Eugenics

iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Eugenics

I was really thinking about this.

I know the one thing most on this board dislike more than irrational thiests are rational fascists.

 

a)Is there EVER any time when sterilization is ok as a means to prevent reproduction? If so when?  If not why?

 

b)Is it ok to knowingly pass genetic defects on to another generation? If so, where is that line drawn? Who draws it?

 

c)Would "mercy killing" ever be ok for someone non-consenting?  What if next of kin consents?  Should a perent be allowed to have a new-born euthinized?

 

I think I am a little more on the fascist side of this than most on here, but I would really like to know others take on this.  I would honestly be more afraid of giving a person or group the power to make those decisions than the acts themselves.

 

 

"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:a)Is there EVER any

Quote:
a)Is there EVER any time when sterilization is ok as a means to prevent reproduction? If so when?  If not why?

Sure.  Sterilization is the most effective birth control there is.  If you're running a dictatorship and you want to reduce the population growth, it's a great way to do it.  In a democracy, I wouldn't recommend trying.  It's a pretty sure way to guarantee a landslide for the opposition.  On an individual level, I love sterilization.  I've had my balls snipped and I couldn't be happier.

Actually, I'll answer your implied question more directly so that I don't have to go through the inevitable misunderstanding from the onlookers.  No, I don't think there's an inalienable right to reproduction.  Rights are something that are dependent on the government.  If you can keep control of your government, while taking away the rights to reproduce, then the people under your control don't have reproductive rights.  In government, might makes the rules.

Quote:
b)Is it ok to knowingly pass genetic defects on to another generation? If so, where is that line drawn? Who draws it?

Personally, I think it's irresponsible to try to get pregnant when you know there's a high chance of passing on a defect.  There are a lot of babies who need to be adopted, and are perfectly healthy.  I advocate abortion when early tests indicate moderate to severe birth defects or probable genetic disorders.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
While I'm at it, I think

While I'm at it, I think sterilization is a perfectly fine measure within the social system.  If someone has had, say, two children taken away by the state, I think the state has every right to sterilize her.  If a guy has become a deadbeat dad to two children, I'd say the same thing.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:While I'm

Hambydammit wrote:

While I'm at it, I think sterilization is a perfectly fine measure within the social system.  If someone has had, say, two children taken away by the state, I think the state has every right to sterilize her.  If a guy has become a deadbeat dad to two children, I'd say the same thing.

 

 

Of course you know that the inevitable comparisons are on the way ?.... ( but what about the Nazis ! )

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Yaerav
Bronze Member
Posts: 103
Joined: 2008-02-28
User is offlineOffline
Imo genetics should NEVER

Imo genetics should NEVER play such a role in how society views or deals with individual choices that those choices are in any way whatsoever forced on anyone.

So:

a) Absolutely not. Nobody has the right to decide something like that for anybody, under any circumstance.  Advising someone to undergo sterilisation is one thing, but the decision should ultimately be that of the individual itself. Always, regardless even of his/her mental faculties.

b) Yes, it is ok to knowingly pass on genetic defects. No line drawn here. People do not reproduce "to pass on genetic defects", but to have children.

c) Euthanasia, if the subject does not conscend, is simply murder. In some circumstances it is impossible for someone to communicate in a meaningful way. This can be a problem if there is no good legislation concerning euthanasia. I think it is very important for any country to adress this issue because:

-It would be clear to physicians when assisting with euthanasia would be legal and when it would not.

-People would be able to write up a set of conditions beforehand in which they state under which extreme conditions they would wish to euthanized. This document should have legal status.


Fanas
Posts: 249
Joined: 2008-03-27
User is offlineOffline
a) Absolutely yes, some

a) Absolutely yes, some fuck-ass parents gives birth only to get money from the government. Also theres already too many people, one mother should have only 2 kids at most (maybe even 1), then she is mandatory sterilized.

b) In most of the cases its wrong.

c) New born cannot be euthonized - except if he has some bad-ass mutation or are terminaly ill.


FulltimeDefendent
Scientist
FulltimeDefendent's picture
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:While I'm

Hambydammit wrote:

While I'm at it, I think sterilization is a perfectly fine measure within the social system.  If someone has had, say, two children taken away by the state, I think the state has every right to sterilize her.  If a guy has become a deadbeat dad to two children, I'd say the same thing.

 

I have to say I agree with you to some degree. Reproduction is not an inalienable right.

 

Personally, I have Aspberger's and would think it cruel to pass that defect down the germ line. By the time I have kids, if I ever do, I hope there is some way to make sure this doesn't happen. I'm also asthmatic, but I'd feel much worse about passing down Aspberger's, especially with the stigma it has in our society (and deservedly so, I personally can't stand other Aspies who are less high-functioning than I am. They're all annoying).

 

I think adoption, provided one is capable of taking care of children, is a perfect alternative for people in my position.

“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”


iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

While I'm at it, I think sterilization is a perfectly fine measure within the social system.  If someone has had, say, two children taken away by the state, I think the state has every right to sterilize her.  If a guy has become a deadbeat dad to two children, I'd say the same thing.

 

 

Of course you know that the inevitable comparisons are on the way ?.... ( but what about the Nazis ! )

 

Yes I am 100% for the starilization of Nazis LOL!

 

Ahh I knew it was coming...BUT...Nazi Germany based their eugenics program, more specifically sterilization of the "unfit", on the US's program...the USA was the trailblazer in eugenics.

The Final Solution was done in the name of eugenics but I dont think anyone here has a problem seeing the difference with debatable "eugenics" and obv disgusting "Final Solution".

 

FulltimeDefendent wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

While I'm at it, I think sterilization is a perfectly fine measure within the social system.  If someone has had, say, two children taken away by the state, I think the state has every right to sterilize her.  If a guy has become a deadbeat dad to two children, I'd say the same thing.

 

I have to say I agree with you to some degree. Reproduction is not an inalienable right.

 

Personally, I have Aspberger's and would think it cruel to pass that defect down the germ line. By the time I have kids, if I ever do, I hope there is some way to make sure this doesn't happen. I'm also asthmatic, but I'd feel much worse about passing down Aspberger's, especially with the stigma it has in our society (and deservedly so, I personally can't stand other Aspies who are less high-functioning than I am. They're all annoying).

 

I think adoption, provided one is capable of taking care of children, is a perfect alternative for people in my position.

 

I've worked with all levels of people with Aspberger's...I found many functioning individuals that could live with the disorder.  But they seemed to have some stuggles with it...It doesnt seem pleasent to say the least.

But many would be able to care for themselves and a child.  Adoption does seem a logical choice for those in that position.

 

as for the answers to my own ?

 

a)I think sterilization is acceptable.  In cases where the child-to-be would either 1)be unable to be cared for by the parents. 2) Would be able to be cared for but the parents already proved unwilling. 

But as I said I would be more afraid giving a person or group this power than I would of the repercussions of not having it.

