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

Comments

When you pull tongue-in-cheek comments out of context of the original thread, it'd be nice if you had the courtesy …

by Heath Satow on Not a Lot of Nazi Statues in Berlin (Letters to the Editor)

Thanks for pulling my quote out without noting that the comment was made tongue-in-cheek. A bit creepy when you pull …

by Heath Satow on Not a Lot of Nazi Statues in Berlin (Letters to the Editor)

Most Read

  1. Not a Lot of Nazi Statues in Berlin (Letters to the Editor)

Most Recent Comments

When you pull tongue-in-cheek comments out of context of the original thread, it'd be nice if you had the courtesy …

by Heath Satow on Not a Lot of Nazi Statues in Berlin (Letters to the Editor)

Thanks for pulling my quote out without noting that the comment was made tongue-in-cheek. A bit creepy when you pull …

by Heath Satow on Not a Lot of Nazi Statues in Berlin (Letters to the Editor)

was the misogony stuff actually some type of performance art?

by sthomper on Mob Rule (Letters to the Editor)

Ryan Plankenhorn appears to have good intentions with his remarks, and it is much appreciated. I would kindly like him …

by MelissaJ123 on Blind Attack (Letters to the Editor)

Who are these people who behave so badly and dare anyone to comment on them in public? Are they relatively …

by MickeyNotMouse on Mob Rule (Letters to the Editor)

© 2017 Indy Week • 320 E. Chapel Hill St., Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation