Why I became the REAL Pro-Choice...Pro-Eugenics

reply to post by 5thElement


Why do you say I am too harsh. I have tried to think of ways to do this humanely and practically. Do you find the idea of having to put a little boy out of his autistic misery humorous? That is totally sick. Nobody wants to do this but sometimes you have to for betterment of your family, marriage, finances, etc..

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by Ben Niceknowinya

 

See we are a lot a like. We are both pro-choice. Maybe I want to allow a little more choice than you do, but is that wrong.

My best friend and his wife have an autistic child and he is a real burden to the family. He wont behave and all he will eat is Cheetos and Pepsi. It has to be Cheetos and Pepsi or he will flip. Like if you try to slip him a coke he will loose his mind. It is such a strain on my friends. I have shared this idea with my friend and he says if it became legal he would put the boy out of his misery.

Why should my friend and his wife be burdened with this for the rest of their lives. It is no different than forcing a woman to have a child she doesnt want. Neither one is fair.

[edit on 5/20/2009 by justsomeboreddude]

No. We're nothing alike. We might agree on some things, yes.
Allowing yourself more choice? Well, okay...fine.


U and your friends tho......Shady bastahds. No?

No way. I don't care if that kid sh*t in the middle of my living room floor every hour, and was part of the SQUAT team.......and ate Cheetos.....and spazZed out! I would love him no matter WHAT>

No way.


How old is the child?

reply to post by Ben Niceknowinya


Well I am not saying you have to terminate him. If you can deal with that for the rest of your life then that is great. I am just saying lets give people the freedom to choose. It doesnt matter if we personally agree with it. It is thier family. Lets give them the freedom to choose how they want to live. My friends child is 5. They do love him but he just gets to be more of a burden each year.

I understand your thinking since I used to be pro-life not that long ago. It can seem harsh, but isnt it worse making innocent people suffer just because they were unfortunate to get a mentally ill child or a parent with cancer, or something of that nature. Something like that could interrupt someones schedule and life plans and it isnt right. Also, what if a woman was raped and in shock until after she had the baby. Then later realized that she hated it. Shouldnt she be allowed to be free of the past transgressions of another?



[edit on 5/20/2009 by justsomeboreddude]

reply to post by justsomeboreddude



I have to say I am deeply troubled by your interpretation of Eugenics being anything resembling benevolent in origin.

Eugenics is "the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."

As a social movement eugenics reached its height of popularity in the early decades of the 20th century. By the end of World War II eugenics had been largely abandoned, though current trends in genetics have raised questions amongst critical academics concerning parallels between pre-war attitudes about eugenics and current "utilitarian" and social darwinistic theories. At its pre-war zenith, the movement often pursued pseudoscientific notions of racial supremacy and purity.

Have you actually read anything in the history books about the Eugenics programs of the Nazi's and the extermination of so many "undesirables" by Adolf Hitler?

It had a very peculiar name, one that seems to ring a bell for people, louder than any other name throughout history.

Do you remember it?

Holocaust

Troubling is the thought that selective breeding, through scientific endeavors, in creating a "better human" would be talked about without remembering history and the implications of what happens when you selectively breed humanity in order to sift through the genetic detritus to toss aside anything "undesirable".

No matter what, Nazi Germany, as well as the search for "the perfect human" to me is something that gave me nightmares while reading the history books about this megalomaniacal dictator, Hell-bent on wiping out an entire race of people that he saw as not fit to populate any area of the planet.

While I understand that science itself is not evil, the usage of it in the past has been, and while there is a potential for benevolent usage of something like this to stop cancer, stop certain selective DNA based issues, it is troubling that the negative aspect is almost forgotten and thrown to the wayside anytime someone talks about this because as anyone who knows anything knows, history repeats itself.

Have a look at the thread in my signature with "Eugenics" in the title and see what those people who proclaim themselves our "masters" have in mind, utilizing your choice of threads here, Eugenics.


[edit on 21-5-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Well I see the negative interpreation of the word Eugenics. I am not saying doing it like Hitler. We just leave it up to the persons family, not unlike abortion. I do agree we should probably just roll this into the pro-choice agenda since people could interpret Eugenics in a negative light. Pro-Choice is just way more proper sounding.

Also, people are real loose with that word Holocaust. I mean pro-lifers are always calling abortion a "Holocaust" as a way to make it seem negative.

Dont you want people to have choices?

[edit on 5/20/2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

Well I see the negative interpreation of the word Eugenics. I am not saying doing it like Hitler. We just leave it up to the persons family, not unlike abortion. I do agree we should probably just roll this into the pro-choice agenda since people could interpret Eugenics in a negative light. Pro-Choice is just way more proper sounding.

Also, people are real loose with that word Holocaust. I mean pro-lifers are always calling abortion a "Holocaust" as a way to make it seem negative.

Dont you want people to have choices?

[edit on 5/20/2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Abortion as defined by Wikipedia, an online community, of people electing to give their neutral opinion in order to define anything and everything states in the first sentence.

An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus/embryo, resulting in or caused by its death.

So, your saying that an abortion is not something that is negative?

People having choices is a fickle topic, because having a choice, or the Government taking a stance on this particular topic has always been controversial.

See, to me, that choice of word in the definition of "termination" is significant, in that it means, to kill.

I can see that people having a choice is important, anyone who does not think so is seeking out trouble for themselves in taking away someone's choice.

The trouble with this particular choice however, is that eugenics has been abused to epic proportions in the past.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


I do see your point as I used to be pro-life at one point. I just think maybe we can improve the world, but not let it get out of control like the Nazi's by making it a family choice.

reply to post by justsomeboreddude


IDK why it posted twice.



