you referenced helen keller's non-intervention in an instance of infant mortality as evidence that she supported eugenics. It is that erroneous conflation that

you referenced helen keller's non-intervention in an instance of infant mortality as evidence that she supported eugenics. It is that erroneous conflation that introduced euthanasia for discussion. (also i would say that technically intentional non-intervention is not exactly killing, so thats not even what i was implying) I provided evidence that keller, contrarily, saw value in genetic defects. If you have another reason for believing that helen keller was a supporter of eugenics, you have failed to provide it.