 

b) I really havent given this enough thought....if the parents are able to care for the child but CHOOSE for it to have a birth defect...Whose rights should be respected...the parent or the unborn child...this is the situation that comes to mind.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/health/05essa.html

 

c) I think the norm would be if your mental state would change as such you would never become the "person" you were (severe brain damage/unable of complex thought)...euthanizing seem Ok...I would want it for myself anyway.  If you are going to be able to mentally function at the same level eventually I dont think it is an option someone can choose for you.

As a parent the norm is you have a childs interest in mind.  I can say if my child was born with the 100% chance of living a short/painful life and early death, I would want them relieved of that.  As you enter gray area the line becomes fuzzy, if my child was going to be unable of human level interaction I think I would make the same choice.  After that it is hard for me to conceptualize...if my child would be born with no limbs but average mentally...I dont know what I would do...I think I would say euthanize but hopefully I am never in that situation to have to make that choice.

What if you had a child now that you would know had at most a painful 5 year lifespan...Eutanization is not an option legally...what would you do? Would you care for the child at the expense of your other children (time and $ wise), career and personal needs or would you put it up for adoption?

To me there is no morally correct choice here....in the 1st you are not being fair to your family or yourself, in he second you are not being fair to the rest of society by passing off your struggle.  And that is not mentioning the poor child who is the one really suffering.

"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:On an

Hambydammit wrote:
On an individual level, I love sterilization.  I've had my balls snipped and I couldn't be happier.

Indeed, so long as it was your choice to do so, it is a very practical and responsible choice to make.

Quote:
Actually, I'll answer your implied question more directly so that I don't have to go through the inevitable misunderstanding from the onlookers.  No, I don't think there's an inalienable right to reproduction.  Rights are something that are dependent on the government.

Egads, NO! We don't get out rights from out government, for it we did, how did we ever get along before such entities were created? No, we get our rights from mutual contracts and ultimately, empathy. We understand that you won't do X if I don't do Y. You'll do A if I do B. Or substitute dont's for the dos. Ultimately, most human beings realize, through empathy and collective mentality that getting along serves us well.

We've ALWAYS shunned those that did not go along with this sort of herd mentality. Thousands of years ago they were banished or otherwise eliminated, today they are sequestered from the rest of society, typically via imprisonment.

But rights certainly don't flow from government. Rights flow from the people who establish governments. This is a very important distinction.

That said, I agree, that one does not necessarily have a right to reproduce. That said, whenever such things have been restricted in the past they've failed pretty miserably.

 

Quote:
If you can keep control of your government, while taking away the rights to reproduce, then the people under your control don't have reproductive rights.  In government, might makes the rules.

Historically speaking, this only ever remains the case temporarily.

Quote:
Quote:
b)Is it ok to knowingly pass genetic defects on to another generation? If so, where is that line drawn? Who draws it?

Personally, I think it's irresponsible to try to get pregnant when you know there's a high chance of passing on a defect.  There are a lot of babies who need to be adopted, and are perfectly healthy.  I advocate abortion when early tests indicate moderate to severe birth defects or probable genetic disorders.

 

I absolutely concur with this, yet i don't think it should be forced on people by decree.

In a bizarre situation where the survival of the species were at stake due to an asteroid or zombie outbreak, I'd certainly have caveats to that - there certainly is no absolute moral system.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


pettman
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-08-14
User is offlineOffline
iluvc2h5oh wrote:a)Is there

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
a)Is there EVER any time when sterilization is ok as a means to prevent reproduction? If so when?  If not why?
When it's voluntary, otherwise it's plain wrong. The same goes for any other irreversible operation that isn't necessary keep someone alive.

 

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
b)Is it ok to knowingly pass genetic defects on to another generation? If so, where is that line drawn? Who draws it?
I would probably refrain from procreation if I knew the offspring would be unfit (and unable to procreate in it's turn). 

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
c)Would "mercy killing" ever be ok for someone non-consenting?  What if next of kin consents?  Should a perent be allowed to have a new-born euthinized?
As someone wrote earlier, whitout the patients concent it is not euthanasia but murder. Myself I find it hard to understand how someone would want to end this single existance before they have to. But if they want to, after serious consideration, they should be allowed to.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
And then we have the more

And then we have the more extreme end of the spectrum...

Naturally, we are all looking at the NEGATIVE aspects of eugenics. Stop for a moment and ask yourselves what the positive aspects are of PROMOTING the breeding of ideal genetic donors.

Here we are discussing what we want to get rid of rather than what we want more of in society. The subjective appraisals of exactly what constitutes aberrant genetic characteristics destroy the premise itself by virtue of human individuality.

Perhaps looking at it from that aspect, we can gain a more enlightened viewpoint. 'Deltas' and 'Epsilons' have their places in any present society. However, if you promote breeding of the handsome while maintaining the present birth rate among the less-than-optimal human gene pool then it becomes a greater probability of breeding them out in the long run.

Accepting the 'bad' alongside the 'good' has its benefit evidenced in achieving a 'mean' standard, in other words. Averaging humanity rather than seeking any sort of subjective 'perfection' seems much more feasible.

The 'Idiocracy' post elsewhere on here(haven't read it yet) reminds me of the first five minutes of the movie in which the happy/cute/intelligent couple waited to have a baby and then it was too late. Soooo, the problem wasn't overbreeding by the less-than-desirable, it was the underbreeding of the desirable for interaction and improvement of the less-than-desirable.

Anecdotal reference:

I have one crewmember who shows up to work early raring to go, yet he consistently makes poor decisions, has difficulty adapting to change, and smells funny.

On the same crew, I have one that shows up late, cannot talk and work at the same time, and has difficulty adapting to change, BUT he can perform beautifully on the job during the production phase.

Recently, these two individuals came to me separately complaining about the other. My response to their petulance was to point out to them both that:

"Your good qualities do not cancel the effects of your bad qualities. Just be happy that you have a boss like me that can see the good in everyone. Get back to work."

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
iluvc2h5oh wrote:I would

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
I would honestly be more afraid of giving a person or group the power to make those decisions than the acts themselves.

That's my only concern with eugenics. While intelligent people would probably be very good at determining whose genetic material gets a pass, those intelligent people are extremely unlikely to be the people put in charge of the program.

That actually sums up my opinion on all forms of centralized control, but attempts at controlling biology are particularly prone to ending in tragi-comedy. Consider the crippling defects found in show dogs, or the introduction of foreign species into an ecosystem to control another species.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Egads, NO! We don't

Quote:
Egads, NO! We don't get out rights from out government, for it we did, how did we ever get along before such entities were created? No, we get our rights from mutual contracts and ultimately, empathy. We understand that you won't do X if I don't do Y. You'll do A if I do B. Or substitute dont's for the dos. Ultimately, most human beings realize, through empathy and collective mentality that getting along serves us well.

I'm not addressing this level.  What I'm saying is that all the philosophy in the world and a quarter won't buy you the right to a phone call from jail if the government says you don't have a right to a phone call from jail.

If you happen to live in a country where you don't have X right, you don't have X right.