[edit on 20-5-2009 by ldyserenity]

reply to post by ldyserenity


Thanks for posting. Before I drive all the way to the bookstore, can you give me an idea about what this book is about and how it relates to the topic at hand? Thanks in advance.

reply to post by justsomeboreddude


Here's the book that was just referenced.

The Giver

While I have yet to have read it, it's now in my list.

I hope you did not interpret what I had to say as an attack on you, but the topic itself is something I am sensitive to, because I see anything the World Government was behind, behind closed doors, as troubling.

So you see this as a kind of "Survival of the Fittest" sort of thing? Natures way, the natural way. Evolution returns to Mankind.

This would open interesting Business Opportunities. Home Euthanasia kits next to the "Morning After" pills on the shelves of the Pharmacy.

Then there is the "Soylent Green" business model. Enter a room and be surrounded by images and sounds you love while somebody behind the curtain pushes the injection button. Then its off to the factory to be recycled as food or fertilizer.

This sort of fits right into China's view of only considering the good of the whole and ignoring the rights of the individual.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Thanks for the link to the book. I appreciate it. I dont see it as an attack on me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. There is nothing worse than someone being pro-choice but thinking no one is entitled to a different opinion. I dont want to be like that.

I do see your concerns for how this could turn out bad. Hopefully we could do it without people abusing it. You know kinda the same model as abortion. Nobody is forcing that on people. It is a choice issue, but I gues it could get abused by the future governments.

It is kind of like China in a way. It will help limit the population. You know the burden mankind is on the planet. Plus, we should look to the Chinese for ideas since their ways are working better than our own. They obviously know something we dont.


[edit on 5/20/2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Originally posted by Blaine91555
So you see this as a kind of "Survival of the Fittest" sort of thing? Natures way, the natural way. Evolution returns to Mankind.

This would open interesting Business Opportunities. Home Euthanasia kits next to the "Morning After" pills on the shelves of the Pharmacy.

Then there is the "Soylent Green" business model. Enter a room and be surrounded by images and sounds you love while somebody behind the curtain pushes the injection button. Then its off to the factory to be recycled as food or fertilizer.

This sort of fits right into China's view of only considering the good of the whole and ignoring the rights of the individual.

Thanks for posting. I really appreciate your input. Please dont make a joke of a very serious topic. Do you make jokes about abortion and the freedom it gives people to live their lives the way they want.

I dont really see it as being an evolution thing persay but it could be a positive in ridding us of harmful genes and negative people. It is kind of like abortion in that way. We get rid of the unhappy, the poor, the sick, but only if their own families decide that is the best option for them.

I tried that link for The Giver, but I didn't see a real synopsis, but it is related to the topic. Here's why.
In the book it is a utopian society, where every family can only have two children and one will be a girl and one will be a boy. They weigh every child after birth and any child who is under weight or doesn't gain healthy weight or is difficult, they "send away". They also do this to anybody with three strikes against the law and elderly people. I don't want to give anything else away, so I will just leave it at that.

reply to post by ldyserenity


I will look into it more when i get a chance. It sounds good. I like the idea of making the world a better place. So I assume you agree with me based on this choice of books.


[edit on 5/20/2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
...but it could be a positive in ridding us of harmful genes and negative people...

This comment right there, is troubling, to say the least.

Who is to define who a "negative person" is and to what group does that choice go?

My opinion, of negative people, would include George W Bush and Barack Obama, the benevolent puppet dictators, controlled by the Bilderberg Group, but you do not see me calling for their extermination, do you?

We as a society, and I'm including the entire planet Earth in this, do not have the right to decide who should and should not be born, based on any preconceived notion of benevolence.

As the saying goes, "The Road To Hell Was Paved With Good Intentions".

[edit on 21-5-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Well that is why my idea leaves it to the family. The people most affected by this person. They determine if someone in the family is detrimental to the family and/or society. For instance, you have an aunt with no children, and she smoked for 40 years and now has lung cancer. Now maybe the family decides it is best for the family as a whole if she is terminated before her health care costs become a burden to them or society.

I just wish there were more pro-choice proponents on ATS. I think they would understand this better. But like I said I do understand where you are coming from because I used to be pro-life myself. Trust me though, once you get over the idea that it is wrong to terminate someone who could interfere with your life then it makes much more sense to give people the choice of what is best for their family.

[edit on 5/21/2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by ldyserenity

 

I will look into it more when i get a chance. It sounds good. I like the idea of making the world a better place. So I assume you agree with me based on this choice of books.


[edit on 5/20/2009 by justsomeboreddude]

I just thought of the book when I read your Thread that's all, It made me think of the story. My daughter had to read it for class and I started to read it and couldn't put it down. I don't entirely agree with you, but I don't entirely disagree either. Like getting rid of the lifers in Jail and the gangs and drug addicts, stuff like that I agree, but children and the elderly, I don't agree. When someone terminates a pregnancy, that's different, it's not really a life yet. They didn't experience anything, in fact their brain cells haven't completely formed yet by the time these terminations take place(however late term abortion is murder). So you see where I stand.

reply to post by justsomeboreddude


So, you're saying Euthanasia is a good thing?

Do you remember Dr. Jack Kevorkian?

Who are we as humans to say one person is worth less than a group?

[edit on 21-5-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

Well kick me, beat me and call me dirty names. I typed Eugenics Society into Google just for kicks and giggles and guess what!

Eugenics Society

A eugenics society was a society formed to promote the idea of eugenics. In particular, the two best-known were the British Eugenics Society and the American Eugenics Society, though smaller ones were also at universities such as the Cambridge Eugenics Society. Many prominent people were members of these societies, though with the discrediting of the idea of eugenics, most of them disbanded or at least shrunk in size.