What is immoral about eugenics?

[Quantum Windbag]

People practice eugenics every day.

You pick a mate based on looks and what traits your potential offspring may inherit. No big deal.

Eugenics is someone else picking your mate for you, and then deciding how many children you have, and maybe killing those children because they fucked up.

Where on Earth did you get your understanding of eugenics? That's like saying 'chemistry is someone putting cyanide in your tea'.

Prove me wrong by citing historical precedents that show how eugenics did not result in genocide and abortion. Shouldn't be hard, if you are right and I am wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What flaws are we screening for? That's the most uncomfortable question of all. Sometimes the flaw is a horrible disease. But increasingly, it's a milder disease, the absence of useful tissue, or just the wrong sex. If you think it's hard to explain where babies come from, try explaining where baby-making is going.

The growing practice of embryo eugenics. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine

[

How is that fundamentally any different than timing the pregnancy comes under Venus because of some old superstition?

Because it uses all the techniques you advocate to destroy children based on nothing more than the sex of the child, which proves that what you keep saying is not the way the real world works. this is why liberal eugenics will never last in the real world, governments cannot allow the consumer free choice to choose because it will result in an imbalance of the ultimate resource.

So you don't like the word?

No, I don.t like the philosophy. I have come to the conclusion that you are a complete idiot, which is why you once tried to prove a point by citing junk science with me. Unfortuantely for you, I do not fit your stereotype of an ignorant right winger, mostly because I am not a right winger, nor am I ignorant.

Genocide is a natural outgrowth of religion. I guess eugenics and religions are genocide, then.

Religion equals genocide?

Don't tell the liberals, they think Islam is a religion of peace.

Like not forcing the birth of a seriously ill child that will suffer horribly and simultaneously condemn the family to poverty and destitution as they try desperately to pay the medical bills when you can prevent that from happening by aborting a blastocyst or foetus before it even gives rise a person capable of suffering?

Like Stephen Hawking?

You are a fine example of that.

I prefer being arrogant to being willfully ignorant, like you.

Yes... preimplantation is totally the same as giving you the 'trigger' to a live nuke.

No, it is the equivalent of giving you one. You are the one that is so stupid he cannot accept reality, and you think you are smarter than the adults who understand the world as it exists.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Prove me wrong by citing historical precedents that show how eugenics did not result in genocide and abortion. Shouldn't be hard, if you are right and I am wrong.

4 a smart guy you like to hang in some trashy neighborhoods.
J had to change his user name because he came out as a rabid racists.

If you run threads about the benefits of eugenics, you are what they were looking to breed out, not make dominant .

 

[antagon]

'What nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly. As it lies within his power, so it becomes his duty to work in that direction'

this was written by an idiot. does this clown mean to say that humanity has advanced through natural improvements? clearly man's ability to accommodate ourselves socially has largely curtailed the role of nature in our survival as a race. so it becomes his duty to work in the direction of that capacity to accommodate.

this is the opposite direction as eugenics and which the simpleton quoted suggests.

 

[antagon]

i just think the idea of denying the opportunity to procreate or even purging individuals from society is immoral.

1) Do you believe in Gott? How many people does he deny the chance to procreate?

2) Who advocated any such thing in this thread?

1) who? 2) this is my appraisal of the core of eugenic philosophy.

humanity is advanced through our society, the domain of nurture. eugenics and the domain of nature are moot in comparison.

Nurture can only act upon indwelt potential. 'Nature vs. Nurture' is a false dichotomy; the reality is enviroment (nurture) acting upon nature.

no. the variance within that potential is moot within a species, relegating those obsessed with stretching that potential through eugenics to the clown gallery. particularly in the case of humanity, because our strength is expressly reliant on our effective, conscious nurture in a social paradigm, the focus of that paradigm on these natural potentials is inept.

there is a dichotomy between nature and nurture. it might not be a perfect dichotomy, but it is not false. developing a society's wherewithal to accommodate all of humanity is converse to developing a society's wherewithal to narrow this accommodation to a specific band of its constituents.

