110 thoughts on “Blog #29 – Social Darwinism or Eugenics – you give evolution a bad name!”

1. Brooke Billings January 11, 2012 at 1:38 am

   2. I think that philanthropic organizations, like Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation, bear some responsibility in this mess, but not all of it. I feel that these organizations should be blamed to some extent because they helped put Eugenics into effect with funding. If these two foundations had not funded the Eugenics, there may not have been enough money to actually put these extreme ideals into effect as quickly. I think that the radical thinkers of Social Darwinism and the government should be held most accountable. Social Darwinists were discriminatory and corrupt. If they had not developed these extreme and horrible ideals, Eugenics would not have been put into effect. Finally, I think that the government should be held accountable because they should have a high enough moral standard to realize that Eugenics is wrong.
   3. I don’t think that the Human Genome Project could spur similar sentiments about fetal manipulation, in order to create a healthier child because the Human Genome Project is built upon completely different ideas. Eugenics took away basic human rights and lacked any moral standard. Radical thinkers decided that the best way to improve society was to exterminate the most “unfit” through Eugenics. Similar sentiments can be seen in Hitler’s plan to exterminate the Jews, which was obviously wrong and immoral. The Human Genome project is designed to improve society without discrimination or brutality. Those deemed unfit by society will not be exterminated; the fetus will be improved before birth. Additionally, people will still have their basic freedoms to marry whomever they chose and to bear children whenever they chose, unlike Eugenics. In the Human Genome Project, groups of people are not discriminated against; they are given the opportunity for happiness. In all, Eugenics was based upon discrimination and a low moral standard, but the Human Genome Project is based upon progress and a better quality of life. If sentiments similar to ones felt about Eugenics are felt about the Human Genome project, it is because of misinterpretation.
2. Marcella Apollonia January 11, 2012 at 1:23 pm

   3. I think that the Human Genome project has proved to be very usefull, but there are already people who belive that is it moraly wrong. The Genome project can help find cures for diseases so in that aspect it has been used properly. I think that creating test tube babies that can be designed to be “perfect” has spured similar feelings. the contraversy comes down to what people belive is moraly correct. Not everyone will approve of the Genome Project but I think more people will object to fetal manipulation becuase it has not proved yet to be a positive contribution to todays society
   2. Yes I think that the organizations had a large impact in the mess that was created in the 1970s. Because of their beliefes of social darwinism. Their belief that there were humans who were unfit to add to a working society spurred others, such as doctors and poloticians to take actions. Because of their almost nazi-like view points philanthropic organizations basicaly robbed people of their rights to their own bodies.
3. kevin talty January 11, 2012 at 5:02 pm

   2. I think the philanthropic organizations deserve the most responsibility for the mess. This is because it was their bogus science that was the base behind the Eugenics. If they would have stepped in and said that there will always be a lower tenth of society none of this would have happened. All it is doing is removing the bottom tenth and replacing that tenth with the second to last tenth which would mean a new tenth would have to die leading to a viscous cycle leading to the death of many. Also, when that scientist found that most of that one person’s family was in jail he assumed all of the lowered end of society’s families were in jail. These people could have just been put in there because racial discrimination or by corruption. Plus, taking away citizens’ rights is one of the core values of this country. Not allowing them to get married or reproduce would not follow the constitution.
   3. I do think the Human Genome Project will lead to a similar spur to make the best child. If you had the money and the resources why wouldn’t you make the perfect child that can do know wrong and is extremely smart. Then, the country will be led by a bunch of super people that no one could over throw. Then, everyone without the resources or money that didn’t have a super child would be left behind and forgotten. This is why I think all cloning of humans should be outlawed and anything that can unnaturally produce human cells should also be outlawed. This is because not matter how hard you try to keep it regulated it will eventual get out and if a terrorist gets there hands on it then they could use it for evil purposes. There is also the ethical reason not to do it cause telling people their genes say they will have a short life will led to unintended consequences. But, the study of the Human Genome should not be stopped because it can help us solve many diseases with pills and may find the cure for cancer.
4. Lexi Wehbe January 11, 2012 at 5:29 pm

   Yes the states bear responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that they had passed in the early part of the 20th century. The states had the option of not passing this law clearly, because not all states took part in it. The 28 states CHOSE to enforce the compulsory sterilization laws. The surviving victims especially alive after sterilization in the 1960s and 1970s should receive some sort of benefit that will make their life easier. I feel this way because volunteering to be sterilized wasn’t an option. Compulsory sterilization completely defeats the purpose of America being a democracy. People came to America to have freedom, right? Forcing people into compulsory sterilization diminishes the liberties Americans are supposed to be guaranteed. Their benefit could be a money grant, better educational opportunities for their family, a lower cost of living, or along with anything that could help attempt make up for the huge mistake that they were victims of. Just handing parts of their freedom back isn’t good enough.

   I definitely think it is possible that the Human Genome Project could spur similar sentiments or feelings about fetal manipulation in order to create a healthier, more perfect child. I feel this way because many people may get lost in trying to find perfection. If a child is born with some sort of disability, or anything that could cause them to differ from the average, healthy child, puts stress on those who have to tend and take care of that child. People may who may not want to deal with that may support fetal manipulation and support experiments and research about it, whether it is ethically right or not. Also, the guardians of the child as well as the generation in general may have strong positive feelings toward fetal manipulation because they may believe that it will create a more successful country in the long run; because if there are less people with said differences, people may believe there will be other successful people. However the opinion of fetal manipulation could also gear towards people not wanting it because a lot of the time, the people who don’t think as the majority does, are more successful.
5. Shounak V. January 11, 2012 at 6:11 pm

   1. I think the states do bear some responsibility, but not that much. I mean, they cant just rebel against the rest of the states and the government, that would just caude more confusion and problems in our country. I think they states could have band together and go against the movement, but many of them were just to scared to repel against what was going on, they were afraid to speak out. Whoever spoke out would been on a island by themselves with no one supporting them, and the whole group would have turned against that particular state. They would have to rebel against more problems, so people just went with the flow of things. I think they should have stood out and say what they believe, but I see why they didn’t. I think the people that were still alive who were sterilized should be given the choice to love who ever they want, but nothing can erase the wrong doing of the country. We cannot forget what what happened, but we have to repay the victims some how, I don’t know how, but we have to give them back what they lost in the horrific thing that happened to them.
   2. Yes I do think that the organizations like Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation bear responsibility in this mess. They helped and encouraged this horrible process to go on. They could have easily stopped it, and the whole program would have been spotted at once, because these big companies are against it, but they did not. They agreed to these horrific acts, and now they are tainted in American history as the people who went along with it.
   3. Yes it is possible that the Human Genome Project could spur similar sentiments or feelings about making a perfect child. But people these days would not agree at all with that idea. They would want a natural baby, and baby of their own, and would not want to be manipulated to create a perfect child. Some people who are perfectionists or want their child to be very successful and healthy might, but most parents would not agree with the idea.
6. Alec Barnes January 11, 2012 at 6:12 pm

   Blog 29

   2. It is clear that The Carnegie Foundation had to take some blame due to the fact that they were supporters of the idea of sterilization, and were funding the scientists to write the Eugenist ideas. They knew what they were getting into when they condemned at huge mass of people just because they weren’t born with a silver spoon in their mouth. The people they condemned, in some sense of the phrase, didn’t know any better. What the lived with was what they knew, and to label them as not fit to breed was not a choice that they had the right to make. Not only was it not right, but for both companies it was just not intelligent, the majority of both Carnegie’s and Rutherford’s workers were what made up that bottom 10%, or at least some of it, because they were willing to work in those conditions for that pay, so to try and eliminate that whole percentage of people was just plain stupid.
   3. The Human Genome Project is a far reaching, and incredibly valued area of science. They have done things no other human organization has been capable of, including decoding the human DNA and Genetic Sequence. But at the same time, in today’s day and age with how interconnected people are with each other, and the vast network of information available to the common-man, they would be hard-pressed to succeed with such a campaign that provides the idea of “A More Perfect Human” through selective sterilization. On the contrary, when the Eugenists were at their peak of influence, there was not nearly as much information readily available and communication between people. In some ways, the Eugenists played off of that lack of information, because they knew that the people would believe what the media told them without question. At the same time, those who did know lost their ability to rally people up because there was no real way to send messages. If this were to be tried today, it would not be nearly as successful as the Eugenists had been.
7. Alex Lurz January 11, 2012 at 6:14 pm

   2.) I strongly believe that philanthropic organizations such as Carnegie’s Institute, and Rockefeller Foundation bear a lot of the responsibility for this mess. It is unbeknownst to most, but Carnegie and Rockefeller both did a lot behind the scenes that helped the eugenics. The National Socialist Party a.k.a. the Nazi’s actually got a lot of their ideology from the eugenics. The way that Carnegie and Rockefeller helped out the eugenics was fairly simple. What they did was fund their own organizations, and their organizations had science departments. The scientists in these labs would not be studying your standard science issues, but were in fact studying methods to get rid of the inferior humans that infested their planet. One scientist who actually worked in the United Stats as a eugenics professor went on to help the Nazi’s exterminate Jews at Auschwitz. The evidence clearly points to Rockefeller and Carnegie’s philanthropic organizations being one of the causes of the issue of eugenics.

