Eugenics

Post Reply New Topic

I think that hybridization works best.

We allow people to express their opinions even if those opinions are unpopular, which is the whole idea of freedom of speech. We do not allow speech that attacks a member personally (you can, of course, attack their opinion/argument).

If you want to argue that banning certain types of speech means there is no freedom of speech, then the freedom of speech doesn't exist. Most overused example: You can't yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre (when there isn't a fire, of course).

Well, I believe that eugenics is wrong because then it would be like we could all choose what traits we have and what traits we don't have. That just doesn't seem right... same kind of thing with cloning.

Most misused example. That decision was, figuratively speaking, penalizing someone for shouting "fire" when the theatre was actually on fire. It was about the Supreme Court supporting the sedition laws. Here are some examples of the kind of enforcement they supported. This is worse than the Dred Scott decision which actually had a small amount of sense behind it:

Source

My point was that restricting certain types of speech in the name of "freedom of speech" doesn't exactly make a whole lot of sense.

Like I said, I have no problem with the policy of avoiding personal attacks, I just thought it was funny to explain it that particular way.

Jeremy

Thanks to the mods and everyone who is trying to keep this thread free of unfair attacks.

To clarify my views a little more, I do not think eugenics necessarily must include wanting to kill off or harm the quality of life for the disabled, the unintelligent, etc. although some eugenicists may have favored this in the past. What I intend to suggest is for the sake of the welfare of future unborn children and the overall health of society and the environment that it seems morally imperative to at the very least sterilize the most unfit among us: certain criminals, drug abusers, mentally incompetent folks among others. If the society has sufficient means to prevent births of children addicted to drugs, with unfit parents, etc. is it not performing a greater wrongdoing of omission by allowing these births to occur and hoping child protective services or the foster care system will rescue these oft-abused children giving them some hope of someday becoming healthy, productive adults? Debating and nitpicking over what genetic traits may be more "desirable" than others is not essential right now; for the time being, it's more imperative to prevent the worst among us from breeding.

This might be a beneficial way of thinking if we could all just look at ourselves as individuals only, but this could lead to our collective suicide. May I ask why you believe reproductive rights are "sacred"?

Trying to use forced sterilization leaves you judging someone's competency to produce and raise socially acceptable, politically correct, "right stuff" offspring based purely on a medical file. ret*d people can make devoted parents that do an outstanding job of parenting, and likewise, people that would be considered fit to be parents by your standards can be total ret*ds or even criminal as parents. About the only ethical thing you can do to thin the unfit out of society is drastically increase the use of capital punishment.

The problem is, that entails giving someone the power to decide who is "unfit." Would aspies be considered unfit, for example? Some people would think so. Deaf people? Cystic fibrosis carriers?

What is a "drug abuser?" Do potheads count? Alcoholics? Smokers?

What if someone decided that, oh, people of Arab descent shouldn't be allowed to reproduce? Don't laugh; look at the kind of treatment and discrimination that certain minorities endured even just last century. People really do do that kind of thing. In fact, sterilizing Arabs would probably have a fair amount of popular support in many areas, especially Israel, which has a "demographic problem."

The point is that any kind of eugenics program requires giving someone the power to decide who gets sterilized against his/her will. That's a very scary amount of power to give the government, especially given how fickle and irrational human attitudes can be.

Jeremy

I envision a more sophisticated method down the line where any pair of prospective parents would have to undergo a series of tests to demonstrate their stability and competency before being able to breed. I'm not saying a system like this could be perfect and no one would ever get shortchanged; it's just about using our best resources to increase the odds of healthy offspring entering the world in a safe environment.

As a more preliminary step, I first am suggesting sterilization of drug abusers and certain criminals whose children are more likely than everyone else to repeat these socially destructive activities of their parents. Why is this unethical?

I find it perfectly acceptable to pay women a certain monthly stipend to accept sterilization or birth control. Anyone who would sell her birthright (no pun intended) has answered the essential question quite adequately. Make it possible and profitable to volunteer for the treatment and we will get more than enough volunteers.

It isn't so much a question of unfit genes as it is of people who have been made unfit by various negative influences including drugs, bad education, bad politics, and whatever. It's like society recognizing that the people who decide not to reproduce are giving up something that is theirs, and like we're respecting them for making that choice.

Has something like this ever been attempted before?

I don't know.

I'm more worried about bad parents than bad genes, and I really don't think we have a landmass on the planet that really needs many more humans.

There are several Biblical passages forbidding castration, in modern times these have been Rabbinicly extendeed to include women.

It won't happen, for the same reasons: It is forbidden in Torah for Jews to castrate men or animals, espescially within The Land of Israel.

Machloket

I think most of these concerns could be alleviated if the educated, ethical people are in charge of establishing criteria. The racial/ethnic factor you alluded to is something I would be more worried about. Even if there was no bias involved, it's easy to picture some minority group getting up in arms believing it to be a conspiracy plot to thin out their people's numbers.

With regards to your last point, some might see it the other way that certain humans capable of procreating are the ones who have a scary amount of power right now to poison the lives of their future helpless unborn children.

Yes, because that always happens in the government...

I don't believe it would ever be possible for a eugenics program to be a good thing. It is innately unjust. Even if the people in charge have noble motives, it forces bodily harm on otherwise innocent people, which is intolerable in a free society.

Jeremy

Its all a nazi idea that directly violates the sacredity of life.