Why have Eugenics Studies and Policies fallen out of favor?

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by Polar Bear, Feb 27, 2012.

?

Why have Eugenics Studies and Policies Fallen out of favor?

Poll closed Feb 10, 2013.
  1. The eugenicist movements Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh were no longer popular

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Americas universities were besieged by Marxist Jews during FDRs tenure

    1 vote(s)
    8.3%
  3. German eugenicists were smeared for admitting the obvious

    3 vote(s)
    25.0%
  4. America "won" WWII, therefore academic freedom ended

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Eugenics are a myth. Therefore, immigration from Somalia should be increased

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Eugenics was pseudoscience, it failed to take into account Africa's gifts to modern civilization

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. Those who opposed eugenics were right

    5 vote(s)
    41.7%
  8. 20th century eugenicists are just pure evil

    3 vote(s)
    25.0%
  1. montra

    montra New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,953
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, there ARE genetic defects that are passed down to children every day. So the question is, should they be prohibited from breeding?

    In the end I guess you advocate the parent playing the role of God as to whether life is worth living based upon the lenght or quality of life one may have. Of course, the kicker is that this judgement is often askew when looking into the cyrstal ball.
     
  2. montra

    montra New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,953
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why is aborting a child with Down Syndrome unethical? Some would disagree. Some would say that the "problems" they create far outweigh any benefit they would bring to the world.
     
  3. Someone

    Someone New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Absolutely not. And I was never discussing people who would live long enough to reproduce. Genetic diversity is important.

    There is absolutely no reason I can see to force a parent to go through the emotional turmoil of watching their six month old lose all their brain functions and die. Especially having known that it would happen since birth. That is very sick, very twisted, to require that they do so. They might, of course, choose to do so... but it should be their right to avoid such pain.
     
  4. Someone

    Someone New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't particularly care that they would disagree. My ethics are not based on other people's preferences, they're based on my preferences. Why is it unethical? Because that person can meaningfully contribute to society; a child destined to die when they're a year old, after a few short months of deteriorating brain functions, however, is not going to meaningfully contribute to anything. They're just going to cause pain and suffering for their parents. That's not something I would be prepared to force parents to undergo. The parents should always be free to undergo such suffering if they want, but they should also be free to avoid it. It's the choice here that matters.

    And those people would be wrong.
     
  5. montra

    montra New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,953
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So if genetic diversity is all that important, then why are animals not treated the same? Are they not bred to create a desired effect?

    Again, it works on animals so why not people?
     
  6. montra

    montra New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,953
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How about the pain of a poor mother who has a perfectly healthy unborn child? Should she be forced to watch them grow up "without"?

    Of course, what if the said child was born? Should infanticide be allowed? If not, what is the difference between infanticide and abortion?
     
  7. montra

    montra New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,953
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What if the said baby was born? Should the doctor be allowed to snuff the life out of the little trouble maker?
     
  8. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Some breeds of people have absolutely hindered the advancement of society. They are ill-equipped to thrive in a 21st century knowledge-based economy.
     
  9. rsay32

    rsay32 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,723
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Some individuals are blinded by self-delusion, irrational prejudice, and unreasoning hatred. These individuals have hindered the advancement of society and wish to continue to do so, though their influence is waning. They are ill equipped to thrive in a 21st century KNOWLEDGE-based economy.
     
  10. Someone

    Someone New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What I am saying specifically is that ownership of anything is wrong, but ownership of humans is particularly wrong because of their self-awareness.

    I've given you the difference; humans are self-aware, making ownership of humans even more morally repugnant than regular ownership.
     
  11. Someone

    Someone New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because the owners of these animals do not care about the long term impact on survivability that these manipulations cause. They are willing to sacrifice the rest of the set of features in order to accentuate the subset of features that provide an economic benefit. The owner simply does not care about the long-term prospects of survival for that species, because he'll be dead by the time it's a problem.

    It only "works" on animals because the sum total of that animal's being is tied up in its economic utility. Who care if a chicken is selectively bred to much it can't stand up on its own two legs? Who cares if a bulldog is so inbred that they can only get pregnant artificially? These are acceptable consequences for animal breeders because those are not economically important factors in that animal's life.

    Humans, on the other hand, have an existence outside their economic purpose. That's why it doesn't work for humans. We're more than our economic utility, but farm animals and pets are not.
     
  12. Someone

    Someone New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Obviously not, that would be murder, not abortion.
     
  13. Someone

    Someone New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    She, of course, has the option to abort. It is simply unethical to do so. The choice remains however. She is free to be unethical if she feels it worthwhile.

    Infanticide is murder (the killing of a separate life), and abortion is not (because the life is not yet separately viable).
     
  14. montra

    montra New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,953
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So at what point is abortion murder? Do you think it OK to abort them right before coming out of the womb or at some magical time before that?
     
  15. montra

    montra New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,953
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why is it OK to use animals for economic utility and not humans?

    Again, what is the difference between the two in your opinion?
     
  16. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Oh yea, all groups are EQUAL because YOU SAY SO.... Hahaha.



    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  17. skeptic-f

    skeptic-f New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Messages:
    7,929
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    0
  18. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Yugoslavia" is the most compelling bit of evidence that multi-cultural and multi-racial democracies are bound to fail eventually.
     
  19. skeptic-f

    skeptic-f New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Messages:
    7,929
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    0
    All the "races" (ethnic groups) in Yugoslavia were European (white). I will give you the multi-cultural society, but Yugoslavia was hardly a model democracy prior to its breakup. What Western multi-cultural democracy has failed, historically? Oh yeah, the Weimar Republic.
     
  20. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think any Germans liked living under Weimar conditions. Funny how Weimar Germany's casino-style economy, corrupt central banking system and commodity boom and bust cycles are all being repeated today.
     
  21. Small_government_caligula

    Small_government_caligula Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2011
    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OP, shouldn't you be jerking off to Der Stürmer or some ilk like that? :lol:
     
  22. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0

    [​IMG]





    .
     

Share This Page