Just to be clear, I'm not really advocating eugenics.  I'm pointing out that at a governmental level, it's a perfectly valid way to get something accomplished, and if a government has the power to enforce it, then discussion of rights is sort of pointless.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
a) Do you have the right to

a) Do you have the right to sterilize anyone regardless of your expertise in the field? No. Therefore you cannot delegate that power to the government.

b) The line is with closer than first cousin marriages which are much more dangerous than passing on genetic defects. As for first cousin marriages, Gandhi was the son of one. They are a crap shoot producing about as many exceptional as deficient children.

c) Mercy killings occur in every hospital in the US and every day if they are large enough. If a person is on his deathbed and the doctor suggests something for the pain it is euthanasia. I know of a case where he wasn't dying fast enough so they gave him a second dose. How do you think so many people like Jackie Kennedy just happened to die with their family around them?

It is the well known secret no one wants to debate in public.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


pyrokidd
Superfan
pyrokidd's picture
Posts: 253
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
Any attempt to make

Any attempt to make sterilization and euthanasia common is going to very quickly lead to corruption of humanity as we know it. If "society"(those in power) only lets those it deems worthy to breed, you're gonna be in a dystopian society within a couple centuries, easy. They'll selectively begin breeding the ones who are happy being subservient. I'm in favor of returning to natural selection, but us people just seem to be too smart to die at a rate that would keep the population stable.

The main problem is who decides who is worthy. As an atheist and therefore a political minority, I don't like the majority enforcing their way, especially in this manner, on me. Also, my family has a history of degenerating eyesight, high cholesterol in the men, and a few mental disorders on my mom's side. Alcoholism is also common on my mom's side, and I've had problems with it myself. However now I'm in excellent physical condition and appear at the moment to be free of any mental or physical diseases. I don't even have any allergies.

According to all of my standardized test scores at least, I'm in the top 10% most intelligent of every student in my graduating year in the country. However my GPA barely hovers around a 2.0.

So someone please explain how in the hell we can decide if someone is allowed to breed. I've got plenty of indicators either way. Are we going to trust an incompetent bureaucracy like the government to make these complicated decisions?

"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
I am hesitant about anything

I am hesitant about anything that tries to streamline our genetic diversity.  Who knows what characteristics the human species may need in the future to survive?

P.S.  It's spelled Aspergers.  Not Aspbergers. 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I am hesitant about

Quote:
I am hesitant about anything that tries to streamline our genetic diversity.  Who knows what characteristics the human species may need in the future to survive?

DISCLAIMER:  This is not a statement of my position.  It's only food for thought.

It occurs to me that this sort of goes along with the "Evolution: Natural or Unnatural" discussion.  Many animals streamline their genetic diversity.  Anytime you have one male and a harem, you're streamlining genetic diversity.  Any creature that leks is doing it, too.

Looking at the way humans reproduce, it's hard for me to imagine a program that would have the kind of broad sweeping streamlining.  Consider that we have reasonably good evidence that a significant (~10%, by some estimates) number of children are not the children of their mother's husband, even though he believes they are.  Also, international travel, almost ubiquitous exogamy, and multiple marriages will serve to keep the genetic diversity robust.

In short, it's possible that politics really doesn't have enough power to alter the gene line for very long.  Also, I think that humans are a LOT more creative about gene diversity than we give them credit for, so eugenics is possibly more a discussion of cultural power, not necessarily gene diversity.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:b) The

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

b) The line is with closer than first cousin marriages which are much more dangerous than passing on genetic defects. As for first cousin marriages, Gandhi was the son of one. They are a crap shoot producing about as many exceptional as deficient children.

 

Tell ya what...

You compile a list of all the exceptional inbreeds...

I'll compile a list of all the deficient inbreeds...

and we'll meet back here in a week with our results?

 

(Why does it look like im getting the short end of this stick? -_- )

What Would Kharn Do?


General-Forrest
General-Forrest's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2008-05-29
User is offlineOffline
eugenics i don't like

i dont like because i am a.d.h.d. and i would not be here because my mom was PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIA and also miltary doctors told her when she was 13 she would not have kids. and if this was still in use i would of not been born. sorry i dont see it ever ok because who has the right to decide.

 

 

 

General


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:Tell

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Tell ya what...

You compile a list of all the exceptional inbreeds...

I'll compile a list of all the deficient inbreeds...

and we'll meet back here in a week with our results?

 

(Why does it look like im getting the short end of this stick? -_- )

 

That depends. Do I get to count Jesus?

At least I do get to count Gandhi.

I was rather surprised to read it but it was credibly sourced. Until a bit over five years ago Iraq was the most advanced, westernized country in the middle east. It also has the highest rate of first cousin marriages in the world at around 50%. There is a lot of personal opinion involved in who to hate most in the middle east but Iraq is not the one most would have picked.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Vindaven
Vindaven's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2008-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Quote:a)Is there EVER any

Quote:

a)Is there EVER any time when sterilization is ok as a means to prevent reproduction? If so when?  If not why?

With our current lack of natural selection it is imperative that we apply un-natural selection in order to prevent de-evolution.  De-evolution such as the less educated reproducing more resulting in an overall decrease in human intelligence and people being born & living & reproducing that are dependant upon artifical means to survive.

 

Quote:
 

b)Is it ok to knowingly pass genetic defects on to another generation? If so, where is that line drawn? Who draws it?

I find this to wrong morally because for many reasons.  It is sad to see people being living sad lives, it is bad for the genetic pool and the future of the human race, and it means less sufficiency in the human population.

Where is the line drawn?  Who draws it?  I do not know.  Eugenics is essential, but not practical in today's world.  In the utopia that is Star Trek, it would be possible.

 

Quote:

c)Would "mercy killing" ever be ok for someone non-consenting?  What if next of kin consents?  Should a perent be allowed to have a new-born euthinized?

I am pro-assisted suicide.  But non-consenting doesn't work so long as they are capable of giving consent.  If they can intellectually give consent and say no: then it is wrong.  If they cannot intellectually give consent (i.e. a baby), then it is okay as long as it is for the greatest good (the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people).

 

 

 

 

I know my stances are not popular (do to limiting freedoms), but I think it would result in the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people... and the betterment of human kind in the long run.

-Vindaven-
[url="http://www.collegefreethought.org"]Campus Freethought Alliance @ UCF[/url]


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Yaerav wrote:Imo genetics

Yaerav wrote:

Imo genetics should NEVER play such a role in how society views or deals with individual choices that those choices are in any way whatsoever forced on anyone.

So:

a) Absolutely not. Nobody has the right to decide something like that for anybody, under any circumstance.  Advising someone to undergo sterilisation is one thing, but the decision should ultimately be that of the individual itself. Always, regardless even of his/her mental faculties.

So by default you support child abuse and negelct, right? That's what happens when unqualified individuals are allowed to breed like rabbits (a favorite passtime of unqualified individuals). My beef is not with impinging on the rights of would be parents. It's with inflicting unecessary emotional and physical distress on would be children. It's with creating wards of the state. It's with creating children more likely to become burglars than Beethovens.

