Could There ever be a case FOR Eugenics?

Eugenics relies on human interpretations of what constitutes good and bad traits. 4000+ inheritable recessive traits, whooptie-doo, most are cancelled out because they are not dominant traits. Most that do appear, can be treated successfully, such as your harelipped analogy. Surgery does correct that, and rather easily I might add.

Abort the infirm, euthanize the malformed, all in the name of creating a Super-duper race of Sonnenkinder. Wow...that sounds all too familiar. Margaret Sanger was American, I for one am ashamed of that fact, but it was the Nazi's who adopted many, if not most, of her ideas; and put some of them into practise, what's worse...

Playing God is not for mere mortals. That's madness. Whom Gods would destroy, they first make mad.

Come on truthseeka, What exactly is it about a "super race" that upsets you? You don't understand - this super-race would be made up of those of european descent. They were already a super race. Their big mistake was in wanting to share the fruits of their genius with other less motivated peoples.

I think Stephen Hawkins was normal when he was born.

Sempre.. your list of names and the idea behind it is meaningless.

Here we go again Seagull. Do you support allowing surgery corrected hare-lipped individuals to continue to pass the defect onto their offspring?
Not all these 4000+ defects are recessive. They are not cancelled by dominant traits. Perfectly normall appearing individuals can be carriers of the unwanted recessive genes. Those recessive genes are insidious and persistent because they cannot be readily seen untill it is too late. Go read up on the stats for recessive genes. This is no place for a big discourse on the subject.

So you believe in subjecting people to a life of hell in a malformed body?

Sempre.. your list of names and the idea behind it is meaningless.

Of course it is...

Because it disagrees with your opinion..

Hitler was like that as well, never could see the right side of an argument when it differed with what he felt was right...

That is the problem with the psychosis of Megalomania, it is impossible for those that wish to play God to even consider the possibility they may be wrong. Those that advocate the same things you do ohzone, by their very nature and the definition of their base psychology, can never see the truth. If they ever did, they would no longer be supportive of God like activities..

When dealing with this kind of mentality, it is always a "catch 22"...

Semper

I think Stephen Hawkins was normal when he was born.

See again, you exhibit a lack of information on the subject..

Goes toward the "God Syndrome"

Stephen Hawkins

Almost as soon as he arrived at Cambridge, he started developing symptoms of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (colloquially known as Lou Gehrig's disease), a type of motor neuron disease which would cost him the loss of almost all neuromuscular control.

Hawkins has the form of Familial ALS
ALS is classified into three general groups, familial ALS, sporadic ALS and Guamanian ALS. Familial ALS accounts for approximately 5%-10% of all ALS cases and is caused by genetic factors.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Research into opinions that differ from the God Syndrome are often considered otiose and the individual will subconsciously refuse to participate in such research..

Semper

posted by eyespy2

Should The Poor Be Sterilized? I know this thread is walking a very fine line, but I'm asking this question not to be mean-spirited, or racist. Am I the only one who believes that if you can't afford to feed yourself and the other children you already have, who are starving to death as we speak, that just maybe, you shouldn't be allowed to have any more CHILDREN?! [Edited by Don W]

Almost everyone and especially the parents in such dire circumstance would say NO today.

But this is not a workable answer for all too many people. First, in countries without a Social Security system to pay old people who can no longer work, it is their children who perform that task. People have children as a form of retirement income. You can’t stop that unless you provide the old people with an income. OK, step up to the plate!

Next, you have many people acting under religious influence who sincerely believe God will feed their children. Or are sado-masochistically taught by people who know better that it is God’s will whether the children live or die. That I don’t like and I think is not just irresponsible, but criminal worthy of attention by the International Court of Justice.

We see women with 3-4 children starving, lying flat out on their backs dying, with flies swirling about. How many notice the mothers are usually pregnant?

Suppose you are such a woman described above, and she has $5 to her name. Are you going to buy a 6 pack of condoms or 2 pounds of corn meal and a pint of oil? Your husband is going to have sex tonight, as he thinks is his manly right and yea, his obligation. Even if he follows the example set by Abraham of ancient times recounted in the Holy Writ, and “spills it on the ground,” enough will leak through to make a pregnancy! As Bill Clinton might say, “my answer depends on the meaning of ‘it.’”

