Liberal Eugenics.

Yeah, eugenics are bad. There's no getting around that.

 

We'd be better of creating robots to do all our work.

Then we could spend our lives in leisure, and our time with friends and family.

 

A robot will never be designed that can do my job.

 

Its still Nazi just couched in modern leftist loserism and injustice to those who are considered "less" by those who have installed themselves as the experts who know what is good for all. Leftists suck.

 

Let me put you to the test:

I want to create a child that is short, with brown skin color, below average intelligence.

Would that be unethical?

 

At the heart of this is the question of who decides? Parents? There are some problems there; say they are both addicts, with whatever makes up the disease, they chose to pass it on? Or, to get totally absurd, how about a pair of serial killers?

Somewhere, somehow , someone, probably a government, will have to legislate some boundaries.

And there, sir, is the rub. Where do you draw the line? And that thin edge of a slippery slope gets hazardous very quickly.

 

I can support "reproductive and genetic technologies" which are aimed towards the elimination of diseases like cancer, parkisons, MS, etc... but I'm uncertain beyond that.

The idea of an eventual "superhuman" class of people is a bit unnerving.

 

Yes.

Why would you wish to do such a thing?

This is a human life we are discussing, not a kit car.

 

As I had already mentioned, it's not much different than two congenitally deaf people marrying and hoping their kids are deaf. To me, it's crazy, but I'm certainly not in favor of any laws to stop them.

Are you?

 

Am I in favour of using law to ensure that two parents do not deny a baby a natural sense, for their own whims?

You bet I am.

 

I can totally see where you're coming from, Jack. I'm just looking at it like this: these two women, they decided they wanted a child brought into the world, and the guy they chose, for their own reasons which the rest of us may or may not approve of, is the guy they chose. They wanted more of him in the world. That he's deaf, or that his deafness was an important factor to them, might seem strange or unwise or even cruel, but it's often strange, arguably unwise and somewhat less arguably cruel to bring a child into the world. But it's also a blessing to everyone.

 

It does seem cruel.

And the reason it seem cruel is down to the fact that it is.

Apart from anything else, these were two women.

They are fortunate to live in an age in which 'they' can have a baby, and that society is accepting of that.

I am fine with that part.

But to engineer is so that the baby is born blind ON PURPOSE - it is morally bankrupt and should be illegal.

 

Well, which is harder -- growing up poor, or growing up deaf?

 

Personally, I'll stay with letting nature decide. It is Biblical that poor genes can be attracted through sin and passed down for several generation.

This helps me to remember that my actions have concequences to future generations. This same mentality can be useful for adhering to principles of freedom in order to pass it to future americans.

 

A poor person can (and do) alter their circumstances.

A deaf person cannot generally regain their hearing.

It is comparing apples and oranges anyway.

 

Do you care to expand?

Thanks

 

Here are some quotes that point to the reason that eugenics, whether considered "liberal" or not, comes with a justifiable stigma. Many progressive "liberals" in America stem from this camp of anti-humans. It could even be argued that abortion and planned parenthood are connected to eugenics. Read some of the founder of planned parenthoot, Margaret Sanger's opinions on eugenics.

 

I fail to see how these quotes mean anything.

 

Um, maybe read these again? Government choosing who to sterilize and who should be allowed to procreate? Hitler was a fan, so I guess it's not all that bad. While we're ending the gene pool with diseases and thieves, why don't we go ahead and end the procreation of everyone who does not have blond hair and blue eyes?

 

Whoops, missed the Hitler one. I'm guessing that was the big one.

I'd say the stigma is partly justified. Forced sterilizations = No-go.

 

I don't know of anyone that supports that, albeit I am sure there are some that do.

Eugenics doesn't = enforced sterilisation though, nor does eugenices = Hitler, it just happened to be one of many sciences that Germans of that time were interested in.

As I said before, it is all in how it is applied.

 

Imagine that. Someone with an anti-Israeli avator posting in favor of euginics. What are the odds?

 

Actually planned parenthood was euginics in action. It was started by Margaret Sanger with the hopes that blacks would use it to help them stop reproducing.

Of course, such racist drivel is no longer policially correct today, but her programs still remain. I'm very sure she would be pleased if she saw their effects today.

 

There is a rather profound difference between making people better and holding other people back through politics and policy. If we can engineer a better human, why shouldn't we? There's no reason that such an effort needs to be tied to policies that diminish the rights or opportunities of others. If we're really engineering a better human, there would be no need for policy to provide preferential treatment.

 

The deaf couple who deliberately made their child deaf were wrong. They had no right to do that. You should never give a child a disability.

I have no issue with it being used to try and breed out certain problems that might be genetic. If we used it, in 50 years time we might have no person born with, say, Spina Bifida or Down Syndrome. Its worth giving it a try, I think. But it depends on what you do with it. Sometimes its just best to leave nature alone.