Democrats Embrace Nazi Eugenics

In vitro fertilization has been a godsend to infertile couples wishing to have children. However, the Alabama Supreme Court added an ethical and moral complication to what had been a largely commercial medical process when it issued a ruling on February 16 declaring that embryos created through in vitro fertilization (IVF) should be considered children for the purposes of Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act.

The ruling in Alabama did not ban IVF.  It protected the embryos of a couple from being destroyed by a negligent lab.

However, the decision brought forth a tsunami of Democrat attacks on the pro-life movement and the whole idea of pre-birth personhood – a concept of Anglo-American common law going back centuries – and of course it prompted the usual Republican weaseling and handwringing about “unintended consequences.”

Over 90% of embryos brought to life are killed, so one of those consequences was that the Alabama ruling temporarily brought the current trend among wealthy individuals to “embryo shop” to a screeching halt.

And that was the real reason for Democrats’ attacks – objecting to making IVF more legally parlous masked their real objection; which is that the ruling impeded the realization of eugenics goals long held by elite members of the Democratic Party establishment and Party icons, such as Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws founding generation, including, Patricia Maginnis, Rowena Gurner, Lana Phelan, Lawrence Lader and Betty Friedan.

Those eugenics goals were spelled out quite clearly by the Nazis in their public health measures to control reproduction and marriage aimed at strengthening the “national body” by eliminating biologically threatening genes from the population. That excluded anyone deemed hereditarily “less valuable” or “racially foreign.”

Nazism was “applied biology,” stated Hitler deputy Rudolf Hess and today’s genetic science and testing gives eugenicists tools only dreamt of by the Nazis.*

In her article “The eugenics comeback” for The Spectator, Louise Perry suggested that “Emerging technology is about to present parents with a set of ethical questions that make the usual kinds of debates — breast milk or formula? Nanny or daycare? — seem trivial. We have always had the power (more or less) to control our children’s nurture. Before long — perhaps in just a few years — any parent who can afford to will have control over the minutest details of a child’s nature too.”

As Ms. Perry explained, “preimplantation genetic testing for polygenic disorders” (PGT-P), creates a brave new world of human selection.

What’s revolutionary about polygenic screening, noted Ms. Perry, is that it allows parents to take a batch of embryos conceived through IVF, have a report compiled for each one, based on their genetic risk factors, and then use these reports to decide which embryo to implant.

Such reports give a very full picture of the adult that embryo could become, including their vulnerability to an enormous number of diseases — heart disease, diabetes, cancer — and their likely physical and psychological traits: height, hair color, athletic ability, conscientiousness, altruism, intelligence.

This new kind of commercial product will allow some people — mostly rich ones — to have healthier, happier and cleverer children through embryo shopping.

Wealth has always insulated the elite from the potential penalties of eugenics. Sanger, who arguably suffered from mental health issues herself, promoted eugenic goals and used negative stereotypes of disability in her call for the elimination of “defectives,” however, she was not threatened by the eugenic beliefs that she perpetuated, or the associated methods of social control: "I am rich, I have brains, I shall do as I please" she said.

Translated to today that means the rich will pick the embryos they like or with the traits they prefer and kill the rest.

Ms. Perry does a good job of presenting the pros and cons, moral and ethical dilemmas, but in the end offers readers little solace by suggesting that the rush to use preimplantation genetic testing to give their kids a leg up in the world is a no brainer for those who can afford it.

One hopeful note offered by Ms. Perry is that the new eugenics movement is driven by private individuals acting in their own interest, not the government.

But to that we must ask for how long?

Don’t be fooled by the claims that Democrats are acting out of compassion for childless couples when they defend IVF-enabled genetic selection of children.

When Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared in the now infamous Buck v Bell (1927) decision, "Society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes..." the justification for the involuntary sterilization of "prolific moron girls" was the cost to taxpayers of caring for the insane, “feeble minded” and others unable to care for themselves due to what were perceived as hereditary conditions.

How long will it be before the new genetically tested and selected elite tire of supporting with their tax dollars those less genetically fortunate than themselves, and institute Nazi-like reproduction and marriage laws, and raise a genetically selected army to protect them from those who might object to their brave new world?

*For more see the Holocaust Encyclopedia’s section on the Nazis’ Biological State.

• 2024 Election

• IVF

• Alabama Supreme Court

• Invitro fertilization

• Margaret Sanger

• abortion

• Pro-life movement

• Embryo shop

• Repeal Abortion Laws

• Planned Parenthood

• Eugenics

• Nazism

• nature vs nurture

• human selection

• vulnerability to disease

• mental health

• IVF selection of children

• fertilized embryos