Since the second half of the nineteenth century, several scientists have tried to exclude people with certain undesirable characteristics from reproduction. It is now crystal clear that this was completely unfounded, in particular due to insufficient knowledge of genetics.
Darwin believed that there was only a limited amount of natural selection in humans, because the elimination of the weaker in society was prevented. If those weaker individuals were also able to reproduce, it must be detrimental to humans as a species. In this way more and more weaker people were added, or so the thought. Darwin feared the progressive degeneration of man thus caused. Yet he explicitly did not advocate reducing the care for the weak. He didn't really see a solution to the problem.
His cousin Francis Galton saw it all a little more broadly. He sought a scientific explanation for the fact that the poor Victorian English underclass remained stupid, lazy and uncivilized. Starting from the narrow view that differences between people are based solely on our genes, he promoted planned reproduction in order to improve the characteristics of future generations. For this he introduced the concept of eugenics in 1883. He then distinguished between positive eugenics, in which the most suitable people were encouraged to reproduce, and negative eugenics, in which the less fit were discouraged or even prevented from procreating.
Assuming Galton labeled himself "fit", he did not put his ideas into practice himself. He remained childless and donated his considerable fortune to a laboratory later named after him, the Galton Laboratory, part of the University College. in London. In the 1920s, the Eugenics Society, specifically aimed at breed improvement, distances itself from this. Similar movements were established in about thirty other countries, especially in America, Europe and Japan.
Insufficient knowledge
The pursuit of improving our gene pool was scientifically naive and based more on prejudice than on a good understanding of population genetics. The choice of the 'better properties' turned out to be no easy matter. Preventing poverty, disease and infirmity through genetics was based on incorrect assumptions. Knowledge about genetics and its application was clearly lacking.
We now know that disabled people can have perfectly healthy children in the majority of cases. On the other hand, it is known that every person, including the healthy, is a carrier of five to ten very harmful genes or 'alleles'. This means that the pathogenic allele is only present in singular form and thus does not manifest itself. Only when two carriers of the same harmful allele coincidentally have children together, there is a one in four chance at each conception that the allele is present twice. In that case, a so-called homozygous, and therefore a sick child, arises.
It is therefore inevitable that there are always healthy parents who have a disabled child, just as there are disabled parents who have healthy children. In that respect, it is much more effective to provide good information about the adverse effects of drugs, medication, alcohol and smoking before and during pregnancy. At the population level, this has a much greater effect on the pursuit of healthy offspring.
This nuanced knowledge was not available until the first half of the twentieth century. That is why eugenic programs could actually be implemented on a large scale. The tools used were genetic counseling, prohibition of marriage, seclusion, infertility, and abortus provocatus .
The genetic advice was given in terms of 'no objection', 'serious concern' or 'disadvantage of reproduction'. At that time, marriage was primarily aimed at procreation. In some countries, the government therefore imposed a mandatory medical examination before marriage.
Isolating certain individuals to hinder reproduction was especially practiced in Denmark. In the 1930s, males and females who were not allowed to participate in reproduction were housed separately on two separate islands.
In the first half of the twentieth century, people were made barren on a large scale. This was regulated by law in several countries. This practice began in the United States, where more than 100,000 people were sterilized between 1907 and 1935 for being disabled, alcoholic, homeless, prostitute, or "imbecile." In Europe, too, these practices have been legalized in various countries, including Denmark and Switzerland. Precisely in England – the cradle of eugenics – forced negative eugenics was never legislated.
In Sweden, a pure population was pursued that should not be mixed with Lapps (Sami). For this purpose, among other things, a sample with 28 hair strands was used, from Swedish high blond to 'Laps' black. However, it was not mentioned that Lapps can also be blond. From 1934 to 1975, 60,000 people, mostly women, were sterilized on the basis of these hair samples, among other things, because they were inferior or of poor or mixed race. This example shows how a shift occurred from the exclusion of the poor, the weak and the sick to the exclusion of inferior races. People also started talking about racial hygiene.
In the statutory regulation of abortus provocatus Switzerland has played a pioneering role as a eugenic measure. Before the Second World War, Russia and Germany also legalized the termination of pregnancies for eugenic reasons.
In Europe there was a clear relationship between religion and eugenic legislation:especially the Protestant countries in the north of Europe were in favor of eugenics. In Roman Catholic Southern Europe, a ban on negative eugenesis was included by Pope Pius XI in the Encyclical 'Casti Connubii' of December 31, 1930, 'On Christian Marriage, Taking into account the conditions, needs, errors of the family and society. and abuse'.