Should inbreds be euthanized?

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah it's ridiculous. Aren't people supposed to be rewarded for being productive rather than reproductive?

The list of peoples to euthanise. Getting frquent conceptions peoples get on asperger and autism, it would be very likelly we end up be among those to be "enthanasied", such apolicy be made.

So you're advocating murdering the whole British royal family.?

Theyre more iinbred than the kid with the banjo in Deliverence.

Well said.

I don't think anybody should be euthanized unless they themselves request it. Inbreeding is obviously a bad thing and can lead to recessive traits, but these people are still Human beings, they didn't choose their parents. Inbreeding has probably happened much more frequently in history then is actually admitted. I wonder what percentage of humans had an inbred ancestor at some point?

Yeah, its usually the mother drinking or high on smack and crack while she's pregnant.

They murder themselves as it is.

Yes we would be free of the british royal family at last.

Yeah it happened in britain too.

So you'd think

Hardly surprising, most every developed nation has at one time or another, run a eugenics program. Germany being the most famous example. We have the teachings of Charles Darwin to thank for that. We saw "evolution" and actively tried to help the process along.

We can't blame Darwin for eugenics. People will always use information in a negative way. For nuclear weapons I blame our politicians not the physicists for making it possible. For eugenics I blame our politicians too. Politicians are the worst people of this world. Scientists give us knowledge, and our politicians always find the worst possible ways to use that knowledge.

More like the stupid interpretation they made of Darwin theory, interpretation with which Darwin was disagreing.

Bred and butter topic

Speaking of "incest", as a result of my ancestry search i have found I am related to thousands of UK citizens, but no royalty (thankfully). I may well be even "related" to my first born daughter as her father had relatives from the same Lancastershire area as mine in the 18th century, and because the town was small, there is a high probability of a common ancestor.

The UK is a small country, and for those with British ancestry, many family trees will overlap.

Offspring born as a result of incestuous relationships involving close relatives (eg, bother and sister ) are not to blame for their plight. But repeated incestuous behaviours are a problem, but not common in the general population. There is no slippery slope here. The British royal family is not a product of incest so much as it is a product of producing children outside of marriage, making them royalty, and then continuing to procreate with them, at least in the past. Among the younger royals, this "incestrend" has stopped at Diana, who was distantly related to Charles, as is Camilla.

Im the LAST person to defend darwin, but how did he disagree with eugenics? His theory was the basic foundation of the eugenics movement. "Only the fittest will survive" we took that and said "lets kill the weak". To me that sounds like a vaild conclusion based on the first statement.

Darwin promoted "Natural Selection" we as "natural" beings, started making "selections"

The abortion debate here in the US is a direct consequence of darwinism, the notion that if something is weaker than us, we have the right to kill it.

Uuuugggghhh.

I guess everyone has the right to be wrong, but I don't think people have the right to stay wrong after being corrected.

Darwin never said that the strongest survives, or at least not in the manner that you proclaim it. He stated that the fittest survives. That is, the individually that is better-suited for the environment in which he currently lives.

The problem with the social "Darwinists" and proponents of eugenics, is that they believe they can decide who is the 'strongest'. They believe that their arbitrary laws, and beliefs based on prejudice coincide with nature's opinion about it.

The problem is that you are not that smart, you are still worthless human beings that cannot predict what is more suitable to the environment. You cannot even predict what the environment will be.

And it is not a logical conclusion from Darwin's work. Darwin just presented us a mechanic that allows the differentiability in species through a simple method. He never presented a way to know which individuals will or should survive.