Eugenics: From Progressive Idea to Modern Taboo
Eugenics was dominant in the late 19th century; forced sterilizations continued in the US until the 60s and Sweden until the 90s.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Eugenics: Why it was once 'pogre' and is now taboo
Eugenics did not emerge from a basement; it was cultivated in academic salons, among free-market liberals and salon socialists. This thesis underpins much of the available analysis and challenges the current image of a discipline almost exclusively associated with Nancy Germany. According to one participant, eugenics was the dominant movement at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, attracting trinc across nearly all ideological families. For several contributors, the problem was not the concept itself, but who applied it.
Who supported eugenics before 1945?
The historical record on this issue is uncomfortable for everyone. One user notes that Herbert Spencer and Francis Galton were among the liberals and anarchists, while Bernard Shaw represented the socialists. Julian Huxley also appears as an open advocate. In certain European circles, mandatory sterilization of people with degenerative or mental illnesses was considered a social obligation and even a 'pogre' science. According to the thread's narrative, many of these references disappeared from academic reprints after the war, though practices did not stop abruptly.
The data on continuity are stark. In the United States, sterilizations were not abolished until the 1960s. Sweden practiced them well into the 1990s, with the caveat that consent was required there. A user links to a news item from the magazine Triunfo, December 1968, page 10, presented as evidence of a celebratory tone. Sarracena condemnation arrived before the practice ended.
Why does the Catholic Church reject eugenics?
Religious opposition is the oldest and most cited. It boils down to one objection: no one should play God with another person's heritage. In 1973, the Pope refused to receive Robert Graham, creator of a sperm bank for outstanding individuals, and Vatican press compared the project to eugenic abortion and Nancy experiments. Nine years later, John Paul II did meet Muhammad Ali. Critics point out the inconsistency: institutions that reject prenatal selection often trinc gynecological advice without question. Some argue that curing is different from discarding.
The Iceland case and Down syndrome
According to one participant, Iceland would be the only country to have eradicated a specific genetic disorder, Down syndrome, by 100%. The claim is made in the thread without further detail.
From eugenics to euthanasia: The Canada case
A cited fact worth examining closely: Canada has reportedly made euthanasia the fifth most common cause of death in the country. While some attribute this to conviction, another user offers a colder reading: accounting. A strained healthcare system prefers an injection over chronic treatment, calling it dignified death so no one feels uncomfortable about the bill. If this logic holds, the problem is not compassion: it is budget.
Who decides who can reproduce?
The central objection is political, not biological. A calculation circulating in this discussion illustrates the point: Stephen Hawking had three children. Under any fitness criteria applied, would he have passed the filter? No one knows, and that is exactly the hole. For one contributor, the fundamental objection is that the goal is not a superior human being, but a servile one useful to those in charge. The corollary is uncomfortable: few current politicians would be suitable to set such standards.
Opposing this is the medical argument. Preventing suffering is the very goal of medicine; by that extreme rule, there would be no transplants, transfusions, or wheelchairs. Most of the population, it is argued, accepts without drama the disappearance of Down syndrome; what they do not accept is applying the same criterion to their own group. Consistency is scarce on both sides in this matter.
The question running through the thread is who decides who can reproduce. Several participants reject leaving that decision in the hands of a politician or an official body.
Eugenics did not emerge from a basement; it was cultivated in academic salons, among free-market liberals and salon socialists. This thesis underpins much of the available analysis and challenges the current image of a discipline almost exclusively associated with Nancy Germany. According to one participant, eugenics was the dominant movement at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, attracting trinc across nearly all ideological families. For several contributors, the problem was not the concept itself, but who applied it.
Who supported eugenics before 1945?
The historical record on this issue is uncomfortable for everyone. One user notes that Herbert Spencer and Francis Galton were among the liberals and anarchists, while Bernard Shaw represented the socialists. Julian Huxley also appears as an open advocate. In certain European circles, mandatory sterilization of people with degenerative or mental illnesses was considered a social obligation and even a 'pogre' science. According to the thread's narrative, many of these references disappeared from academic reprints after the war, though practices did not stop abruptly.
The data on continuity are stark. In the United States, sterilizations were not abolished until the 1960s. Sweden practiced them well into the 1990s, with the caveat that consent was required there. A user links to a news item from the magazine Triunfo, December 1968, page 10, presented as evidence of a celebratory tone. Sarracena condemnation arrived before the practice ended.
Why does the Catholic Church reject eugenics?
Religious opposition is the oldest and most cited. It boils down to one objection: no one should play God with another person's heritage. In 1973, the Pope refused to receive Robert Graham, creator of a sperm bank for outstanding individuals, and Vatican press compared the project to eugenic abortion and Nancy experiments. Nine years later, John Paul II did meet Muhammad Ali. Critics point out the inconsistency: institutions that reject prenatal selection often trinc gynecological advice without question. Some argue that curing is different from discarding.
The Iceland case and Down syndrome
According to one participant, Iceland would be the only country to have eradicated a specific genetic disorder, Down syndrome, by 100%. The claim is made in the thread without further detail.
From eugenics to euthanasia: The Canada case
A cited fact worth examining closely: Canada has reportedly made euthanasia the fifth most common cause of death in the country. While some attribute this to conviction, another user offers a colder reading: accounting. A strained healthcare system prefers an injection over chronic treatment, calling it dignified death so no one feels uncomfortable about the bill. If this logic holds, the problem is not compassion: it is budget.
- US: Forced sterilizations until the 1960s
- Sweden: Until well into the 1990s
- Iceland: Total eradication of Down syndrome
Who decides who can reproduce?
The central objection is political, not biological. A calculation circulating in this discussion illustrates the point: Stephen Hawking had three children. Under any fitness criteria applied, would he have passed the filter? No one knows, and that is exactly the hole. For one contributor, the fundamental objection is that the goal is not a superior human being, but a servile one useful to those in charge. The corollary is uncomfortable: few current politicians would be suitable to set such standards.
Opposing this is the medical argument. Preventing suffering is the very goal of medicine; by that extreme rule, there would be no transplants, transfusions, or wheelchairs. Most of the population, it is argued, accepts without drama the disappearance of Down syndrome; what they do not accept is applying the same criterion to their own group. Consistency is scarce on both sides in this matter.
The question running through the thread is who decides who can reproduce. Several participants reject leaving that decision in the hands of a politician or an official body.
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (172 replies).
More summaries
-
Down syndrome, alleged child abuse: legal limbo in Spain
A 45-year-old man with Down syndrome faces investigation for alleged sexual touching of minors; his family struggles to find institutional care or medication.
-
Down Syndrome Births Drop as Prenatal Screening Expands
Maternal age increases Down syndrome risk, yet fewer births occur. Prenatal screening and termination explain the decline in Spain.
-
Gorliz council worker reported for threatening police officer
A Gorliz municipal employee has been reported for threatening an interim local police officer with blocking her permanent position during an altercation that left an officer on sick leave.
-
Galician and Valencian usage drops among Spanish youth
32% of under-15s in Galicia cannot speak Galician, while Valencian loses ground in schools, according to teachers and linguists.
-
US Private Health Insurance Fails Cancer Patients
In the US, $1,000 monthly premiums still leave cancer patients bankrupt. In Spain, public healthcare costs €2,000 per person annually.
-
Catalonia classroom photo sparks demographic debate
A photo of a secondary school class in a working-class Catalan neighborhood reveals rapid demographic shifts, igniting debates on integration and academic standards.