Liberal Eugenics.

How about this true scenrio. A girl in Manhattan decided she wanted to have a kid with her live in. Then when she got pregnant she found out she had twins. Of course, she did not plan on that and thought that if she had twins she might have to move to Jersey. So what did she do? She selectively aborted one of the kids.

 

http://www.intercessorsarise.org/Intercessors_Arise/Sowing_Good_Health_in_our_Family_Line.html

I cannot copy and paste key versus so you will have to read the material, it is not very much.

Numbers 14:18

'The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.'

 

So two congenitally deaf people want to have a baby, you believe the law should be employed to prevent them from having children?

 

I do not favor it. If only because I don't think children should be subjected to satisfy their parents' desires.

The parents' motives to decide what characteristics their children should have are objectively questionable.

 

But how is that any different then two parents deciding to have a child "naturally" despite that child possibly having a negative trait?

 

I think, the parents deciding to have a child "naturally", don't decide how their child is born (ex. male or female) and let "nature" select the possibilities.

 

She would have done something many couples do. Reduce the number of fetuses. Its commonly done in multiple pregnancies as the more fetuses, the more risk to the woman.

 

Eugenics is a progressive concept that was adopted by the Nazi's. Hitler got his inspiration from the US left.

 

No.

That is not what I said, Mike.

If two deaf people had a baby that happened to be deaf, that would be fine.

If two deaf people make that baby deaf on purpose, I believe that an act of cruelty, and yes, at that stage, the rights of the baby overtake those of the parents.

 

Sorry - maybe I am missing something here.

What does the jealous and spireful myth of the ****w god have to do with liberal eugenics and science?

I don't think we should mix myths with science, that is VERY dangerous, not matter if it is the ****w myth, a Greek one, or a Roman one.

 

Imagine that. Someone who is either Israeli or one of their lick spittles, not being able to read the very post he quoted, in which I clearly state that I can see the potential for abuse, and am undecided.

An Israeli or pseduo Israeli..misquoting and misrepresenting.

What are the odds?

 

And,Montra, what on earth does someone being a critic of Israel have to do with a discussion on the science of eugenics?

It is two distinct things, and anyone of slight intelligence can see that.

I really do not wish to turn this into a discussion about Israel, but when it comes to ethics, in whatever form, I don't think Israel would win a gold star in that department anyway.

You do, I imagine.

Perhaps if you wish to fuse Israel and eugenics together next time, in at attempt to distort my OP, you may want to educate yourself.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/57653.html

And that is before we even get to general Zion Nazi ideals of racial purity...

 

This is an interesting discussion and though I dont' have a strong stance either way, you should all see the movie "Gattaca" from about 10 years ago. Its a futuristic society where people can essentially order up their babies and modify any genetics they wanted to in advance. The movie takes place after about a generation of this practice and the result is that a new prejudice forms. That of people simply getting top jobs and opportunities based on whether they were "naturally" born or "genetically modified" and then born.

The protaginist (Ethan Hawke) is a naturally born person that buys the blood and identity of a genetically perfect person (Jude Law) that was crippled in an accident. He splits his salary and takes care of Jude Law, but uses his ID to get an elite job where his blood test alone qualifies him for employment. Its a fascinating look at what life might be like as genetics advances further. Check it out.

 

Think I have seen that, but some time ago.

As I have stated here, I would see it as ethically wrong to permit prospective parents to use a donor to ensure that their baby was born blind, or deaf, or denying it some other vital sense. That is just grotesque. If a baby happens to be born deaf, different matter, that is a quirk of nature.

There is a case for saying that two people with a history of Downs in their family, may wish to take that into account, if they decide to have a baby.

My best friend works with kids with additional support needs, and it is not an easy life for them.

I certainly would not make it illegal for those with people with Down Syndrome in their generation(s) to have a baby, but it is something that they would really need to consider, to be responsible and fair.

 

No, the decision process and genes are the same, all things being equal.

