Jump to content

Eugenics?


lrokwild
 Share

Recommended Posts

such as?

 

The right to live. I think I should note I am talking about those children who wouldn't be born as a result of a eugenics program; I am against eugenics because it violates the rights of those it doesn't allow to live (the children of the 'inferior').

 

 

no, it doesn't. the rights of the unborn cripled children outweigh those of the deformed forefathers.

 

think of it this way: would you want to be responsible for countless people suffering their entire lives?

 

You're basically saying if you're crippled you can achieve nothing in your life but suffering. Yes, there is suffering in being crippled but there is also room for success. If eugenics was implemented earlier, physicist Steven Hawking wouldn't be alive because doctors would have seen he would eventually get ALS. He managed to live well and in the course of doing so illuminated quite a bit for the human race as a whole.

 

Now, back in those days I don't think they had the technology to spot ALS before birth, but as they do today I am speaking as an example of what could happen to future generations if eugenics was implemented.

 

the same way you normally do.

 

Like I responded earlier, my mistake.

 

we intrude on the workings, by keeping the weak around to reproduce.

you have yet to show how eugenics is unethical.

 

No, I have said how eugenics is unethical. The horrors inflicted upon the human race in the name of racial purity and the 'cleansing' of our species have shown that eugenics is bad science and will only lead to strife. Forced sterilization is the most horrible aspect of eugenics, as it denies human rights by seizing the ability to reproduce from that person and degrading them by saying they aren't worthy to reproduce. I really can't explain it better than: reiterating the example set by Nazi Germany (same methods, different reasoning, and a happier facade) would create unspeakable horrors. Would you like the gov’t to deem you useless and have you sterilized? The whole concept is inhuman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The right to live. I think I should note I am talking about those children who wouldn't be born as a result of a eugenics program; I am against eugenics because it violates the rights of those it doesn't allow to live (the children of the 'inferior').
so, condoms are evil?

 

 

 

 

You're basically saying if you're crippled you can achieve nothing in your life but suffering. Yes, there is suffering in being crippled but there is also room for success. If eugenics was implemented earlier, physicist Steven Hawking wouldn't be alive because doctors would have seen he would eventually get ALS. He managed to live well and in the course of doing so illuminated quite a bit for the human race as a whole.
that is a strawman, i said nothing of the sort

 

No, I have said how eugenics is unethical. The horrors inflicted upon the human race in the name of racial purity and the 'cleansing' of our species have shown that eugenics is bad science and will only lead to strife.
i'm not talking about "racial purity" i'm talking about the well being of an entire species.

 

 

Forced sterilization is the most horrible aspect of eugenics, as it denies human rights by seizing the ability to reproduce from that person and degrading them by saying they aren't worthy to reproduce.
as AP said, "<AzurePhoenix> they place more weight on a single rather useless bodily function than they do on our very surivial". they=you

 

I really can't explain it better than: reiterating the example set by Nazi Germany (same methods, different reasoning, and a happier facade) would create unspeakable horrors. Would you like the gov’t to deem you useless and have you sterilized? The whole concept is inhuman.
it is far from what the nazis were doing. and by the way I DID NOT ADVOCATE KILLING!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the type of Eugenics I am talking about. Lets modify some of our moral constructs and deem the termination of utterly hopeless and genetically screwed people acceptable. There would obviously have to be a threshold of some sort. Like i said, if someone can not live on their own, and cannot express any desire to live, or and desire period, those should be the ones we let die off peacefully.
I would equate this to murder to a certain extent. While a state of nature is desirable, that doesn't mean we have the right to condemn others if our technology allows for it to be otherwise.

 

Remeber im not talking about killing people, im talking about letting weak people die off on their own and then never letting weak people be born in the future.
I do think it is our moral responsiblity to do what we can to help those already here to surivive in comfort, if that's what they want, or, in the case that they can't indicate what they want, that their fmaily wants for them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The right to live. I think I should note I am talking about those children who wouldn't be born as a result of a eugenics program; I am against eugenics because it violates the rights of those it doesn't allow to live (the children of the 'inferior').
Notevery child that can be born should be. Every egg and sperm combo has the potnetial to become someone, but the vast majority never do. Does that mean each one that isn't fulfilled is a victim of immorality?

 

You're basically saying if you're crippled you can achieve nothing in your life but suffering. Yes, there is suffering in being crippled but there is also room for success. If eugenics was implemented earlier, physicist Steven Hawking wouldn't be alive because doctors would have seen he would eventually get ALS. He managed to live well and in the course of doing so illuminated quite a bit for the human race as a whole.
No, I'm saying people don't have to be crippled when something can be done about it beforehand. And I'm sorry, but you can't see the future or change the past. Every month you decide not to get pregnant you could be "killing" the next Einstein. What's done is done, we can't regret what "might have been" in such an esoteric possibilty.