In Africa, death is almost a blessing . . up to 70% of the population in many countries have AIDS . . many of the children are born with the disease. And you have Mugabe who believes AIDS can be cured with vitamins and witch doctors. Did you know that in South Africa, there are men who believe that sleeping with a virgin can cure them of AIDS?

1) I doubt those in Africa see their own imminent death that way. We are looking at their death through our overweight eyes and tired from a hard day’s work shopping at Wal-Mart.
2) America addressed the AIDS issue about 15 years ago, now we are blasé about it. It no longer threatens us. Maybe God will . . . . .
3) If you can’t afford the AIDS treatment, then vitamins and witch doctors may be your only alternative. Who should bear the ultimate responsibility for that? The PMA?
4) If we know better, why aren’t we down there explaining that to them? Or are we knowingly and cunningly practicing benign eugenics on those helpless souls? Hey, better you than me!

We see villages in the middle of the desert, crowed, no food, no hope of a life outside of their poverty, preyed upon by rebels, warlords, and corrupt leaders.

Jesus is reputed to have said, “If you feed a child, you have fed me.” Hey, it’s priorities. We have 10 supercarriers and 2 more abuilding and no enemy worthy of such great strength to kill and destroy. We are busy hyping up Iran and China as our new objects de resistence. NK seems to have folded. We must have sent Kim Jong Il a small pot of gold. So we choose. We choose to build one nuclear sub a year for the next 10 years, at $3 b. each, or heaven forbid, we could undertake to feed and medicate those millions of God’s children in the world who are helpless. Jeez! Priorities.

posted by OhZone

Yes, Seagull, Africa is swimming with resources. Without our hand feeding them and wiping their whatevers . . they would have to work to get those resources together to use in trade for whatever they lack. They can't do that under present conditions. White man's greed corrupted the whole place. Those people are still being used and abused in ways that you cannot even imagine. Do some research.

Look at ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum (BP) in Nigeria. Right now. In 2007. Hired mercenaries gun down struggling Nigerians who cry out for a minimal share of the wealth being pumped out of their country every day. Butsh43 calls them “terrorists.” This same problem underlies the Iraq Quagmire. How many more GIs will go KIA for ExxonMobil and TexacoChevron in Iraq? I don’t know, You can ask Bush43. He knows. He'll say, "As many as it takes." No slouch him.

Nigerian and Iraqi oil is needed to fill our SUVs. My friend paid $78 to fill her ‘04 Explorer yesterday. VP Cheney held a secret energy conference that Bush43 will not reveal even who attended. But we can see the policy in action. Every day. VP Cheney has raised gas prices from about $1.25 in 2001, to $3 + today. That was the policy. Who benefits from that?

Eugenices Footnote: Margaret H. Sanger (1879-1966), an early advocate of birth control and negative eugenics. Her early work resulted in the rational, progressive Planned Parenthood organization. “Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.” For more, see “Eugenics” in Wikipedia.

[edit on 5/12/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by truthseeka
the people who call for eugenics are almost always of European descent.

ANOTHER error on your part. Rwanda ... Uganda ... guess you missed all that.

Just like you missed that I was referring to SOCIAL Darwinism and not Darwins theory in the beginning (still waiting for you to be big enough to admit that you yelled at me and insulted me .. when it was YOU who didn't know what you were talking about. :shk: )

I'm done with this thread.

Bu-bye now.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Those that support Eugenics, Would you have even allowed Stephen Hawkins to have been born?

Good question .... for those who support Eugenics ... what would be the 'acceptable' and what would be the 'has to go' list??

Hitlers 'has to go' list included Jews, Catholics, the handicapped, homosexuals, and anyone who ticked him off.

[edit on 5/12/2007 by FlyersFan]

posted by FlyersFan

Hitler’s 'has to go' list included Jews, Catholics, the handicapped, homosexuals, and anyone who ticked him off. [Edited by Don W]

Uh, F/F, you’ll have to inform me a bit. I know Hitler killed 6 million + Jews and about 3 millions of “others.” I was not aware however, that Hitler had any gripe against Catholics.

1) In point of fact, Hitler was himself a Catholic. I believe it is Church dogma that anyone baptized (as was Hitler) and christened and confirmed in the Church is always in the Church. I am not suggesting he was a practicing Catholic - I don’t think he was - but he was definitely born a Catholic. A similar Protestant doctrine is “once saved, always saved.”
2) Pius XII maintained a working relationship with the Nazi government. The Papal Nuncio was never withdrawn.
3) Bavaria is 70% Catholic, Hitler’s strongest supporters in the 1932 election, and the remainder of Germany is 30% Catholic. I don’t think Hitler had any vendetta against the Catholic Church in Germany.
4) Many of the Church hierarchy aided the escape from Germany of 100s of Nazi SS after the war. I have to assume Pope Pius XII knew what was going in his church and could have stopped it, if he wanted to.

Straighten me out, F/F

[edit on 5/12/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by OhZone
Come on truthseeka, What exactly is it about a "super race" that upsets you? You don't understand - this super-race would be made up of those of european descent. They were already a super race. Their big mistake was in wanting to share the fruits of their genius with other less motivated peoples.

THANK YOU for proving my point.:shk:

Yeah, I said I was done, but I was going through my music collection yesterday and found a surprise. I've listened to this song quite a few times, but after reading your posts, as well as those from others, the lyrics actually meant something. And this is a song by Orgy, whose lyrics usually make no sense at all.

Orgy - Social Enemies

Social weapons that miss
Pretend them to save cowards
Bastards to shame
Condemned social slaves
Here to save the freaks again you think and i bet you always will

Here to save the freaks again you think here
Here to save the freaks

Snakes causing the fate
Sadistic and free, so free
Traitors, defendants behave
Lieges stay away from me
Saints keep knocking
Go home don't sell me Mary no no
Making the crazies well inside you think and i bet you always will

Calling us no good you are the social enemies
We change the people day to day
Making us no good you are the social enemies
Changing the people day to day

Agitators talking the show
Messing with heads to be the number one
Smashers battling the HIV's
Proud of yourselves aren't you
Making the crazies well inside you think and i bet you always will

Calling us no good you are the social enemies
We change the people day to day
Making us no good you are the social enemies
Changing the people day to day

Why must we play so bitter me i'm suffering now the nowhere me
Stop trying to say you fell into this place so tragic you found the nowhere me

Here to save the freaks again you think here
here to save the freaks

Originally posted by donwhite
I believe it is Church dogma that anyone baptized (as was Hitler) and christened and confirmed in the Church is always in the Church.

That's close. The Church dogma is once baptised Catholic .. always Catholic. There is no 'christening' in the Catholic church. Any Catholic who uses the word 'christening' at a baptism doesn't know what he/she is talking about and doesn't understand Catholicism. I don't know if Hitler was Confirmed or not. It really wouldn't matter because he was baptised Catholic which, according to the Church, means that he is ALWAYS Catholic. Even if he had been excommunicated he would still be a Catholic .. just one that couldn't receive communion.

A similar Protestant doctrine is “once saved, always saved.”

EGADS NO! Not even close to the same thing. "Once Saved, Always Saved' means that you can do whatever you want but you will still get to heaven. I had the UNFORTUNATE discussion about this with some fundamentalists in Alabama who believed in the 'once saved always saved' stuff. They said that since they were baptised they could do anything they wanted, including kill me, and they would still get to heaven because once God saved, no one was lost. FRIGHTENING!!

The Catholic belief that once baptised in the Church you are always and forever Catholic does NOT mean in any way that you are promised Heaven. There are plenty of Catholics in Hell. Once baptised does not mean 'always saved'.

Hitler was baptized Catholic, but didn’t practice the faith and he had no allegiance to the church he was baptized in, the faith, or to what the Pope decreed.

Many of the Church hierarchy aided the escape from Germany of 100s of Nazi SS after the war.

