We all know that the Holocaust was a horrible genocide against the Jewish people. But lest we forget how horrible it was, we need to remind ourselves that it didn't begin with the Jews nor did it end there. It began with sterilization and elimination of "undesirables" and the "unfit" in a general sense, to keep them from breeding.
The Nazis signed a peace treaty with Poland, and then attacked them. Same with the British. Now, sadly, there is a British "intellectual" advocating Nazi-like policies in Britain, namely, the forced sterilization of the "unfit" to keep them from breeding. You can find an article here.
This fellow is a little more subtle. The Nazis didn't want them to breed at all and perpetuate their genetic code in society. This fellow says it's for the sake of the children, so that they don't grow up with abusive or dysfunctional or otherwise irresponsible parents. Those kids are better off not being born.
But note the arbitrary definition of the unfit. Drug addicts, alcoholics, and people with psychological problems, whose unfitness has persisted at least 5 years. OK, why have a 5-year duration? Why not 1-year? Why not immediate? Why limit it to those difficulties? Oh, and what exactly constitutes a psychological problem anyway? I am sure there are influential intellectuals who think that believing in a God is insane or at least indicative of subnormal intelligence, just as some think that disagreeing with the gay-lesbian social agenda constitutes a hate crime, which in turn indicates an irrational phobia and an inability to control oneself. But I do not pin this mentality on gays, since they (particularly those not butch) were among the first of the Nazi's victims.
The point is, it is a dangerous mentality to target certain subgroups of society as requiring forced sterilization. It begins with drug addicts, etc., but it will not end there. Indeed, it begins with the low-hanging fruit, the ones for whom -- if it makes any sense at all -- that it makes the most sense and finds the least opposition in society. I am surprised he did not mention criminals, particularly those convicted of violent crimes. But give it time. I would not be surprised to find that the fellow in Britain has his sights not on drug addicts and people with mental illnesses, but on some other group. (I am not saying that he does, I am just saying it would not be surprising to find out that he does.)
Just like the other person in the article notes, the notion of it being "for the children" is just plain silly. But she still sees the sense of forced sterilizations; she simply is more willing to endorse it for what it is: Elitism.