 

No, I have said how eugenics is unethical. The horrors inflicted upon the human race in the name of racial purity and the 'cleansing' of our species have shown that eugenics is bad science and will only lead to strife.
This is a strawman, we aren't talking about persecution. Again, this is simply about health.

 

Forced sterilization is the most horrible aspect of eugenics, as it denies human rights by seizing the ability to reproduce from that person and degrading them by saying they aren't worthy to reproduce. It says that there is a possibility their selfishness could result in a suffering or doomed child. Why, when they could adopt a parentless child to love as there own, a child that might be forced into a life of hardship otherwise?

 

I really can't explain it better than: reiterating the example set by Nazi Germany (same methods, different reasoning, and a happier facade) would create unspeakable horrors. Would you like the gov’t to deem you useless and have you sterilized? The whole concept is inhuman.
That's right, it is inhuman. Too bad, that's nature. But by comparing this to the Nazis is a logical fallacy.And I would rather sacrifice my ability to breed if there was a reason behind it. By reducing the role of a family to being the biological source of your child, I think that you're amkign the entire relationship far more shallow than it should be,
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so' date=' condoms are evil?

 

that is a strawman, i said nothing of the sort

 

i'm not talking about "racial purity" i'm talking about the well being of an entire species.

 

 

as AP said, "<AzurePhoenix> they place more weight on a single rather useless bodily function than they do on our very surivial". they=you

 

 

it is far from what the nazis were doing. and by the way I DID NOT ADVOCATE KILLING!!![/quote']

 

 

 

1. No, that too is a strawman. Condoms aren't evil because there is choice in using them. There is no choice in forced sterilizations.

 

2. No, it isn't a strawman. You think, along with AP, that not every child should be born. Because Hawking has a genetic disease -- his genes are 'weak' -- he wouldn’t be alive because his parents wouldn't have been allowed to reproduce. No strawmanning; it's completely relevant.

 

3. Yes you are: purity for the human RACE. You are arguing for the purity of a select group of 'clean' individuals who aren't afflicted with genetic disorders.

 

4. Yes I do. "My kind" places heavy emphasis on ALL rights guaranteed to an individual by the virtue that they are alive.

 

5. Hopefully you don’t advocate out-right murder, but there are other ways to kill a person’s spirit.

 

As an aside, how easily do you think rogue regimes could manipulate this to include dissidents in the roster of those who should be sterilized? Do any proponents of forced sterilization think about the ramifications of this of putting this much control in the hands of men?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. No' date=' that too is a strawman. Condoms aren't evil because there is [b']choice[/b] in using them. There is no choice in forced sterilizations.

 

2. No, it isn't a strawman. You think, along with AP, that not every child should be born. Because Hawking has a genetic disease -- his genes are 'weak' -- he wouldn’t be alive because his parents wouldn't have been allowed to reproduce. No strawmanning; it's completely relevant.

see quote about condoms. what i quoted said nothing about choices.

 

3. Yes you are: purity for the human RACE. You are arguing for the purity of a select group of 'clean' individuals who aren't afflicted with genetic disorders.
again, you are wrong. read the post. it is about health of the species.

 

4. Yes I do. "My kind" places heavy emphasis on ALL rights guaranteed to an individual by the virtue that they are alive.
so, individuals have the right to harm the whole species?

 

5. Hopefully you don’t advocate out-right murder, but there are other ways to kill a person’s spirit.

that was pointless and not even remotely related to the topic

 

As an aside, how easily do you think rogue regimes could manipulate this to include dissidents in the roster of those who should be sterilized? Do any proponents of forced sterilization think about the ramifications of this of putting this much control in the hands of men?
and rogue regimes could inject you with smallpox while you are alseep. what is your point? even if they were sterilized, it wouldn't do any harm. btw, they patients would be tested to make sure before the sterilization.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. No' date=' that too is a strawman. Condoms aren't evil because there is [b']choice[/b] in using them. There is no choice in forced sterilizations.
You think it's moral moral to simply allow people to have a child doomed to disease simply for a "right" that is no more than a selfish desire?

 

2. No, it isn't a strawman. You think, along with AP, that not every child should be born. Because Hawking has a genetic disease -- his genes are 'weak' -- he wouldn’t be alive because his parents wouldn't have been allowed to reproduce. No strawmanning; it's completely relevant.
You didn't listen. Any child that is lost could be another Hawkings, children lost to other means that you seem to deem acceptable.

