No, Eugenics Isn't the Answer to Mass Shootings

There are myriad cultural and spiritual reasons for what happened Wednesday. Adoption had nothing to do with it.

Jordan Candler · Feb. 16, 2018

In a disgusting attempt to justify evil under the guise of mitigating another evil — mass shootings — a columnist who goes by the Twitter pseudonym Hoodie Rebecca is borrowing from the playbook of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. The latter would be proud of what leftists continue to advocate today. In Rebecca’s twisted and distorted mind, eugenics is justified and ought to be fully embraced if our goal is to stave off atrocities like what happened in Parkland, Florida.

Rebecca unashamedly tweeted yesterday: “Woman puts baby up for adoption, he grows up to be a violent young man who will spend the rest of his life in prison for a mass murder. Tell me more about how abortions are wrong.”

The perpetrator in the Florida shooting is an adoptee whose non-biological mother passed away just a few months ago. One former neighbor reported to The New York Times that the shooter “had emotional problems and I believe he was diagnosed with autism,” adding, “He had trouble controlling his temper. He broke things. He would do that sometimes at our house when he lost his temper.” The neighbor also noted: “Kids were really picking on him and would gang up on him and beat him up a little. They ostracized him. He didn’t have many friends. His mother was his entire life and when he lost her, I believe that was it for the boy’s peace of mind.”

According to eugenics-advocate Hoodie Rebecca, these troubles could have been avoided altogether had his adoption never happened. In her mind, the perpetrator’s parents didn’t fit into the “acceptable in the eyes of the world” condition, which necessitates their child’s being aborted because there is no hope for him. Not from his biological parents, and not from his adoptive parents. The result is that 17 innocent children were murdered. In other words, Rebecca is absurdly arguing that abortion is a moral requirement.

Question for Rebecca: How many of those innocent children who died on Wednesday quietly suffered from some of the same struggles as the perpetrator? Everyone has a different background, but everyone struggles to varying degrees. So if any of the children had, say, autism, would you argue in favor of their having been killed in utero? After all, if abortion is a moral requirement for those who face mental incapacitates or other severe trials, when is death by any means not moral?

It’s our response to struggles that dictates how they’re manifested. In the killer’s case, he chose poorly. But that’s not to say that people with similar trials haven’t managed to overcome their problems and do tremendous good in the world. (Steve Jobs comes to mind.) Advocating for a culture of death does far more harm than pushing for adoption. In many cases, adoption provides a much better avenue than would otherwise have been possible. Yet Rebecca is content to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

There are myriad cultural and spiritual reasons for what happened Wednesday. But adoption had nothing to do with it. Had the perpetrator’s parents carried through with an abortion, they too may have suffered irreparable mental and emotional upheaval. In this world, we must find the best solutions to tough problems. Pretending that adoption contributes to these problems and eugenics is the answer isn’t one of them.

Click here to show comments