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”.
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.
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.
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:
[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.
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?
- National Newborn Screening & Genetics Resource Center (NNSGRC)
- Vaccine Epidemic, Louise Kuo Habakus, MA and Mary Holland, JD, Skyhorse Publishing, ©2011, pp 176-180 (“Genetic Information: Where Do We Go frm Here?”)