Pure Evil: Writer Uses Parkland Shooting to Justify Eugenics

It's hard to put into words how vile this is.

The insanity of opinions expressed on Twitter reached its apex tonight with a stunning tweet that was equal parts evil and ignorant. A columnist with the monicker "Hoodie Rebecca (clover emoji)" tweeted her solution to prevent tragedies like the Parkland shooting from ever happening again: Eugenics and abortion.

Ah, yes. The old "if we had just been able to murder him in the womb, this would never have happened" argument. Despite the more than 1,000 negative comments this tweet drew, "Hoodie" doubled down, citing a wildly racist (and later proven inaccurate) study from Freakonomics that asserted the increase in abortions among low-income minority women after Roe v. Wade caused crime to decrease throughout the 1990s.

The idea that unfit or unready mothers should dispose of their children is both wicked and stupid. A compassionate person sees an unready mother expecting a child as an opportunity to show love. It's a chance to restore a woman seeking help and make sure that, whether through job training, counseling, or in the most severe cases, adoption, the child soon to arrive will grow up in a stable family. An immoral person, however, sees only a child who needs to die and a woman who needs to be cast aside after the deed is done. In addition, adopted children or children in foster care are not condemned to become criminals. As Lone Conservative Founder Kassy Dillon aptly pointed out, many such children grow up to be successful icons.

At this point, Ms. Rebecca had presented the grotesque notion that abortion is the key to preventing crime and cited bad research to do so, but it turned out she was just getting started. She later fired off another tweet claiming people who struggle with mental illness and choose to reproduce are also a contributing factor to violent crime in America.

If you think this idea sounds familiar, it's because it has been championed by high-profile historical figures such as Adolf Hitler and Margaret Sanger. It's called "eugenics," and it flourishes today in liberal bubbles like Iceland and in the bowels of Planned Parenthood.

Despite what eugenicist scaremongers would have you think, people with mental illness are not more likely to commit mass shootings. A 2016 study by the American Psychiatric Association found that mass shootings by people with mental illness account for "less than 1% of yearly gun-related homicides." In fact, only 3% of violent crimes were found to have been committed by people with severe mental illness. Like the position that abortion curbs violent crime, this demonization of mental illness is not rooted in facts.

Continuing in her thread, she claims her dissenters are "attacking someone for an opinion," are "a mob who doesn’t care" and that their mamas "didn’t do such a good job" with them.

This evil worldview neatly packaged into a Twitter thread is heart-breaking and gut-wrenching, but it's not uncommon, and it reveals a fundamental flaw with liberal thinking. In the eyes of today's liberal, individual responsibility does not exist, and all sins are attributable to societal ills. In the cacophony of voices sounding off on this tragic shooting, you would be hard pressed to find a voice on the left blaming the individual who murdered 17 people. Instead, it's society's fault for allowing him to buy a gun, or it's society's fault for not ensuring his demise in the womb, or it's society's fault for permitting his parents to have a child. This simplistic and intellectually bankrupt way of thinking leads to the great evil we saw expressed on Twitter tonight. Mothers who choose life are not responsible for violence. Children born into uncertain circumstances are not future criminals who deserve the preemptive death penalty. They are innocent, full of potential for good and deserve to live.

Comments
No. 1-11
petermckenna
petermckenna

Editor

Hey Jack, thanks for your questions, as they give me the chance to clarify things further. Firstly, calling evil what it is and blaming a pregnant woman without offering to help her are two very different things. Secondly, I never claimed that a pregnant woman bears no personal responsibility for her situation. But the child soon to be born bears no responsibility whatsoever, and it is a moral imperative to protect this new life (on this point we may disagree, but my convictions come from my Christian faith). Thirdly, the practice of abstinence would certainly reduce the rate of unplanned pregnancies (I never said it wouldn't), but unfortunately, you and I cannot regulate human behavior in this way. Fourthly, I never mentioned anything related to a subsidy. To address your final point, showing love actually does solve the problem. Churches and faith-based charities show love to unready mothers by giving them job training so they can work and support their baby. Or, faith-based foster care and adoption agencies make sure the child grows up in a loving home. The generational poverty you mention is actually perpetuated by lack of love, not by an excess of it. To your point that babies require significant resources, this is absolutely true. When you were a baby, you required the same resources. But, you were not murdered. I don't know your life story, but I do know that at least the bare minimum requirements were met for your survival. I'm sure you're a wonderful person, but you were not more worthy of these resources than a child born into more uncertain circumstances. Finally, you asked if I was actually interested in solving the problem. The answer is yes, and I work toward this in my community. Taking action helps people, telling them they should never have been pregnant does not. Again, thanks for your comments. I always appreciate the chance to explain my beliefs further.

Jack_Krevin
Jack_Krevin

As to my actual point, how you can decry the left refusal to accept personal responsibility when you don't for these women involved? Do you disagree practicing abstinence until you are ready to have children would reduce the number of unwanted/unfit mothers? Do you believe these woman are somehow less responsible for their action than the gang bangers you chastise the left for excusing? Further it is a bedrock of conservatism that if you subsidize something you'll get more of it. Hence why earlier civilizations placed such a stigma on unwed childbirth. So are you actually interested in solving a problem or merely feeling "good" and "loving"?

Jack_Krevin
Jack_Krevin

@petermckenna : Leaving aside you appear to have no qualm pointing fingers at those who you are in actual opposition with, your personal feelings have no impact on reality. Children require a certain set number of resources, including time and attention, in order to be raised properly, Resources unfit/unready mothers are, by definition, either unwilling or unable to provide. Requiring others to step up and provide these things or, as is all too often the case, the child is locked into a crushing cycle of poverty and broken families. So, your sentimentality aside, a child must be "dealt with". The only point of arguing is on which measures to employ. You cited adoption for instance in your article as opposed to killing them. But both would be an attempt to deal with the problem.

russedav
russedav

... not to mention aborting Jesus Christ himself, based on case history, as in those above!

russedav
russedav

There's also the example of how such "thinking" would lead to aborting Beethoven and saving Hitler, clearly a sad sicko incapable of truth or thinking rationally.