 

[rhet 2]

Eugenics | Define Eugenics at Dictionary.com


I don't see anything about someone else picking your mate or killing people in the definition.

Given the overpopulation of the world, one should have to pass an IQ test or be sterilized.
Skull, is that why you were sterilized?

I chose not to have kids. And I'm willing to bet my IQ is higher than yours.

You're a sheep and sheep are fucking stupid.

Thing is, so are people.

DAMNED stupid.

Have you ever herded a flock of sheep, trying to get them into a pen so they can be run through a sheep dip to kill the crap that buries itself in that damned fur?

You've got 'em all FINALLY lined up and following the leader through the gates into the milling baa-ing mob on the other side.

Suddenly, for NO REASON AT ALL, one of the sheep not yet through the gate jumps up in the air, shying at NOTHING.

Every last sheep behind that dumb first one is going to jump at exactly the same spot -- FOR NO REASON except that the dumb idiot in front did it first.

THAT is humanity -- we divide ourselves into flocks and IMITATE whoever is in front of our eyeballs FOR NO GOOD REASON. One idiot decides she likes male sheep drooling in imagination over what her twat would look like, so she whacks off all but an inch or two below her butt from the hem of her skirt -- and in just a few weeks, every other DUMB TWIT is doing the same thing -- and the mini-skirt rage is born. FOR NO REASON except imitation of somebody PERCEIVED to be a "leader."

NOT because of true conviction -- BECAUSE WE MUST FIT IN AND CONFORM to the pack in order to feel confident in ourselves -- driven by a need for acceptance and approval from others, we form PACKS -- social cliques -- political parties -- PEER GROUPS -- and we conform to anyone we PERCEIVE to be a "leader" whose approval we crave because WE DO NOT LIKE OURSELVES and HAVE NO SELF_CONFIDENCE.

Human beings are actually MORE stupid than the dumb sheep -- because we are more obstinate, more gullible, and actually less sensitive to our own survival instincts, we'll jump after the dumb "leader" straight off the cliffs and onto the rocks below.

LEMMINGS -- not sheep -- sheep are a tad bit smarter than lemmings -- and a lot of idiotic two-legged Followers of Lemming Packs.

Eugenics and all the bullshit about over-population -- just another lemming pack jumping over cliffs and onto the rocks at the bottom.

There's a value in the hugs of a brain-damaged child of 40 -- IF you've got the creativity and personal ingenuity to feel and respond to that hug and SEE the human heart that gives it .

-- If not, the only person you destroy is yourself, having reduced your own HUMAN SENSITIVITY by a hell of a lot of damned hard scar tissue on your own psyche.

ALL human beings are three-part creatures. There's a body -- which is only 1/3 of the reality of human existence. There's the mind, the intellect -- and that is only 1/3 of the value of human life, too. Body plus mind STILL is only 2/3 human. The other 1/3 that makes us COMPLETE is the personality -- what earlier man called a "soul" -- it is emotions, it is the ability to hug and be hugged, it is the ability to ENJOY and to HATE, it is the power to APPRECIATE what we experience and to FULLY ENGAGE with other beings, animal and human, fish and bird, vegetation and just to see and FEEL the wonder of a sunrise and a sunset AT THE IMMEDIATE and very very very PERSONAL moment.

Eugenics scorns that last and most critical 1/3 of human existence -- denies that it even exists -- and those who scorn it DENY 1/3 of their own human potentiality, are deadened to that OTHER part of themselves -- because they CANNOT SEE AND SHARE in the joy of the smell of a rose that those lives they SCORN as "inadequate" "LESS HUMAN" and therefore WORTHLESS TO THEMSELVES do fully experience. Dead to the 1/3 they seek to destroy as WORTHLESS TO THEMSELVES, they destroy their own ability to sense and to share in the beauty of that rose the "less worthy" could and would show them -- if they weren't so damned hardened into SELFISH GREED so that they CANNOT see the value of the "heart" that CAN sense and respond to a beauty the JERK who hates them will NEVER KNOW.