Yaerav wrote:

b) Yes, it is ok to knowingly pass on genetic defects. No line drawn here. People do not reproduce "to pass on genetic defects", but to have children.

I think my previous statement applies. Is it really ok for people have children that will have a high liklihood of suffering or living some kind of half life just because the parents want to experience the "miracle" of child birth?

If they have that much love to give they can adopt. If that's not enough they can get a puppy too.

 

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Fanas wrote:a) Absolutely

Fanas wrote:

a) Absolutely yes, some fuck-ass parents gives birth only to get money from the government. Also theres already too many people, one mother should have only 2 kids at most (maybe even 1), then she is mandatory sterilized.

b) In most of the cases its wrong.

c) New born cannot be euthonized - except if he has some bad-ass mutation or are terminaly ill.

By badass mutation what do you mean? Are we talking about a third arm? Cuz that's a keeper.

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
pyrokidd wrote:According to

pyrokidd wrote:

According to all of my standardized test scores at least, I'm in the top 10% most intelligent of every student in my graduating year in the country. However my GPA barely hovers around a 2.0.

So someone please explain how in the hell we can decide if someone is allowed to breed. I've got plenty of indicators either way. Are we going to trust an incompetent bureaucracy like the government to make these complicated decisions?

I'm right there with you. I couldn't focus on homework to save my life and ultimately began to feel like it was all bullshit anyways, but I could take tests like a motherfucker. Ultimately I dropped out, but I don't have five kids, a criminal record, or a drug problem. I was recently telling a friend that we should test would be voters for cognitive ability and knowledge of current events and recent history.  Academic achievement should not be a qualifier. I'm a high school drop out and more than capable of running circles around a great deal of college graduates who were simply more ambitious (or afraid of going against their parents expectations) than I was. If people can't meet the standard they can't vote in the next election. Topical eugenics.

I don't think we should be basing our selections on the most desirable traits so much as we should focus on preventing certain individuals from having a negative impact on society. That a person would have a child who is ugly, short, fat or dumb is not an acceptable reason. Even the most outstanding specimens have produced duds. However, if an individual exhibits various irresponsible traits, drug abuse (beyond recreational), domestic violence, stealing, etc... we may not want them to be the focus of an impressionable and captive audience. It is still more than probable that a person of low education and economic means can instill a strong sense of ethics and responsibilty in a child.

 

 

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
General-Forrest wrote:i dont

General-Forrest wrote:

i dont like because i am a.d.h.d. and i would not be here because my mom was PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIA and also miltary doctors told her when she was 13 she would not have kids. and if this was still in use i would of not been born. sorry i dont see it ever ok because who has the right to decide.

 General

In the context of experiencing life it's safe to say the possibility of having it suddenly snuffed out is frightening. You may be glad to be here but the flip side is that had you not been born you would never have known the difference. Non-existence is not painful. It's nothing.

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
nutxaq wrote:Yaerav

nutxaq wrote:

Yaerav wrote:

Imo genetics should NEVER play such a role in how society views or deals with individual choices that those choices are in any way whatsoever forced on anyone.

So:

a) Absolutely not. Nobody has the right to decide something like that for anybody, under any circumstance.  Advising someone to undergo sterilisation is one thing, but the decision should ultimately be that of the individual itself. Always, regardless even of his/her mental faculties.

So by default you support child abuse and negelct, right? That's what happens when unqualified individuals are allowed to breed like rabbits (a favorite passtime of unqualified individuals). My beef is not with impinging on the rights of would be parents. It's with inflicting unecessary emotional and physical distress on would be children. It's with creating wards of the state. It's with creating children more likely to become burglars than Beethovens.

Yaerav wrote:

b) Yes, it is ok to knowingly pass on genetic defects. No line drawn here. People do not reproduce "to pass on genetic defects", but to have children.

I think my previous statement applies. Is it really ok for people have children that will have a high liklihood of suffering or living some kind of half life just because the parents want to experience the "miracle" of child birth?

If they have that much love to give they can adopt. If that's not enough they can get a puppy too.

 

There are some individuals who really are in no position to have kids, and that is what child services are for. Granted, this is more of a social issue, than a genetic one, but I still think it applies. I had a conversation with my father, who is a family physician, the other day and he could tell me that he, and other experienced profesionals like him (doctors, social workers et.c.), have enough experience with those kinds of people to even identify some of them before they have kids, so there may be some people who are more or less capable of deciding who can have kids, and who can't. But I still think (and so does my father, by the way) that a society that imposes on people's rights to have kids is a fascist one. You can counsel people, and generally make it a discussable issue, rather than tabu, but to legislate on it is cruel and totalitarian, if you ask me.

 

And especially when the issue is genetic, and not social it becomes very very difficult to make a decission one way or the other.

 

Example:

 

Had I had kids with my ex-girlfriend (the only women I've ever seriously considered having kids with) the following would apply:

 

Me: Very strong bones, never broke any bones in my life, never had cavaties in my teeth, despite extensive (ab-)use of Coca Cola, very strong immune system, I'm hardly ever sick, and have never needed antibiotics for anything. Never been to the hospital for anything. Strong resistance to cold, and very smart if my grades from school are any indication. And a high metabolism, I remain slender, regardless of how much or how little I eat. Also, I'm very musical, which might have a genetic component.

Her: Very beautiful. Green eyes, curly hair, soft skin, slender, same medical history as me, and gets even better grades than me. Also musical b.t.w.

 

But: I have a history of Diabetes and allergies in my family, and her mother has had breastcancer. All of this has a genetic component.

 

So our children would be super human individuals, seeing as their parents wuold be particularly delicious specimens of homo sapiens, but they would also, potentially, have some very debilitating genetic defects.

 

Add to that the fact that she is my ex-girlfriend for a reason: we had a very disfunctional relationship. If we had stayed together long enough to have kids, we would quite possibly have screwed them up mentally by fighting out our differences throughout those kids' most formative years, possibly even using them as emotional weapons against the other.

 

Or, they could have gotten only the very best genes from me and her respectively, and having kids could have strengthened our relationship, and finally laying whatever differences we may have had to rest.

 

Who gets to decide which of those scenarios will play out? hmmm?

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


pyrokidd
Superfan
pyrokidd's picture
Posts: 253
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
nutxaq wrote:I don't think

nutxaq wrote:

I don't think we should be basing our selections on the most desirable traits so much as we should focus on preventing certain individuals from having a negative impact on society. That a person would have a child who is ugly, short, fat or dumb is not an acceptable reason. Even the most outstanding specimens have produced duds. However, if an individual exhibits various irresponsible traits, drug abuse (beyond recreational), domestic violence, stealing, etc... we may not want them to be the focus of an impressionable and captive audience. It is still more than probable that a person of low education and economic means can instill a strong sense of ethics and responsibilty in a child.

You still haven't answered the question of who makes these decisions. Who sets guidelines for what a "dud" child is? Or "a strong sense of ethics and responsibility"?

