Well, he's just reposted the same basic stupidity.
His justification?
It would be hard to regulate a new Act, and proposing it could be (figuratively) land-mine territory for politicians, but if it leads to one saved life because of an unborn criminal, I'd say it would all be worth it.
Apparently Mr. Csillag didn't figure out what was wrong with eugenics the first time around. His rationalization about curing a bunch of social ailments by "preventing" criminals from reproducing is right up there with the brain damaged logic that says "if I carry a gun, I can defend myself against armed criminals" - only his is even worse because it presupposes that the offspring of a criminal is going to be another criminal.
So, I wonder if Mr. Csillag would want to apply retroactive birth control where a criminal who already has children is involved. After all, by his reasoning, they're damaged goods to start with.
This is yet one more example of "compassionate conservatism" at its logical best.
No comments:
Post a Comment