Eugenics

Post Reply New Topic

We forget that the Nazis had a lot of ideas that are favorites now. These include tight regulation of abortion, outlawing birth control, a war against some drugs, and a war against homosexuals. We're right there with them. About all I see coming out of us being a democratic country is that the degradation is slower and more thorough. They say don't raise a fuss because it's just a little bit off our liberties. If we do raise a fuss and we don't comply then they will come to our houses, they will treat us like terrorists, and they will make very certain we won't want to raise a fuss again. This is 21st century America. Get used to it.

Abortion is legal and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Likewise birth control. Gay rights do need some work, but there is rapid progress in that field as well. One state now allows gay marriage, and several more have provisions for civil unions with equivalent benefits.

The war on drugs is problematic, but the U.S. is not exactly alone in that regard. Most countries have nonsensical drug laws, and many are much worse.

Jeremy

Well I'm not.

OK, how do we get other people to recognize that it's a problem and do something about it?

Recognize that whats a problem?
The problem is that some people are not tolerant towards differences.
I find that everyone have many strengths.
I don't think people should be regulated on having children because of genes because every "bad" disorder has lots of good things associated with it. From a darwinist perspective, getting rid of a gene unnaturally through imposed sterilization does not benefit the others members of the population.

As for homosexuals, why should it matter what someones sexual preference is?

The reason why some people are upset at this topic is because it almost the equivalent of hate speech or compelling genocide. However, if eugenitics was brought up to create a society that controls who has children or not, that brings up the nature vs nurture argument. I think instead that all genetic information should be aloud to have a child. If someone can live in this world then that means they have the right genes. I don't know if everyone should be aloud to be a parrent though.

I would like to open up a new discussion in this topic:
Genetic Modification.
Is it right to modify human genetics? How about if the person is going to die otherwise?
Cyborgs?

In that case, what a crock! There's no genetic improvement there...you're just advocating widespread violation of people's civil rights.

As I said before, I am in favor of eugenics only when it is voluntary. For example, if I found out that I am carrying a gene for a genetic disease, I woudl choose not to have children and to adopt instead. If, on the other hand, soemone was trying to force me to get sterilized because my dead beat mom didn't educate me properly, I'd pitch a fit and educate myself! How can you advocate something permanent (sterilization) for what (as in education) could be a temporary problem? :rant rant rant:

OK, tell me why eugenics = inbreeding in your opinion?

To me, eugenics means choosing a mate who will improve any genetic weaknesses or faults you might have- if you have determined to yourself that you are in fact suitable for procreating in the first place.

For example, I avoid mating with men who are or were allergic: I was very allergic as a child, and allergies run strongly in my family.

Straw man

I think that a lot of popular social control programs are just like what the Nazis had in mind. We have programs that equate to the attempted control and eradication of homosexuality. We do horrible things to drug users. We have a solid fraction of the population that wants to rid us of our reproductive rights. We also have a large fraction of the population that can be counted on to vote for anything that takes away any right just to try to feel a little safer. These are the kinds of problems that the Nazis caused and they are such strong institutions now that a lot of people don't recognize that they are problems. Right now, every time someone says there is an "incident" more of our rights go right out the window without a pause.

Someone meantioned that "Birthcontrol" is legal in the US. And it is, but there are pharmicists that have ethical objections to filling percriptions to "the pill" as some doctors the same objection to perscribing it in the first place. In a small rural community, or a location with limited resources this could mean that a woman is left with out what she needs to prevent pregenancy, ballance harmones, etc. The reasoning behind the objections, are that IF the woman became pregnate while using the Pill the embryo would be spontaniously aborted when she reached the part of the pill pack that allows for her peroid to begin. Thus the anti abortion debate has forced some women to depend on other less reliable forms of birth control, or do with out needed harmone therepy because some medical professional thinks the pill MIGHT, just MIGHT cause an embryo to be rejected by her body.

I tell this inorder to make a point:

DEFINE educated, ethical people.

It would appear that those meantioned in my story above are educated (doctors, pharmisists, etc) and their idea of ethics is theirs not nessasairly some one elses.

Machloket meantioned the allowed sterilization of mental patients that was preformed in the United States in years past. When I was a kid, I suffered from depression and harbored thoughts of suicide. I was 8 when I saw a movie about a man that was put into an institution and sterlized because of a precieved mental illness. It was a true story. I was 17 before I finally broke down and told anyone about my depression being as bad as it was. I was afraid of ending up like that young man in the story I saw. I asked my doctor if that was going to happen to me because I was finally telling someone about the years of mental pain I had experienced. through tears he told me that didnt happen anymore, and that he was going to do all that he could to help me overcome my decade long battle with severe depression. I WAS TOO SCARED to ask for help. I knew that those laws were still on the books, and I was afraid of what would happen if I let anyone know how distraught I really was.
My point: creating laws that limit or eleminate those with mental illness, or anything for that matter, will create an era of fear, and those that would otherwise seek help wont.
Creating laws that promote, or force eugenics is wrong. But Im sure that Nazis would have agreed with it.