   3.) I think that in time the human genome project could spur similar feelings that were present during the period of time when the eugenics were at large. That being said I think that with our modern day understanding of things the public would never allow any scientists to manipulate genes in order to create a more perfect, healthier individual. Also, it is against many religions to manipulate genes. Something I believe is that if scientists were able to effectively go in and make it so that people would be more “perfect” then everyone would be essentially the same. Something that makes the world such an awesome place is that there are so many different people that you might meet, and if scientists were going to tamper with the gene pool how would people be any different from one another. In my opinion there is one major exception to this rule, and that is that if you know a child is going to be born with disabilities then by all means you should be allowed to try and correct whatever may be wrong with him or her.
8. Grace Lee January 11, 2012 at 6:35 pm

   1.) The states bear some responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws because there must’ve been a voting process; otherwise it would’ve been a nationwide law. The laws were ideas that flowed across all of America, but weren’t agreed with in every state. Unless there are procedures that can reverse the sterilization done to the people that are alive today, there’s nothing that can be done. It’s much like the situation with the Native Americans; we can’t undo the bad events that occurred, but we can think of possible ways to give back. They could have better Medicare, or they could receive monthly checks, etc.
   3.) Yes, the Human Genome Project could spur feelings about fetal manipulation in order to create a healthy, perfect child because honestly, what parent wouldn’t want to be guaranteed that their child will be healthy? Obviously, everyone’s definition of “perfect” is different, but “healthy” is probably parents’ number one wish for their kid(s) to be. To know that their baby would grow up with little difficulties and like their life with less possible worries should more than satisfy them.
   Families that have already had a child that may have been born with defects or mental or physical disabilities probably don’t want to go through raising another baby with a similar situation. I’m not saying that I wouldn’t love my child if they were unhealthy in any way, but with an unhealthy baby, more money is spent on childcare, and doctor visits and couples with low income may not be able to pay for all of that. Not only that, the kid would go through a lifetime of hardships, whether they are mentally aware of so or not. Also, if the family had another child, who wasn’t unhealthy, there’s a big chance that they would get neglected because all of everyone’s attention would go to raising the unhealthy child.
9. Spenser Robnett January 11, 2012 at 6:56 pm

   1. I believe that states should only allow the testing of the mentally insane humans that live in our society. The testing should determine if the criminals in prison or the people in mental hospitals are then stable enough to have children and if not, their child (if already growing or born), should be put into the hands of social services. If the surviving victims who were sterilized between the 1960’s and the 1970’s are still alive, they should be allowed special benefits through a special program and maybe even give them the opportunity to adopt a child. These special benefits will never be able to patch up what our country has done to these people: taken away the right to have a child, which is the most amazing experience a couple can have with each other. But these benefits should still only be given to the well minded and not the mentally ill beings. The sterilization laws had no right to interfere with a human’s natural right to reproduce freely with whomever and may be looked at as one of the darkest eras the United States has ever had.
   2. The only reason philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation bear any responsibility in this mess is by funding state programs for testing criminals and the mentally insane to see if they are in the right mind to raise a child. This is important because a child has the right of pursuit of happiness and if the parent(s) messes with that then we have a major problem and the child could be affected when they are an adult. The funding that these foundations and institutions have should train state workers on the knowledge of finding a safe home for a child and raise awareness to the citizens across the country. I believe the state and foundations shouldn’t affect the people’s rights but they should also regulate fit parents for children like they do in the year 2012.
10. Julie Furton January 11, 2012 at 7:00 pm

    2. Yes, the philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation hold some responsibility in the Eugenics mess. Both of these institutes helped eugenicists to write and recommend sterilization policies that eventually became laws by 1932. By helping to write the policies, they helped to make the laws, and helped with sterilizing 60,000 Americans. Even though they may have only had a small part in writing these policies, they still had a part, so therefore they are responsible. These two organizations probably went along with helping to write the sterilization policies because the top people of the companies were wealthy white Americans and they figured why not eliminate the bottom tenth of our country? We don’t have anything to do with them anyway so it won’t be any inconvenience at all. These policies were first made during the huge influx of immigrants and many of the white Anglo Saxon Protestants were scared, especially the top business leaders, so they were doing anything they could to get rid of them, and that included taking their reproductive rights.

    3. Yes it is possible that the Human Genome Project could spur similar sentiments about fetal manipulation in order to create a healthier, more perfect child. People are always looking for a way to make their children more perfect and with the technology we have today, there seems to be no stopping them, there’s already people trying to change their baby from the first moment of its conception. If people almost 100 years ago found a way to try to get rid of the imperfections in our society, today people with the same ideas will easily be able to attempt to cure our faults, starting with their children. People are sick, and by trying to wipe out imperfections, whether it is illness of social disgrace, it just making everyone more uniform and taking away the diversity that is the human race.
11. Nick gruich January 11, 2012 at 7:24 pm

    1. Yes, I think that states bear some responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that they had passed in the early part of the 20th Century because they should not have gone along with what all the rich and wealthy were doing. They should have thought about what they were doing and how wrong of a situation and act it is. American citizens that were very wealthy and intelligent were the ones that were suggesting this because they knew that they could only benefit from this because all of the criminals and insane people that were in the bottom 10%. To me this seems like something out of a surreal future movie about people that are killed for their bad genes or mistakes and not having a chance to make it up. I could not imagine a society in which this was possible. I think that the survivors should have been compensated and granted another chance at life and making sure that they do not have to struggle for the rest of their life. This is a very wrong thing to do because that is taking away a person’s right to life which is the most important right a person has and if that right is not respected then we are living in amongst barbarians.

    2. I think that bear a great deal of this mess because without the generous donations and influential ideas that these two men had then this could have definitely been avoided. Who would ever want to disagree with the two wealthiest men in the entire world and who wouldn’t respect their ideas and influences. These two organizations also had a very large influence in the passing of the policies and laws that would in turn kill tens of thousands of people around 28 states in the country.
12. Sarah H. 2nd hour January 11, 2012 at 8:04 pm

    2. Do you think the philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation bear any responsibility in this mess? Why or why not?
    I think the philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation bear some but not much responsibility in this issue. They claimed that they were wealthy because they were the smartest and fittest of all people in society and endorsed Social Darwinist thoughts. I also certainly think they could have done something about it if they had been against Eugenics. They could have conducted research on genetically inherited traits to prove that being a criminal has less to do with who your parents are than how you were raised. this could have stopped the sterilizing of criminals. They also could have simply spoken out against the matter and no doubt people would follow.
    3. Is it possible that the Human Genome Project could spur similar sentiments or feelings about fetal manipulation in order to create a healthier, more perfect child? Why or why not?
    I absolutely think that the Human Genome Project could spur similar sentiments or feelings about fetal manipulation. Eugenicists felt that euthanizing mental patients was a solution for keeping mental disabilities out of the gene pool, and out of mental hospitals. They could easily apply this same concept to manipulating fetuses in order to create healthy, mentally sound babies. Really the concepts are similar but fetus manipulation is a much less drastic and more logical way to prevent a surplus of mental patients in America. However, however much you manipulate a fetus you still have no say on how the child is raised and what choices it will make in adulthood, therefore the child could still end up a criminal.
13. Dr. Khalil Hall January 11, 2012 at 8:12 pm

    1.) States are absolutely responsible for the sterilization they allowed in the early 1900’s. The government’s sole purpose is to protect citizens and their rights and whether or not they thought they were right at the time, they allowed for the process to take place; therefore, they are to be held accountable for their actions, directly or indirectly.
    While the people who were sterilized during this period have been subject to extreme wrongdoing, I don’t feel like there is much that can be done to compensate for the actions of the government in regards to them. Granted, I’m no expert on the sterilization process, but if my understanding is correct in the fact that in is irreversible, then there really isn’t any way for the government to pay these people back with what they took. They could, however, give them settlement money (from the never ending supply of borrowed money) or possibly give them free adoption rights.