 

3. Yes you are: purity for the human RACE. You are arguing for the purity of a select group of 'clean' individuals who aren't afflicted with genetic disorders.
There's this thing called a genetic disease that inflicts oftentimes terrible hereditary problems on an innocent victims health. This has nothing to do with people. This a a question of harmful diseases that threaten peoples' health.

 

4. Yes I do. "My kind" places heavy emphasis on ALL rights guaranteed to an individual by the virtue that they are alive.
And waht decides these rights? What is so special about being able to carry your own that you would condemn the children of the future to this madness?

 

5. Hopefully you don’t advocate out-right murder, but there are other ways to kill a person’s spirit.
If you've paid attention you'd see that we're very clear on our stance that murder is abominable, whether it be the kind the nazis dealt out or the kind Irokwild would suggest. No one should have to die at all.

 

As an aside, how easily do you think rogue regimes could manipulate this to include dissidents in the roster of those who should be sterilized? Do any proponents of forced sterilization think about the ramifications of this of putting this much control in the hands of men?
Well I cettainly doubt a worldwide employment of this would be put into action in a dvided world, which is why it's unlikely in teh first place. And there's nothing stopping them from doing it anyway. God knows they do worse now. It would be the obligation of whatever was in charge to try to put an end to such abuse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

see quote about condoms. what i quoted said nothing about choices.

 

again' date=' you are wrong. read the post. it is about health of the species.

 

so, individuals have the right to harm the whole species?

 

 

that was pointless and not even remotely related to the topic

 

and rogue regimes could inject you with smallpox while you are alseep. what is your point? even if they were sterilized, it wouldn't do any harm. btw, they patients would be tested to make sure before the sterilization.[/quote']

 

1. No, you seemed to say condoms were similar to this because both preclude people from being born. To which I said, and I'll say again, there is an element of choice in the use of condoms. There just is no choice in FORCED sterilizations.

 

2. Human species = human race. That's just a difference in nomenclature; we're both talking about the health of the same thing.

 

3. No; individuals do NOT have the right to harm anyone. That's why I'm against eugenics!! You, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, are saying who should not be born and thus are negatively impacting them.

 

4. And that was?

 

5. Well I hope they don't, that would suck. But in this case you're the one setting the precedent for the regime doing bad things by allowing eugenics. If eugenics is allowed, it can be manipulated. Unless you plan on opening a store that sells Smallpox Sundaes, this is a strawman. I never said they couldn't inject me, I said that the precedent is there for bad eugenics (redundant...) by allowing it in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. No, you seemed to say condoms were similar to this because both preclude people from being born. To which I said, and I'll say again, there is an element of choice in the use of condoms. There just is no choice in FORCED sterilizations.
it still prevents people from being born. that was the point

 

2. Human species = human race. That's just a difference in nomenclature; we're both talking about the health of the same thing.
no, we're not. you have already shown to have little knowledge of biology.

 

3. No; individuals do NOT have the right to harm anyone.

so, you agree with me. individuals with genetic diseases harm hundreds of thousands by procreating.

 

That's why I'm against eugenics!! You, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, are saying who should not be born and thus are negatively impacting them.
where is the negative impact?

 

5. Well I hope they don't, that would suck. But in this case you're the one setting the precedent for the regime doing bad things by allowing eugenics. If eugenics is allowed, it can be manipulated. Unless you plan on opening a store that sells Smallpox Sundaes, this is a strawman. I never said they couldn't inject me, I said that the precedent is there for bad eugenics (redundant...) by allowing it in the first place.
it is NOT a strawman. what is stopping me from going to your house and castrating you with a rubber band and a plastic spork?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it still prevents people from being born. that was the point

 

no' date=' we're not. you have already shown to have little knowledge of biology.

 

 

so, you agree with me. individuals with genetic diseases harm hundreds of thousands by procreating.

 

where is the negative impact?

 

it is NOT a strawman. what is stopping me from going to your house and castrating you with a rubber band and a plastic spork?[/quote']

 

 

1. No, it wasn't MY point. My point is about choice. If you have a disease and you choose not to reproduce that’s your choice. If you are forcibly sterilized, that's horrible. My argument is about choice.

 

2. Insulting me doesn't further your case, and I wouldn't call that 'not knowing much about biology'. And if you are such a demi-god, can you tell me the difference? I honestly viewed the terms to be synonymous.

 

3. But how do those individuals with diseases hurt the 'better' people? If those people are so great, why don't they just mate with people like themselves?

