Forced Vaccinations: Stepping Into Eugenics?

Forced Vaccinations: Stepping Into Eugenics?

What are the implications of forcing vaccinations on
people? Two states allow no exemptions to any child for religious or
philosophical reasons. People lose their jobs if they don’t acquiesce.
It’s for the ‘greater good’, of course—just as eugenics is.

Graphic by Steve D. Hammond, Large syringe in fist superimposed. (Steve’s PhotoStream)


by Heidi Stevenson

Vaccinations are being forced on people. Children are refused
entrance to school if they haven’t complied with the government-defined
vaccine schedule. Two states, West Virginia and Mississippi, do not
accept either religious or philosophical exemptions. State after state
is making it harder, often to the point of virtual impossibility, for
parents to refuse to have their children vaccinated. More and more,
people are being told that they must be vaccinated or lose their jobs.
We are seeing more and more cases of parents threatened with loss of
their children if they don’t submit them for vaccinating.

There can be no doubt that the trend is to force vaccinations on
everyone for any reason. This is being done in the face of official
admissions that vaccinations do carry risks, including death and severe
debilitation.

It is, of course, done for the “greater good”.

Of course.

The old, the brand-new, and the infirm are to be protected—and who
wouldn’t want to do that? You’d have to be a monster not to make sure
you’ve had all your shots.

Wouldn’t you?

Moral Authority


Let’s assume the best. Let’s assume that, though it is acknowledged
that there’s some risk, even the potential of death, the benefits of
vaccines far outweigh the harms. (This assumption is being made to
give the pro-forced vaccination concept the strongest argument that can
be mustered. The straw dog argument isn’t legitimate and won’t be used)

At best, forced vaccination is an imposition on personal rights. It’s
forcing a medical procedure, one with very real and potentially
devastating risks, on everyone. The question is, can it be justified?

On one side is the argument that the state has the right to force
people to become soldiers and literally give their lives for their
country. Does that justify forced vaccination?

There is a big distinction between going to war, even having one’s
life sacrified, for the security of one’s nation, for its ability to
exist. That is not what’s a stake. Vaccination involves the trade-off of
life, or quality of life, between people within a nation. It is not
done to assure that the nation can exist.

So, the question is a matter of degree. Let’s assume that just one
person, who would have refused a vaccine, suffers a life-long chronic
illness from a vaccination, and that in exchange, 20 people who might
have been exposed to the disease are saved, with one not dying and two
not suffering from the disease’s permanent sequelae. Is the suffering of
one person from being forced to vaccinate justified to save the
disability of 2, the death of 1, and the discomfort of 17?

Let’s turn that around: Who has the right to make that decision? You?
Me? Someone in authority? The parent of the vaccinated child who died?
The son of the grandmother who died? The daughter of the father who was
unable to support his children? There’s the rub. Who has the right to
demand that anyone take the acknowledged risk of a vaccine to protect
others? Who gets to choose who lives and who dies?

What if the numbers are changed? What if one person’s death from a
forced vaccination results in the survival of a thousand? The basic
dilemma still hasn’t changed. Who makes the decision?

It seems rather clear that no one has that right. Forced vaccination,
no matter how well-intentioned it might be, is heading down a path
fraught with hazard. Even if we decide that it isn’t eugenics, it’s
going down a path that numbs people to the concept—always, of course,
with the sense that the “greater good” is being served.

Bettering the Gene Pool


The suggestion that everyone should be vaccinated to protect the rest
of society—that some must be sacrificed for the welfare of the everyone
else, is inherently flawed. It is, though, the reason that’s used.

It’s a conscious decision to weed out the presumably weak for the
betterment of the rest. The defective are given up to the altar of the
public weal.

What is eugenics? At its simplest, it’s a to improve the human race
through selective breeding. It’s when the methods of assuring that only
the best humans can breed are brought into play that the danger inherent
in eugenics becomes clear. At its most innocent, eugenics would require
controlling who becomes a parent.

How would that be done? Someone, or some group, must be tasked with
making the decision of whose genes are good enough to pass on, and the
corollary: whose genes are defective and shouldn’t be allowed to pollute
the next generation.

