Eugenics and Ethics

[JBeukema]

Eugenics is never ethical.

isn't it more cruel to allow it to live?

​

 

[JBeukema]

Acrania, Meroanencephaly, Raquisquisis and Spina Bifida

Would not it have been more humane, more compassionate- indeed, a necessary act by the doctor who honors his oath, to prevent this if it had been seen coming?

 

[JBeukema]

Breeding human beings like animals is not ethical

You don't try to find the most attractive.desirable woman to mate with?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Eugenics is never ethical.

isn't it more cruel to allow it to live?

​

Cruel to who?

 

[JBeukema]

Is it not more cruel to let a child live with a severe birth defect, only to be born, suffer horribly for several days, and die?

Why do you want to bring a child into the world only to torture him or her prior to death?

 

[JBeukema]

The eugenicist is the man who truly loves his children, wishing to use the means available to him to ensure his child is born well and that he and his partner does not to his children those alleles which would ensure the inheritance of horrible disease which would damn the child to suffering.

Any man who loves his child would use the means available to ensure his child is born with good form. Any who would not shows their disregard for their child's well-being. I fear for those children born to parents who would prefer their child be born ill or horribly deformed.

 

[JBeukema]

Cruel to who?

To the child that until recently was ensured death and is still guaranteed to spend his or her existence in suffering.


Why do you want to make children suffer in horrible pain and be afflicted with constant infection?


You're a truly sadistic sack of shit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is it not more cruel to let a child live with a severe birth defect, only to be born, suffer horribly for several days, and die?

Why do you want to bring a child into the world only to torture him or her prior to death?

You think we should kill off everyone who has a severe birth defect, or genetic disease? Why don't you take that debate up with Stephen Hawking? He should agree with you, he has been tortured for years because of ALS.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The eugenicist is the man who truly loves his children, wishing to use the means available to him to ensure his child is born well and that he and his partner does not to his children those alleles which would ensure the inheritance of horrible disease which would damn the child to suffering.

Any man who loves his child would use the means available to ensure his child is born with good form. Any who would not shows their disregard for their child's well-being. I fear for those children born to parents who would prefer their child be born ill or horribly deformed.

Including culling his mistakes, because he is going to make a lot of them.

No one wants their children to be sick. the difference between a parent and a eugenicist is that parents know they are not God, and eugenicists do not. Real science gets things wrong a lot more often than they get it right, which is why eugenics will never be a real science.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Cruel to who?

To the child that until recently was ensured death and is still guaranteed to spend his or her existence in suffering.


Why do you want to make children suffer in horrible pain and be afflicted with constant infection?


You're a truly sadistic sack of shit.

Why do you want to kill perfectly healthy, normal, children?

Your problem here is you are making assumptions about my position simply because you assume that eugenics is science. That actually makes you wrong twice in the same assumption, first about my position, and second about what is, and is not, science. Eugenics is as much junk science as facilitated communication and your telepathy post.

 

[JBeukema]

You think we should kill off everyone who has a severe birth defect, or genetic disease? Why don't you take that debate up with Stephen Hawking? He should agree with you, he has been tortured for years because of ALS.

And?

I've never supported forcible euthanasia, so what's your point?

There were no signs of illness before or upon birth. The disease manifested when he was ~20 and most cases of ALS are not evidently genetic/heritable, placing them outside of this discussion and alongside traffic accidents.

Again, what's your point?

 

[JBeukema]

the difference between a parent and a eugenicist is that parents know they are not God, and eugenicists do not. Real science gets things wrong a lot more often than they get it right, which is why eugenics will never be a real science.

Except that it is a real science, embracing a number of fields. You wish to claim that anthropology and genetics aren't real science?

A man who loves his children uses what means are available to him to see his children born well, to see his children fed well, to see his children clothed and inoculated and well-cared-for.

if you ever have children, I fear for their welfare.

 

[JBeukema]

Why do you want to kill perfectly healthy, normal, children?

Cite or retract

Your problem here is you are making assumptions about my position

No, I'm asking why you oppose the prevention of suffering. why it is you wish to being a child into the world to suffer horribly for days and die.

You're still going on about telepaths? You were already called out on your compulsive lying

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the difference between a parent and a eugenicist is that parents know they are not God, and eugenicists do not. Real science gets things wrong a lot more often than they get it right, which is why eugenics will never be a real science.

Except that it is a real science, embracing a number of fields. You wish to claim that anthropology and genetics aren't real science?

A man who loves his children uses what means are available to him to see his children born well, to see his children fed well, to see his children clothed and inoculated and well-cared-for.

if you ever have children, I fear for their welfare.

No it is not, and it embraces nothing but quackery.

I am still waiting for you to show me a single reputable school anywhere that teaches eugenics. All you have ever come up with is a few web sites and some books that claim it is science. Science is taught in universities, not back room publishers and kids in their mothers basements.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why do you want to kill perfectly healthy, normal, children?

Cite or retract[

I will do neither, as it was clear from my context that I was making a point about your absurd claims about me wanting babies to suffer horrible pain and death. Grow up or go home.

Your problem here is you are making assumptions about my position

No, I'm asking why you oppose the prevention of suffering. why it is you wish to being a child into the world to suffer horribly for days and die.

You're still going on about telepaths? You were already called out on your compulsive lying

Which one of us is lying? You are the one pulling quotes out of context and claiming I want something I never said I want. You sound like a 5 year old when you debate.

 

[JBeukema]

the difference between a parent and a eugenicist is that parents know they are not God, and eugenicists do not. Real science gets things wrong a lot more often than they get it right, which is why eugenics will never be a real science.

Except that it is a real science, embracing a number of fields. You wish to claim that anthropology and genetics aren't real science?

A man who loves his children uses what means are available to him to see his children born well, to see his children fed well, to see his children clothed and inoculated and well-cared-for.

if you ever have children, I fear for their welfare.

No it is not, and it embraces nothing but quackery.

gene therapy is quackery?

preimplantation diagnosis is quackery?

biology is quackery?

IVF is quackery?

genetics is quackery?

Eugenics is still taught- they just call it genomics now. The terms were changed in the 30's as Cold Spring Harbor, The American breeders Association, Carnegie, and others, especially those who advocated liberal eugenics, distanced themselves from certain fringe elements.

 

[JBeukema]

You are the one pulling quotes out of context and claiming I want something I never said I want. You sound like a 5 year old when you debate.

You accusing someone else of misrepresenting your words breaks the irony meter

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Except that it is a real science, embracing a number of fields. You wish to claim that anthropology and genetics aren't real science?

A man who loves his children uses what means are available to him to see his children born well, to see his children fed well, to see his children clothed and inoculated and well-cared-for.

if you ever have children, I fear for their welfare.

No it is not, and it embraces nothing but quackery.

gene therapy is quackery?

preimplantation diagnosis is quackery?

biology is quackery?

IVF is quackery?

genetics is quackery?

Eugenics is still taught- they just call it genomics now. The terms were changed in the 30's as Cold Spring Harbor, The American breeders Association, Carnegie, and others, especially those who advocated liberal eugenics, distanced themselves from certain fringe elements.

None of those have anything to do with eugenics.

C'mon, I have admitted I am wrong more than once in this board, get me to do it again. Show me one accredited course in eugenics that proves it is science, and not the junk science I claim it is.

If you are right that eugenics is science then you should be able to prove me wrong with a school that teaches it. Rewriting history to claim that eugenics and genomics is the same thing does not count anymore than websites from a parents basement or backroom publishers.

Just one legitimate course.

 

[JBeukema]

lol

preimplantation diagnosis, genomics, IVF- all have nothing to do with eugenics?



And aerodynamics has nothing to do with aeronautic/aerospace engineerting

 

[Quantum Windbag]

lol

preimplantation diagnosis, genomics, IVF- all have nothing to do with eugenics?



And aerodynamics has nothing to do with aeronautic/aerospace engineerting

Eugenics is not a science, so nothing has anything to do with it. What does happen is there a few misguided idiots, the same people who often believe in facilitated communication or other fringe sciences, who think that because all these other things happen it proves they are right. Don't feel to bad about it though, I used to believe in ancient astronauts and spontaneous human combustion myself, before I grew up.

Since you are having a hard time finding credible scholarly links about eugenics I will supply you with one as a starting point.

Science of Eugenics