The movie Gattica (the one with uma thermond and eathan hawke) is an intresting twist on the idea of genetically engenering "perfect" people. The book "the Giver" by Lois Lowery and the sequals that are out are also along the same lines.
The book "The House of the Scorpion" by Nancy Farmer, is intresting as well. Although the genetic sciences implications deal with human clones, it too is worth the read.

To anybody who thinks that eugenics, either through legally enforced birth control or genocide is acceptable, I say this: please demonstrate your keenness to clean out the human gene pool by removing yourself from it forthwith.

Do not ask of others that which you would not do to yourself.

Would you like to be the one eliminated from existence because a higher authority had deemed your life as superfluous to the human race? Would you like to be the one made sterile because you're genes are not good enough, by someone else's measure?

Choosing if you want to re-produce and who with is very sensible and leaves the final say to the individuals who will have to deal with the consequences of their own decisions. However, forcibly taking that decision away from a human being on the basis of assumed superiority is tantamount to erasing the meaning of humanity.

Well, it doesn't take a very advanced mentality to see through their rhetoric and what they do. The same parties who tell us that they do things like that for our own good also stuff us into endless wars against whoever's handy. This tells me that they have us making babies so that they can abuse them.

Any pharmacist who refuses to dispense any legally prescribed medication or who causes delays should be stripped of his license immediately and replaced with someone who will do the job. He should not be considered a pharmacist if he does not do the whole job of pharmacist. This is a form of stealth takeover. The religious right puts their people in these positions, and they can outright buy a lot of these positions, and then has them do the job in a selective manner.

The religious right may want some kind of eugenics, but it wouldn't be about improving the human race. It would be about social control. For families to have bright healthy children with few defects would be all to the good for the families. We're not going to get that. Higher intelligence is not on the list of traits, and if some character flaws are genetic, there are character flaws that are useful to a regime that depends on war for its profit and its jollies. The number one useful character flaw is the inability to refuse to do something stupid. People who can't stop themselves from doing things on a dare may have this gene, if it is a gene. Whatever, they have to aim for not too intelligent. A substantial population of teenagers who thought that abstinence-only sex education worked is just about right. Bright enough to take orders when someone is overseeing them, but not bright enough to go to the books and learn for themselves even if the school did keep books with the information in them.

We let them get away with much too much. They literally get their way by screaming at us until we give them what they want to shut them up, and by blowing small problems out of proportion. This isn't just them being psycho. This is a real tactic of gaining ground by intimidation.

Remnant,
I agree with you. They dont want abortians, and they want to get rid of the Pill, so what is a woman supposed to do? Its a blast back into the dark ages. But almost all states, and most companies recgonise a pharmisists right to "object" to a treatment they feel is aginst their morals. Most pharmisists that have qualms about one drug or another have another pharmisist, or a lab tech fill the script. Its the localities that have limited choices that really have the problems. But look at society, look at our health care system. Most insurance companies wont pay for the Pill unless its "for harmone replacement." Many pay for fertilization attempts up to so many dollars. I guess they see that a baby means more money for them in added preimums. Same with being overweight. they wont pay for even one attempt at a medically assisted weightloss program. (The meds are very expensive too) yes they charge more for those that are "over weight" because they are a health risk..... HUMMMMMMMM.......
Gee, makes you wonder if they had the chance to see the genes of a baby before hand if they would want to practice eugenics to save the bottom dollar. Makes you wonder doesnt it.... One railroad company out west had DNA taken of all its employees. Some health disorders have clear genetic markers on them. one is carpal tunnel. Some people are genetically more likely to have it than others. This guy that worked for the company went to the Dr with carpal tunnel and the insurance wouldnt cover it. Guess why.... Genetic predisposition. The guy went to court and won his suit to have the DNA records that were taken (with out the employees knowledge in a rutine physical) eleminated. That happened in the early 90's. It was all over the news for a couple weeks. Scary, huh?

I was thinking more along the lines of race.

The Nazis got it from America. California ran some kind of eugenics program, of which Hitler greatly admired - and I think even mentioned - in one of his books. Hitler took it a step further and wanted anyone who was "impure" to the master race removed.

I dont support Eugenics. Doing "whats right" for the good of the population is all speculative and it usually leads to some ugly conclusions. Would you want a few people determining the future of a country by deciding who gets to breed and who doesnt? Sure, it starts out with only career criminals or the most heinous of individuals who are sterilized, but then who's to say it wont carry farther and then spread to include those outside the predominent ethnic population, religion... or even state-of-mind? Thats right, I'm talking about those with Asperger's. We're not far down the list.

That makes no sense! Stupid! The part of the pack that causes the period to begin are the 'empty' pills. The other pills deliver hormones which also prevent the period, then when you take the empty pills, the absence of the hormones prompts the 'period' (which is not a real period, actually) to start. In effect, if the woman was on the pill and went off of it due to not being able to fill her prescription, the result would be the exact same as if she were taking the empty pills. If she were pregnant, it wouldn't start her period anyway.... That is just asinine....