Girls, 13 and 15, Charged With Murder After Armed Carjacking Near Nationals Park

[Anonymous]

.... birth control pills, that is.

[Anonymous]

How would that be eugenics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How would that be eugenics?

Eugenics was the science/belief in creating the "healthiest" humans possible, healthy babies support healthy families that support healthy society. The movement also believed that most of society's ills (lawlessness, alcoholism, disabilities, mental disorders, inability to keep jobs, being poor) were inheritable traits and ran in families. So if you prevent those families from reproducing, there will be less of those traits being inherited and less people with those traits, and therefore the rate of alcoholism will go down, poverty will decrease, crime will go down, etc., by fact of those with the undesirable traits being unable to pass the traits along because they aren't having children.

Sanger wanted birth control in the hands of poor people, not because she was a huge believer in women taking control of their own healthcare and reproductive health, but because she believed in the eugenic theory of a stronger society will occur if the poor people stop having poor babies who will then turn into poor adults.

Sangers's views on birth control are not a secret or her views on eugenics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would that be eugenics?

Eugenics was the science/belief in creating the "healthiest" humans possible, healthy babies support healthy families that support healthy society. The movement also believed that most of society's ills (lawlessness, alcoholism, disabilities, mental disorders, inability to keep jobs, being poor) were inheritable traits and ran in families. So if you prevent those families from reproducing, there will be less of those traits being inherited and less people with those traits, and therefore the rate of alcoholism will go down, poverty will decrease, crime will go down, etc., by fact of those with the undesirable traits being unable to pass the traits along because they aren't having children.

Sanger wanted birth control in the hands of poor people, not because she was a huge believer in women taking control of their own healthcare and reproductive health, but because she believed in the eugenic theory of a stronger society will occur if the poor people stop having poor babies who will then turn into poor adults.

Sangers's views on birth control are not a secret or her views on eugenics.

+1. She was pretty vile.

[Anonymous]

Maybe we should just stop providing any benefits and food to healthy adults capable of working? Then the lazy and stupid ones will just die of hunger and be unable to reproduce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would that be eugenics?

Eugenics was the science/belief in creating the "healthiest" humans possible, healthy babies support healthy families that support healthy society. The movement also believed that most of society's ills (lawlessness, alcoholism, disabilities, mental disorders, inability to keep jobs, being poor) were inheritable traits and ran in families. So if you prevent those families from reproducing, there will be less of those traits being inherited and less people with those traits, and therefore the rate of alcoholism will go down, poverty will decrease, crime will go down, etc., by fact of those with the undesirable traits being unable to pass the traits along because they aren't having children.

Sanger wanted birth control in the hands of poor people, not because she was a huge believer in women taking control of their own healthcare and reproductive health, but because she believed in the eugenic theory of a stronger society will occur if the poor people stop having poor babies who will then turn into poor adults.

Sangers's views on birth control are not a secret or her views on eugenics.

+1. She was pretty vile.

I bet Mr. Anwar would still be here if the perpetrators parents had taken birth control. Maybe Sanger was on to something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would that be eugenics?

Eugenics was the science/belief in creating the "healthiest" humans possible, healthy babies support healthy families that support healthy society. The movement also believed that most of society's ills (lawlessness, alcoholism, disabilities, mental disorders, inability to keep jobs, being poor) were inheritable traits and ran in families. So if you prevent those families from reproducing, there will be less of those traits being inherited and less people with those traits, and therefore the rate of alcoholism will go down, poverty will decrease, crime will go down, etc., by fact of those with the undesirable traits being unable to pass the traits along because they aren't having children.

Sanger wanted birth control in the hands of poor people, not because she was a huge believer in women taking control of their own healthcare and reproductive health, but because she believed in the eugenic theory of a stronger society will occur if the poor people stop having poor babies who will then turn into poor adults.

Sangers's views on birth control are not a secret or her views on eugenics.

LOL I know what eugenics is. How does providing all people with birth control that they can or cannot take willingly qualify as eugenics. Don’t we supply free condoms, etc to people? How is this different?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Update on the case:

13 yr old cannot be tried as an adult under any circumstances, even for murder in DC

15 yr old can be tried as an adult but only at discretion of the judge and burden is high

Prosecutors are working on a plea deal. Next hearing in April..

I am stunned. This is so depressing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/prosecutor-to-offer-plea-deals-for-girls-13-and-15-accused-in-fatal-dc-carjacking/2021/03/31/a9b94b74-922b-11eb-bb49-5cb2a95f4cec_story.html

Are these Feds? Why can't DC tell them that we expect the 15yo to be tried, regardless if it is hard?