This is the rationale Hitler used in exterminating Jews. He referred to them as genetically inferior, negative impacts on society, etc. He also killed many handicapped, mentally retarded, and terminally ill people(forced euthanasia, regardless of whether they were in pain or not). What's to stop those in power form creating their own personal version of what they think humans should be? I don't trust ANYONE with that kind of power. Not one person, not a group of people, no one.

As a high school dropout, you don't think academics should be a qualifier. Neither do I, but many people probably do. And even if those in power are democratically elected, if the majority wants higher education standards for those allowed to live, you'd be out of luck.

"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Nikolaj wrote:nutxaq

Nikolaj wrote:

nutxaq wrote:

Yaerav wrote:

Imo genetics should NEVER play such a role in how society views or deals with individual choices that those choices are in any way whatsoever forced on anyone.

So:

a) Absolutely not. Nobody has the right to decide something like that for anybody, under any circumstance.  Advising someone to undergo sterilisation is one thing, but the decision should ultimately be that of the individual itself. Always, regardless even of his/her mental faculties.

So by default you support child abuse and negelct, right? That's what happens when unqualified individuals are allowed to breed like rabbits (a favorite passtime of unqualified individuals). My beef is not with impinging on the rights of would be parents. It's with inflicting unecessary emotional and physical distress on would be children. It's with creating wards of the state. It's with creating children more likely to become burglars than Beethovens.

Yaerav wrote:

b) Yes, it is ok to knowingly pass on genetic defects. No line drawn here. People do not reproduce "to pass on genetic defects", but to have children.

I think my previous statement applies. Is it really ok for people have children that will have a high liklihood of suffering or living some kind of half life just because the parents want to experience the "miracle" of child birth?

If they have that much love to give they can adopt. If that's not enough they can get a puppy too.

 

There are some individuals who really are in no position to have kids, and that is what child services are for. Granted, this is more of a social issue, than a genetic one, but I still think it applies. I had a conversation with my father, who is a family physician, the other day and he could tell me that he, and other experienced profesionals like him (doctors, social workers et.c.), have enough experience with those kinds of people to even identify some of them before they have kids, so there may be some people who are more or less capable of deciding who can have kids, and who can't. But I still think (and so does my father, by the way) that a society that imposes on people's rights to have kids is a fascist one. You can counsel people, and generally make it a discussable issue, rather than tabu, but to legislate on it is cruel and totalitarian, if you ask me.

I'm not for any permanent fix. Believe it or not I do believe in second chances. I would certainly expect the criteria to be based on something more solid than "That boy ain't right".

Nikolaj wrote:

And especially when the issue is genetic, and not social it becomes very very difficult to make a decission one way or the other.

 Example:

 Had I had kids with my ex-girlfriend (the only women I've ever seriously considered having kids with) the following would apply:

 Me: Very strong bones, never broke any bones in my life, never had cavaties in my teeth, despite extensive (ab-)use of Coca Cola, very strong immune system, I'm hardly ever sick, and have never needed antibiotics for anything. Never been to the hospital for anything. Strong resistance to cold, and very smart if my grades from school are any indication. And a high metabolism, I remain slender, regardless of how much or how little I eat. Also, I'm very musical, which might have a genetic component.

Her: Very beautiful. Green eyes, curly hair, soft skin, slender, same medical history as me, and gets even better grades than me. Also musical b.t.w.

 

But: I have a history of Diabetes and allergies in my family, and her mother has had breastcancer. All of this has a genetic component.

 

So our children would be super human individuals, seeing as their parents wuold be particularly delicious specimens of homo sapiens, but they would also, potentially, have some very debilitating genetic defects.

 

Add to that the fact that she is my ex-girlfriend for a reason: we had a very disfunctional relationship. If we had stayed together long enough to have kids, we would quite possibly have screwed them up mentally by fighting out our differences throughout those kids' most formative years, possibly even using them as emotional weapons against the other.

 

Or, they could have gotten only the very best genes from me and her respectively, and having kids could have strengthened our relationship, and finally laying whatever differences we may have had to rest.

 

Who gets to decide which of those scenarios will play out? hmmm?

I'm more concerned with the social aspect of your question than the genetic. Only in extreme cases where a child would likely be doomed to a very brief, painful life or a long life of disability and/or pain would I argue for any restrictions. Regarding the nature of your relationship, I think it says a lot about your character that you realized having a child with this woman would exacerbate your problems rather than solve them. That kind of self awareness, I think, is an excellent trait to have in a parent. 

I came from a dysfunctional home in which my parents fought a lot. That can mess a kid up, but I would be more concerned about hostilities directed at the child. I don't think that's something that is as easily spotted in people who have not yet had children. In the case of individuals with extensive histories of violence towards others or who have a history of child or spousal abuse I would definitley favor sterilization over risking the creation of more victims.

So to answer your question I wouldn't think the two of you posed a significant threat to a child well being, especially since you seem to be picky about you would consider worthy.

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
pyrokidd wrote:nutxaq

pyrokidd wrote:

nutxaq wrote:

I don't think we should be basing our selections on the most desirable traits so much as we should focus on preventing certain individuals from having a negative impact on society. That a person would have a child who is ugly, short, fat or dumb is not an acceptable reason. Even the most outstanding specimens have produced duds. However, if an individual exhibits various irresponsible traits, drug abuse (beyond recreational), domestic violence, stealing, etc... we may not want them to be the focus of an impressionable and captive audience. It is still more than probable that a person of low education and economic means can instill a strong sense of ethics and responsibilty in a child.

You still haven't answered the question of who makes these decisions. Who sets guidelines for what a "dud" child is? Or "a strong sense of ethics and responsibility"?

Everyone tries to pose this question as if they don't honestly know. I think that's a cop out. Violent people, lazy people, addicted people, hateful people, dishonest people (thieves) are duds. You know that.

Ethics would entail helping others in a time of need. Transacting business at fair market rates is ethical. Not fucking a chick whose drunk off her ass while you're stone cold sober is ethical. Returning a wallet stuffed full of cash to it's rightful owner is ethical. Not using superior intellect or physical strength to take what is not rightfully yours is ethical. Earning your keep and contributing an amount that it is at a minimum, equal to the resources you draw from is ethical.

We all know that individuals who exhibit the behavior and philosophies that stand in contrast to these examples are at best unsavory. Limiting the influence of the worst of these people imo would be ethical.

pyrokidd wrote:

This is the rationale Hitler used in exterminating Jews. He referred to them as genetically inferior, negative impacts on society, etc. He also killed many handicapped, mentally retarded, and terminally ill people(forced euthanasia, regardless of whether they were in pain or not). What's to stop those in power form creating their own personal version of what they think humans should be? I don't trust ANYONE with that kind of power. Not one person, not a group of people, no one.