    2.) I do feel that organizations like the Carnegie Institution and the Rockefeller Foundation can be held at least partially responsible for the idea of eugenics. I do not, however, think that they should be held accountable for the majority of the blame. I think that these powerful organizations may have been a starting point of the ideas, because of their proprietors.
    Wealthy businessman like Rockefeller and Carnegie began an idea that people are the cause of their own failure, and that if they worked hard they would be bound to get ahead. If they did not make it in America, then the only blame was to be put on them for not having the strength to persevere. Eugenics would have been a perfect outlet for these barons to show their true support for what they said, and possibly dodge, frighten, or eliminate people that opposed their ideas.
14. Ben Bejune January 11, 2012 at 8:16 pm

    1. I do believe that the states should be held responsible for the compulsory sterilization laws because it was their choice to implement them. This was not a federal law that they were required to enforce it was their law that they passed and they should be held accountable for it. I believe that the states should take action and reach out to those that were sterilized during the 60’s and 70’s that are still living. The least the states can do is give them financial compensation for their loss. If there are procedures to reverse this sterilization then the state should offer these procedures free of charge to those that were in-voluntarily sterilized. I also think that if those who were sterilized in the 60’s and 70’s brought this to the public’s attention that more would be done to help them.
    3. The human genome project could spur similar sentiments about fetal manipulation in order to create a healthier, more perfect child because as humans we want perfection and this is another way to become perfect. If this was possible we could theoretically exterminate disease and other genetic flaws. If we were to manipulate our genetic structure till perfection we will all end up kissing our sister because we will all come from the same gene pool. It will be the same as dogs, cats, or any other animal bread for certain traits. Also in our strive for perfection we could end up all being genetically predisposed to certain conditions due to a small gene pool. This would not be intentional but if a certain person did not read a certain genome right during manipulation every one could end up getting cancer at age 21. There would also be the risk for genetic mutations due to the condensed gene pool. These would not be Down Syndrome but genetic mutations we have yet to see due to our extremely close gene pool. The human genome project has and can be very useful but could also be very dangerous when used the wrong way.
15. LeDea Bond January 11, 2012 at 8:30 pm

    1. Yes, I think states do bear responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that they had passed in the early part of the 20th century. They wanted to eliminate the lowest tenth of the population. They did this by restricting marriages and sterilizing those who were petty criminals, epileptics, and alcoholics. They also sterilized those who were feebleminded, meaning the weak or unintelligent. Even though it was a worldwide program, I think the states knew what they were doing and should accept the responsibility. The states were the ones who picked who they thought was the weakest among the population. They only wanted the strongest and smarter people left in the population so it would improve the gene pool for future generations. They should accept the responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws because they were picking the ones who were to be eliminated.

    2. Yes, I think it is possible that the Human Genome Project could spur similar sentiments or feelings about fetal manipulation, in order to create a healthier, more perfect child. When you eliminate the weak, you are improving the gene pool. Like in livestock they get rid of the weakest animals and make it so that the strongest animals survive and pass on their genes. With the Human Genome Project you are manipulating the genes inside the fetal to make a healthier and more perfect child. When manipulating the fetal you are giving it the good genes and things that you want to pass on in future generations. In the worldwide program, they eliminated the lowest tenth of the population by eliminating the weak. By eliminating the weakest among the population they were hoping that only the strongest and smartest would survive, therefore improving the gene pool. It’s like genes are people and by getting rid of the weakest genes only the strong ones would be left. I think The Human Genome Project would spur similar sentiments in order to create a more perfect child.
16. Alex Saenz January 11, 2012 at 8:39 pm

    Alex Saenz
    1-11-12
    2nd
    Blog #29-Social Darwinism or Eugenics
    1. States bear a lot of responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that they had passed in the early part of the 20th century. Some states, such as Alabama, proposed in 1936 euthanasia of the insane if compulsory sterilization wasn’t enough to stop the increase in number coming into sanitariums. Alabama proposed this law, so they take full responsibility for it. It is their fault that all of these people were killed just so they couldn’t have any children. Even people in the states, such as the inventor of the iron lung, suggested that the insane be disposed of efficiently “in small euthanasia facilities supplied with proper gases.” Many of the states supported these laws for sterilization, and they continued to shove out immigrants. Since the states did these things to the immigrants, then we should do something to help them. We could help them reverse the process, or become “unsterilized.” Sometimes the process works, and sometimes it doesn’t. If it didn’t work, then the government could pay them. Not a lot, but a little just to make up for the horrible things they did. Money would never fix all of the problems, though. We should continue to help them as much as we can, because, after all, it was the states’ faults for passing the sterilization laws.
    2. I think that philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation bear responsibility in this mess because they helped create it. Beginning in the 20th century, these organizations helped prominent eugenicists who recommended sterilization policies. These policies would become laws in 28 states in 1932. Sixty thousand Americans would eventually have their reproductive rights taken from them. These laws may have never been able to be passed if these organizations had never supported them. They helped these laws to be passed, which is basically saying that they want Americans to have these rights ripped right from them. I think that these organizations are responsible because they chose to take part in making these laws become real. They wanted to help pass these awful laws; they must not have wanted “non-Americans” to be able to have a family. They should realize and own up to their actions, and see that what they did was wrong.
17. Eli Winer January 11, 2012 at 8:51 pm

    2. Yes, I do think that the philanthropic organizations such as The Carnegie Institute and The Rockefeller Foundation bear much responsibility in this mess. I think this because it blatantly states that these companies helped and supported these eugenics programs. Given my past knowledge from class of these capitol giants, I know that Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller were two figures in high power that tried to give back to their community. If this is one of the ways they were trying to help the community, by trying to control the American race in ways similar to that of the Nazi party, it is just sick. As accessories to this crime, Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller are as much to blame, and share as much responsibility as the scientists who were working with this “solution.”
    3. Yes, in my opinion I think that it is very possible that the Human Genome Project can spur similar sentiments and/or feelings about fetal manipulation in order to create a healthier, more “perfect” child. In the same ways as before, but with very different intensions, the Human Genome Project could be viewed as trying to purify and control the human race. Though it is not as extreme, the Genome Project is still looked at with much concern from all people, not just conservatives. Using science to alter a child before it is born and make the child healthier and more immune to diseases is great, but in some ways, and viewed by many, it is just a way of controlling the imperfections that make us human. A perfect society without disease or sickness would maybe be a little too perfect. I don’t have much of a personal opinion on the current day matter, but the Eugenics projects were clearly striving towards a “pure” race that can be controlled and changed when needed.
18. Johnny R. January 11, 2012 at 9:02 pm

    1. I do thinks states bear responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that they passed in the early part of the 20th century. I believe they bear responsibility because they were the ones that let the law go through. They didn’t disagree with it or argue against it. I think this is wrong because I don’t think we should be making people infertile or killing people because they think they have “bad genes” I don’t think the reason the people did the things they did were because of their genes. It was purely the person’s choice and they chose to do the wrong things that they did. I think if you try hard enough you can change people and their mindset. I think the surviving victims learned their lesson because they probably had to of done something wrong for them to become sterilized; but I think they could of learned the lesson a better way, like therapy.
    3. I personally do think that the Human Genome Project could agree with or have the same feelings about fetal manipulation. But even that I think they could I don’t think they should because the Human Genome Project isn’t really about finding the perfect person. It is finding out the many different types of genes in every single different persons DNA, they want to find them all and collect them for future reference. I don’t think that they will use those to create a more perfect child because it would just be morally wrong because people are people. They are who they are and man shouldn’t be able to change or try to alter human genes. I do think if a person’s mind is unstable and not working correctly that you can try to fix that by therapy or just helping that person become something better if they have done something wrong.
19. Bradley Smith- 2nd Hour January 11, 2012 at 9:13 pm

    1. States do indeed bear responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that they passed in the early 1900’s. This is because first off, the article states that “sterilization policies that would become laws in 28 states by 1932,” so many of these laws were not made by the federal government, but by the states. Also, the state governments had other options to reducing the amount of poor people in America: Governments are supposed to help its populations, not sterilize its society. I do understand when limits are set upon how many children one can have regarding their level of poverty when numbers get really. For example, I feel that eight kids under one very small roof where a family can barely survive on its own isn’t healthy for the kids or the family as a whole, but one should not be restricted to get married to someone they love or at least have one kid. Yes, if a family is in debt and the child would suffer a bad life if it were to be born or if famine is occurring or soon to occur, I think it is common sense not to have the child, but if laws were to be made by the government to restrict child births like these, they should be reasonable– or else what type of free country would this be? I think that the surviving victims of the sterilization in the 1960s and 1970s should be granted rights to marry and if they wanted to have children but weren’t allowed to and are now too old to have children, should be given a reimbursement even though how can money pay off for the joys of a child? Those who were not allowed legal immigration should be granted it because we as Americans shouldn’t be entitled to living in a “better” country than anyone else in this world.
    3. It is possible for feelings about manipulation in order to create a healthier, more perfect child to be spurred up by the Human Genome Project. As scientists discover new links and connections between genes and many traits, it is possible that in the future, people may have the ability to change a baby’s characteristics in its genes before it is even born. With this, many people may feel strongly about helping fetuses to prevent major disabilities and change many traits while others may feel that this process is unnatural. If parents can find out their child may have a disability early before the child is born, of course they will most likely want to change and help the child to prevent it from suffering. I feel that this is a permutable instance where genes should be modified to let the child and family have a better life; however, as these technologies continue to advance and become more available, I’m afraid many people may use these technological advances in a greedy way. For example, one may try to manipulate the fetus’s genes to perhaps make it a faster runner- I feel that this is much too covetous and unnatural. Overall, the expansion and advances of the Human Genome Project does scare me because of these ways in which it could be used and because the great “circle of life” should not be tempered with to this extent. Yet, if a child is only to be born sick or disabled, fetal manipulation should be available to help him/her.
20. Kevin Berkowitz January 11, 2012 at 9:34 pm