 

[JBeukema]

Destroying a blastocyst isn't destroying a child. Flesh is nothing. There is no fundamental difference between the earliest stage of human development and a headless corpse wherein the tissues are kept alive by medical science. Aborting a severely defective zygote, which occurs all the time in nature without human intervention, prevents the existence of someone who will suffer horribly and be, in the case of many defects, be condemned to an early and agonizing death. It is the same as if spermatozoa and oocyte had never met.


Why would you force a child to come into existence, be born, suffer, and die; and also force her mother to suffer along with her? What cruel malice guides you?

 

[JBeukema]

'What nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly. As it lies within his power, so it becomes his duty to work in that direction'

this was written by an idiot. does this clown mean to say that humanity has advanced through natural improvements? clearly man's ability to accommodate ourselves socially has largely curtailed the role of nature in our survival as a race. so it becomes his duty to work in the direction of that capacity to accommodate.

this is the opposite direction as eugenics and which the simpleton quoted suggests.

You really intend to suggest Man exists wholly outside Nature now?

 

[JBeukema]

i just think the idea of denying the opportunity to procreate or even purging individuals from society is immoral.

1) Do you believe in Gott? How many people does he deny the chance to procreate?

2) Who advocated any such thing in this thread?

1) who? 2) this is my appraisal of the core of eugenic philosophy.

humanity is advanced through our society, the domain of nurture. eugenics and the domain of nature are moot in comparison.

Nurture can only act upon indwelt potential. 'Nature vs. Nurture' is a false dichotomy; the reality is enviroment (nurture) acting upon nature.

no.

social evolution is the outcome of genetic response of individuals to ecological pressure within the constraints imposed by phylogenetic inertia
​

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Sociobiology-New-Synthesis-Twenty-fifth-Anniversary/dp/0674002350]Amazon.com: Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Twenty-fifth Anniversary Edition (9780674002357): Edward O. Wilson: Books[/ame]

the variance within that potential is moot within a species

Look around you. Look at our own species or, form a more extreme example, the different castes in the social insects. Study Mr Wilson's work and then come back when you have a clue.

there is a dichotomy between nature and nurture

No, there isn't. 'Nurture' is part of enviroment, including the nature of those around you. There is no dichotomy, only one complex system.

Again:
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Sociobiology-New-Synthesis-Twenty-fifth-Anniversary/dp/0674002350]Amazon.com: Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Twenty-fifth Anniversary Edition (9780674002357): Edward O. Wilson: Books[/ame]

 

[antagon]

'What nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly. As it lies within his power, so it becomes his duty to work in that direction'

this was written by an idiot. does this clown mean to say that humanity has advanced through natural improvements? clearly man's ability to accommodate ourselves socially has largely curtailed the role of nature in our survival as a race. so it becomes his duty to work in the direction of that capacity to accommodate.

this is the opposite direction as eugenics and which the simpleton quoted suggests.

You really intend to suggest Man exists wholly outside Nature now?

how do you take on complex concepts without the capacity to comprehend plain english?

 

[JBeukema]

does this clown mean to say that humanity has advanced through natural improvements?

As opposed to supernatural improvements?

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Sociobiology-New-Synthesis-Twenty-fifth-Anniversary/dp/0674002350]Amazon.com: Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Twenty-fifth Anniversary Edition (9780674002357): Edward O. Wilson: Books[/ame]

 

[rhet 2]

They forgot to mention it in the bible.

Oh, really? What about God's ordering genocidal campaigns of extermination to make way for the Chosen People?

Nuts

That was capital punishment -- they were murdering and eating their own babies in pig outs for their gods. Rape was also another big part of their worship ceremonies, too. Especially rape of babies.

Same thing He did when He PERSONALLY wiped out the entire human species except for 8 people -- because they were so disgusting they were destroying anything and everything around them, including themselves.