Hitler's rationale was shoddy at best. It was an escapist fantasy for people who did not want to accept responsibility for their own hand in their situation or honestly face the truth of a global depression. They were jealous of the (dare I say) superiority of the Jews, whose success was the result of hard work. I'm not for euthanizing individuals who can conciously decide that any discomfort they experience due to their illness or disability is outweighed by their desire to live or love of life. In fact I think it's a strictly personal decision that everyone should express to their loved ones and physicians.

What could stop someone from taking it too far? Here in America the system of checks and balances that would have to be overcome to implement even a mild form of eugenics and euthanasia springs to mind.

pyrokidd wrote:

As a high school dropout, you don't think academics should be a qualifier. Neither do I, but many people probably do. And even if those in power are democratically elected, if the majority wants higher education standards for those allowed to live, you'd be out of luck.

I think you missed my point. Many intelligent people either decided to forgo higher education in favor of other plans or (as in my case in hindsight) poor judgment. People make mistakes. I didn't state that anything as drastic as having to be college educated to continue living or being allowed to breed should be implemented and no one would support that. Besides, In the states anti-intellctualism seems to be so rampant that no one would vote to have an entire society made up strictly of "elitists".

 

 

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
The gray area is harder to figure out...

But  I was honestly looking more towards people who can not care for themselves...people who are so physically or mentally incapable that they can not work or live alone....should these people be allowed to have kids?

 

An alcoholic, high cancer risk, allergies...these are not things I am considering.

 

 

If you can not care for yourself should you be able to have children?

 

(and yes it does happen I know a women she is about 22 now but she is having her 2nd child and she functions on a 1st grade level, she collects SSI and lives with family.)

"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
iluvc2h5oh wrote:But  I was

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

But  I was honestly looking more towards people who can not care for themselves...people who are so physically or mentally incapable that they can not work or live alone....should these people be allowed to have kids?

 

An alcoholic, high cancer risk, allergies...these are not things I am considering.

 

 

If you can not care for yourself should you be able to have children?

 

(and yes it does happen I know a women she is about 22 now but she is having her 2nd child and she functions on a 1st grade level, she collects SSI and lives with family.)

Absolutely not. I'll go even further. Her parents should be locked up for allowing an adult with the mind of a child to have two kids.

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


pyrokidd
Superfan
pyrokidd's picture
Posts: 253
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Everyone tries to pose

Quote:

Everyone tries to pose this question as if they don't honestly know. I think that's a cop out. Violent people, lazy people, addicted people, hateful people, dishonest people (thieves) are duds. You know that.

Anyone who claims that morals are absolute is a moron. It simply isn't true. Morals/ethics are the result of evolutionary instincts to survive as a member of a social group. However many of these instincts are conflicting with one another and as a result we see many moral dilemmas. This essay

http://www.rationalresponders.com/what_does_sugar_have_to_do_with_murder

explains it in detail.

Many Vietnam veterans, for instance, came back to a changed America and couldn't fit in, and turned to crime. Perfectly "normal" kids left and came back with all sorts of drug addictions, psychotic disorders, and physical disabilities. Many were incapable of serving society in any way. Should they have been put to death for it?

Quote:

I think you missed my point. Many intelligent people either decided to forgo higher education in favor of other plans or (as in my case in hindsight) poor judgment. People make mistakes. I didn't state that anything as drastic as having to be college educated to continue living or being allowed to breed should be implemented and no one would support that.

That's your opinion. You aren't the one in charge. If the government decides otherwise, too bad for you.

Quote:

Besides, In the states anti-intellctualism seems to be so rampant that no one would vote to have an entire society made up strictly of "elitists".

With all the anti-intellectualism, why would you want to trust the people with the decision of who to get rid of? And all a fascist government would need is to use this prejudice to eliminate all of their competent opponents.

You're allowing whoever  is in power to select who they think is best to survive. All human history indicates someone with such power will use it to their own advantage, whether or not it is whats "best" for everyone.

"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
pyrokidd

pyrokidd wrote:

Quote:

Everyone tries to pose this question as if they don't honestly know. I think that's a cop out. Violent people, lazy people, addicted people, hateful people, dishonest people (thieves) are duds. You know that.

Anyone who claims that morals are absolute is a moron. It simply isn't true. Morals/ethics are the result of evolutionary instincts to survive as a member of a social group. However many of these instincts are conflicting with one another and as a result we see many moral dilemmas. This essay

http://www.rationalresponders.com/what_does_sugar_have_to_do_with_murder

explains it in detail.

Morals are not absolute, but I think that's the general consensus. I'd be willing to bet that whether you'll admit it or not, people who exhibit these behaviors bothers you to some degree.

pyrokidd wrote:

Many Vietnam veterans, for instance, came back to a changed America and couldn't fit in, and turned to crime. Perfectly "normal" kids left and came back with all sorts of drug addictions, psychotic disorders, and physical disabilities. Many were incapable of serving society in any way. Should they have been put to death for it?

We're seeing it again with Iraq vets. This time we know what it's called. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The morals of the society they left behind hadn't changed that drastically by the time they returned. The trouble is that it's nearly impossible to spend a year or more in constant danger, watching people you've bonded with brutally killed, and living in a constant state of alertness and perhaps paranoia and come out unchanged. It's not their fault. They didn't choose war and considering how many are supporting anti-war candidates like Obama and Ron Paul, I think it's safe to say they want it even less now. To greet them as they come home and say "Thanks for your sacrifice, but you're broken now so we'll have to put you down" is both absurd and disgusting.

pyrokidd wrote:

Quote:

I think you missed my point. Many intelligent people either decided to forgo higher education in favor of other plans or (as in my case in hindsight) poor judgment. People make mistakes. I didn't state that anything as drastic as having to be college educated to continue living or being allowed to breed should be implemented and no one would support that.

That's your opinion. You aren't the one in charge. If the government decides otherwise, too bad for you.

Where are you from? It's not that easy here. A law like that would have to be approved by both houses of congress and signed by the president. If the president vetoes the bill, it has to pass through congress and carry a 2/3's majority to override the veto; and even then it could be struck down by the Supreme Court. All people whose careers are dependent on the whims of pro-lifers and hippies alike. Look at the shit storm over Terri Schaivo. There was no doubt she was a vegetable with no hope of recovery and an assload of fundies fought to the end for her husk.

pyrokidd wrote:

Quote:

Besides, In the states anti-intellctualism seems to be so rampant that no one would vote to have an entire society made up strictly of "elitists".

With all the anti-intellectualism, why would you want to trust the people with the decision of who to get rid of? And all a fascist government would need is to use this prejudice to eliminate all of their competent opponents.

You're allowing whoever  is in power to select who they think is best to survive. All human history indicates someone with such power will use it to their own advantage, whether or not it is whats "best" for everyone.

That was a joke. Again, it won't happen here over night.

 

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Nazism didn't happen over

Nazism didn't happen over night in Germany either.

 

I still think you are avoiding the question of who gets to decide?

 

Democracies are majory ruled system. That means the minorities don't get a say in the matter. The government is elected by the people, and then the government impliments whatever laws it sees fit.