And that’s the most innocuous approach to eugenics. As has happened
before in the United States, and elsewhere in the world, all sorts of
people have been sterilized on the altar of eugenics, including those
defined as insane or disabled or even the wrong race. The next step
would be to euthanize—murder—these people to assure that their genes
don’t pollute the gene pool and that they are no longer a “burden” on
society. In Germany, “inferior” groups of people were sent to gas
chambers on a massive scale. It started with the insane and disabled.
Then it moved on to homosexuals, intellectuals, people of the wrong
political party (Communists), the Gypsies (Roma), and of course, the
best known, the Jews. They were all murdered with the most
self-righteous of motives: the improvement of the gene pool.

Forced Vaccination


Is forced vaccination eugenics? It’s a matter of degree, but it’s surely on the borderline.

One of the purposes of vaccination is to prevent death. To presume
the right to forcibly vaccinate implies a degree of inferiority among
those who die or are harmed by vaccines. After all, if someone dies from
a vaccine, then that person must be less able to survive, right? Let’s
turn that around. The person who dies of a disease must be less able to
survive, right? So that person’s genetics are not as good as the one who
survives. Therefore, it’s right that the person die, because it means
that the genes are removed from the gene pool.

The same argument seems entirely logical when made by either side,
but moving it to the opposite side shows both the inherent implication
of inferiority of the one who dies and the corollary of benefit to the
human race by removal of inferior genes.

Let’s not live in denial about the reality here. We accept the death
or debilitation of a person for succumbing to either a vaccine or a
disease by deeming that person somewhat inferior. So, if we choose to
forcibly vaccinate, then we have decided that the life of the child who
suffers from a vaccine-induced neurological disorder holds less value
than another child who has, presumably, been saved.

Does that constitute eugenics? It’s a borderline situation. If we say
yes, then we’re agreeing that eugenics can exist whether we consciously
decide that the genes of some are inferior and shouldn’t be passed on.
If we insist that there be intent, then forced vaccination is not
eugenics.

Let’s leave that aside, because it’s not the end of the issue.

Genetic Sequencing at Birth


Every state in the US is now collecting the genetic data of virtually
every newborn and sequencing it. That should chill you down to the
gills. By law, all states are required to screen for 21 disorders. Some
test for more than 30. The central agency for handling all this is the
National Newborn Screening & Genetics Resource Center (NNSGRC)¹.

Neither the parents nor the children have any control over these
records, though a few states still require that parents be able to opt
out. However, how many people know this? How many know that signing the
right to refuse, which exists in some states, exists? How many have any
idea this is happening?

In spite of the fact that it is illegal to take genetic samples from
most adults and sequence them, that right is being usurped from every
baby at birth. When grown, these babies will not have the ability to say
no, because their most personal possession, the DNA that makes them who
they are, was stolen as soon as they entered the world².

What is done with this genetic information cannot be determined by
the parents or, ultimately, the children. Should the state decide that
children “suffering” with a particular genetic sequence are defective,
and a vaccine is developed to “cure” this defect, genetic sequencing
combined with force vaccination becomes eugenics.

The camel’s nose is in the tent. In fact, it’s in all the way to the
tail in two arenas. One is forced vaccinations and the other is genetic
sequencing at birth.

The Beginning of Eugenics


This is the beginning of eugenics. Whatever one’s personal beliefs
about vaccination, this headlong rush to force a risky medical procedure
on the individual for the purported benefit of the masses is the excuse
offered up for every eugenics campaign ever devised. The same reason is
being used for the genetic sequencing of every baby and the associated
record keeping: It’s for the greater good.

But is it? When the individual no longer has a say in what becomes of
body parts … When a dangerous medical procedure is forced on us for our
own good and the greater good … The era of eugenics has begun. You can
wear blinders if you like, but the course of this usurpation of our
individual rights to privacy and self-determination are slipping away
under us like quicksilver.

As Twila Brase wrote in “Genetic Information: Where Do We Go from Here?”²:

<blockquote>[N]ewborn screening and genetic research using newborns’
DNA may eventually lead to a twenty-first century vaccination program
against detected genetic traits, biomarkers, and mutations. …
Vaccination and parental informed consent are fundamental human rights.
</blockquote>
The dream or nightmare of creating a human race by design is upon us.
Heaven help us as the powers-that-be decide what’s best for each and
every person … and force it on us through vaccines and genetic
engineering. How far behind can mercy killings be? Or the killing of
people deemed to have an unacceptably low quality of life? And how far
can it go?

And how can forced vaccinations be considered anything but eugenics or their immediate precursor?


Source:-
http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-10-23/forced-vaccinations-stepping-into-eugenics/