    2. Yes the Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller foundation bear responsibility in this mess. They bear responsibility because they were the ones who led it to become a law in 28 different states. In the United States people are supposed to have rights and freedom. They should not be able to be told that they are forced into giving up their reproductive rights. In China they are not allowed to have more than two kids. They do not take away the right to reproduce them only limit the amount of children one can have. In the United States they should have done something similar to this. It is not right to tell a person that you are not allowed to have any children. Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation thus should take full responsibility for starting this mess because they had a powerful enough background so that people would listen to what they say and they recommended that sterilization policies put in place.
    3. Yes it is possible that the Human Genome Project could spur similar feelings about fetal manipulation in order to create a healthier, more perfect child. The reason for this is because like when they were taking away a person’s right to reproduce they are doing a similar thing here. Instead of deciding though who can reproduce and who can’t they take the best genes and put them into an ideal human with the best aspects. They still have the same main idea, but it is done in a way so that everyone still has the right and ability to reproduce instead of giving that power to a select few. Yes the Human Genome project could stir the same feelings, but it could make people happier because everyone still have their freedom and other rights no one is being forced not to reproduce.
21. Elizabeth Hentschel January 11, 2012 at 10:05 pm

    1. I think that states do bear a large responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that they had passed in the early part of the 20th Century. Even though they were under pressure from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institute, they didn’t have to past these unfair and unjust laws. They could have very easily said no because these laws were racist and unfair. And once the German National Socialist party started agreeing with this program they should’ve had enough courage to stop supporting it. Also, when America began limiting immigration from only certain parts of Europe, that should’ve been a red flag for the states. They were going against everything that the original founding fathers had wanted for America. The surviving victims that were sterilized in the 1960s-1970s should be given their reproductive rights back for sure. They should also be given some sort of money reward or something for having to go through such a terrible thing.

    2. I think that the philanthropic organizations like the Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation bear a huge responsibility for this mess. These programs had a huge, huge influence on tons of people and organizations. They were have said to have the most influence in all of the world. Not only were they wealthy and highly successful, but they also earned their money. So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that when the highly recommended Eugenics the state governments went right along with it. Once they saw that the German National Socialist Party agreed with the Eugenic policy they should’ve known to stop promoting this program. But they didn’t and because of them not saying no it led to this huge mess. Not only was it unfair, but it was just flat out racist and irresponsible, especially from such hard working people.
22. Jackie Feist January 11, 2012 at 11:07 pm

    2. I believe the Rockefeller Foundation did bear some responsibility for this mostly because of Rockefeller’s claims that it was his divine right. I don’t think Carnegie instituted any of this; he was out to help the poor and lower classes. By our class discussion I think it showed more about the people in our class than our knowledge of the poor. Using our class discussion as an example I think a good percent of people born into wealth or who born into are financial security, just don’t understand what it is to be poor and that it’s not an easy fix. For instance a few students who I know can be considered wealthy thought that it was the poor’s fault they were poor, and that we shouldn’t punish the wealthy for being “more educated”. Many people seemed to think that most people were poor by their own faulty decisions, which I think leads to this impression that people have that there must be something wrong with the person if they aren’t making it financially on their own. Which then leads up to the Eugenics program to rid the world of these faulty people. Both Carnegie and Rockefeller worked their way up from poverty, which disproves Eugenics, but Rockefeller who claimed God made him this way only encouraged the Eugenics programs. By Rockefeller claiming that he got his wealth because God made him so, kind of justified his rise from poverty to power and wealth to other already wealthy families and people. Unlike Carnegie who encouraged the working class to keep trying hard and to educate themselves, Rockefeller encouraged Eugenics by in a way saying that if your poor its because your meant to be, because God made you that way. I don’t think Rockefeller intentionally meant to give that idea to people, but I think it still had its affect.
23. Audrey Kennedy January 11, 2012 at 11:14 pm

    1. I believe that the sates do bear some of the responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws passed in the early part of the 20th century because the states were given the choice of whether they wanted to partake in this “natural selection” of the American population. When the Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation wrote the sterilization policies, 28 states agreed to enforce these barbaric set of rules that would eliminate 14 million Americans. The Eugenics worked to eliminate lowest tenth of the American population, including Blacks, Jews, Mexicans and immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe. The victims that survived the sterilization deserve to earn back what they had to have taken away from them. There is no way to give them the power to reproduce back to them, but the government should make and attempt to enhance their lives by helping them out financially. This would at least make up for some of the pain they went through.

    2. The Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation also bears responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws passed in the early 20th century. During that time period and around the world many countries were participating in Eugenics, which was a worldwide program that focused on eliminating the lowest 10 percent of the world’s population. The human kind was being treated as livestock undergoing natural selection. The Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller foundation decided to create a list of rules/laws that would force certain people to become sterilized and unable to re-produce. This hoped to eliminate 14 million Americans, also immigrants arriving from other countries. The two centers bear most of the responsibility for introducing Eugenics to America because they took what other countries were doing to their people and forced the government to encourage we do the same to our population.
24. Makenzie S January 11, 2012 at 11:37 pm

    1. Yes I do believe that states bear responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that they passed in the early part of the 20th century. I feel this way because the states didn’t have to pass the laws if they were against them, but they did pass them, so evidently they agreed with them. They allowed a terrible thing to be an acceptable thing to do to people. In my eyes there isn’t really any way that the states can repay the people that had been sterilized and are still alive. This is because the bad deed has already been done and the victims had to suffer throughout their lives without having children because someone else saw them as unfit to reproduce. Just this morning I heard a story on NPR about sterilization that had happened in North Carolina, and they are talking about giving all of the 2,000 victims, who are still alive in every state, $50,000. They know that this money can’t erase the past but it can at least help some of the people to live an easier life. I agree that the past cannot be erased and that they should receive something like money, financial help or better education.
    3. Yes I do believe that it is possible that the human genome project could spur similar feelings about fetal manipulation. I don’t personally know that much about the Human Genome Project, but I do know that some people view it as a good thing, whereas others see it as completely wrong. It can be used to find the cause of some diseases which is a good thing, but what most people don’t like about it is that it is used to create the “perfect child”. I would personally feel like people were trying to create the “perfect child, and I don’t believe in doing that, but I also think that it is kind of different because this project is not something that is being forced on by the state like the sterilization was.
25. geoffwickersham (Post author) January 12, 2012 at 7:49 am

    1. Do states bear any responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that they had passed in the early part of the 20th Century? Why or why not? If so, what should be done to those surviving victims, especially the ones who are still alive who were sterilized in the 1960s or 1970s?
    Yes – because states acted against democratic values by interfering with people’s private lives (right to marry and have children) by supporting questionable and very unfair theory. States failed to research this theory in details and in more depth – even though everybody realized how important the issue was. States also supported Germans – who later became the enemies, and no alert was set that only two countries in the whole world became supporters of these theories. States also failed to protect their citizens physically and by protecting their rights– even not the best of the citizens. Surviving victims who are still alive should receive an apology from states officials – in public, they should be informed who are the people personally and most responsible for their suffering, and the victims also should be entitled to financial compensation for violation of their rights, regardless of their past criminal deeds that were punished by sterilization.
    2. Do you think the philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation bear any responsibility in this mess? Why or why not?
    Yes, I think they do – because these organizations supported many eugenicists, and by supporting them enabled eugenicists to spread their ideas about eliminating “bad genes” like of criminals, alcoholics, mentally ill, some immigrants to general population, and more people became supportive of their ideas probably because reputation of such strong and influential organizations like Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation meant a lot for people. This support allowed eugenicists to create policies about sterilization for the purpose of improving gene pool, and later to these policies to became the laws in many states. Without support of such strong and well known organizations eugenicists probably would not have became that strong, powerful and able to make their policies as laws that would make so many people suffer.

    -Daniel P – 2nd hour
26. geoffwickersham (Post author) January 12, 2012 at 8:09 am

    1: States stay the same but the people who run them change every few years. The governors and other important people who ran the states that went for the sterilization laws should be punished. They were the ones who enforced such a cruel law against others. Although they did it at the time, we cannot blame the politicians who enforce the rules now because they weren’t there when it happened and would most likely be against it just like we are. I think that for the victims that are still alive now, we should pay for their taxes because we not only took away something so special, but what God (or what you believe) gave you. It would not be fair to let this go because it wasn’t their fault but the governments. By paying their taxes I hope the victims would have extra money to do things like adopt children or pets or visit family without being short on money.
    2: Philanthropic foundations like Carnegie Institution and Rockefeller Foundation both are held responsible for what they did. They supported and wrote out the laws that would be enforced later. As a result, 60,000 Americans lost their rights to reproduction. This is not only an injustice but morally wrong because humans were made to do three things, learn, live, and reproduce. To take away one of the only things that are naturally ours is immoral and corrupt. From this, thousands of babies were unable to be born into the world that we live in or explore the possibilities out there. No one knows which kid is going to be a genius or someone who will help the world through charity. They only way to find out is to have kids and take care of them as best as we can. So I don’t think that what both foundations did was right and they should be accountable for what they did.

