THE RAINBOW SWASTIKA - Scattered Seed Ministries

defects are not discovered until birth. If a child were not declared alive until 3 days after
birth, the doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose, and save a lot of misery
and suffering. I believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have." (Nobel
Prize winner and ethicist Dr. James D. Watson, 1973, emphasis mine.) Margaret Sanger,
more than a generation before Watson, already saw cases where even perfectly healthy babies
should be spared the "misery" of life: "The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of
its infant members is to kill it." (Sanger, _Women and the New Race_, 1920, p.67) And her
colleague, Madison Grant, saw infanticide as a natural process which could aid the
"preservation of the species", if it weren't for the "sentimental beliefs" inherited from Judaism
and Christianity. As could be expected, "quality of life" was cited when the U.S. Supreme
Court upheld the "euthanasia" of "Baby Doe" of Bloomington, Indiana (1982-3), which in fact
was premeditated infanticide (death by starvation) of an unwanted child.
In fact, some would like to go even farther, equating the "quality of life" which merits being
born at all with a genetic forecast of good health for one's entire life: "If we could tell what
fetuses are going to be affected with cancer in their 40s and 50s, I would be for aborting them
now." (Dr. Cecil B. Jacobson, Chief of the Reproductive Genetics Unit, George Washington
University Hospital, quoted in _Psychology Today_, Sep. 1975, p.22) This will likely be the
first application of the famous Genome Project, which is endeavoring to identify and "map" as
many as possible of the 10,000+ human genes: "It is highly likely that within a decade [from
1990], tests for a variety of aberrant genes [those which show a higher-than-average chance of
developing a disease or disorder] will be cheap and easy enough to permit testing of large
numbers of people.... As the list of known defective genes grows, there will be mounting
pressure for mass screening of the population, at least of the newborn population.... As
prenatal genetic diagnosis becomes simpler and easier, the temptation will arise to use it for
less severe genetic aberrations...." (Jerry Bishop and Michael Waldholz, _Genome_. See
pp.17-20, 278, 308). [To put things in perspective, ponder the fact that The Genome Project is
a multi-billion-dollar effort, mostly financed by the US government. Why aren't the
champions of humanism protesting about the many social needs that could be alleviated with
those billions? Why should an academic research project rate such an outrageous budget?
Because it's the eugenicist's spiral stairway to heaven, promising a powerful shortcut to
"creating a race of thoroughbreds"; or in NA terms, it provides micro-screening for the
"starseed" quality needed to populate the coming Age of Aquarius.]
Most assume that abortion and euthanasia laws uphold "pro-choice", ie, that such
"selections" are explicitly left up to the affected individual or family. Isn't the abortion credo
summed up in "My body, my choice..."? A less-publicized element in landmark abortion
laws, such as "Roe v. Wade" (1973) and the American Law Institute Model Penal Code
(1962), is that the doctors - not the parents - are given "the basic responsibility" for deciding
abortions. Could abortion legislation ever be interpreted to force certain women to abort their
babies for the "good of society"? The sacred assumption of "woman's right to choose" was
suspended years ago in China, where a nationwide forced-abortion program is funded by the
UN "Fund for Population Assistance" [sic]. What about the newer movement for assisted
suicide, respecting an individual's "right to die with dignity"? The World Health Organization
reported that at least 50 million "missing" Chinese women are possible euthanasia victims in a
country that chooses to place higher value on its males. (WHO Regional Committee for the
Western Pacific, in a UN report released Sept. 26, 1997) How could this take place with the
knowledge and approval - and assistance - of that global champion of Human Rights, the
United Nations?