 

If Denmark had a policy of eugenics for example, Muslim people would probably not get a permit to have kids here. Why? Because our current government is very anti-muslim, and even though they only have a slight majority, they still call the shots. If everyone in Denmark supported the Idea that you needed a permit in order to have kids then the Government could decide against the wishes of everyone supporting the opposition: maybe 40% of the population. We would say: "well we support the idea of permit-kids, but we DON'T think it should apply to all Muslims". And the Government would answer: "well we call the shots here, and if you don't like it that way then you shouldn't have voted for us. And we'll say: "But we didn't! 40% of us didn't!", and they'll say: "well you can't come here and say that you think permit-kids are a good idea, and then turn around and say it isn't, because you have a hard on for muslims. It's not our fault that the rest of you are such naive hippies". What options do we have after that other than to say that we DON'T support a system of eugenics?

 

Would you like for W. Bush to decide who gets to have a breeding permit? You really think black people, Atheists, Muslims, Socialists et.c. will have as easy a time optaining a permit, compared to hardcore fundie Christians, if W. Bush appoints the people to sit on the Eugenics counsel?

 

You seem to think that the only ones making any decissions on the subject are "the people", as though that is some kind of all incompassing force where everybody gets a say. "The people" ellected Bush, don't forget. You are the one who lives in a country that has a huge majority of conservative Cristians. Are you sure it's not gonna be YOU that gets forcefully sterilized, if the system you hope for is implemented? You are a hated minority after all.

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Nikolaj wrote:Nazism didn't

Nikolaj wrote:

Nazism didn't happen over night in Germany either.

 

I still think you are avoiding the question of who gets to decide?

 

Democracies are majory ruled system. That means the minorities don't get a say in the matter. The government is elected by the people, and then the government impliments whatever laws it sees fit.

Again, the people will elect their leaders based on the policies they've worked for or against in the past, and the policies they say they will work for or against in the future. If the people want a pro-eugenics agenda the people they elect will reflect that. As has been shown by opposition to the death penalty, abortion, and right to die cases it's a mixed bag which tends to cancel out motions for and against any extreme proposition; and very little legislation has occurred in our 232 year history without some level of compromise. Any thing this big would likely require a constitutional amendment, which is not an easy thing to do. Moreover the Supreme Court exists as a buffer between the majority and the minority. If they find it in violation of the Bill of Rights or the Constitution they can overturn it. You can't just ride roughshod over a group of people without a sound reason. Is it so impossible that these people can't be informed by physicians and psychologists?

It is possible (and likely) that some have and will lie to us about their goals. If they've lied to us, it is on the people to recognize it (another good reason for testing potential voters intelligence and awareness) and vote them out. If we don't, then we deserve whatever horrors our leaders have in store for us.

Hitler's rise to power was due in part to the lack of checks and balances, and the ceding to him of those that existed. Something that could happen here if the republicans have their way. The atrocities that happened were based on his ability to incite age old prejudices, and his arguments would only have been sound to those who already bought into his hateful and irrational mentality.

Nikolaj wrote:

If Denmark had a policy of eugenics for example, Muslim people would probably not get a permit to have kids here. Why? Because our current government is very anti-muslim, and even though they only have a slight majority, they still call the shots. If everyone in Denmark supported the Idea that you needed a permit in order to have kids then the Government could decide against the wishes of everyone supporting the opposition: maybe 40% of the population. We would say: "well we support the idea of permit-kids, but we DON'T think it should apply to all Muslims". And the Government would answer: "well we call the shots here, and if you don't like it that way then you shouldn't have voted for us. And we'll say: "But we didn't! 40% of us didn't!", and they'll say: "well you can't come here and say that you think permit-kids are a good idea, and then turn around and say it isn't, because you have a hard on for muslims. It's not our fault that the rest of you are such naive hippies". What options do we have after that other than to say that we DON'T support a system of eugenics?

You could do like we 've done here and vote the bastards out. If Denmarks constitution is so flimsy as to allow ethnic/religious discrimination I would say you are far more at the mercy of your legislators than I am.

Nikolaj wrote:

 Would you like for W. Bush to decide who gets to have a breeding permit? You really think black people, Atheists, Muslims, Socialists et.c. will have as easy a time optaining a permit, compared to hardcore fundie Christians, if W. Bush appoints the people to sit on the Eugenics counsel?

I would fight against that. There is a difference between eugenics aimed at limiting physical and emotional suffering due to bad genes and bad parenting, and eugenics aimed at racial or spiritual purity.

I personally find this "What if someone abuses it?" mentality deplorable. It's the same kind of heel dragging and hand wringing that has prevented America from adopting more progressive welfare, national healthcare, stronger environmental regulation, and a more progressive criminal justice system.

The bigot says: If we allow gay people to marry, pretty soon people will want to marry their pets. It will be the end of civilization!

That's absurd. A pet can't give consent.

The auto industry says: If you tighten emissions and phase out the combustion engine we'll go out of business. It will mean economic ruin!!

Bullshit. If they reinvest in green technologies and pave the way for a cleaner future they'll be seen as innovators and perhaps heroes. If they don't their failure will be their own fault. That is the epitome of capitolism. Adapt or die.

You say: What's next? If grandma gets a cold we just take her out back and shoot her? Doom I say!!! Dooooooommmmmm!!!!!!!!1111111

Of course not. Why would you kill someone with a chance of recovery? Why would you kill someone who, despite their infirmities, still feels that their life has meaning and value? Why would we execute a teenager who (through poor guidance) decides to steal a car for the first time.

Why would you not allow a family to take a loved one in a vegetative state off of life support if their doctor informs them they will not recover? Why wouldn't you allow them to be relieved of that financial burden? Why would you want someone who cannot take proper care of one child, to have two or three?

Nikolaj wrote:

 You seem to think that the only ones making any decissions on the subject are "the people", as though that is some kind of all incompassing force where everybody gets a say. "The people" ellected Bush, don't forget. You are the one who lives in a country that has a huge majority of conservative Cristians. Are you sure it's not gonna be YOU that gets forcefully sterilized, if the system you hope for is implemented? You are a hated minority after all.

Forced? My current attitude is "Free snippin's? Tits!"

But seriously, I am 1,000% against any program based on anything other than negative genetic predispositions and a pattern of destructive behavior.

The times they are a changing. The republican party has generated so much ill will locally and internationally that barring the intervention of Jesus Christ himself they won't have nearly the influence they've had over the last 12 years.

I swear to god if another customer interrupts me while I'm trying to discuss philosophy on the internet.....

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


pyrokidd
Superfan
pyrokidd's picture
Posts: 253
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
I got to thinking, suppose

I got to thinking, suppose eugenics went both ways. If a eugenics program were to be implemented, should those with desirable genetic traits be encouraged or possibly legislated into having children (or at least donating eggs/sperm for a breeding program)?

You seem to have pretty clear ideas on what isn't desirable and what we should eliminate, but what should we keep? What does the future of humanity look like if such a program were instituted? I personally can't see anything but tyranny in some form or another, but I'm guessing you've got something else.