    Claire W. -4th
27. Sam Frederik January 12, 2012 at 11:06 am

    Sam Frederik
    January 12th, 2012
    Advanced Placement United States History

    Questions: Blog 29

    1. Do states bear any responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that they had passed in the early part of the 20th Century? Why or why not? If so, what should be done for those surviving victims, especially the ones who are still alive who were sterilized in the 1960s or 1970s?

    I believe that the states bear some responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws. Although the government may have put this law into effect, the state governments do have the power to reject its approval in their state.
    Another thing to consider is that one of the sterilization victims may have been related to a government or congress member. If that was true, I don’t see why the government or congress member wouldn’t do everything in their power to stop the law from being passed and executed. If I was a congress member or government employee with a relative who qualified for the sterilizations, I would fight and never stop until the law had been stopped from reaching my family.
    Surviving sterilized victims of this tragic period of time should be given government pension for going through the experiences that they have gone through. They deserve some sort of compensation for representing those victims who were taken by these laws, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they [the surviving victims] learned some dirty government secrets during their sterilization that the government doesn’t want to people to know. Either way, they deserve payment or some sort of government reward.

    2. Do you think the philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation bear any responsibility in this mess? Why or why not?

    The philanthropic organizations like the Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation bear an enormous responsibility in the mess of the sterilizations. They were the places where people went to undergo the effects of these brutal laws, and they were founded to carry out the sterilizations, so they carry a huge responsibility of this tragedy.
    Another downfall of these institutes was that they smeared the name of philanthropists who did well by society in their lifetimes. By looking at the names of these institutions, I can see that they are named after Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, who were both compassionate philanthropists, both during their lifetime and after. By naming these death houses after them, this may lead bystanders to believe that they promote these programs, even though they may have just been paid for by donated money from these men.
28. Claire Weber January 12, 2012 at 3:08 pm

    1: States stay the same but the people who run them change every few years. The governors and other important people who ran the states that went for the sterilization laws should be punished. They were the ones who enforced such a cruel law against others. Although they did it at the time, we cannot blame the politicians who enforce the rules now because they weren’t there when it happened and would most likely be against it just like we are. I think that for the victims that are still alive now, we should pay for their taxes because we not only took away something so special, but what God (or what you believe) gave you. It would not be fair to let this go because it wasn’t their fault but the governments. By paying their taxes I hope the victims would have extra money to do things like adopt children or pets or visit family without being short on money.
    2: Philanthropic foundations like Carnegie Institution and Rockefeller Foundation both are held responsible for what they did. They supported and wrote out the laws that would be enforced later. As a result, 60,000 Americans lost their rights to reproduction. This is not only an injustice but morally wrong because humans were made to do three things, learn, live, and reproduce. To take away one of the only things that are naturally ours is immoral and corrupt. From this, thousands of babies were unable to be born into the world that we live in or explore the possibilities out there. No one knows which kid is going to be a genius or someone who will help the world through charity. They only way to find out is to have kids and take care of them as best as we can. So I don’t think that what both foundations did was right and they should be accountable for what they did.
29. Iain Mason January 12, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    1. Yes, I do believe that states bear some responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that they had passed in the early part of the 20th Century. Even though the Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller foundation, deemed creating these laws as the proper thing to do, the state government could have disagreed with them. The state government has no right to presume that just because one person does something to become a criminal, the rest of that family will become just like that criminal as the generations pass. Citizens living in America should have their freedom and rights. For living members today who were sterilized back in the 60’s and 70’s, as the NPR studio in North Carolina said, I believe that the survivors should get reparations. I also think that the government should send each family a personal apology letter, deeming themselves as the villain in this unforgettable economic issue.

    2. I think the Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller foundation have a big responsibility on this issue of sterilization. Both of these institutes helped to make these discriminating laws on most criminals, alcoholics, and poor citizens. Not only that, but they also issued this law on most non-White American races such as African Americans, Mexicans, and Jews from Eastern and Southern Europe. It gets worse. These laws were also going to be abided in 28 states, more than half the United States! “Culling the weak to improve the gene pool”. This idea called Eugenics was never, ever, meant to be created on such a poor reason. No matter how bad American people wanted to believe that Social Darwinism and Eugenics was the future to American life at the time, they didn’t quite think about the aftermath of the destruction they were going to be responsible for, and the many families they were going to destroy in the process.
30. Emily L January 12, 2012 at 3:43 pm

    2. Do you think the philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundation bear any responsibility in this mess? Why or why not?
    Yes, Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation bear quite a bit of the blame. However, so did every person who helped create and participated in this horrific destruction of rights and families. They helped fund and supported the destruction of rights and hopes. Yes is it shown that certain traits can be genetic and people from certain families even if they are separated can develop these negativities. However, lost time a checked not many people wanted to have children with someone who showed signs of insanity in their daily life. Also we have only a weak grasp on genetics. We only have a knowledge of what certain patterns that occur and the repercussions that we can see. It is quite possible for a person who bares the child of a criminal that child is one of the best citizens of the United States. No one should have the right to inderectly murder a child for the faults, genetic or in actions, of a parent. People can also change their behavior over having to look after their child as well. Caring for children can help people mature. Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation helped prevent people from coming into existence and dash dreams of those who wanted a family. It is one of a humans’ most basic rights, before governments and rulers, to have descendants. Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation indirectly neutered people purposely. They knew exactly what they were doing and what they were funding. Without funding this mess would never have been able to gain as much ground as it did.
    3. Is it possible that the Human Genome Project could spur similar sentiments or feelings about fetal manipulation in order to create a healthier, more perfect child? Why or why not?
    I feel that they are very closely related in both cases. Many babies that are given tests while inside their mothers are misdiagnosed or the supposed “innocent test” harms the baby. People have survived and progressed for thousands of years without the need of doctors interfering. Most children that do die when they are babies is because their mothers neglect them or they are in a filthy environment and they just cannot fight of all the germs. Human Genome Project would only be useful to children who would have extreme problems if they are born unaltered. Otherwise again you are changing a person’s right to be even who they are genetically! You are forcing them to fit in the mold of a “normality” that doesn’t even exist! Some of the most intelligent people who ever existed would now be diagnosed as autistic. Simple because they function differently. Now if say the person would have been born with only one arm or something else physical I think changing their genetics might be OK. However saying that someone is lower or not as good as “normal” society just because how they work is different and changing them is not right and is just as bad as making sure they child isn’t born because technically the child that was conserved isn’t the same as the child that is born. How are they truly that parents child is they aren’t related because they do not have the same genes. You have essentially gone through all the pain of baring a child who is not related to you. You could have just adopted a child that lacked a loving family, but instead you have discarded that child’s need! The point of baring a child is so that you and your spouse have a child that is PART OF BOTH YOU. If you don’t care if the child is yours take care of a child that already lacks.
31. Kian Soleimani January 12, 2012 at 3:52 pm

    Kian Soleimani
    1/11/12
    2nd hour
    APUSH

    Social Darwinism

    1. Yes, I think that some of the states should take responsibility in their actions, because they’re the ones that passed all of those laws restricting the criminal and poor in many ways. Genetically it is not possible to be born as a criminal, which is something, that you obtain as you get older. Which is something that they didn’t mention in the article? You may also wonder what the other noncriminal people thought of the idea of eugenics, and why people didn’t protest against it. That may be because people didn’t know better, but you never really know. Considering those who were sterilized in the 1960’s and 1970’s. I think that the government should take immediate action against, because they took away the opportunity to reproduce away from thousands of people, which is not right. Not only that but it’s really against what America is all about freedom, liberty, and the right to make choices. As a result the people who were sterilized should get a payment from the government of $50,000, as well as an apology for their actions in the past.

    2. Yes, I think that the philanthropic organizations like Carnegie institute and Rockefeller foundation should take some responsibility in the eugenics situation for several reasons. One of those reasons is they spent millions of dollars on research to support this idea, not only that but they influenced it just as well. I guess they didn’t really think about all of those people that they hurt, and because of them many laws/policies were passed that restricted certain people coming from certain countries, many policies also recommended sterilization. Some of these policies would have become laws in 1932 in 28 states and 60,000 Americans would have had their reproductive rights taken away from them. Because of the many policies criminal decedents who had no criminal records had many of their constitutional rights taken away from them.
32. Alexis Zerafa January 12, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    1. I believe the states bear full responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that they had passed in the early part of the 20th Century because it was their decision to mandate such absurd laws in the first place. It is not like it was someone else’s decision to create and pass such laws; the state could have easily just refused to pass the laws. Some kind of re-payment should be given to those victimized by the appalling law in the 1960s or 1970s, even though there is really no way to make up for the horrible injustice that was inflicted upon them. A formal apology and some kind of monetary compensation is the only thing I could possibly think of that could even start to repay those who were victimized. There is really no way to undo the terrible, horrible things that have already been done. So even though a simple re-payment will never be enough, it is necessary to do to make up for what they’ve done.

