Giving evolution a helping hand, when evolution isn’t working fast enough, is called “eugenics”.
This blog post presents evidence that eugenics is being practised, here in the United Kingdom.
The eugenics movement, is no unproven conspiracy theory. It is proven conspiracy fact. For example, compulsory sterilisation in the USA is documented in this learned paper (in PDF format, so some readers might have to download it), published in 1991 in the American Journal of Human Genetics. The compulsory sterilisation was at first of “criminals, the insane, feeble-minded persons”, but later of “alcoholics, paupers, orphans, derelicts, delinquents, prostitutes and those unable to support themselves”.
Who could deny that many people believe that hereditary factors play a part in the aetiology of mental illnesses? There is certainly ample academic research exploring this very possibility.
Let me therefore formulate a hypothesis, and then make a prediction of empirical measurements that will be made if an appropriate experiment is conducted. Then conduct (or cite) an appropriate experiment. We can then find out whether the results that the hypothesis predicts, are yielded by the experiment. (That’s the proper “scientific method” for testing a hypothesis, isn’t it?)
A contemporary eugenics programme is being practised in the UK today, the effect of which will be to reduce the prevalence in future generations of mental illness, to whatever extent mental illness is hereditary.
If the hypothesis were true, we would expect to observe the disproportionate extermination, in comparison with other children, of those who could be surmised to be more likely than other children to have inherited the genetic material that predisposes certain people to develop mental illnesses. For example, we might expect to observe that the children of mothers who have, or are considered likely to develop, mental illnesses, would become the deceased party during terminations of pregnancy under the Abortion Act 1967, disproportionately more often than the children of mothers who didn’t exhibit mental illness, nor were identified as being at risk of exhibiting mental illness in the future.
Before moving on to the necessary experiment, we must ensure that my proposed method is rigorous. I can foresee two problems, which I will endeavour to address first. Readers are welcome to suggest other possible flaws in my method.
Firstly, what was merely a slight over-representation of the children of mothers with, or diagnosed at risk of, mental illness, amongst the casualties of the abortion industry, might not be able readily to be seen to be statistically significant, capable of vindicating the hypothesis. Tedious mathematical tests for statistical significance would then be needed, in order to evaluate what (if anything) a merely slight over-representation told us. I would wish to avoid the need for these.
What I therefore need to do, is to refine my prediction, to eliminate this potential flaw in my method. What we would need to learn, I now say, from the experiment, would be that there was a preponderance of casualties who were the sons or daughters of mothers with, or at risk of, mental illness. A majority so overwhelming that it would be churlish to deny statistical significance, to deny that the experimental result amounted to evidence of eugenics by psychiatric abortion.
Secondly, we would need to eliminate any distortion of the experimental results, from what I will call “psychiatrically prophylactic abortion”, abortions performed upon a woman who, as a result of her more robust genetic make-up, is not mentally ill, nor at exceptional risk of developing mental illness later in life, but to whom, some scientific evidence or other suggests, continuing with an unwanted pregnancy posed a risk of her developing mental illness for the first time in her life, a risk that clearly exceeded any risk posed to her mental health by having her pregnancy terminated.
Happily, we are able to eliminate completely this potential distortion. For example, this recent research, tells us that continuing with their pregnancies does not pose any greater risk to the mental health of mothers in general, who have unwanted or unintended pregnancies, than having their pregnancies terminated. In fact, there is evidence that termination actually increases the risk of mental illness.
Fortunately, we don’t need a laboratory of our own, or one that is any smaller than two entire countries of the United Kingdom, to test whether the prediction of the eugenics programme hypothesis is born out. The British government’s Department of Health itself has already performed the experiment that I would otherwise have to design and perform, and published here its meticulously gathered statistics for all the legal terminations of pregnancy conducted in England and Wales throughout the year 2011.
What percentage of all the legal abortions carried out in England and Wales during 2011 would you guess were carried out for reasons associated with the mother’s mental health? A quarter? Half? More than half? Let’s find out, shall we?
The answer, to three significant figures, is 97.9%. That is the preponderance, the overwhelming majority I hoped would be found, if the hypothesis wasn’t just true, but was also going to turn out to be easy to prove, without tedious tests for statistical significance. It is the sort of empirical measurement predicted by a strong version of my hypothesis, that eugenics by psychiatric abortion isn’t merely happening, it’s happening on a massive scale.
Thank you, British government, for doing all the experimental work for us, so that we can simply read off the experimental result. That 97.9% of the legal abortions in England and Wales, during 2011, were psychiatric abortions.
The experimental result is entirely consistent with the presence hypothesised, at least in England and Wales and during the year 2011, of eugenics by psychiatric abortion, ridding future generations of those most likely to be carrying genes that contribute to the aetiology of mental illness, assuming that such genes exist. In fact, it is no overstatement to say that eugenic psychiatric abortion appears to be the dominant purpose of the entire abortion industry.
What this experiment does not demonstrate, is that the de facto British practice of eugenics by psychiatric abortion, the existence of which the experimental result demonstrates conclusively, is intentionally the practice of eugenics, on the parts of those working in the abortion industry. But, it might well be said that the intention of sex-selective abortion isn’t to raise a future population in which there are (for example) more men than women. Nevertheless, that is the inevitable side-effect of an accumulation of individual decisions, in a cultural milieu that enables and tolerates such sex-selective abortion decisions.
Sex-selective abortion is technically unlawful, but the government is concerned that it is happening anyway. Psychiatric selective abortion, about which nobody I know of apart from myself seems to be in the least bit concerned, apparently accounted for about 49 out of every 50 legal abortions in England and Wales in 2011.
Mental illness, or mental illness risk to the mother, should be repealed forthwith, as one of the grounds for abortion permitted in the Abortion Act. That provision is quite obviously being abused, in order to perpetrate eugenics by psychiatric abortion. How else, besides repealing the enabling legislation, will we ever become able even to make a start at putting an end to this British practice of eugenics by psychiatric abortion?
If you or a loved one has been personally affected by any the issues raised in this blog post, you may find helpful one or more of websites that you can visit, by clicking on the logos below.
6 responses to “Giving evolution a helping hand”
Assuming this isn’t satire, do the statistics say what you’re claiming?
I thought ground C concerned the risk to the mother of injury to her physical or mental health caused by the pregnancy – not from any pre-existing genetic disposition to mental illness?
Yes, it is true that 97.9% were psychiatric abortions.
Ordinarily, continuing an unwanted or unintended pregnancy poses less risk to a mother’s mental health than having her pregnancy terminated. Lawful psychiatric terminations of unwanted or unintended pregnancies must therefore be being performed only upon mothers whom there is some special reason to suspect are at risk of mental illness.
Your minority hypothesis, if proven, that genetics doesn’t after all play the role it is thought to play in causing mental illness, would merely provide an additional objection to eugenics by psychiatric abortion, namely that the eugenics would be ineffective in reducing the prevalence of mental illness in future generation.
(I may make a separate post later on, arguing that eugenics by psychiatric abortion is wrong. I will try to remember to include your own argument against the practice, along with any arguments I come up with myself at the time. In this post, I merely wanted to establish that eugenics by psychiatric abortion was happening. I wasn’t, and am still not, expecting many comments that defend the practice.)
Pingback: Shopping for medical opinions | John Allman, UK
Pingback: Bipolar sufferer in legal battle over abortion
A brilliant discourse but you forgot to factor in the risk of mental illness caused by actually looking after the child. Perhaps the mother should immediately have the baby adopted to preserve her own mental health?