"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan


iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
nutxaq wrote:iluvc2h5oh

nutxaq wrote:

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

But  I was honestly looking more towards people who can not care for themselves...people who are so physically or mentally incapable that they can not work or live alone....should these people be allowed to have kids?

 

An alcoholic, high cancer risk, allergies...these are not things I am considering.

 

 

If you can not care for yourself should you be able to have children?

 

 

 

(and yes it does happen I know a women she is about 22 now but she is having her 2nd child and she functions on a 1st grade level, she collects SSI and lives with family.)

Absolutely not. I'll go even further. Her parents should be locked up for allowing an adult with the mind of a child to have two kids.

 

Umm her parents aren't much more advanced and she was 21 when she had the 1st one not much they could really say/do about it.

"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
pyrokidd wrote:I got to

pyrokidd wrote:

I got to thinking, suppose eugenics went both ways. If a eugenics program were to be implemented, should those with desirable genetic traits be encouraged or possibly legislated into having children (or at least donating eggs/sperm for a breeding program)?

You seem to have pretty clear ideas on what isn't desirable and what we should eliminate, but what should we keep? What does the future of humanity look like if such a program were instituted? I personally can't see anything but tyranny in some form or another, but I'm guessing you've got something else.

Me or the OP?

I think  that would be pretty dreary. Like Gattica or a never ending episode of leave it to beaver. Everyone incredibly attractive and bored out of their minds. There's no such thing as perfect.

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
iluvc2h5oh wrote:nutxaq

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

nutxaq wrote:

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

But  I was honestly looking more towards people who can not care for themselves...people who are so physically or mentally incapable that they can not work or live alone....should these people be allowed to have kids?

 

An alcoholic, high cancer risk, allergies...these are not things I am considering.

 

 

If you can not care for yourself should you be able to have children?

 

 

 

(and yes it does happen I know a women she is about 22 now but she is having her 2nd child and she functions on a 1st grade level, she collects SSI and lives with family.)

Absolutely not. I'll go even further. Her parents should be locked up for allowing an adult with the mind of a child to have two kids.

 

Umm her parents are much more advanced and she was 21 when she had the 1st one not much they could really say/do about it.

If by "advanced" you mean competent, then shouldn't they be keeping a closer eye on their child? Perhaps slipping her some birth control?

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


pyrokidd
Superfan
pyrokidd's picture
Posts: 253
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
Well, I was talking to

Well, I was talking to nutxaq, but if anyone who happens to read this can give a good example of their society with their ideal eugenics program in place, I'd like to hear it. Like I said, I can't imagine it working, but then again I don't have all the information.

Also, it should be kept in mind this society should still have minimal losses of freedom. Obviously we could create a very effective, industrious society with little if any crime with a eugenics program as in Huxley's Brave New World, but of course whatever meaning we can give ourselves in life is also gone.

"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan


General-Forrest
General-Forrest's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2008-05-29
User is offlineOffline
brave new world

might of been eugenics but it is also technoracy to from what i heard and to make people happy making no money and under complete government control. just what i heard somewhere. but i don't know but if it is i don't like the idea much less Huxley don't like him.

 

 

General


iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
nutxaq wrote:iluvc2h5oh

nutxaq wrote:

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

nutxaq wrote:

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

But  I was honestly looking more towards people who can not care for themselves...people who are so physically or mentally incapable that they can not work or live alone....should these people be allowed to have kids?

 

An alcoholic, high cancer risk, allergies...these are not things I am considering.

 

 

If you can not care for yourself should you be able to have children?

 

 

 

(and yes it does happen I know a women she is about 22 now but she is having her 2nd child and she functions on a 1st grade level, she collects SSI and lives with family.)

Absolutely not. I'll go even further. Her parents should be locked up for allowing an adult with the mind of a child to have two kids.

 

Umm her parents are much more advanced and she was 21 when she had the 1st one not much they could really say/do about it.

If by "advanced" you mean competent, then shouldn't they be keeping a closer eye on their child? Perhaps slipping her some birth control?

 

 

Sorry....meant weren't

 

"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
iluvc2h5oh wrote:nutxaq

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

nutxaq wrote:

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

nutxaq wrote:

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

But  I was honestly looking more towards people who can not care for themselves...people who are so physically or mentally incapable that they can not work or live alone....should these people be allowed to have kids?

 

An alcoholic, high cancer risk, allergies...these are not things I am considering.

 

 

If you can not care for yourself should you be able to have children?

 

 

 

(and yes it does happen I know a women she is about 22 now but she is having her 2nd child and she functions on a 1st grade level, she collects SSI and lives with family.)

Absolutely not. I'll go even further. Her parents should be locked up for allowing an adult with the mind of a child to have two kids.

 

Umm her parents are much more advanced and she was 21 when she had the 1st one not much they could really say/do about it.

If by "advanced" you mean competent, then shouldn't they be keeping a closer eye on their child? Perhaps slipping her some birth control?

 

 

Sorry....meant weren't

 

Sounds like the perfect candidates for sterilization.

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
iluvc2h5oh wrote:I was

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

I was really thinking about this.

I know the one thing most on this board dislike more than irrational thiests are rational fascists.

a)Is there EVER any time when sterilization is ok as a means to prevent reproduction? If so when?  If not why?

I would say that forced reversible sterilization would be a suitable punishment for violent sex offenders. If the state is wrong about something it can be undone, and if no rapists reproduce then an evolutionary pressure is set up to adopt an aversion to rape.

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

b)Is it ok to knowingly pass genetic defects on to another generation? If so, where is that line drawn? Who draws it?

I don't think that it is okay to pass highly debilitating diseases on (though given the survivability of most it's rather unlikely that they would be). Inheritable diabetes is not an example of could be called "reproductive black list diseases." Nor are physical "deformities." Off hand  can't think of any disease that would be utterly life-destroying and a threat to species viability, but I would leave it up to a board of expert-in-field medical professionals.

I am fairly sure that most inherited diseases will be correctable with gene therapy at some point, so such a policy would have to undergo review on a yearly basis.

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
 

c)Would "mercy killing" ever be ok for someone non-consenting?  What if next of kin consents?  Should a parent be allowed to have a new-born euthanized?

Once someone has suffered irreparable damage to their cognitive faculties, to the point where that person can no longer be called sentient, then I would have no guilt in killing them out of mercy. However, I think it should be within the purview of parents of newborns to euthanize them before the definition of sentience is met. It would be on their conscience, as I typically view individual non-sentient creatures as relatively disposable and a fair portion of (what could be called barely sentient) humans as a renewable detriment to society. It's a moral choice that I cannot make for others, but a choice that should be available.

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

I think I am a little more on the fascist side of this than most on here, but I would really like to know others take on this.  I would honestly be more afraid of giving a person or group the power to make those decisions than the acts themselves.

Where permanent damage may result from the choices made by a government party then the action taken should be either the result of a particularly abhorrent crime or the absence of sentience. "Do what thou wilt and pay for what you get" should be the whole of the law.