 

4. You negatively impact them by not allowing them to even be born. I view it as pretty bad for a person if they don't even exist.

 

5. Please don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. No, it wasn't MY point. My point is about choice. If you have a disease and you choose not to reproduce that’s your choice. If you are forcibly[/b'] sterilized, that's horrible. My argument is about choice.
I think most people would agree with the thought that most people aren't the best decision makers.

 

3. But how do those individuals with diseases hurt the 'better' people? If those people are so great, why don't they just mate with people like themselves?
These diseased people are being hurt by those who could have prevented the problem.

 

4. You negatively impact them by not allowing them to even be born. I view it as pretty bad for a person if they don't even exist.
Not that they'd care

 

 

Please, just explain to me why you think it is mroally better to condemn an enormous number of people to pain, suffering and death for the sake of one right that isn't even that rational? You aren't taking the moral route, you are setting aside morals for sensitivity. There's a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most people would agree with the thought that most people aren't the best decision makers.

 

Then why let those bad-decision makers decide who can reproduce?

 

These diseased people are being hurt by those who could have prevented the problem.

 

You have yet to show me how.

 

Not that they'd care

 

That's kind and I'm also fairly confident not the way to approach a problem like this. Yes, they wouldn't care. But others can care for them. Just because they can't argue for themselves (being sperm/egg and all), doesn't mean the cause is meaningless.

 

Please, just explain to me why you think it is mroally better to condemn an enrmouous number of people to pain, suffering and death for the sake of one right that isn't even that rational? You aren't taking the moral route, you are setting aside morals for sensitivity. There's a difference.

 

No, I'm letting an enormous amount of people live in the hope that they can defy their ailment and succeed. People with disorders can, and do, survive and succeed in life. That's not conjecture, it's true. And if the right to live is an irrational moral I think we disagree on a lot more than eugenics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Helix, I believe the point of eugenics is to eliminate those disorders entirely, not just help them live through it. And eliminating them entirely requires sterilization of those who suffer from them.

 

(Though I'm not quite sure if this is really ethical... will the future generations get enough benefits out of it to outweigh the ethical problems? Hard to say... they would have social security problems...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why let those bad-decision makers decide who can reproduce?
At least my bad decision makers are trying to do the right thing, unlike yours.

 

You have yet to show me how.
Humans have disease -> huamns spread disease further and further -> disease is supressed by technology for generations -> technology fails, disease can't be supressed = countless die to the hardships of the real world and the human race is placed in jeopardy. Well, that's the gist of it anyway. Not a difficult concept.

 

That's kind and I'm also fairly confident not the way to approach a problem like this. Yes, they wouldn't care. But others can care for them. Just because they can't argue for themselves (being sperm/egg and all), doesn't mean the cause is meaningless.

 

No, I'm letting an enormous amount of people live in the hope that they can defy their ailment and succeed. People with disorders can, and do, survive and succeed in life. That's not conjecture, it's true. And if the right to live is an irrational moral I think we disagree on a lot more than eugenics.

You are condoning the suffering of countless, increasingly tormented generations of children for the pity of one. That is selfish and immoral. Human lives are important, but human life is only theoretical if it even becomes a zygote in the first place.

 

I'm not saying that a person with disease couldn't be a good member of society or should be punished in anyform. But for the sake of potential victims, somethign has to be done to stop the disease before it has a stranglehold not only on teh species, which is all important, but on every individual as well.

 

If these children were never born, by proxy, they would never have been born otherwise they might have been. No one is being killed. No person's life is being taken away. A disease is being hindered for teh sake of millions, at cost to no one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Helix' date=' I believe the point of eugenics is to eliminate those disorders entirely, not just help them live through it. And eliminating them entirely requires sterilization of those who suffer from them.

 

(Though I'm not quite sure if this is really ethical... will the future generations get enough benefits out of it to outweigh the ethical problems? Hard to say... they would have social security problems...)[/quote']

 

 

Right, I understand the goal of eugenics: the removal of problem genes from the gene pool. But I view forced sterilization, the main tool of any eugenics movement, as highly immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the biggest question we need to answer here is, "is the immorality of forcibly sterilizing people outweighed by the benefits it will bring several generations on?"

 

Humans have disease -> huamns spread disease further and further -> disease is supressed by technology for generations -> technology fails, disease can't be supressed = countless die to the hardships of the real world and the human race is placed in jeopardy. Well, that's the gist of it anyway. Not a difficult concept.

The same could be said if you chopped birthrates. Social security would collapse, old people would die, workforce would shrink, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least my bad decision makers are trying to do the right thing, unlike yours.