I don't know anything about that. I DO know that Rome helped Jews and US Military personnel escape the Nazis during the war. That's rather well documented.

Straighten me out, F/F

Oh goodness .. if I ever see something you write that is so crooked that I have to 'straighten you out' ... I'll do that. But not this time. However, thanks for the open invitation to do that

I forgot to mention that Hitler hated Jehovahs’ Witness’ and Gypsies as well.

Large numbers of Poles who died in the camps, mainly at Auschwitz, were Catholics. 83,000 poles were killed in Auschwitz There were many Catholic Poles at other camps as well. Also, there were 3,000 priests, deacons, and ‘religious’ (friars, monks) held at Dachau. 4618 Christian clergy altogether were held in the camps.

2.5 million Catholic Poles murdered by the Nazis. 664,000 also died as collateral damage. Another site that says much the same. Although the author of this site says it wasn’t because they were Catholic .. I disagree. The claim by Hitler was that they were an inferior race. But he knew what religion they were and that they had a strong leadership in place and that they followed ROME. I fully believe that he murdered them, not only because he thought they were inferior, but because he understood allegiances and that they were very well organized under the Catholic umbrella.

If the Nazis weren’t targeting Catholics then why did they arrest and kill Maximilian Kolbe , as well as take the others at the monastery he was in and close it down? Why did Pope John Paul II have to study to be a priest in secret for fear of the Nazis? Bl. Edith Stein and her sister, both nuns, were murdered by the Nazis in retaliation for the clergy writing anti-Nazi materials. If you ever watch the History Channel, they show film footage of people arriving at the death camps … many times you will see nuns amongst them. They are there as prisoners, not as people giving any kind of aid to the Jews.

And as for the Pope - if you are talking about ‘Hitler’s Pope’ … that book is hogwash

Side note – good reading - Catholic Heroes of the Holocoust

IMHO -

It is MY BELIEF that Hitler targeted these people because of their connections to the Catholic Church more so than their genetic makeup. You mentioned people in other countries who were Catholic and not targetted - Germany & Bavaria. Why he didn't hit on them was probably due to them being German and Bavarians were close to Germans on the genetic scale. I think he allowed them extra room because of their genetics.

Like I said - this is MY belief. This is MY conclusion. I think he nailed the Catholic Poles because they were Poles (not German) AND because of their connections with the Catholic church.

edited to fix links


[edit on 5/13/2007 by FlyersFan]

posted by FlyersFan
3.5 million Catholic Poles murdered by the Nazis. 664,000 also died as collateral damage. Another site that says much the same. Although the author of this site says it wasn’t because they were Catholic .. I disagree. The claim by Hitler was that they were an inferior race. But he knew what religion they were and that they had a strong leadership in place and that they followed ROME.

Thanks, F/F, for the very excellent and informative response to my post. I would also offer that Hitler killed Poles because they were Poles, and not because they were Catholic. OTOH, Poles proved to be unique in Eastern Europe by holding onto their faith longer and stronger than any other group. I don't think Hitler was prescient, so I'm back to my old thinking, but slightly modified.

On the lesser issue of helping or not helping, and who was helped and who was not, I think this is better understood by remembering the War lasted from 1939 to 1945. We’re dealing with 100s if not 1000s of people who acted differently from each other and whose acts varied with time. It is important, IMO, that most people in Europe regarded Hitler to be the coming future, as in Vichy France. Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungary and maybe Finland sided with Hitler, early on. Fascism was popular throughout Europe and had a substantial following in the United States and Great Britain. People tend to want to get on the bandwagon early.

[edit on 5/13/2007 by donwhite]

sempre your listing those names implies that your belive that we should wantonly allow the birth of millions of defective children in hopes that one of them will be some kind of genius. That an illogical premise. Also, you are assuming that those listed are the only ones who would have accomplished these feats.

I repeat, none of this is the act of "playing god"; it is playing human.
"God" is universally indifferent; he/she/it just set things in motion and lets them play out as they will. Human are the only ones who use volition to make big changes.

