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.
Eugenics, positive or otherwise, is noting but psuedo-science, and it will never be anything more.
You are right to want to reduce suffering, just remember while you are doing it that you are not perfect and you don't have all the answers.
As someone WITHOUT any genetic flaws,
would you genetically choose to have a downs syndrome child or something worse?
As someone WITH downs markers would you choose to have that gene deleted out so that a child of yours would not have the possibility of having downs?
All eugenics is negative, it has to be, or it is not eugenics.
Do you ever know what you're talking about?
P{lease, take the time to learn what words mean before interrupting the discussion any further.
: a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed
The practice of eugenics was first legally mandated in the United States in the state of Indiana, resulting in the forcible sterilization, incarceration, and occasionally euthanasia of the mentally or physically handicapped, the mentally ill, and ethnic minorities (particularly people of mixed racial heritage), and the adopting out of their children to non-disabled, Caucasian parents. Similar programs spread widely in the early part of the twentieth century, and still exist in some parts of the world. It is important to note that no experiment in eugenics has ever been shown to result in measurable improvements in human health. In fact, in the best known attempt at positive eugenics, the Nazi "Lebensborn" program, there was a higher-than- normal level of birth defects among the resulting offspring.
Eugenics, positive or otherwise, is noting but psuedo-science, and it will never be anything more.
lol
You really need to get a dictionary.
(n) pseudoscience (an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions)
WordNet Search - 3.0
Evolution, the existence of genomes and alleles, mutations and heritability- these are all firmly established. So, too are selective breeding and genetic manipulation.
Once again, you fail to have a clue what you're talking about.
Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] The term comes from the Greek prefix pseudo- (false or pretending) and science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"). An early recorded use of the term was in 1843 by the French physiologist François Magendie.[2]
As taught in certain introductory science classes, pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific, or whose proponents state that it is scientific, but which nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement or substantially deviates from other fundamental aspects of the scientific method.[3] The term is inherently pejorative, because it is used to assert that something is being inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science, and those labeled as practicing or advocating it normally dispute the characterization
You are right to want to reduce suffering, just remember while you are doing it that you are not perfect and you don't have all the answers.
So we should have stopped all surgeries the first time someone bled out? We should no longer use anesthesia, antibiotics, or other medicines because sometimes we've found something we thought was helpful was actually harmful and some people have adverse reactions and die?
Sorry you couldn't live in the Dark Ages and enjoy the Black Death like you want, but the rest of us are glad we've modern medicine.
Improving the quality of life leaves a lot of really bad ideas that progressives love to spout on the table.
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
Nah, the folks who would wind up making the determination are usually the folks who should be first into the gas chamber. as was the case in Germany
Improving the quality of life leaves a lot of really bad ideas that progressives love to spout on the table.
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?
Hitler killed the disabled and psychiatric patients also, nit just Jews. In fact, he went after them first, in order to improve the quality of life. Maybe if you paid more attention to history you wouldn't sound so much like a fool by jumping to erroneous conclusions that I listen to Beck.
Nah, the folks who would wind up making the determination are usually the folks who should be first into the gas chamber. as was the case in Germany
Parents and their doctors should be first into the gas chambers?
Before anyone gets too carried away with this equating to KILLING undesirables, let us not forget that folks can be STERILIZED, eh?
Are you advocating negative eugenics and forced sterilization?
"Eugenics was Hitler's favorite Science, what's not to like?!!" -- Ima Progressive
I suppose so, since it IS rather "negative" to remove the abnormalities from the stock to start with.
But here's a prime example of why I would be in favor of it:
My bro & sis-in-law. He has a condition that is ALWAYS passed on to the progeny, which begins with legal blindness and ends with complete blindness. They had 3 children, and all three carry this gene AND are affected by it.
To my way of thinking, the parents were remiss and could almost be accused of child abuse for their part in the creation of these "malformed" kids, and to allow those children to then go on to procreate, themselves, is an absolute crime against THEIR children.
I would hope that most sterilization would be Voluntary, since the premise is logical, but folks are always going to scream about "their" rights, especially when "their" rights negatively affect others "rights."
UNTIL a solution can be found, to repair the damaged allele(s),
yes, I think it should be mandatory for anyone carrying that/those allele(s) to undergo sterilization.
In one way, it sounds so facist, but looked at from the other side of the coin, it appears to be empathetic/sympathetic to the OTHERs that are involved in protecting THEIR "rights."
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.
Genetic engineering is wrong. Forced sterilization is wrong. It always has and always will end badly. And the people who support such things are disgusting pieces of shit who don't even deserve the time of day.
What arrogant pieces of shit you are.
And ignorant besides.
"They were training youth from the cradle in their new philosophies and goals with a strong emphasis on nordic traits, physique and physical fitness and procreation: German mothers were encouraged in a variety of ways to have many children. New icons of perfect aryan children were promoted in the culture of the time. Early in the Reich, doctors were recruited to the field of Eugenics: one of Hitler's more prominent doctors published research in Margaret Sanger's journal on Birth Control in the United States. By the time research and experimentation in Eugenics hit the Concentration Camps, it had already been well-developed. Volumes had been written and compiled on racial features and characteristics and the measurement thereof. "
Eugenics in the holocaust or shoah: Human Engineering in the US, Britain and Germany including forced sterilization, the search for a Master Race, and the extermination of the mentally retarded, mentally ill, Jews, chronically unemployed, epileptics,
When a women goes to a sperm bank to get a sample for artificial fertilization, isn't she choosing what traits her child will have?
For those of you who are against people deciding what traits their child has, would you advocate sperm banks to be comprised of a large vat of mystery semen and the woman is just given a ladle?
