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York. Eugenic policies were first implemented in the early 1900s in the United States. Later, in the 1920s and 30s, the eugenic policy of sterilizing certain mental patients was implemented in other countries, including Belgium, Brazil, Canada], Japan, and Sweden. The scientific reputation of eugenics started to decline in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdinused eugenics as a justification for the racial policies of Nazi Germany. Nevertheless, in Sweden the eugenics program continued until 1975.
In addition to being practiced in a number of countries, eugenics was internationally organized through the International Federation of Eugenic Organizations. Its scientific aspects were carried on through research bodies such as the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics, the Cold Spring Harbour Carnegie Institution forExperimental Evolution, and the Eugenics Record Office. Its political aspects involved advocating laws allowing the pursuit of eugenic objectives, such as sterilization laws. Its moral aspects included rejection of the doctrine that all human beings are born equal, and redefining morality purely in terms of genetic fitness. Its racist elements included pursuit of a pure “Nordic race” or “Aryan” genetic pool and the eventual elimination of “less fit” races.
By the end of World War II, eugenics by means of coerced sexual sterilization had been largely abandoned, having become associated with Nazi Germany; their approach to genetics and eugenics was focused on Eugen Fischer‘s concept ofphenogenetics and the Nazi twin study methods of Fischer and Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer. Both the public and some of the scientific community have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced “racial hygiene“, human experimentation, and the extermination of “undesired” population groups. However, developments in genetic, genomic, andreproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century are raising for some persons numerous new questions regarding the ethical status of eugenics, effectively creating a resurgence of interest in the subject.
The practice of negative racial aspects of eugenics, after World War II, fell within the definition of the new international crime of genocide, set out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also proclaims “the prohibition of eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at selection of persons”.
The sequencing and mapping of the human genome and its medical implications has caused some, such as UC Berkeleysociologist Troy Duster, to claim that modern genetics is a back door to eugenics. This view is shared by White House Assistant Director for Forensic Sciences, Tania Simoncelli, who claimed in a 2003 publication by the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College, that advances in preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) are moving society to a “new era of eugenics”, and unlike the Nazi eugenics, modern eugenics is consumer driven and market based, “where children are increasingly regarded as made-to-order consumer products.” In a 2006 newspaper article, Richard Dawkins said that discussion was inhibited by the shadow of Nazi misuse, to the extent that some scientists would not admit that breeding humans for abilities was at all possible, but in his view this was not physically different from breeding domestic animals for traits such as speed or herding skill. He felt that enough time had elapsed to at least ask just what the ethical differences were between breeding for ability versus training athletes or forcing children to take music lessons, though he could think of persuasive reasons to draw the distinction. Some such as Nathaniel C. Comfort from Johns Hopkins University, claim that the change from state-led reproductive-genetic decision-making to individual choice has moderated the worst abuses of eugenics by transferring the decision-making from the state to the patient and their family. Dr. Comfort suggests that “[t]he eugenic impulse drives us to eliminate disease, live longer and healthier, with greater intelligence, and a better adjustment to the conditions of society; and the health benefits, the intellectual thrill and the profits of genetic biomedicine are too great for us to do otherwise.” Others, such as bio-ethicist Stephen Wilkinson of Keele University and Honorary Research Fellow Eve Garrard at the University of Manchester, claim that some aspects of modern genetics can be classified as eugenics, but this classification does not inherently make modern genetics immoral. In a co-authored publication by Keele University, they stated that “[e]ugenics doesn’t seem always to be immoral, and so the fact that PGD, and other forms of selective reproduction, might sometimes technically be eugenic, isn’t sufficient to show that they’re wrong.” “
“A survey released last week by the Pew Center for People and the Press finds that Americans are now significantly more likely than they were in the mid-90s to say that life is hard for the poor because government benefits do not go far enough to help people live a decent life.”
““Concerns about inequality, or poverty, are not associated with an increase in support for traditional forms of safety net like welfare,” McCall says. “But they do associate with increased support for spending in education, increased earnings for people at the bottom or the middle, and access to jobs. People look around and see that conditions are not a result of individuals, but of structural problems.””
““If you are born into a social economic group, you pretty much maintain that.” Myers says part of the problem comes from low-wage jobs that don’t pay enough to support workers.”