No it’s being handled by the DC Attorney General’s Office. And that office makes the decision on whether it would like to try and have the 15 year olds case transferred to adult court, at which time there is hearing before the judge who decides if it should or shouldn’t be transferred to adult court. The AGs office will never seek to have the 15 year old transferred to adult court so there will not be a decision for the court to make.

And Mr. Anwar paid the ultimate price for this line of thinking. Had the 15 year old been given appropriate legal consequences and supervision after her first carjacking, Mr. Anwar would likely still be alive; and the 15 year old wouldn't be living the rest of her life with the guilt of having needlessly killed an innocent person.

I agree with this 💯, however Karl Racine is not big on consequences and accountability for juveniles. There is no balancing of rehabilitation with consequences and accountability coming from his office. Even the most serious and violent crimes are treated the same as shoplifting because they are looking only through the lens of the kid, not for the danger that kid presents to the community and people like Mr. Anwar.

[Anonymous]

Neither is going to be charged as an adult according to today's Post. The 15 year old could be moved to adult court, but the presecutor says it's too hard.
Also, the 13 year old cannot be charged with murder under DC law. Whelp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would that be eugenics?

Eugenics was the science/belief in creating the "healthiest" humans possible, healthy babies support healthy families that support healthy society. The movement also believed that most of society's ills (lawlessness, alcoholism, disabilities, mental disorders, inability to keep jobs, being poor) were inheritable traits and ran in families. So if you prevent those families from reproducing, there will be less of those traits being inherited and less people with those traits, and therefore the rate of alcoholism will go down, poverty will decrease, crime will go down, etc., by fact of those with the undesirable traits being unable to pass the traits along because they aren't having children.

Sanger wanted birth control in the hands of poor people, not because she was a huge believer in women taking control of their own healthcare and reproductive health, but because she believed in the eugenic theory of a stronger society will occur if the poor people stop having poor babies who will then turn into poor adults.

Sangers's views on birth control are not a secret or her views on eugenics.

LOL I know what eugenics is. How does providing all people with birth control that they can or cannot take willingly qualify as eugenics. Don’t we supply free condoms, etc to people? How is this different?

You might LOL all you want but the reasoning for providing birth control by Sanger was eugenics.

Same thing with PGD-IVF

same thing with prenatal testing.

We don’t know anything about the families. Perhaps the mother of one or both of the teens didn’t want to get pregnant and if she had had access to birth control then she wouldn’t have gotten pregnant but she did get pregnant and has this kid. Maybe she was a bad mother. Maybe she was a lazy mother. Maybe she was herself is a car jacket and taught her child a life of crime.

But probably not. We don’t know. But it is eugenic in nature to have the opinion that by allowing the mother to procreate she would give birth to a menace to society and should have been stopped.

I mean why not just sterilize all poor women? They used to do that too.

So you see an AA teen, who probably has an AA motherF and your response is that the AA should have been given birth control to stop this crime from occurring?! Be careful with that slippery slope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Update on the case:

13 yr old cannot be tried as an adult under any circumstances, even for murder in DC

15 yr old can be tried as an adult but only at discretion of the judge and burden is high

Prosecutors are working on a plea deal. Next hearing in April..

I am stunned. This is so depressing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/prosecutor-to-offer-plea-deals-for-girls-13-and-15-accused-in-fatal-dc-carjacking/2021/03/31/a9b94b74-922b-11eb-bb49-5cb2a95f4cec_story.html

Oh sorry. It was already posted ^. The 15 year old can and therefore should be charged as an adult, given the heinous crime and that there is possibly an earlier carjacking charge for her? That's exactly the kind of trck record that should bump her to adult court. The younger one should be in until 21, and hopefully the city provides education, job training and counseling--but who the heck knows what they do with these kids, since the ore offender rate is so high doesn't seem like much!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would that be eugenics?

Eugenics was the science/belief in creating the "healthiest" humans possible, healthy babies support healthy families that support healthy society. The movement also believed that most of society's ills (lawlessness, alcoholism, disabilities, mental disorders, inability to keep jobs, being poor) were inheritable traits and ran in families. So if you prevent those families from reproducing, there will be less of those traits being inherited and less people with those traits, and therefore the rate of alcoholism will go down, poverty will decrease, crime will go down, etc., by fact of those with the undesirable traits being unable to pass the traits along because they aren't having children.

Sanger wanted birth control in the hands of poor people, not because she was a huge believer in women taking control of their own healthcare and reproductive health, but because she believed in the eugenic theory of a stronger society will occur if the poor people stop having poor babies who will then turn into poor adults.

Sangers's views on birth control are not a secret or her views on eugenics.

LOL I know what eugenics is. How does providing all people with birth control that they can or cannot take willingly qualify as eugenics. Don’t we supply free condoms, etc to people? How is this different?

Same thing with PGD-IVF

same thing with prenatal testing.

