Eugenics: "Science" Gone Wrong

Post Reply New Topic

So much wrong here, not sure where to start.

If something like a "get paid to be sterilized" program were implemented, the chances of it being later repealed must surely be MUCH greater than it to be later codified into some kind of "law". What if we amend the constitution to prohibit any such program (even just this specific program) from becoming anything but 100% voluntary?

And what, exactly, do you mean by "social pressure"? Here's $2,000 (or whatever). Every woman, no matter her circumstance (although I'm sure there would have to be some restrictions) is made aware of it by her doctor. Take it and be sterilized, or pass. Where's the social pressure? Are you just saying that women should be protected from the idea that not every birth is a good thing? If so, that's kinda patronizing.



Absolutely, but what difference does this make? The effect of such a program would be general and cumulative.



See, you're already rushing to some dystopian endgame where high-powered lunatics are breeding people like cattle.

Here's an idea. A woman who would give up her right to bear children for $2,000 probably shouldn't be having children to begin with. See? Science--and those in power--play a passive role. It's practically natural selection.

$2,000 is a lot of money. In many neighborhoods in the U.S., it can be a down payment on a house. A woman who took that money in the mid 90s and put it into AAPL would have hundreds of thousands of dollars today. But I'd be willing to bet most of the women who took the money would end up spending it on drugs or something similarly worthless. It's natural selection at every stage.

But who is to judge who is worthy to be a parent? Just because someone's living in poverty doesn't make that person necessarily a drug abuser or abusive. There are plenty of parents with money who fit into that criteria.

Eugenics falls under the bio bio-social movement unberalla I am not against Eugenics either in fact I find it a very interesting field of study.

In a voluntary system, there's no one making this judgment. I think what you're saying is true, but I'm not sure what your point is.

That the whole notion of offering women payment to be fixed is essentially making them less than human in the eyes of the rest of society.

Er...I disagree. You are offering them an option. Since when has having more options a bad thing? It wouldn't merely be offered to black women, or poor women, or democrats. It would be offered to everyone. I mean, we offer women the option to have their unborn children liquefied and vacuumed out, yet you're worried about offering them money to undergo a wholly voluntary procedure? That's where you draw the line as to what dehumanizes them?

I wonder if this has anything to do with our figuring out a way to cast abortion in an egalitarian light. Boy, that was a real victory for eugenics, wasn't it?

Your use of the word "fixed" is more dehumanizing than anything else here.

And why offer such a choice - even if it's offered to everyone - if it's not targeted toward a specific demographic?

Your idea is to put SOCIAL PRESSURE on women like me to abort my child.

As I said, a woman who would trade her ability to reproduce for $2,000 probably shouldn't be having kids anyway, regardless of the specific motive behind her taking the offer. They would all share one feature: they value their ability to reproduce less than $2,000. Note that one doesn't have to be a drug addict to espouse these values. What about happy, productive women who for whatever reason just plain don't want kids? What about women who would, in a perfect world, love to have kids, but are consciously choosing not to because their families are full of severe mental illness? To these women who very well may have PAID for the procedure in question otherwise, the offer of $2,000 is a wonderful gift.

See? There's an egalitarian spin we can put on it: if a woman would rather have $2,000 than maintain her ability to reproduce, we should trust her judgment. What's that, you say? This offer would appeal to people whose judgment can't be trusted? Um...perfect!

No matter how you slice it, this offer would, on the whole, find the right audience.

[

Eugenics is no more a legitimate field of study than homeopathy is

The genetics of breeding is an applied science. Many of our plant and animal products are the result of selective breeding.

ruveyn

The genetics of breeding is an applied science. Many of our plant and animal products are the result of selective breeding.

ruveyn

Absolutely. Unfortunately "eugenics" as practiced throughout history tended to be more racially/socially motivated rather than based on actual genetics

You know, that's probably what I've been trying to say all along.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Social Darwinism/Eugenics seems to be more Lamarckian than Darwinian to me

Social Darwinsim is pretty much a fact and yes I have been doing some drinking today but not moonshine its to hard to get in North Carolina