Eugenics and Ethics

[Quantum Windbag]

I've already provided the links.

Do you know how to read?

I want links to schools that teach eugenics as part of their science curriculum, not schools that teach science that you claim is eugenics. Get the difference?

 

[JBeukema]

Fo you know how to read? You want schools that teach walking on the moon? I guess NASA has no scientists, since the schools only teach the science behind the application

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Fo you know how to read? You want schools that teach walking on the moon? I guess NASA has no scientists, since the schools only teach the science behind the application

Schools JBuliemia, schools that teach eugenics. Believe it or not, every single scientist at NASA studied a real science at a real school. There is nobody there with a degree in Eugenics from Pudunk School of Idiocy and Fake Science.

You are the one that claims eugenics is a real science that embodies multiple disciplines. I posted a link from a real school that disagrees with you, and you have posted a bunch of Google searches to schools that teach real sceince, but not one to a single school that eugenics. You even went so far as to post a link to a school that teaches genealogy, claiming that is proof that eugenics is taught in schools as a science. The funny thing is, no one in the universe outside of your confused brain thinks genealogy has anything to do with science.

Then you keep insisting that you have actually proved your point. You get more pathetic every time you post, but you keep posting because you think you are winning the argument, or that you are annoying me, or maybe you actually think I care enough about this to actually keep this up indefinitely. You are wrong on all counts.

Here is what I am going to do, I am going to give you one more chance to redeem yourself on this subject. You basically have 3 choices, you can admit you are wrong and prove yourself to be an adult. You can ignore this whole subject and walk away, or you can claim victory in this thread and I will not respond here again.

I would advise the first option, though I doubt you are mature enough to actually follow my advice. I do know that if you do either of the other two I will continue to use this subject against you, along with your insistence that facilitated communication through telepathy, and your deliberate misquote of an article. Feel free to continue making a fool of yourself and proving that the internet is full of children.

 

[JBeukema]

You are the one that claims eugenics is a real science that embodies multiple disciplines.

And I proved it, showining where the various disiplines and scineces are taught.


You were the one who asserted that physical traits are not passed from an organism to its offspring. i proved that moronic claim wrong and then you started playing this sad little game because you have no argument.

You hate you children and want them born sick; I would see children born well. That you try to demonuize the greatest of all hunanities is laughable.

'[T]he highest task of the ethical deed is labouring for the welfare of the future generations'​

 

[JBeukema]

You even claimed that morality, ethics, and temperment couldn't be inherited. Do you deny the existence of the different breeds of dogs?

See: sociobiology; evolutionary psychology

See: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Brain-Michael-S-Gazzaniga/dp/1932594019]Amazon.com: The Ethical Brain (9781932594010): Michael S. Gazzaniga: Books[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You even claimed that morality, ethics, and temperment couldn't be inherited. Do you deny the existence of the different breeds of dogs?

See: sociobiology; evolutionary psychology

See: Amazon.com: The Ethical Brain (9781932594010): Michael S. Gazzaniga: Books

I actually proved that it is not tied to specific genes, but thanks for putting words in my mouth again.

 

[random3434]

Eugenics is never ethical.

How can you say that? If we could do prepregnancy testing to determine if a couple would have horribly mutated children if they bred, would it unethical to tell them that they should try to avoid that pregnancy by either birth control, or by finding another partner as a life companion..

It is believed by many medical professional that cancer is far more prevalent in people with certain DNA characteristics but that it is a recessive trait as passed on from parent to child at conception. What if we knew the DNA characteristics that caused Cancer and we could test in advance to determine if we should not breed with this or that person. Would that be unethical?

Avoiding the passing of defective DNA on to our children is eugenics. I would not want to knowingly pass on a defect to my children that would ruin their lives and kill them in a painful fashion. If I could prevent that by acting in advance, is that wrong? It is Eugenics.

How about passing on Schizophrenia. We know that it is a DNA inherited disease. How about blocking its spread with this generation so no future generations have to see their children placed in mental hospitals for the insane. Avoid the further transmission of mental illness is Eugenics and is very ethical in that regard.

See, now we all know you're a fake and a phony.

No Christian who follows the Bible as the Word would ever advocate what you just did, because that is playing "God."

You're just another troll posting shit to stir things up.

You're doing a great job by the way!

 

[JBeukema]

Please cite where you 'proved' leading scientists wrong

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Please cite where you 'proved' leading scientists wrong

What leading scientists? All I ever ptove wrong is you, and you continually compound your ignorance. I told you before to spend some time reading some real science, and you obviously ignored the advice.

ScienceDirect - Biological Psychology : A genome-wide association study of Cloninger's temperament scales: Implications for the evolutionary genetics of personality

The only leading scientists that believe in eugenics are old and discredited, or dead.

 

[JBeukema]

lol


You want universities? university of California - Santa Barabra Center for Evolutionary Psychology

ONce again i tell you to read [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Brain-Michael-S-Gazzaniga/dp/1932594019]Amazon.com: The Ethical Brain (9781932594010): Michael S. Gazzaniga: Books[/ame] . Among the subjects discussed are evolutionary psychology, the heritability of IQ (g) and the size of various brain structures, and a particular gene that was foud in genius children and not in the general population.