    2. I definitely think the institutes like Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation bear responsibility in this unbelievable situation because they recommended such ridiculous policies and because of that they eventually turned into laws. Especially since this lead to about sixty thousand Americans losing their reproductive abilities and rights. So I would say that these organizations bear a major responsibility for the ridiculous amount of unfortunate people who lost their right to choose to have children or not. Without the help of such philanthropic giants, its possible that the laws may have not even been passed. They were prominent eugenicists that set out to eliminate the lowest tenth of the human population by restricting the number of marriages allowed and involuntarily sterilizing those who were considered to be unintelligent, or were petty criminals, or epileptics, or even alcoholics.
33. Mason Cavanaugh January 12, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    1. I think that the states do hold responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws. I think this because the states are the ones who passed the laws. Even though it was in the early 20th century, they still did it in the 60s and 70s, and there are still survivors as well. The state governments are the ones that are responsible, and the fact that they caused sterilization means that they owe something to the people who are alive still and sterilized. It is not fair to the people that are sterilized to day and it is ridiculous that sterilization even occurred in the first place. I think the state governments do owe the sterilized people some compensation. Even with compensation, it cannot undo the sterilization, so it is the least they can do. They should provide the people who were sterilized with money. They should provide them at least 50,000 dollars. It is fair for them to get this money because they deserved it, for their rights being taken.
    2. I think that The Human Genome Project could create similar feelings about, breeding and manipulating humans. Doing this could cause people to be offended, and people could feel like they are not normal, or good enough. Also, many people think it is just plain morally wrong. Many people, especially religious people would think this. Many would call this, “playing God” because of the changing of human features through science and not by God and nature. In addition, if the perfect child was created, and all people were created like this, there would be no diversity. People would lack interesting and varying traits. Life would be extremely different and uninteresting, and I am sure many agree. The child would also not share family traits and families wouldn’t be unique, and that would upset many people. I think for the most part, people would not think it good for society if a perfect human was created because it would have the same concept and goal as sterilization and that is obviously morally wrong.
34. Colleen Feola January 12, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    1. I think states bear responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that they had passed in the early part of the 20th century. It was unconstitutional for the states to enforce sterilization, especially when the laws only applied to a certain group of people. Discrimination against criminals, alcoholics, blacks, Jews, Mexicans, and immigrants from eastern and southern Europe denied many people from their vital civil right. I believe that compulsory sterilization is a “crime against humanity” and no one, no matter good or bad, should be stopped from having children. Not much can be done to help the surviving victims because they lost their reproductive rights in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Public apologies should be issued to every single victim of the sterilization laws and they also should be reimbursed, although no amount of money could change what has been done. I think they should have the opportunity to voice their opinions and hurt feelings so that people know what awful affects these ridiculous laws had.

    3. I believe that it is very possible that the Human Genome Project could spur similar sentiments or feelings about fetal manipulation in order to create a healthier, more perfect child. The human genome project is a federally funded U.S. scientific project with the objective of identifying all chromosomes and genes in the DNA of our cells. This in return can help us learn about genetic diseases and disabilities. By identifying all chromosomes and genes in DNA, doctors may be able to go and fix problems that could cause potential genetic disorders. (It is important to use science in a way to eliminate disease. However, if gone too far, people will use it to determine the physical attributes of their children.) One purpose of eugenics was to “eliminate” the lowest tenth of the human population; about 14 million people. By stopping criminals and alcoholics from having children, eugenicists believed that they could eliminate “evil” from humanity. The human genome project could spur harsh feelings about creating a healthier, more ideal child because the purpose of both the genome project and eugenics was to create the ultimate, healthy population.
35. Kevin Chien January 12, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    2.) I believe that the philanthropic organizations like the Carnegie Institute or the Rockefeller Foundation bear a certain amount of responsibility in the whole mess that is eugenics. The reason I think this is because if you endorse a product or a group, you are showing your support for it. The Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation both donated money to the cause of eugenics and therefore showed that they supported and even encouraged “the survival of the fittest.” The funding showed that they were supportive of people being unknowingly sterilized to halt their bloodlines in order to create a perfect society by getting rid of the inferior ones. The two organizations could have easily stopped the funding of the program and the whole program could have been permanently shut down so in all, I think that the two foundations hold a large amount of responsibility in the huge mess that happened.

    3.) I think that it is easily possible for the Human Genome Project to spur similar sentiments and feelings within people about fetal manipulation in order to create a perfect child because everybody wants a perfectly healthy child with no health problems and basically any trait that the parents wanted. If the Human Genome Project were to be able to create the perfect baby and select each specific trait of the child, then I think that most people and soon-to-be parents would endorse this program. The downside to being able to genetically engineer every aspect of the child’s being is that more people would become part of the hive mind for the need of a perfect society. This kind of sounds strangely like the mind-set of the people who supported the eugenics program, doesn’t it? The thing is, not everybody can be perfect. If everybody’s considered perfect, then no one really is. People shouldn’t be able to “play god” and change every aspect of their child, the fetus should be able to grow naturally into whatever person its destined to be without any outside interference. Although genetic engineering could have some negative effects there are also benefits to being able to genetically engineer humans. Genetic engineering could provide much further research in the world of medicine and could successfully cure many diseases and would allow scientists to make people immune to other sicknesses. Fetal manipulation will always spur ideas for a more perfect society but I don’t think further research into fetal manipulation should be stopped, for example, if a fetus was known to develop into one that had major disabilities fetal manipulation could be used to help the one out.
36. Becca B. January 12, 2012 at 4:36 pm

    Question #2 – I believe that Philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute or Rockefeller Foundations bear any some responsibility in this mess of compulsory sterilization laws because in the 20th Century, they helped make eugenicists, more distinguished. The Eugenicist was an ambitious, worldwide program that set about to eliminate the lowest tenth of the human population by restricting marriages and involuntarily sterilizing those who were petty criminals, epileptics and alcoholics, They recommended sterilization policies that would become law in 28 states by states. If Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundations didn’t make them so noticeable, maybe these laws wouldn’t be in motion and then 60,000 Americans wouldn’t of had their reproductive rights taken away out of the 14 million Eugenicists sought to eliminate. Making people not marry those they want, and taking their rights to have children isn’t fair at all. I mean it’s just like going back to the old times were everyone had an arranged marriage. Isn’t America supposed to be more and more modern?
    Question #3 – I believe that the human Genome Project could spur feelings about fetal manipulation in order to create a healthy, perfect child because what kind of parents would not want to be sure that their child is healthy? A parent’s number one hope for kids is that there are healthy, that they won’t have to worry about them all of the time just because of health problems. Families with children that were born with defects or metal/physical disabilities don’t want to have through all of the pain and sorrow it is to have another child like that. It’s really an upsetting thing. Not every family has the money to pay off the bills it might take to make their son/daughter better. My little brother is five years old, and looks as if he is two. He was born two months early and he has a lot of differences from kids who are five. He is getting to the point where he can see his problems and looks at himself differently already. No parent… or in my case sibling, would ever want that for the child.
37. Caitlyn Dolan January 12, 2012 at 4:43 pm

    1: States that passed the compulsory sterilization policies in the 20th century are responsible for the some of damage done to victims of the eugenics laws, but not all of it. Although the 28 states that passed laws allowing the sterilization of unsuspecting and undeserving made the euthanasia and surgeries lawful, the medicine wouldn’t have been possible without aid from corporations and scientists. Philanthropic giants like the Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation funded research and sterilization projects, allowing eugenicists to create, write up, and recommend sterilization policies to the government. The eugenicists themselves also shoulder the majority of the responsibility for the enforced Social Darwinism in the 20th century. Eugenicists were the ones who developed and suggested the ideas in the first place, and their ideas also sparked compulsory sterilization, euthanasia, and eugenics policies in Germany. When connected like this, it could be said that some of the scientists who drafted a program in the U.S. that made Germany and the Nazi Party jealous were the ones who seeded the ideas that brought about the Holocaust. When compared to the wrongs done by science and corporation, the state government has little responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that they had passed in the early part of the 20th Century. In my opinion, there is nothing that can be done for the victims of the horrible time in America’s history that will completely right the wrong done to them. They were irrevocably changed without their consent, and deprived inalienable rights: life, liberty, and happiness. They never had the opportunity to have children, or even the choice to. To some victims still alive today, government money may be a small comfort, especially if they were sterilized because of their poverty. Otherwise, I think that most that the government, corporations, doctors, and scientists involved in eugenics from the 20s to the 70s can do is give victims a sincere apology for the wrongs done to them.
    3: I think that yes, in some cases, the Human Genome Project (HGP) could spur similar sentiments or feelings that the eugenics projects did. Personally, though, the HGP is about collecting data to help fight disease and hereditary issues in humans. Although the research in this project could be transformed into creating a healthier, more “perfect” child, that isn’t the aim of the experiment. Yes, to some, eugenics matters, and a perfect baby is of utmost importance. Ideas about eugenics and a greater race could form. However, I find nothing wrong with research conducted now that could help the human race in the future—to make us live longer and better. The HGP is significantly different from the sterilization policies in the 20th century, especially because the HGP is supported by choice. For stem cell research and DNA testing, embryos are donated. DNA is taken from willing citizens. The compulsory eugenics in the past gave people no choice, and the surgeries performed on them affected their present, while the HGP will affect the future.
38. Madison Lennox January 12, 2012 at 4:45 pm