We don’t know anything about the families. Perhaps the mother of one or both of the teens didn’t want to get pregnant and if she had had access to birth control then she wouldn’t have gotten pregnant but she did get pregnant and has this kid. Maybe she was a bad mother. Maybe she was a lazy mother. Maybe she was herself is a car jacket and taught her child a life of crime.

But probably not. We don’t know. But it is eugenic in nature to have the opinion that by allowing the mother to procreate she would give birth to a menace to society and should have been stopped.

I mean why not just sterilize all poor women? They used to do that too.

So you see an AA teen, who probably has an AA motherF and your response is that the AA should have been given birth control to stop this crime from occurring?! Be careful with that slippery slope.

Hey, I'm not one of the pps who says that poor people should be on birth control. I'm just asking what is wrong with providing everyone with free birth control so that financial means have nothing to do with the ability to acquire it? Wouldn't it be unfair to prevent people from having access to birth control because they can't afford it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Update on the case:

13 yr old cannot be tried as an adult under any circumstances, even for murder in DC

15 yr old can be tried as an adult but only at discretion of the judge and burden is high

Prosecutors are working on a plea deal. Next hearing in April..

I am stunned. This is so depressing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/prosecutor-to-offer-plea-deals-for-girls-13-and-15-accused-in-fatal-dc-carjacking/2021/03/31/a9b94b74-922b-11eb-bb49-5cb2a95f4cec_story.html

Oh sorry. It was already posted ^. The 15 year old can and therefore should be charged as an adult, given the heinous crime and that there is possibly an earlier carjacking charge for her? That's exactly the kind of trck record that should bump her to adult court. The younger one should be in until 21, and hopefully the city provides education, job training and counseling--but who the heck knows what they do with these kids, since the ore offender rate is so high doesn't seem like much!

It’s completely up to the AGs office whether there is an attempt to move the 15 year old to adult court, and they will not attempt it. The judge in this case cannot decide on her own that the case should be transferred to adult court. The first move needs to come from the AGs office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would that be eugenics?

Eugenics was the science/belief in creating the "healthiest" humans possible, healthy babies support healthy families that support healthy society. The movement also believed that most of society's ills (lawlessness, alcoholism, disabilities, mental disorders, inability to keep jobs, being poor) were inheritable traits and ran in families. So if you prevent those families from reproducing, there will be less of those traits being inherited and less people with those traits, and therefore the rate of alcoholism will go down, poverty will decrease, crime will go down, etc., by fact of those with the undesirable traits being unable to pass the traits along because they aren't having children.

Sanger wanted birth control in the hands of poor people, not because she was a huge believer in women taking control of their own healthcare and reproductive health, but because she believed in the eugenic theory of a stronger society will occur if the poor people stop having poor babies who will then turn into poor adults.

Sangers's views on birth control are not a secret or her views on eugenics.

LOL I know what eugenics is. How does providing all people with birth control that they can or cannot take willingly qualify as eugenics. Don’t we supply free condoms, etc to people? How is this different?

Same thing with PGD-IVF

same thing with prenatal testing.

We don’t know anything about the families. Perhaps the mother of one or both of the teens didn’t want to get pregnant and if she had had access to birth control then she wouldn’t have gotten pregnant but she did get pregnant and has this kid. Maybe she was a bad mother. Maybe she was a lazy mother. Maybe she was herself is a car jacket and taught her child a life of crime.

But probably not. We don’t know. But it is eugenic in nature to have the opinion that by allowing the mother to procreate she would give birth to a menace to society and should have been stopped.

I mean why not just sterilize all poor women? They used to do that too.

So you see an AA teen, who probably has an AA motherF and your response is that the AA should have been given birth control to stop this crime from occurring?! Be careful with that slippery slope.

Hey, I'm not one of the pps who says that poor people should be on birth control. I'm just asking what is wrong with providing everyone with free birth control so that financial means have nothing to do with the ability to acquire it? Wouldn't it be unfair to prevent people from having access to birth control because they can't afford it?

Of course it should be offered to everyone that wants it. But that’s not the discussion; the discussion was centered on whether lack of birth control is responsible for crime, which is pretty much saying certain people shouldn’t procreate and should be prevented from doing so because it increases crime. Those beliefs have basis in eugenics. There is a great PBS American Experience about Eugenics and the relationship to Sanger if you want to learn more.

[Anonymous]

Sanger believed that many types of people were “unfit” to bred and society would be better off preventing them from having children. Widespread access to birth control was her way of preventing minorities, low income, the disabled, immigrants, alcoholics, the unemployed and other “undesirables” from having children which in turn would result in less and less of those people with the ultimate goal of them dying out.

She was a HUGE fan of forced sterilizations. She was NOT a feminist.

Here are her views in a short nutshell.
https://youtu.be/2_6Jr4jIsN4