(+)Eugenics, Yea or Nay?

[JBeukema]

Supporting and taking care of your kids has nothing to do with what genetics deals out to our children.....

It does when you can influence their lot in life by preventing genetic disease just as vaccinations are intended to prevent communicable disease. The principle is exactly the same.

if God forbod they are born with some genetic flaw that's life and your fate

So you let your child play with a gun and let your 'god' decide whether your child is harmed? Or you take what measures you can to ensure your child's health and safety? Man has a moral imperative to look after the safety and health of his children.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Supporting and taking care of your kids has nothing to do with what genetics deals out to our children.....

It does when you can influence their lot in life by preventing genetic disease just as vaccinations are intended to prevent communicable disease. The principle is exactly the same.

if God forbod they are born with some genetic flaw that's life and your fate

So you let your child play with a gun and let your 'god' decide whether your child is harmed? Or you take what measures you can to ensure your child's health and safety? Man has a moral imperative to look after the safety and health of his children.

It does when you can influence their lot in life by preventing genetic disease just as vaccinations are intended to prevent communicable disease. The principle is exactly the same.

Oh no it is NOT!!!!! Vaccinations are designed to illicit an immune system response to an invading entity where as with eugenics...you are talking about altering the human genome and "doing away" with naturally occuring genetic mutations.

 

[JBeukema]

vacinations are designed to illicit an immune system response

-with the end goal of preventing disease. The end goal is the same with the eugenics addressed n this thread.

you are talking about altering the human genome and "doing away" with naturally occuring genetic mutations.

-with the end goal of preventing disease.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I'm sure you must be an Earnst Haeckel fan.....

Sorry...no matter how you try to justify eugenics it will NEVER take hold by mainstream America....only an idiot thinks they can stop genetic evolution....as the Nazi's were.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

So you let your child play with a gun and let your 'god' decide whether your child is harmed? Or you take what measures you can to ensure your child's health and safety? Man has a moral imperative to look after the safety and health of his children.

rotflmao...so being an irresponsible parent and gun ownwer is now justification for eugenics? That's the strategy from the neo-Darwinist loons?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

You sound just like Adolf Jost!!!!!

The State must see to it that only the healthy beget children, the State must act as the guardian of the millienial future. It must put the most modern medical means into service of this knowledge. It must declare unfit for propagation all those who in any way appear sick or who have an inherited disease and then can therefore pass it on.(copywright Leading Edge International Research Group)

http://www.trufax.org/avoid/nazi.html

 

[JBeukema]

I'm sure you must be an Earnst Haeckel fan.....

Sorry...no matter how you try to justify eugenics it will NEVER take hold by mainstream America....

Um... it already did and it is again. It's simple been rebranded by Cold Spring Harbor and the others since WWII.

 

[JBeukema]

You're an idiot. Try reading the thread.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

​

[quote
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.

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... 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 inherit that particular allele, is 'racist'. Wanting to ensue that, if my partner and I are both benefit from heterozygouse advantage, that our child does as well, instead of that child suffering from Tay Sachs or hemophilia is 'racist'.

Right...[/quote]



Only one person has advocated compulsory negative eugenics in this thread

Through forced sterilization?

Yes.

and I tore that idiot apart

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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'

ONE type of Downs Syndrome IS genetically passed down:

* 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.

In those cases, the carriers should be sterilized to prevent further iterations of the abnormality.

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.

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.

No shit, Sherlock.

NOW, what do you do in the meantime?

How about not forcefully sterilizing or killing people and trying to cope with the fact that the world isn't perfect?

or do you TRY to prevent the pain and suffering you've already seen,

Through forced sterilization?

They are innocent children, that are incapable of making those sorts of critical thinking decisions,

and I happen to feel like it would not be in their best interests, nor society's, to have them procreate.

The parents are children?

And who decides whether it's 'in their best interests, [or] society's, to have them procreate'? What about certain socioeconomic and racial groups with a higher incidence of criminality?


We've heard this all before, and we've seen where people like you would take us

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.

No shit, Sherlock.

NOW, what do you do in the meantime?

How about not forcefully sterilizing or killing people?