Donwhite, Are you overlooking those parents in Haiti, Brazil, Argentina and other countries around the world who, about the time they have the 5th child, shut out the the 4th - and so they have a big problem with street kids down there? At night the police go around killing them. Do you have a solution for this? Should these women who under current circumstances remain pregnant most of their lives be sterilized by the time the 3rd or 4th arrives? Or should they just go on haveing another dozen or so, adding to the already homeless street children? Do you really think they would object to a solution to their problem?

Truthseeka, you did not address my question as to what you had against people forming their own groups and creating a "super race". They would work toward producing intelligent, healthy, well formed individuals who would also work toward creating a peaceful society. While not breeding agressive killers, they would of course have to have the means and ability to defend themselves from the haphazzardly bred miscreants who did not believe in any kind of eugenics.

"Here to save the freaks again you think here
here to save the freaks"
That is the problem, we save the freaks and spend our human resources on them when it could be better used helping those who are normal to reach their full potential.

Originally posted by donwhite
I would also offer that Hitler killed Poles because they were Poles, and not because they were Catholic.

It is entirely possible that you are correct. It is entirely possible that he killed them and/or made them slave labor entirely due to them being "inferior" Poles.

IMHO - they were strongly united as Catholics and therefore he saw that as a threat. They had a strong organization and strong leadership in Rome. I think Hitler saw this as a threat... and he went after them for it. He gave the German and Bavarian Catholics more room because they were part of his Master Race plans.

But donwhite .. you could easily be correct ... I just think there was more to it and Hitler DID target Catholics in those other countries because they were Catholic.



[edit on 5/13/2007 by FlyersFan]

posted by OhZone
Donwhite, Are you overlooking those parents in Haiti, Brazil, Argentina and other countries around the world who, about the time they have the 5th child, shut out the 4th - and so they have a big problem with street kids down there? At night the police go around killing them. Do you have a solution for this? [Edited by Don W]

No. I guess if I could solve this problem, I could solve poverty. I expect anyone would grant that if those families making horrible choices had sufficient funds, they would not make the same choice.

Should these women who under current circumstances remain pregnant most of their lives be sterilized by the time the 3rd or 4th arrives? Or should they just go on having another dozen or so, adding to the already homeless street children? Do you really think they would object to a solution to their problem?

Probably. Very few people enjoy having other, well intentioned but semi-informed people who have not walked in their shoes, “solving” their problems. As I wrote above, old people need incomes when they cannot work. Children are their social insurance. 150 years ago this system worked, but over the past century and a half, populations have grown exponentially and the culture of the old days has been destroyed by Westerners. So, bottom line, the “cause” of what we are describing as “problems” is the direct consequence of colonializatoin and contemporary exploitation of the poor by the rich and famous.

[edit on 5/13/2007 by donwhite]

I don't see how there's still an argument.

Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Eighth Amendment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

It's obviously illegal for a good reason.

[edit on 13-5-2007 by Johnmike]

Defective people?

We're all defective. Or does anybody here disagree with the premise "nobody is perfect"?

There are several related points to make.

Number 1: The difference between carrying a burden and resistance training is the attitude of the subject.

Would Beethoven have tried to write beautiful music if hearing was just a normal part of his life? Who is to speculate? We'll never know for sure.

Stephen Hawking didn't exercise his insight until he began to be deprived of his physical prowess.

On a much smaller note, God knows I never would have taken up writing if I had been a good looking, well-liked teenager, nor would I have ever had the incentive to whip myself into shape and make a few sports teams... much less join the USMC.
God knows who I'd be if my parents had undertaken gene therapy or selection to ensure that their son didn't need glasses and didn't get the metabolism and risk of diabetes that runs on my mom's side of the family.

In short, our weaknesses can stimulate our strengths.


Number 2: What is common is ignored
I am a fan of John Stuart Mill, who made the point that dissent (difference for our purpose), even when incorrect (undesireable or inferior for our purpose) can be valuable in that it encourages a familiarity and understanding of why the correct/preferred position/trait is valuable.

Imagine a world where any kid out of highschool could bat .800 with a little practice, because everybody was engineered to the highest potential. There would be no baseball.

Variety, in appearance and in gifts and in weaknesses is more valuable to us than perfection. Raw animal survival is only so much of the human experience, and we are accomplishing that in our current state. What remains is to revel in the one thing each of us has that no one else can match, and to hurt for the things we can't do, and to be intrigued with one another.


Number 3: Copulation is like a box of chocolates...
This has been brought up already, but it's a valid point. If we attempt to reduce human potential to chemical fumulae, we are going to discover one of two things:
1. You can't.
2. We're worthless.
Either there will be uncontrollable variables ala Gattaca and The Matrix Reloaded which make it impossible for Eugenics to perfect the human race, or we will eventually reduce all of humanity to a single complex equasion and find out that we have nothing to be proud of, no choice, and no hope.
Some things aren't worth undertaking. If your ex used to date a porn star, you shouldn't ask him/her about it: it's not relevant and unless he/she lies to you, you're just going to be hurt by the answers. Why enter into anything that has no upside?


In so many words, in complete isolation from all negative historical context and any assumption that there might be racist connotations, I still see ample reason to see eugenics as a very bad idea.

I'm cool with gene therapy, but I'm not game for trying to build people by the numbers. Like fascist literature, in Virginia Woolfe's prediction, such a creature would be a "horrid little abortion". A nurture effect, even if it is an illusion perpetuated only by random construction, is a necessity of humanity.

posted by Johnmike

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

It's [eugenics] obviously illegal for a good reason.

Although I have high regard for Amendments 4 and 8, I have little or no regard for Amendments 9 and 10. Both are purely rhetorical. Both are too vague, too ambiguous , too susceptical to diametrically opposed interpretation so as to render the 2 worthless. Like also No. 27. Any decision of the Courts founded on either #9 or #10 is of dubious value and of questionable motives.

posted by The Vagabond

Defective people? We're all defective. Or does anybody here disagree with the premise "nobody is perfect"? There are several related points to make.

1) The difference between carrying a burden and resistance training is the attitude of the subject.

2) What is common is ignored

3) Copulation is like a box of chocolates . . [once tried, the impulse for more is irresistible] If we attempt to reduce human potential to chemical formulae, we are going to discover one of two things:
1. You can't.
2. We're worthless.

Either we will eventually reduce all of humanity to a single complex equation and find out that we have nothing to be proud of, no choice, and no hope.

I'm cool with gene therapy, but I'm not game for trying to build people by the numbers. Like Virginia Wolfe's prediction, such a creature would be a "horrid little abortion." [Edited by Don W]

We practiced positive eugenics during the 1920s and maybe extending into the 1930s. I recall at least one state, North Carolina, once used the procedure on the “inmates” in its homes for the mentally defective. By “mentally defective” one standard would be “incapable of self-supporting.” Every parent of a Down Syndrome daughter must face this issue before menarche. Without the same urgency, so must parents of a male child so limited. Lack of adequate staffing in public and private facilities give the lie to our feigned concerns over their physical safety. (We as a people just don't have very good public priorities. We are very good at talking the talk, but we are very bad at walking the walk. IMO).

In Re Pregnancies: Surely to God we cannot argue - except tongue in cheek - that we regard “life as sacred” when we stand idly by for decades while the Christian Children’s Fund says 27,000 children die every day due to malnutrition and diseases exacerbated by malnutrition, i.e., starve to death. An especially hurtful way to die, I have heard. All the while we take perfectly good corn and spend millions to convert it into methanol to “feed” our over large SUVs? So much for morality.

I guess you can see I oppose eugenics on grounds we lack both sufficient knowledge and workable techniques, but I also contend that we as a society must accept the logical consequences of our concomitant failures to do what is obvious to even the singularly minded.