    1. Yes, states do bear responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that they had passed in the early part of the 20th Century. The states hold responsibility for this because they were given a choice to pass it or not. The 28 states that passed the law had chosen to pass and enforce the law. The surviving victims who are still alive and were sterilized in the 1960s and 1970s should definitely receive some type of benefit, whether it is money or, some other type of reward. The survivors have been traumatized enough by being sterilized without them knowing it, so they truly deserve to have an apology given to them by the government of the state and of the country.
    3. It is possible that the Human Genome Project could spur similar sentiments about fetal manipulation in order to create a healthier, more perfect child. Although the Human Genome Project and Eugenics are not exactly the same, they both have some of the same morals, in which they are trying to make the most perfect society they possibly could. The Human Genome Project did this by studying the genes of different people and finding ways to change them to make them better. They wanted to keep the information about the genes that they studied in a database, so it would be easier to alter them, if need be. They also wanted people to have the options about certain genes given to their offspring. For example, if you and your spouse has blue eyes, but you want your baby to have brown eyes, the geneticists can make sure that happens, all thanks to The Human Genome Project. Eugenics attempted to eliminate the lowest 10% of the American population by using sterilization, which they did mostly without the person knowing about it.
39. Emily Bice January 12, 2012 at 4:56 pm

    1. Yes, states do bear responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that were passed. They approved and endorsed a law that took away a person’s right to reproduce, and although there might not be anything in the constitution about that being illegal, it is still very wrong. Many of the people who were sterilized were not given a choice; some were underage, and their parents decided and some were not even informed of what was happening to them. While nothing can truly make up for what happened to the victims, monetary compensation is a start. The states that approved of this happening should also issue a formal apology to everyone, and make sure nothing like this ever happens again. I agree with the one of the reasons behind the sterilization: that it is better for an unborn child to not have to face life with an unfit parent. However, I completely disagree with the methods and ways the states took care of this, and think they wronged everyone that lost their option to reproduce.
    2. Yes, I do think that the philanthropic organizations bear responsibility in this mess. They acted like a kid who watches another kid get bullied but does not do anything about it; those organizations stood idly by while people in 28 states were wronged. In fact, they did more than stand by- they endorsed it. They gave money and used their power to get that law passed, so they could have a ‘perfect society’, rid of the scum that they looked down upon. Perhaps it was because they were so different from that bottom ten percent that they could not see what they were doing, and how the people they were taking the right away from were just like them. Either way, they definitely should take some of the blame for this injustice.
40. Sam Edwards January 12, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    1. The states that passed laws that supported the American eugenics program, like compulsory sterilization, bear responsibility for their actions in the past. Though morals have changed significantly through the years, the states passed the laws that allowed people to be sterilized for no reason are still responsible for their actions. There was no logical end to this random sterilization, thus the means to get to no end have no reason, and are unjustifiable by any means. Even though compensation for the sterile survivors, especially for those in the 60s and 70s, is slowly being brought in, there is no way to compensate the loss of being able to reproduce. There may be ideas to help them, like giving them free care when they get even older or a monetary compensation; there is truly no logical way to compensate for one who has not been able to have children for years.

    2. The organizations Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation played a HUGE role in this situation. Since a large portion of the money for the eugenics “research” came from these organizations that most likely meant well, then without that income, the entire eugenics might not have lasted into the 1970s, mainly because the eugenics “organizations” would have run out of money by then. Despite meaning well, the Carnegie and Rockefeller companies helped a terrible cause for the heads of these companies may not have known precisely what was happening to the people that they were “helping”. Even though it depends on how that money was spent, the Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation should have been following their “well-spent” money, so the moment something they didn’t want to happen happened, they would know about it and could immediately cut funding for the pseudo-program that is eugenics, or the killing of people.
41. Jeffrey Couger January 12, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    1.The states must hold absolute responsibility for their actions, because even if it was popular during those times, moral issues must always be considered when creating laws. The laws are for the people, and in extreme cases morality is not considered, in which case the laws have no positive impact. This is an exact case, the Government thought it would be helping the common good, but they missed applying personal morality for each citizen, which in turn, caused thousands of deaths in the U.S, and was a factor in millions of deaths in Europe. The victims should be rewarded in reason, because they suffered a lack of responsibility by the U.S Government on a point that the U.S Constitution holds high- that is; protecting Citizen’s Rights. It is obvious that the states were wrong in doing so, and the citizens had no input on the situation. Furthermore, the U.S Government breaks another beam upon which this Country is so firmly placed upon: No matter how smart, how rich, how poor, how pretty, what skin color, what religion, each citizen must be treated equally.
    3. It is completely possible, that the Human Genome Project could spur similar sentiments or feelings about fetal manipulation in order to create a healthier, more perfect child because of human nature. We are obsessed with bettering ourselves no matter the cost- whether it is through cheating, defamation, or plastic surgery. Many issues would come from this, overpopulation, lack of diversity, creativity and different viewpoints. We as humans have several different conceptions of perfection through both mind and body. It would be impossible to agree on such a thing, and would cause strife in the worst terms. Through, different viewpoints come compromises, and from compromises come success. If this were to happen we would become too one dimensional as a race to get anything done, or worst of all lose all that’s interesting in this world.
42. Natalie S. 3rd Hour January 12, 2012 at 5:32 pm

    1.I believe that states do hold responsibility for the sterilization laws from the early 20th century. They were state laws and were passed by the state, and therefore are the responsibility of the states. They let such a horrible thing happen to their citizens and now they should help out the victims of their laws that are still alive. One way to help is to pay the victims, like North Carolina is doing. You can’t put a price on the ability to have a child and money can’t make the victims alright, but they do deserve something from the state. Public apologies are also a great idea if they haven’t happened yet. Laws should also be put in place to prevent such violations of individual rights from occurring again.
    3. It is definitely possible that the Human Genome Project will spur similar feelings about fetal manipulation. Determining what children gets to be born is morally questionable, and while changing genes is certainly less so than taking away the ability to have children involuntarily, the same feelings will arise. A child never gets a say in what genes they have, but if they are being manipulated it is changing someone’s life without their consent, similar to the involuntary sterilizations. Also, everyone has their own ideas of what makes someone “perfect”. Some people prefer blue eyes, some people prefer brown. Similarly, people have different ideas on what people should be allowed to have children. Taking that ability away from Blacks, Jews, Mexicans, immigrants or even criminals or people with certain diseases is all subjective and not everyone will agree that those are the specific people that should be sterilized. People would argue about what genes should or should not be altered, just as people most likely argued about who should or should not be sterilized.
43. nate g January 12, 2012 at 5:44 pm

    1. The States uphold most of the responsibility, not all of it because of the originations that sponsored it and pushed it. But the States are the only ones that can really make it up to the survivors. The reason why you don’t see the government coming out and saying that they are sorry all at once is because they don’t want to bring this stain in American history into the spotlight because then a lot of people will get fingers pointed at them, and if there is one thing the government does not like it is fingers get pointed at them. But it is nice to see a State start making up the survivors, especially when they were one of the biggest supporters. It is hard to say what to do to make it up to the survivors, they cannot give them that time to raise kids and live a full life back, all they can really do is give them some money and services and say that they are sorry. That is what makes this so sad.
    3. The Human Genome project is not a good Idea to me. The whole idea of making babies in a lab to create a perfect child is not a good idea for the human race’s existence. Disease is one of the factors that keep the population in check by lowering our populations. When you remove diseases as one of the factors, then there is not a lot left to keep us from over growing, yet again, we are already over growing. Besides, this is supposed to happen naturally with an immune system and by eating healthy. The more you and your ancestors are exposed to diseases, then the better you get at resisting it if you survive. That is how you are supposed to make a healthy child, not by filling them up with drugs or by building them in a lab. Before you know it, we will be over grown and out of rescores.
44. Kristina Satullo January 12, 2012 at 6:00 pm

