The suffragettes were rabid eugenicists

submitted by [deleted] from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

I agree - really jarring it is. There were several eugenics journals in the 19th and the early 20th century, and numerous books about eugenics. Social Darwinism developed toward the end of the 19th century, though did not reflect Charles Darwin's personal views, as he was not directly in favor of eugenics (as he had enough trouble fending off criticism that he'd reduced God's humanity to the primitive world of ape descendents). In any event, these ladies were interested in science, which is why they also agreed with eugenics. (Since the 1930s much better reseach has shown that there is no scienticific basis, justification or method for assessing eugenics research.)

[–]Yin 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

(Since the 1930s much better reseach has shown that there is no scienticific basis, justification or method for assessing eugenics research.)

Eugenics is derived through the science of genetics but its basis is rooted in subjective preferences.

I'm totally against highly orchestrated eugenics programs. There are countless ways it can and will be abused and have horrible repercussions. It's similar to the pipeline of these so-called "vaccines" and people's immune systems becoming increasingly artificially dependent on high technology to survive. But to say there's no scientific basis is completely misleading. Remember to mention this to the globalist elites and their political cattle brethren who are pushing medical tyranny. Those elites have big plans for extreme forms of eugenics long term. They own the finance and institutional networks that have control over the entire western industry of genetics [bio-tech/medical/DNA-processing/life-extension/etc].