Re: Defense of Marriage Act; Eugenics and abortion | Letters to the Editor | Indy Week
Pin It

Re: Defense of Marriage Act; Eugenics and abortion 


Re: DOMA

House Majority Leader Paul Stam and the other supporters of the Defense of Marriage Act rally to "protect marriage" with the same fervor of a thousand good ol' boys courting Scarlett O'Hara—and come away from it looking just as foolish ("While conservative legislators denounce same-sex marriage, a lawmaker discusses being gay," May 18). Marriage is not a real person whose rights need defending, and homosexuals in North Carolina are not villains who spend their time plotting to destroy society, though Travis Fain's article makes me wonder if those like Rep. Stam believe otherwise.

The Defense of Marriage Act offers absolutely no benefit to the people of North Carolina whatsoever. Conversely, the presence of gay culture in the Triangle has created an incredibly rich environment of flourishing local business and socio-economic diversity. Working with gay culture has a more positive effect on society than standing against it ever will.

Supporters of this amendment would do well to remember that they don't have to agree with the lifestyle choices of their constituents, but they do have to represent them. What does it say when your own congressperson votes for something that would prevent you from visiting a loved one in the hospital? Hint: It isn't "re-election."

Anna Geisler
Raleigh


Re: Eugenics and abortion

As a person with special needs, I appreciate your exposé on the dark and evil history of eugenics (cover story, May 18). I have cerebral palsy; when I was born in 1986, doctors told my parents I would never walk, drive or go to college. I did all of that and more. Science can only predict so much.

Sadly, we still have promoters of eugenics, particularly in Europe, where—according to my therapists at UNC who have given lectures overseas, as well as the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown—parents are encouraged to terminate children with special needs. Princeton "ethicist" and occasional New York Times contributor Peter Singer has advocated aborting and/or euthanizing disabled children as a means of conserving national resources. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger is notorious for her support for the eugenics movement in the '30s and '40s. So was George Bernard Shaw. Unfortunately, both these figures are lauded as great contributors to humanity and progress in today's society.

The Baby Doe case out of Indiana in the 1980s saw our U.S. Supreme Court say parents could deny life-saving surgery to a disabled child if they weren't prepared to care for a disabled child. While we should be outraged by the systematic sterilization of minorities and the poor by the government of yesterday, I find it interesting that our modern day society has no moral qualms about aborting 85 percent of Down syndrome children. I'm not seeing the difference in the level of outrage, but sadly, many people do. They call it "choice."

Michael Lewis
Chapel Hill


Latest in Letters to the Editor

Comments

Showing 1-1 of 1

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-1 of 1

Add a comment

INDY Week publishes all kinds of comments, but we don't publish everything.

  • Comments that are not contributing to the conversation will be removed.
  • Comments that include ad hominem attacks will also be removed.
  • Please do not copy and paste the full text of a press release.

Permitted HTML:
  • To create paragraphs in your comment, type <p> at the start of a paragraph and </p> at the end of each paragraph.
  • To create bold text, type <b>bolded text</b> (please note the closing tag, </b>).
  • To create italicized text, type <i>italicized text</i> (please note the closing tag, </i>).
  • Proper web addresses will automatically become links.

Latest in Letters to the Editor



Twitter Activity

Most Recent Comments

Thank you cleverweist1 and Cristel Gutshchenritter Orrand for the opportunity to stand up for what I believe in as a …

by half full on A Massive Scar (Letters to the Editor)

Mr Pollock makes some good points .
Noam Chomsky and Ron Paul have similar views on wars we have waged …

by CHHS Tiger on History you won't like either (Letters to the Editor)

Sadly, this letter, while well-meaning, is deeply flawed. The background check gun control law has failed but it can never …

by ProudlyUnaffiliated on No new gun laws! (Letters to the Editor)

For the life of me, I do not understand why folks keep yelling about their 2nd Amendment rights as though …

by cityfox on No new gun laws! (Letters to the Editor)

It seems the real problem with the guns is that the wrong people can get them illegally by : stealing …

by CHHS Tiger on No new gun laws! (Letters to the Editor)

Comments

Thank you cleverweist1 and Cristel Gutshchenritter Orrand for the opportunity to stand up for what I believe in as a …

by half full on A Massive Scar (Letters to the Editor)

Mr Pollock makes some good points .
Noam Chomsky and Ron Paul have similar views on wars we have waged …

by CHHS Tiger on History you won't like either (Letters to the Editor)

Most Read

  1. Drawn to Durham (Peripheral Visions)
  2. What Makes a Farm a Farm? (Back Talk)

© 2016 Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation