For those who don't know what Eugenics is; It is a disgusting twisted extension of evolution. It is a belief that there are certain traits that are passed on from generation to generation. They believed that certain races had these genetic flaws that made them inferior while other races were superior. But it didn't stop with racism. They believed that many people have genetic weaknesses that needed to be filtered out. They believed that people who had these genetic failing should be sterilized to purify the races. This led to forced sterilization of the feeble minded and those with epilepsy. This was an attempt right here in America to create the master race. Then Hitler came along ad came up with the final solution that discredited the whole notion of Eugenics.
Now then in the town of Medford Oregon a woman had a child. She didn't realize that she was pregnant. This is rare but because of a lot of factors this can happen even to intelligent women but according to the state she is not intelligent. She has a 72 IQ and the father of the child had an IQ in the sixties. So her IQ is considered low and he is considered mildly mentally disabled.
There was a complaint from her father who does not thin she is a fit mother. Her older children from a previous marriage now live with their father. She lost the custody of this child just days after returning from the hospital on the grounds that she didn't know he was pregnant that shows that her IQ inhibits her ability to raise children. She had a fourth child that was taken from her before he even left the hospital.
The problem is that it seems that the state had no evidence of neglect or abuse. They took the children before anything could happen to them. The only justification of their actions was that the parents have low IQ and thus they can't take care of their children. The parents have completed two parenting classes and a nutrtion class in order to be able to get the custody f their children back. Instead of letting the parents have their children back they are trying to terminate their parental rights so the children can be adopted by more suitable parents.
Some may say the woman's father agreed with the state and thinks his daughter should not get her children back. But the Amy's aunt who also knows her well says that she should get custody back. There was a voulenter for the state that went to the house to supervise the visits the parents had with ther children. She is a professional mediator with more than two decades of experience in these situations. A true expert. She advised the state that it was nolonger necessary for the children to remain in fster care and that the parent should retain custody. Her relarionship with the state as a volunteer has been terminated. Some say it is because of her opinions on this case.
Is it justified that parents would lose their children over a low IQ alone and does one isolated case proves nothing really does it? First of all it's no its's not right and secondly no it's not an isolated case. It is happening all over the country. Here is a paragraph from the Oregonion the largest paper in the state that addresses both issues. "Across the country, a national study estimates that somewhere between 40 percent and 80 percent of parents with intellectual disabilities lose their parental rights. Susan Yuan is the former associate director of the Center on Disabilit'y and Community Inclusion at University of Vermont. She's now president of The Association for Successful Parenting, which provides parenting assessments for parents with intellectual disabilities."
Now of course there are many people of lower intellect that cannot the responsibilities and stresses of being parents. But each case needs to be taken on an indivual basis. You need some evidence of neglect or abuse. But if there isn't it better to remove the child from there custody if there is any question about the wellbeing of their child. No for to reasons. First parents have rights that the state should not infringe upon unless the state has hard evidence about. Two taking the children away from the parents and putting them in a foster home can do damage to a child by itself. So the state has a moral obligation to make sure that the harm that the parents are doing to their children is greater than the harm that will be done if they are removed from their home. That threshold of evidence has not been met in the slightest in this case.
So what does Amy's story have two do with Eugenics? One of the longest lived and most damaging legacies is the forced sterilizations. There was a belief that we had stop certain characteristics from being past down so we needed to forcibly sterilize people because they probably wouldn't be smart enough to do it themselves. After all these are the people that are reporduing like rabits while the productive members of society have far fewer children.
Today we just seem to have the idea that if you have a reasonably low inteelegence that you are incapable of raiseing you children so we don't even give you a chance to prove it. Guess what happens if you do this enough? you discourage those with llwer IQ's from even having children in the first place. After all who wan't to have a child if it's ripped out of your hands as soon as it's born. In this way it will have a similar effect in the long run. It will get the defect DNA out of the gene pool. Yeah for science.
This case dicusts me. There may be more to this case than most of us know right now. But if there is not shame on you Oregon. These parents deserve a chance to prove what kind of parents they are. How dare you tell them they are to stupid to raise kids without any evidence to back it up. We need to share this story and let people know what's going on..