Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
WHOA! Hold everything!
That was just an example!
What the intended outcome is to be is that we eliminate these genetically passed ABNORMALITIES, such as the Anirida I spoke about.
Hey, look, you caught the late bus!nay! It might help wipe out diseases, but I don't think messing with nature or genetics is a good idea.
Why? You don't like what we've done with the banana?
>
What about what we've done with Corn?
You don't think the Rottweiler, the Pudelhund, the Husky, and other working breeds have made our lives easier? Those are mere plants and beasts, bred for our use with little (if any) thought for their own benefit, yet they were smashing successes. There are problems, and some breeds, especially toy breeds, have more problems stemming from the fact that those who bred them weren't concerned with their own good as we would be concerned with our own when turning our efforts towards improving our own form.
Image what we might achieve if we turn our efforts and science to improving our own selves for our own benefit.
Really? So given the choice between your child having Sickle Cell Anemia (or flipping a coin to find out) and your child enjoying heterogeneity and some resistance to malaria, it'd be 'wrong' to give your child malarial resistance and ensure (s)he doesn't suffer Sickle Cell Anemia?Also, picking and choosing what traits your child will have, just seems wrong to me.
Have you no compression or love for your child?
Keep trying.
We have effectively wiped out ever species of banana except the one that is most commercially profitable, and that is in serious danger as a result of disease. Great example there.
Genetics is not an exact science, which is why every black cow is not an Angus. Mutations occur, if you don't believe me try googling evolution.
Putting a '+' in front of eugenics does not change the facts, it is wrong
You keep sayng it's 'wrong' you can't show how giving my child the best form I can and taking measures to ensure (s)he doesn't have Hemophilia, Tay Sachs Disease, or some other debilitating illness is 'wrong'.
Is it wrong to get my child immunized to prevent smallpox, too, since you're railing against compassion, love, and preventative medicine?
Negative Eugenics: Kill or euthanize them
Positive Eugenics: Use current or future genetic knowledge to ensure their children do not inherit the condition.
Which do you support?
The problem with that line of argument is that it quickly becomes quite grey. If the State should intervene and prevent their reproduction in this instance, then what of other instances where a genetic disadvantage will lead to hardship? What of Down's? Then, what if can be shown that they will pass poor eyesight, mixed ethnicity,or something else that might create hardship merely based on social factors? That line of argument quickly leads to dark places and history shows us that once those paces are reached, truly horrendous things occur. It quickly becomes not only negative eugenics, but racial hygiene and a campaign to wipe out the Lower Tenth. We saw this, for instance, in California in the 20's and also in the Ozarks, where children were forcefully sterilized
The cause of Down syndrome is one of three types of abnormal cell division involving chromosome 21. All three abnormalities result in extra genetic material from chromosome 21, which is responsible for the characteristic features and developmental problems of Down syndrome. The three genetic variations that can cause Down syndrome include:
* Trisomy 21. More than 90 percent of cases of Down syndrome are caused by trisomy 21. A child with trisomy 21 has three copies of chromosome 21 — instead of the usual two copies — in all of his or her cells. This form of Down syndrome is caused by abnormal cell division during the development of the sperm cell or the egg cell.
* Mosaic Down syndrome. In this rare form of Down syndrome, children have some cells with an extra copy of chromosome 21. This mosaic of normal and abnormal cells is caused by abnormal cell division after fertilization.
* Translocation Down syndrome. Down syndrome can also occur when part of chromosome 21 becomes attached (translocated) onto another chromosome, before or at conception. Children with translocation Down syndrome have the usual two copies of chromosome 21, but they also have additional material from chromosome 21 stuck to the translocated chromosome. This form of Down syndrome is uncommon.
There are no known behavioral or environmental factors that cause Down syndrome.
The problem, again, is that such a line of argument has always turned into 'desirability' and such movements taken over by 'scientific racists' advocating 'racial hygiene'
We have effectively wiped out ever species of banana except the one that is most commercially profitable, and that is in serious danger as a result of disease. Great example there.
Improving the quality of life leaves a lot of really bad ideas that progressives love to spout on the table.
Address the issues I already raised. What if, despite all the testing, someone is born with one of these genetic defects?
You're a fucking moron.After all, labs are imperfect and make mistakes, it is inevitable that it will happen. Does your perfect society simply kill off the mistakes?
=Care to clarify and present your actual objections rather than simply throwing around some Beckish bullshit? Let me guess, empathy leads us to bad places because Hitler killed the Jews out of empathy
Did I say anything about empathy?
You started walking down the road to Becksm; I just cut you off at the pass.