I said two people with congenital hearing problems decide to have a child, whether they want the child to be deaf or not, their is a chance the child would be deaf.

That's no different from the two lesbians picking the father who is congenitally deaf. All things being equal, the odds are the same.

So their intent to have a deaf child is less important than their intent to have a child. The two couples face the same odds.

 

Are you a genetisist?

They sourced a donor who had come from five generations of deafness, because they specifically wanted a baby that could not hear.

Two deaf people who wanted to have a baby should also consider the odds of a deaf baby, but it is all in the motive.

They should have been content to have a healthy baby, without removing one of it's senses.

That is cruel, and you would feel that way, if you had been unable to appreciate the music you love, by selfish parents, with odd motives.

 

If you scroll back you will see that I disapproved of their decision. I just didn't want the government making those decisions.

 

I understand you personally disapprove, and so do I.

Which is why this gap in law must be plugged, in the nations in which it isn't.

It was a selfish and grotesque thing to do, and if I grew up, knowing my parents had denied me of sight or hearing on purpose, I think I would see them in a light that would not be positive.

The reason it should be illegal is that babies are not kit cars.

 

When I was in high school there was a really weird, but not mentally deficient guy that never had much in the way of future prospects. However, as he spent a lot of time in the special ed classes (as a functioning spec ed kid), he took to "going out" with a girl with severe down syndrome and extremely limited function. I don't know whether it was true or not, but he bragged often of sexual exploits with this down syndrome girl, which in my mind was without her ability to actually consent or refuse either way. So the question is, if he gets that girl pregnant, what do you do? Was it rape? Should she be forced to give birth, forced to abort, what? (and again, I really have no stance on this either way, but its an interesting dilemma)

 

Curious.

AFAIK, there tend not to be a lot of relations between someone with Downs, and someone that doesn't have it.

I think that Downs can vary in severity, and I know that many can go on to live a life of relative independance, hold down a job, live alone, even marry.

I think that someone with Down's would have a different mental development than someone without, so, if someone without were to have a relationship with a person with it, I would question their judgement/motive.

It all comes down to how aware the person with said condition is.

 

Eugenics is currently defined as the "applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population", usually referring to human populations.

Historically, many of the practitioners of eugenics viewed eugenics as a science, not necessarily restricted to human populations; this embraced the views of Darwin and Social Darwinism.

Eugenics was widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century.

The National Socialists' (NSDAP) approach to genetics and eugenics became focused on Eugen Fischer's concept of phenogenetics[4] and the Nazi twin study methods of Fischer and Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer.

By the mid-20th century eugenics had fallen into disfavor, having become associated with Nazi Germany. Both the public and some elements of the scientific community have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced "racial hygiene", human experimentation, and the extermination of "undesired" population groups.

However, developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century have raised many new questions and concerns about the meaning of eugenics and its ethical and moral status in the modern era, effectively creating a resurgence of interest in eugenics.

continued.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

 

Yes- would be insane to demonise an entire field of science, simply due to it being one area of science that Germans were interested in, during the Third Reich. The Romans were an empire, every bit as brutal and sadistic, yet they left a legacy behind that was often positive, they were very pioneering for their day.

 

I agree the story about the deaf couple is (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up, but why is it your place to tell them they shouldn't be allowed to do that? What gives you the moral authority?

I don't think liberal eugenics are a bad thing...the key here is that the choice is left up to the individual. It's when the state gets involved that dangerous things start happening.

 

It's not my place, as you put it. I can form the view though, thanks.

It would be the place of law, laws formed having engaged with ethics committees etc.

No one can see it as ethical to, on purpose, deny a child one of it's key senses, esp when they boasted it was so that it could be like them.

That is sick, and it is exploitative, and cruel.

And the law protects against such things, or at least should.

Your pursuit of 'freedom' should not come at the expense of another.

 

Good point. Then we have to define what sort of eugenics would be beneficial to children and what would be detrimental?