    1. Yes, the states bear a lot of responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that they had passes in the early part of the 20th century because they had the power to reject the laws and ideas that were presented before them. 28 states decided to take part of this terrible idea. The states should have had the moral standards to put an end to these terrible ideas and stick up for individual’s rights. The surviving victims can never have what was taken away from them given back; nothing can replace someone’s child. The states should give the victims something to help make try amends for what they did. The events that occurred can never be undone, but the people who have suffered deserve something for their loss.
    2. Yes, I think that the philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation are partly responsible for this mess. They were wealthy and considered themselves the fittest and didn’t take in to account that the lower class citizens should be entitled to the same rights. If it hadn’t been for their support and money the eugenics wouldn’t have had the resources necessary to have the effect that they did. Also without the support of these organizations the influence of the eugenics wouldn’t have been big enough to recommend the sterilizations laws. Although I think that these philanthropic organizations should have a lot of the blame they aren’t the only cause. The government and the other groups who supported the idea have a lot of the blame for also supporting it and leading other to support the idea also. If people had not come up with this idea, eugenics wouldn’t have been put into effect. Also if the government would have had the moral standards to not pass the laws then the ideas would have eventually died out without hurting anyone.
45. Anna Lockwood January 12, 2012 at 6:13 pm

    2. I believe that the philanthropic organizations like Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation have to take some of the reasonability because they believed in Social Darwinism and sterilization, and they were also funding scientist to write Eugenist ideas. They would test criminals and mentally insane people to see if they are in the right mind to raise a child. And this is not only against the child’s pursuit of happiness because it’s saying, just because a child has come from an adult who hasn’t been the greatest addition to the world. Does not certify that the child will be not being a great addition to the world and they could do many great things. Even if the child is not the greatest addition into the world it is not right, the majority of both Carnegie’s and Rutherford’s workers were what made up that bottom 10%, or at least some of it, because they were willing to work in those conditions for that pay, so to try and eliminate that whole percentage of people was just plain stupid.
    3. I believe that in time it could be possible for the Human Genome Project to spur similar sentiments and feelings about fetal manipulation on order to create a more perfect human being. Because the Human Genome Project has done many great things such as Democratized Data, Added DNA to human-origins tool kit, snipped away diseases’, gene therapy, and genome sequencing. But saying this I personally do not think it’s correct to create the “perfect human being” because I believe that everyone is prefect in their own way. And it would be cruel to take, or not let anyone live their life because they don’t have all the necessary tools a “perfect human being” would need. Also I don’t think a lot of people would let this happen either. And it would be against a tons of people religion to get rid of all the imperfect, or lower class of people in society.
46. Hank Wikol January 12, 2012 at 6:23 pm

    1. I think that the states definitely have a lot of responsibility for the compulsory sterilization that took place. I think that they are responsible because they passed the law that gave permission to doctors to do this. They allowed the doctors to just sterilize people whenever they wanted if they thought they were unfit to have children. They would in most cases not even tell them that they did it. The state lawmakers had to have known what the document said when they passed it and if they had just said no to the bill we would not have this problem. I think that there should be some sort of compensation for the victims that are still alive today whether it’s financial, emotional, or just therapy. It should also be provided to them for free by the state.

    2. I think that the Human Genome Project could definitely spur similar feelings. Because although right now they’re just looking at DNA to find diseases, it’s going to easily develop into something that will allow people to select the desired traits for their child. I think that when something like this develops it could almost cause people to want to get rid of those who don’t have the desired traits. Or worse it might cause the thought of sterilizing everybody all together just so that you don’t have any kids with undesirable traits. Because many people will choose to take the risk of having a naturally born baby because of the risk of something going wrong or the kid having something undesired. This would also make natural born children be put out for scrutiny because they will have unwanted traits that the genetically created kids will never have. Also, the adults that are deemed unfit, may be sterilized to avoid messing up the “perfect” gene pool that will consist of children who’s traits were handpicked by their parents/creators.
47. Marisa W. January 12, 2012 at 6:26 pm

    1. I think that the states bear a bit of responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws because, even though the laws were being passed on a federal level, the individual state governments could have rejected them. This shows that the leaders of the state governments agreed with the laws and were in favor of the actions that came about as a result. One of the consequences of the laws is that the groups who were affected by the laws have no children to take care of them in their senior years. To make up for this, the surviving victims who were sterilized should be given better health care and a minimum of the suggested amount of $50,000.

    3. I believe there is a possibility that the Human Genome Project could bring about the desire to manipulate the genetic structure of a fetus to create a more “perfect” child. The ability to alter a genetic code—while it can be advantageous, such as in the prevention of diseases—could potentially turn future offspring into the equivalent of a made-to-order product, allowing couples to pick and choose which specific traits they would like their children to have. This could be the cause of many problems. For example, the common preference of couples in a certain point in time could be for their kids to be females with blue eyes; thin lips and eyebrows; small noses; straight, blond hair; and svelte physiques. If the majority of the children born in a generation posses these exact traits, not only will there be no diversity in the population, but it may even lead to the inability to breed further (due to an insignificant ratio of males to females). Another result of genetic manipulation could be accidental damage caused to the genetic structure of the fetus during the process, causing any number of genetic disorders.
48. Gabrielle Clary 3rd hr January 12, 2012 at 6:36 pm

    1. No I don’t think states bear any responsibility for the compulsory sterilization laws that had passed in the early part of the 20th century because the United states allowed the laws and ideas into the country. Instead of shunning away the ideas they let the sterilization laws be promoted through America. The states were naïve and ignorant enough to go along with the ideas and enforce them. The surviving victims should receive an apology from the state and country for the ignorance and inhumanity that was shown to them. Even though in the 1960’s and 1970’s a lot of changes had occurred for people of different ethnicities like the African Americans there are still other races that were harmed and didn’t receive as much of recognition and honor . For example Hispanics don’t get much recognition for their struggles with racism during the 60’s. And Italians when they first arrived to America the lower class faced hard obstacles. The point of the sterilization laws weren’t just to outcast African Americans but to eliminate other ethnicities from succeeding in America.

    2. Yes I do think the philanthropic organizations like Carnegie and Rockefeller do bear responsibility in this mess because during the time they were very influential in America and they basically ran the government. Its surprising to hear that Carnegie contributed to this idea since he came from Ireland to America, you’d think that he would want people coming from other countries would want to experience the same respect and equality that people who were born in America would experience. The contributions from these big names encouraged the rest of America to push these ideas , since the government back then was more so ran by these tycoons whatever they went by the government followed. So it shows how week willed the American government was, compared to our government now.
49. Jacob gluski January 12, 2012 at 6:47 pm

    Blog #29
    Question 1; We have learned that the United States Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutionally sound to have these types of law. Even though the federal government made it legal for the states to pass these laws I think that the brunt of the responsibility, in fact nearly all of it should be by the states. For it was at their own discretion to pass such laws. While it is true that you cannot always be present when the bill is on the floor Non-Classified laws like this one can be read about by the public. I know that in today’s atmosphere public outrage from such a law would cause so much backlash that our senators/ Representatives would be near frantic to repeal it. So also I think the public should bear some of the responsibility of this law’s existence. But as for compensation for the victims I do not really know how they could have something of any comparability to what was taken from them. For really they had a part of them stolen. There is a saying that time is the most valuable thing we have which in a way is true, but we also have ourselves and when a part of us is taken there is no real fixing it. Monetary assistance would only be the beginning; but like I said there is really nothing that I would see as a good solution.
    Question 3; The idea of the perfect human is quite scary to me, probably because I am afraid of being rendered obsolete. Because like all other humans I am not perfect. Another aspect of the “perfect human” would be that if the people who were trying to design the perfect human would be imperfect themselves. Another fear I have of the perfect human is that if they were all to be the same individualism might be destroyed. All of that being said I do think that somewhere down the road, for we have not translated all the genes into protein configuration, we run the possible risk of trying to create the perfect human. But I am not at all opposed to the review of the genes of the population, and removing possible defects that would prevent disease, but we currently (at least not that I know of) don’t have the means or technology to scan the DNA of every human and replace all of the mistakes in the DNA of every cell. The only possible solution would to be to scan and correct errors in the single cell stage, or before. This could be implemented much more easily. But I don’t think that this will cause the already existent humans to be “sterilized”.
50. Kurt Melendy - 3rd Hour January 12, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    1. I think that the philanthropic organizations such as the Carnegie Institute or the Rockefeller Foundation do bear responsibility in this mess of compulsory sterilization because, I feel like these types of organizations where urging people in the states to go towards this without really knowing every detail that they had planned for the future. I feel like the people could have been told more about what was going to happen so this mess didn’t even occur in the first place for another reason that, the U.S. had to clear up this mess now and still do everything on their plate, so to speak. Also, I feel like that there may have been a vote to determine what they were going to do in the near future and since most people probably heard what the Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation where saying then the people where influenced more to vote for that since they may have not what they where even voting for.
    3. I do feel that the Human Genome Project could spur sentiments or feelings about fetal manipulation because; if you have enough money to “create” a child in your own way that you want it to be, then why not try it. By all means, if you could make your child someone who’s smart, or an athlete, or maybe even become the president: I feel that nobody would pass up that offer. If in the future after years of studying the Human Genome Project, the human race might be able to discover the cure for cancer or diseases that are fatal and can easily kill someone. If you could take the genes of famous people in American history and put them together to create one person with all of these abilities, most likely nobody would be able to over throw him and a lot of problems could be solved this way. This could also be dangerous because, if a human could take the genes of people in our history who are known for their cruelty and put them together it could be the third on comer of evil leaders.