Object lesson: don't piss God off. He has Ways and Means you've never even thought of -- and MURDER for any reason, whatsoever, DOES tick Him off.

Question: if I cherish the hugs of my 94 year old great aunt who is dying of Alzheimers -- and costs a lot of money to keep alive in a special care facility -- should I just break her neck and save all that cash -- because YOU don't want to spend it on somebody you don't know and don't give a damn about?

Studying genetics to improve the genetic inheritance and remove genetic flaws that cause conditions like cerebral palsy and Tassachs (sp????) -- that's a positive contribution to society.

Try eliminating all Blacks or all Jews or all Romanies just because you DON'T LIKE THEM and think they're a WASTE of lebensraum, and you're going to rot in prison for a very very very long time.

People are NOT barnyard animals to be bred for fun and profit by "people ranchers" -- if they were, we'd still have slavery and plantation owners would be very interested in eugenics as a science for improving their "herds."

 

[antagon]

1) Do you believe in Gott? How many people does he deny the chance to procreate?

2) Who advocated any such thing in this thread?

1) who? 2) this is my appraisal of the core of eugenic philosophy.

no.

social evolution is the outcome of genetic response of individuals to ecological pressure within the constraints imposed by phylogenetic inertia
​

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Sociobiology-New-Synthesis-Twenty-fifth-Anniversary/dp/0674002350]Amazon.com: Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Twenty-fifth Anniversary Edition (9780674002357): Edward O. Wilson: Books[/ame]

i reject that. social evolution is just as it says. it employs history and technology among other tools which are decidedly in the realm of nurture. an association between genetics and the variations of this evolution across different societies is not plausible. how does your paperback argue otherwise?

the variance within that potential is moot within a species

Look around you. Look at our own species or, form a more extreme example, the different castes in the social insects. Study Mr Wilson's work and then come back when you have a clue.

i argue that within humanity the genetic variation between those of us without serious impediments and handicaps has no impact on our capacity for survival.

of course, in making an argument that a genetic deficiency in a race or population within our species is so grave that it can impact our capacity to survive, one would have to explain how and why these populations are surviving notwithstanding. initself i think this casts a blaring light of stupidity on your claims that such deficiencies do exist.

examining the social structure of insects so organized lends insight into the value of preserving and nurturing what variation does exist between us -- hardly an argument for eugenic predetermination or preference on genetic grounds. then again, we're not bugs and our action is dependent on our consciousness. our survival in turn is dependent on our actions.

there is a dichotomy between nature and nurture

No, there isn't. 'Nurture' is part of enviroment, including the nature of those around you. There is no dichotomy, only one complex system.

Again:
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Sociobiology-New-Synthesis-Twenty-fifth-Anniversary/dp/0674002350]Amazon.com: Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Twenty-fifth Anniversary Edition (9780674002357): Edward O. Wilson: Books[/ame]

look son, you can keep your paperbacks. you'll have to lay and support your argument yourself. as it is, i'm under the impression your reading list is what's earned you your fucked up opinions.

if you want to characterize nurture as part of environment, then it is a synthetic part. man made. the dichotomy lies therein if that's your perspective.

i get the impression that you're somehow new to english so i'll accommodate: 'the nature of those around you' employs a different definition of nature than the one which is juxtaposed to nurture in the dichotomy. the former definition has a nominal connection to genetics itself.

launching obscure paperbacks and axiomatic arguments wont cut it, kid.

 

[antagon]

does this clown mean to say that humanity has advanced through natural improvements?

As opposed to supernatural improvements?

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Sociobiology-New-Synthesis-Twenty-fifth-Anniversary/dp/0674002350]Amazon.com: Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Twenty-fifth Anniversary Edition (9780674002357): Edward O. Wilson: Books[/ame]

what are you on commission for this book?

social improvements, dummy.