And?
Right... you don't seem to really know much about what he did or why.
Fail. Even if you remove 'defective stock', you've done nothing. The only way to increase the prevalence of favorable traits is by, you know- spreading them around. See: selective breeding.Eugenics has always been about improving genes through various programs, and the best way to to that has always been eliminating defective stock from the gene pool
Now, show me where the definition,
The use of genetic technologies that we possess or shall come to possess to enable parents to determine what genetic traits are passed on to their children, with the stated aims and goals of eliminating genetic disease, improving the human form (eg:restoring the human ability to synthesize our own vitamin C, should it prove possible to repair the damaged pseudogene), prolonging life, and improving the quality of human life.
and killing someone is the only 100% effective way to remove them from the gene pool. But keep thinking eugenics is a new idea, or that it is something pretty. It isn't, it is just another form of racism, only dressed in pretty clothes and a psuedo-scientific justification.
says anything about ' eliminating defective stock from the gene pool'. Also, learn to read, as the title clearly says '(+) Eugenics...'.
+ is commonly used to stand for 'positive'. Hence, the thread title reads as Positive Eugenics..' If you don't know what positive and negative eugenics are, you really shouldn't try to tell other people about the matter.
Right... because wanting to ensure that if I or my partner possess an allele that, if inherited, could cause our child to suffer from a horrible disease, that that chld does not iunherit that particular allele, is 'racist'.But keep thinking eugenics is a new idea, or that it is something pretty. It isn't, it is just another form of racism
Right...
ONE type of Downs Syndrome IS genetically passed down:
In those cases, the carriers should be sterilized to prevent further iterations of the abnormality.
* Translocation Down syndrome. Down syndrome can also occur when part of chromosome 21 becomes attached (translocated) onto another chromosome, before or at conception. Children with translocation Down syndrome have the usual two copies of chromosome 21, but they also have additional material from chromosome 21 stuck to the translocated chromosome. This form of Down syndrome is uncommon.
There are no known behavioral or environmental factors that cause Down syndrome.
classical doctrine?I am a liberal.
so not classical doctrine, but one who coopted the term and supports welfare and government interventionism in the market?classical doctrine?I am a liberal.
A liberal. a 20th century liberal
Where eugenics is defined for the sake of this discussion as:
The use of genetic technologies that we possess or shall come to possess to enable parents to determine what genetic traits are passed on to their children, with the stated aims and goals of eliminating genetic disease, improving the human form (eg:restoring the human ability to synthesize our own vitamin C, should it prove possible to repair the damaged pseudogene), prolonging life, and improving the quality of human life.
Thank you for proving my point. Should we kill these children to ensure that they do not burden society by being blind? If not, how do you justify sterilization? If the purpose of life is to reproduce, you are effectively declaring that you are God, and have the right to make decisions for others based on your standards.
So you're back to negative eugenics... compulsory negative eugenics, at that...
Positive eugenics would simply replace the gene with a 'known good' or repair it when the couple decided to have a child.
We have effectively wiped out ever species of banana except the one that is most commercially profitable, and that is in serious danger as a result of disease. Great example there.
Extraordinary Things About Bananas
Even if it were true, what would you point be?
Read: Fabian socialist.classical doctrine?I am a liberal.
A liberal. a 20th century liberal
Improving the quality of life leaves a lot of really bad ideas that progressives love to spout on the table.
Improving the quality of life leaves a lot of really bad ideas that progressives love to spout on the table.
and
Improving the quality of life leaves a lot of really bad ideas that conservatives and libertarians love to spout on the table.
I oppose the ideas of all the do gooders who have all their ideas dictated by their ideologies.
It is why I am a liberal.
)
Thank you for proving my point. Should we kill these children to ensure that they do not burden society by being blind? If not, how do you justify sterilization? If the purpose of life is to reproduce, you are effectively declaring that you are God, and have the right to make decisions for others based on your standards.
Why are you so hung up on KILLING everything???
Hell, NO, we wouldn't kill them! If our society was such, THEY would care about their progeny and Voluntarily have themselves sterilized.
Why would they WANT to disable their children, even before the baby was BORN??
I mean, it sort of goes without saying (I would have thought) that we'd be ACTIVELY researching ways to CHANGE this abnormality...
Address the issues I already raised. What if, despite all the testing, someone is born with one of these genetic defects?
What about it? People die despite out best medicine, diseases stll exist- does that mean we shouldn't try?
You're a fucking moron.After all, labs are imperfect and make mistakes, it is inevitable that it will happen. Does your perfect society simply kill off the mistakes?
I already debunked your bullshit
