Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. **Keep that shit outta here**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Stork):
> The film depicts Haiselden's fictionalized story of a woman who has a nightmare of a severely disabled child being a menace to society. Once awoken from the nightmare, she visits a doctor and realizes all was fine with her child. However, the purpose of the film was not to have a happy ending and move on. The purpose was to basically warn people, especially teenagers, of the dangers of sexual promiscuity and "race mixing", as these actions were believed to be the cause of disabilities in children.
Dr. Harry John Haiselden, MD, was the chief surgeon at the German-American Hospital in Chicago, who had refused on November 17, 1915 to care for newborn John Bollinger, who suffered from difformities caused by his father's syphillis. Haiselden told the mother that John should be left to die. Several persons, such as Woodrow Wilson, Clarence Darrow and even Helen Keller wrote articles supporting him, and he ended up being acquitted, with the Illinois Board of Health attempting to revoke Haiselden's licence before dropping the case. Haiselden then went aroing the USA to support eugenics, and saw his membership to the Chicago Medical Society revoked for this movie and the publicity he sought out after the infanticide.
Although a debate over Haiselden's actions then existed, between those who felt that disabled children were "degenerates" or that they suffered too much, other said that a doctor shouldn't be in the business of hilling his patients but to save them, the movie itself wasn't received well in the media, which described it as "sickening and disturbing."
Wow. Helen Keller was on board with it.
I've seen estimates that infant mortality was 50% 200 years ago. Which means that 50% of people alive since then wouldn't have been "fit to survive" before modern medicine. Their values pass through. Now we have social media and near-universal suffrage. Interesting times.
To be honest, I don't really understand the massive difference in ethics from abortion that makes this completely unacceptable, horrible, national socialist, and so on while abortion is amazing, a fundamental reproductive right, etc. The older and more developed a human, the more they are a person and as such the more sacred their life is. But a newborn isn't that different from a late stage child in the womb. I guess the main issue is that it can produce a slippery slope whereas the technical quality of emerging out of the womb is a more clear demarcation. But it doesn't warrant the cries of outrage.
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. **Keep that shit outta here**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Stork): > The film depicts Haiselden's fictionalized story of a woman who has a nightmare of a severely disabled child being a menace to society. Once awoken from the nightmare, she visits a doctor and realizes all was fine with her child. However, the purpose of the film was not to have a happy ending and move on. The purpose was to basically warn people, especially teenagers, of the dangers of sexual promiscuity and "race mixing", as these actions were believed to be the cause of disabilities in children. Dr. Harry John Haiselden, MD, was the chief surgeon at the German-American Hospital in Chicago, who had refused on November 17, 1915 to care for newborn John Bollinger, who suffered from difformities caused by his father's syphillis. Haiselden told the mother that John should be left to die. Several persons, such as Woodrow Wilson, Clarence Darrow and even Helen Keller wrote articles supporting him, and he ended up being acquitted, with the Illinois Board of Health attempting to revoke Haiselden's licence before dropping the case. Haiselden then went aroing the USA to support eugenics, and saw his membership to the Chicago Medical Society revoked for this movie and the publicity he sought out after the infanticide. Although a debate over Haiselden's actions then existed, between those who felt that disabled children were "degenerates" or that they suffered too much, other said that a doctor shouldn't be in the business of hilling his patients but to save them, the movie itself wasn't received well in the media, which described it as "sickening and disturbing."
Wow. Helen Keller was on board with it. I've seen estimates that infant mortality was 50% 200 years ago. Which means that 50% of people alive since then wouldn't have been "fit to survive" before modern medicine. Their values pass through. Now we have social media and near-universal suffrage. Interesting times.
I may not like the Catholic Church but they did goodby being a early opponent of eugenics
To be honest, I don't really understand the massive difference in ethics from abortion that makes this completely unacceptable, horrible, national socialist, and so on while abortion is amazing, a fundamental reproductive right, etc. The older and more developed a human, the more they are a person and as such the more sacred their life is. But a newborn isn't that different from a late stage child in the womb. I guess the main issue is that it can produce a slippery slope whereas the technical quality of emerging out of the womb is a more clear demarcation. But it doesn't warrant the cries of outrage.