 

That's a mature thing to say. But why are your people better than mine? By virtue that you agree with them, that makes them correct? A bit vain if I do say so...

 

Humans have disease -> huamns spread disease further and further -> disease is supressed by technology for generations -> technology fails, disease can't be supressed = countless die to the hardships of the real world and the human race is placed in jeopardy. Well, that's the gist of it anyway. Not a difficult concept.

 

But the key thing in your flowchart is the technology failing: how will our therapies fail? If anything, they will only improve.

 

You are condoning the suffering of countless, increasingly tormented generations of children for the pity of one. That is selfish and immoral. Human lives are important, but human life is only theoretical if it even becomes a zygote in the first place.

 

I'm not saying that a person with disease couldn't be a good member of society or should be punished in anyform. But for the sake of potential victims, somethign has to be done to stop the disease before it has a stranglehold not only on teh species, which is all important, but on every individual as well.

 

If these children were never born, by proxy, they would never have been born otherwise they might have been. No one is being killed. No person's life is being taken away. A disease is being hindered for teh sake of millions, at cost to no one.

 

No, it's those generations I am arguing for. I believe that diseases and all, it is better to live and try to pit the human spirit against a disease, rather than not try at all. Yours is a bleak outlook; people with diseases can still be happy in this world. Look at Gherig and Hawking; both suffer from a genetic disease. Look at everyone in the Special Olympics. The bottom line is that having a genetic disease does not damn you to a life of misery. On the contrary, if you are strong enough you can rise above it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, I understand the goal of eugenics: the removal of problem genes from the gene pool. But I view forced sterilization, the main tool of any eugenics movement, as highly immoral.
I understand, I'm simply afraid that I see the importance of the rather small sacrifice of this one rather negligable right, especially considering the possibilities it would open up for orphaned or abused children.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a mature thing to say. But why are your people better than mine? By virtue that you agree with them, that makes them correct? A bit vain if I do say so...
I understand, and I apologize, I just consider inaction to be far worse than action.

 

But the key thing in your flowchart is the technology failing: how will our therapies fail? If anything, they will only improve.
It's more a matter of the society that possesses it failing. Perhaps I was too vague on that end. And such dangers do exist. Shouldn't we be prepared for such a calamity?

 

No, it's those generations I am arguing for. I believe that diseases and all, it is better to live and try to pit the human spirit against a disease, rather than not try at all. Yours is a bleak outlook; people with diseases can still be happy in this world. Look at Gherig and Hawking; both suffer from a genetic disease. Look at everyone in the Special Olympics. The bottom line is that having a genetic disease does not damn you to a life of misery. On the contrary, if you are strong enough you can rise above it.
You keep thinking that I'm saying that the diseased person can't be happy, but I've never said that and never could, I know as welll as you that it's not. This is where it comes down to the species itself.

 

 

I just don't want to see the species threatened by our mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's more a matter of the society that possesses it failing. Perhaps I was too vague on that end. And such dangers do exist. Shouldn't we be prepared for such a calamity?

 

How can our technology and knowledge about biology fail? The only way these diseases can get out of hand is if our therapies not only don't advance but actually fail. How is that possible?

 

You keep thinking that I'm saying that the diseased person can't be happy, but I've never said that and never could, I know as welll as you that it's not. This is where it comes down to the species itself.

 

Then if those future people with diseases can be happy, why preclude their existance with the use of eugenics? And how does it come down to the species?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can our technology and knowledge about biology fail? The only way these diseases can get out of hand is if our therapies not only don't advance but actually fail. How is that possible?
I don't trust human civilization enough to stand up to a global spanning cataclysm. Some people think that when the day(s) comes, that humanity will have the right stuff to pull through relatively intact. I don't, and for me it's that simple.

 

Then if those future people with diseases can be happy, why preclude their existance with the use of eugenics? And how does it come down to the species?
I'm sorry, i really am, that I'm not as sensitive to the individuals as I am to the long-term picture. Just let me leave at this, because we'll never agree on what consitutes immoral in this scenario. In the end, I am a naturalist. When I picture my ideal humanity, I picture a race with low population living in simpler ways, small communities living off the land, living a rugged life.

 

But such a life can't offer happiness to many of what we'd consider "frail" or delicate. I'm just afriad that someday, if society does collapse under the threat of an asteroid or ecological collapse or nuclear war, we won'tbe able to surivie it if we are so dependent on medicine and health care that we literally couldn't live without it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're assuming that a genetic disorder can become, in the matter of a few years, widespread and cataclysmic. It actually takes many generations--one person gets it and slowly spreads it around with his children, their children, etc. Humanity would have advanced warning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.