Of course, you probably deny the repeated studies that show that the average IQ differs between the major races, too Oh, wait, SNPs don't exist, right?

Since nothing is heritable, and you can supposedly prove it, I trust you'll tell us when you'll be receiveing your Nobel Prize for disproving evolution and showing nylonase to be a fraud

 

[Quantum Windbag]

lol


You want universities? university of California - Santa Barabra Center for Evolutionary Psychology

ONce again i tell you to read Amazon.com: The Ethical Brain (9781932594010): Michael S. Gazzaniga: Books . Among the subjects discussed are evolutionary psychology, the heritability of IQ (g) and the size of various brain structures, and a particular gene that was foud in genius children and not in the general population.

Of course, you probably deny the repeated studies that show that the average IQ differs between the major races, too Oh, wait, SNPs don't exist, right?

Since nothing is heritable, and you can supposedly prove it, I trust you'll tell us when you'll be receiveing your Nobel Prize for disproving evolution and showing nylonase to be a fraud

Where does the word Eugenics appear on that page?

 

[JBeukema]

Sign In

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sign In

Love your source.

It is a “given” in discussions of genetic engineering that no sensible person can be in favour of eugenics. The main reason for this presumption is that so much horror, misery, and mayhem have been carried out in the name of eugenics in the 20th century that no person with any moral sense could think otherwise.1–3 In fact, the abysmal history of murder and sterilisation undertaken in the name of race hygiene and the “improvement” of the human species again and again in this century is so overpowering that the risk of reoccurrence, sliding down what has proved time and time again to be an extremely slick, slippery slope, does seem enough to bring all ethical argument in favour of eugenics to an end.

Efforts to change the genetic makeup of a group or population almost always require third parties to be involved in the personal reproductive choices of individuals and couples. Someone besides the individuals making children has to set a policy and a standard. In our century these efforts have almost always incorporated force or coercion since individuals may not agree with the policy or third parties may seek to force their vision of improvement on an unwilling population.

I think you just made my point for me, again. My guess is that you are going to insist the contrary is true, but, as your article pointed out, no sane person supports eugenics.

 

[JBeukema]

Love your source.

BMJ Abbreviated title (ISO) BMJ Discipline Medicine Language English Edited by Fiona Godlee Publication details Publisher BMJ Group (United Kingdom) Publication history 1840–present Frequency Weekly Open access Immediate, research articles only[1] License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License Impact factor 13.66 (2009) Indexing ISSN 0959-8138
LCCN 97640199 CODEN DXRA5 Links

• Journal homepage
• Online access
• Online archive RSS (?)
• JSTOR

BMJ is a partially open access medical journal. It is among the most influential and widely read peer-reviewed general scientific journals in the field of medicine in the world.[2]
The journal is published by the BMJ Group, a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Medical Association that also publishes 32 other journals focusing on various medical specialties. Originally called the British Medical Journal, the title was officially shortened to BMJ in 1988.


BMJ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Try reading the rest of the article

 

[JBeukema]

Love your source.

BMJ Abbreviated title (ISO) BMJ Discipline Medicine Language English Edited by Fiona Godlee Publication details Publisher BMJ Group (United Kingdom) Publication history 1840–present Frequency Weekly Open access Immediate, research articles only[1] License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License Impact factor 13.66 (2009) Indexing ISSN 0959-8138
LCCN 97640199 CODEN DXRA5 Links

• Journal homepage
• Online access
• Online archive RSS (?)
• JSTOR

BMJ is a partially open access medical journal. It is among the most influential and widely read peer-reviewed general scientific journals in the field of medicine in the world.[2]
The journal is published by the BMJ Group, a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Medical Association that also publishes 32 other journals focusing on various medical specialties. Originally called the British Medical Journal, the title was officially shortened to BMJ in 1988.


BMJ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Try reading the rest of the article

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you think the article proves me wrong please feel free to quote it and show me. Unlike you, I actually read it, as I proved with my quotes.

 

[JBeukema]

right... do you realize why the word 'given' was in quotes? Did you read anything other than the first half of what I myself quoted?

This sort of eugenics is not the same as allowing an individual or couple voluntarily to choose a heritable trait in their sperm, egg, embryo, or fetus, motivated by their view of what is good or desirable.

Let me google that for you

 

[Quantum Windbag]

right... do you realize why the word 'given' was in quotes? Did you read anything other than the first half of what I myself quoted?

This sort of eugenics is not the same as allowing an individual or couple voluntarily to choose a heritable trait in their sperm, egg, embryo, or fetus, motivated by their view of what is good or desirable.

Let me google that for you

You quoted? All you quoted was portions of the BJM site in an attempt to legitimize your claim about eugenics is a science, even though the name of the article is titled "What is Immoral about Eugenics?" Then you turn around and try to claim that the BJM is supporting your delusional science. It isn't, as the title of the article indicates.