[edit on 5/14/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
Although I have high regard for Amendments 4 and 8, I have little or no regard for Amendments 9 and 10. Both are purely rhetorical. Both are too vague

The same could be said of 4 (no definition of unreasonable and what is cause for a search, or a standard of probability being undefined), 6 (how slow can speedy be exactly? Imagine how long we'd have to deal with Bush if we had "speedy elections" rather than a timeline), 8 (compare it with 7... it's dollar amounts when we are defining who doesn't have a right to legal redress, but it's vague when we're talking about what the government can set as your bail). If you wanted to get really picky, you could add 1, since there is no definition of speech or religion- is it a religion if it doesn't revere a traditional Western god? Is burning someone in effigy speech or an act of intimidation?

If we wanted to, we could invalidate half of the bill of rights, but the fact is that they are clear enough when you stick to the text. 9 is simple enough: the courts have to deliberate more thoroughly on rights not found in the constitution- they can't dismiss your case out of hand because it isn't there. 10 is even more cut and dry: if the constitution doesn't say the federal government can do it, it's up to the people to either do it themselves or include such authority in their state constitutions. It gets confusing mainly when read in the context of 200 years of abuse and flat out ignorance of the constitution.

We practiced positive eugenics during the 1920s and maybe extending into the 1930s.

I can't say I'm entirely sure what that has to do with my point since the method was too imprecise to touch the concerns I mentioned (or to eliminate any infirmity from our society, since the recessive genes would remain out there).

But I am concerned that a lack of means rates high on your list of reasons to oppose eugenics, since my concerns become more relevant as we master the knowledge necessary for fool-proof eugenics.

As for "accepting consequences", are you referring to the consequences of decisions made before or after conception? Before conception there is often enough no anticipation of these problems, as it can be the product of recessive genes in each parent yielding a 25% chance of the defect. After conception, the only decision to be made is equivalent to sterilization anyway, except that you save food and don't have to give the child anesthesia to do it.


And in retaliation for the chocolate pun, which was great by the way...

In Re Pregnancies: Surely to God we cannot argue - except tongue in cheek - that we regard “life as sacred” when we stand idly by for decades while the Christian Children’s Fund says 27,000 children die every day due to malnutrition and diseases exacerbated by malnutrition, i.e., starve to death.

Christianity, as practiced by many who have gotten my attention, is meant to be applied to others by believers, not to believers by themselves. Christianity tells you to feed the poor. It says nothing about not starving to death. Christians have no bone to pick with people who starve to death, and as Christians are not subject to the call to feed the poor.
My appologies to Christians in the audience made of better stuff- I acknowledge that your religion is a wonderful idea when acted upon, as evidenced by my good friend Pastor Dave.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Number 3: Copulation is like a box of chocolates...

No. Chocolate is better. And the older people get, the more they like chocolate over 'copulation'. Chocolate RULES!!

Sorry .. had to interject that. Now back to the serious part of the discussion -

posted by FlyersFan

posted by The Vagabond
Number 3: Copulation is like a box of chocolates...

No. Chocolate is better. And the older people get, the more they like chocolate over 'copulation'. Chocolate RULES!!

F/F, I would never have guessed you to be that old! Your ideals, vitality and energy make you much younger!
IMO.



[edit on 5/14/2007 by donwhite]

It's amazing. In any forum, if there's the slightest hint raised in a post that people's personal 'right' to reproduce may be threatened, the emotion flies by the ton-load. Yet at the same time, very few people are able to tolerate their spouse, their own children and extended family members, let alone their neighbours or -- heaven forbid -- 'foreigners'.

It's 'ok' to kill people by the hundreds in places like Iraq. They don't count. They're somewhere-else and don't matter; they follow a different religion, eat different foods and are altogether unworthy. Yes. Kill them. We don't have to watch them die. Their blood doesn't fall on our floors. Their death means nothing to us. They just don't count, don't matter.

But suggest to someone that the unborn fruit of their own loins may be considered as 'unworthy' and 'doesn't count, doesn't matter' .... and watch the ego explode and the fur rise.

The truth is, most of us are pointless and are just a drain on resources. We live to enjoy ourselves. We don't produce much of value. We're not of much value. We live, we eat, we reproduce and we die. And our children are pretty much the same and on and on it goes.