 

[antagon]

Destroying a blastocyst isn't destroying a child. Flesh is nothing. There is no fundamental difference between the earliest stage of human development and a headless corpse wherein the tissues are kept alive by medical science. Aborting a severely defective zygote, which occurs all the time in nature without human intervention, prevents the existence of someone who will suffer horribly and be, in the case of many defects, be condemned to an early and agonizing death. It is the same as if spermatozoa and oocyte had never met.


Why would you force a child to come into existence, be born, suffer, and die; and also force her mother to suffer along with her? What cruel malice guides you?

this shit about sustaining headless corpses is funny.

more seriously, it wasn't until i was already a grown man that i found out that the decline of births with downs syndrome was facilitated by abortion. that is still troubling to me, but it facilitates my taking your point.

the big question is the application of eugenics. i'd argue that it is traditionally a matter of policy, ie you must abort a child with certain characteristics, and that the alternative optional compliance would constitute euthenics, not eugenics.

the two approaches lay on either side of the dichotomyevil of nurture and nature, respectively.

nazis were eugenicists, so you come into this argument with a bad rap. what do you propose as a eugenic policy which you'd advocate a country like the US should adopt?

 

[rhet 2]

Destroying a blastocyst isn't destroying a child. Flesh is nothing. There is no fundamental difference between the earliest stage of human development and a headless corpse wherein the tissues are kept alive by medical science. Aborting a severely defective zygote, which occurs all the time in nature without human intervention, prevents the existence of someone who will suffer horribly and be, in the case of many defects, be condemned to an early and agonizing death. It is the same as if spermatozoa and oocyte had never met.


Why would you force a child to come into existence, be born, suffer, and die; and also force her mother to suffer along with her? What cruel malice guides you?

this shit about sustaining headless corpses is funny.

more seriously, it wasn't until i was already a grown man that i found out that the decline of births with downs syndrome was facilitated by abortion. that is still troubling to me, but it facilitates my taking your point.

the big question is the application of eugenics. i'd argue that it is traditionally a matter of policy, ie you must abort a child with certain characteristics, and that the alternative optional compliance would constitute euthenics, not eugenics.

the two approaches lay on either side of the dichotomyevil of nurture and nature, respectively.

nazis were eugenicists, so you come into this argument with a bad rap. what do you propose as a eugenic policy which you'd advocate a country like the US should adopt?

The problem with eugenics is the reductionism inherent in hyper-focus on pure physicality, ignoring the other two aspects of human life.

Human beings are NOT just bodies. Three parts: body, psyche (what the ancients called "soul" or "heart"), and mentation (the mind, intellect).

The issue with abortion is the question of exactly when the body acquires the other two aspects central to being "human" -- obviously not at conception: no psyche and no mentation, because their is no brain -- sorry, Mr. Pope, sir, but you're wrong on this one -- and while the egg and sperm have POTENTIAL to become life, they are NOT alive -- no psyche and no mentalite, either, so contraception does NOT murder a human being, either.

Religiously speaking, two things in Torah must be present for life to exist -- blood and breath -- one without the other is NOT life. When the heart becomes self-sustaining with an independent blood circulation system, you've got the first one -- but not the "breath of life" which changed Adam from a blob of clay into a "living soul." Take a breath, as in too many partial birth abortions, the subsequent destruction of that LIVING BREATHING SOUL -- yeah, there's a reason behind that socio-cultural phrasing -- IS MURDER, the deliberate destruction of a fellow human being who possesses a psyche and an intellect, fully functional and therefore worthy of the mutual respect for human life which protects all humanity from mass murdering genocidal assaults.

But, given the fact that infants as young as five months have survived premature birth, at what point does the psyche and mentation begin? Breathing is purely biological -- and so is blood circulation. Although the lungs are among the last organs to mature before normal birth, that is still BIOLOGY alone. And biology alone IS NOT ENOUGH -- there is just way more to humanity than only a body -- there's personality and totally individualized mentality, including what some call "ingenuity" and "imaginative creativity" -- which two are CRITICAL to socio-cultural participation and the socio-cultural innovation which is INTEGRAL to every human being as a PERSON and not a clone of his/her biological body donators.