Of course, phrased like that, well ... it's too honest for most to accept. At that point, out come the 'it happened to me' stories, all about how someone rose from poverty and hardship to become the owner of their own hairdresser's shop, or, or, etc.

But the reality is, the world would have been a better place without most of us. What you don't have, you don't miss. The world would have been fine without us, and in all probability without our forebears and descendants also.

What we produce, most of us, is a mountain of excreta and product packaging.

' Oh, I'm spiritual and I've grown.' ----- So what?

' I had ten children and they're all a credit to me'. --- So what?

Really, when it's all boiled down ---- so what?

We (the human race or whatever we are) are not going anywhere. In thousands of years, we've done nothing more than breed, kill each other, produce piles of rubbish and excreta and died. We're a mess. We're a disaster. We wouldn't want to go to a planet inhabited with things like us, given a choice.

We're stupid. We fuss around with the stuff that grows out of our skulls and we fixate on arrangement of features on the front of our heads and the fat on our chests and the stuff between our legs. We fixate on obtaining new toys; plasma screens and new metal things to transport us from A to B.

We spend more on bits of animal hide to put on our feet than we're prepared to donate to the man on the kerb with nothing on his feet and nothing in his stomach and not even a box for shelter.

We idolise morons with chests full of silicone. Men secrete themselves in a room -- hide from their wives and girlfriends -- so they can masturbate to airbrushed photos of morons with chests full of silicone whom they'll never meet.

People pay money for videos of OTHER people having sex !

Adults inflict pain and terror and life-long trauma on small children whom they use as receptacles for their penis or whatever -- then they go home and cuddle their own children and take them for hamburgers.

People suck up to disgusting others if those others have money, position and/or powah.

The same people bully and disparage people they don't know *IF* that person has nothing that can be used or exploited.

Children are raised with the greatest of care. Then those children are encouraged to go to 'war' with strangers and to kill them or be killed. Then the parents moan and clutch the piece of cloth (national flag) and bits of metal (medals) and uniform for which their carefully raised child allegedly died.

Evolution? Give me a break.

Eugenics? Come on --- if ALL it did was get rid of a reasonable perecentage of us, that alone would have to be an improvement.

God helps he/she who helps him/herself.

Do you see God down here, separating the Western military from its current target? Do you see God down here telling Pamela Anderson Lee (Jones, Smith etc) or Anna Nicole Stupido that NO, they do NOT deserve to possess the equivalent of three hundred African tribes combined JUST BECAUSE they had 500ccs of silicone stuffed into their chest wall? Nope.

If God bothers glancing towards this insane planet occasionally, the inequality and suffering and effort, disgusting behaviour and stagnation obviously don't motivate him to step in and sort it out.

So --- clearly, he expects us to help ourselves.

And anyone who honestly believes that its 'great, fine, ok' for everyone ELSE (in addition to him/herself) to continue breeding pointless creatures simply because 'that's the way it's ALWAYS been' --- is not helping. Not helping anyone or anything.

But of course, most take the whole issue personally. Because that's the way humans are. Selfish and slow to learn. And they almost always make an exception in their own case --- and then to justify making an exception of THEMSELVES, they trumpet the 'rights' of others to do the same. And then to thin out the ranks, they throw a war every so many years. But gee, that's 'spontaneous' culling of humans. Not the same as eugenics. Not the same at all.

Be great, wouldn't it, if they fine-tuned Remote Viewing to the point they could communicate with 'souls' prior to those souls being stuffed into cases of meat/bodies. Be great if they could ASK those disembodied souls/whatever: ' Hey. You wanna be born? Your father will be a slack-jawed drunk and your mother a slattern and they'll make sure you're provided no opportunities other than to work in a department store. You'll be fairly ugly, plain at best. You'll have a lacklustre personality. You'll end up married to someone similar and will produce four children who give you lots of grief. You won't like your friends or neighbours. You'll live in a trailer park and that's it, basically. You'll have a life though. You want it? '

Wow. Bargain ! Who could resist. Gee, let's make sure they get born and millions like them. What else are humans good for, apart from putting more of themselves on the planet and getting all upset when someone suggests there might be a better way ?