 

[antagon]

to be honest, splitting hairs over when life begins is moot. we project a moral value to actions arbitrarily. abortion is legal, killing a pregnant woman can catch you a double murder. murder is frowned on, but not if they are our enemies. in that event mass murder is welcomed enthusiastically.

 

[JBeukema]

They forgot to mention it in the bible.

Oh, really? What about God's ordering genocidal campaigns of extermination to make way for the Chosen People?

Nuts

That was capital punishment -- they were murdering and eating their own babies in pig outs for their gods. Rape was also another big part of their worship ceremonies, too. Especially rape of babies.

And the Americans tossed Vietnamese babies back and forth on their bayonets... funny how little the way people lie about eachother has changed in 4000 years...

Same thing He did when He PERSONALLY wiped out the entire human species except for 8 people -- because they were so disgusting they were destroying anything and everything around them, including themselves.

i always wondered how they got around Leviticus after the flood...

Question: if I cherish the hugs of my 94 year old great aunt who is dying of Alzheimers -- and costs a lot of money to keep alive in a special care facility -- should I just break her neck and save all that cash -- because YOU don't want to spend it on somebody you don't know and don't give a damn about?

Please cite where I advocated breaking people's necks.

It's a matter of public record that if my higher cognitive functions cease and all available evidence is that my sentient self has ceased to exist, I see no reason to preserve useless somatic tissue. Kill the body gently with barbiturates and use what you can.

Studying genetics to improve the genetic inheritance and remove genetic flaws that cause conditions like cerebral palsy and Tassachs (sp????) -- that's a positive contribution to society.

google: positive eugenics

Try eliminating all Blacks or all Jews or all Romanies just because you DON'T LIKE THEM and think they're a WASTE of lebensraum, and you're going to rot in prison for a very very very long time.

google: negative eugenics

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/122003-eugenics-yea-or-nay.html

 

[JBeukema]

an association between genetics and the variations of this evolution across different societies is not plausible. .

If you think you can disprove evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, and ethology, feel free to write a book about it and see how the scientific community response to your discomfort with reality.

The conscious mind is an accident. The somatic body exists only as DNA's tool for procreating itself.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Origins-Death-William-Clark/dp/0195121198]Amazon.com: Sex and the Origins of Death (9780195121193): William R. Clark: Books[/ame]

of course, in making an argument that a genetic deficiency in a race or population within our species is so grave that it can impact our capacity to survive

Like vitamin D deficiency in blacks in Sweden?

You seem to be once again arguing against some vague concept of an argument I never made. Please quote the post in which I claimed any race is incapable of reproducing.

look son, you can keep your paperbacks.

Yes, books with big words in them are confusing for you.


Perhaps you prefer hardbacks?

Denounced vehemently as an "ideology" that has justified social evils and inequalities, sociobiology has survived the assault. Twenty-five years after the field was named by Wilson, the approach he championed has successfully demonstrated its value in the study of animal behavior, including the behavior of our own species

Oxford University Press: The Triumph of Sociobiology: John Alcock

if you want to characterize nurture as part of environment, then it is a synthetic part.

You're synthetic? You're not a part of the natural universe? You're not made of matter like everything else and subject to the very same laws of physics?

launching obscure paperbacks

Obscure paperbacks? Wilson launched an entire scientific field.

 

[JBeukema]

does this clown mean to say that humanity has advanced through natural improvements?

As opposed to supernatural improvements?

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Sociobiology-New-Synthesis-Twenty-fifth-Anniversary/dp/0674002350"]Amazon.com: Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Twenty-fifth Anniversary Edition (9780674002357): Edward O. Wilson: Books[/ame]

what are you on commission for this book?

social improvements, dummy.

social evolution is the outcome of genetic response of individuals to ecological pressure within the constraints imposed by phylogenetic inertia