Medical ethicist suggests killing disabled & unwanted ba

Post Reply New Topic

Eugenism, without a doubt, is a vile philosophy which science must make imperative to rid itself completely of.

There should international laws banning eugenics and it's practices.

It is a sick set of ideas, espoused by equally sick people.

No argument here.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Ah, eugenics. One of the most half-baked ideas ever created in the history of this planet. Humans, with all their faults and limitations of knowledge, have the nerve and ego to say what is "normal", "healthy", and "valuable".

The main problem I have with eugenics is they practice traitism; the belief that one part of a person's body determines the whole. These beliefs are false as they fail to take into consideration the entire person.

If eugenicists were in a position of political power when Albert Einstein was born, he would have been killed. When Einstein was young, people speculated he might be mentally ret*d. Einstein was a late speaker and so are a lot of other aspies.

Eugenicists are most popular where people are most desperate for survival (lack of resources).

hahaha i find the whole area of eugenics as incredibly narrow minded. It seems to treat human beings like a resource. Fitting in with a fascist mind set. Putting human life down to cash . And somebody using the excuse ow was like that before preindustrialization simply why don't they go live out in the wilderness.

It doesn't bring a case against abortion for me but the big difference to me is that when a woman is pregnant and doesn't want to be she either has to abort it or have it, there is no other choice. Once it is born if you don't want it you can give it to someone else that does want it.

If they discover a way to take a fetus out of a woman and put it in another woman or an artificial womb and it was widely available and free for the mother I'd rethink my feelings on abortion.

How are we defining conception......I mean I hate to be the devils advocate here, but would that mean if someone rapes me for instance I should not have the right to go get that morning after pill and swallow it so I don't have to worry about having a rapists offspring? Not to mention there is no way I could afford to have a baby. Or are we meaning once it starts actually developing?

What is wrong with intelligent mating to increase the pobability of producing a biologically sound infant? Do you have an issue with quality?

ruveyn

Are people who are involved in breeding show dogs abnormal? Breeding show dogs and such like is eugenics applied.

ruveyn

But a dog and a human being are worlds apart.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Eugenics is applied genetics. It is scientific selective breeding and is done with plants, animals and people. What is wrong with careful mate selection? Is it unethical to think about the kind of children one might bring into the world?

People with Taye-Sachs disease in their family line should seriously consider not breeding, for example. Or people with cystic fibrosis. I am not talking about involuntary sterilization, but of careful consideration about ones fitness for making children. People with faulty genetic background can always adopt. There are plenty of children who need parents.

ruveyn

There is scientific evidence that "Personal Eugenics" is already an inherent part of human nature, and has always been part of it, just as it is in the rest of the animal kingdom.

Incestous marriage is both inherently taboo and illegal, and first cousin marriage is a criminal offense in some states, in part, because it is understood to result in a higher risk of genetic disorders among the children of these marriages.

The majority of individuals that have avoided sexual contact with their close blood relatives have participated in the natural practice of personal eugenics. In most states in the US, 1st cousin marriage is restricted or prohibited and in some states like Texas it is a criminal offense.

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


So, per marriages among blood relatives, personal Eugenics is widely personally practiced and socially/legally enforced, however since it is inherently understood as something to be avoided; there aren't too many people getting upset about this aspect of eugenics both personally practiced and socially/legally prohibited, that reduces the potential for genetic abnormalities.

And those that do oppose the restriction of marrying their first cousin, refer to it as discrimination; not likely that eugenics would be a politically correct term, but it is in part a basis for legal restrictions on first cousin marriage in the US.

Most women given a choice of aborting a child with genetic abnormalities, will take this choice, and are at times described disparingly with the term "Eugenics", however a common slur in backwoods communities is that interbreeding has resulted in genetic abnormalities; less politically correct terms are commonly used to described the perceived genetic abnormalities.

So in these cases one group of people is slurred disparingly with the term eugenics for avoiding genetic abnormalities in pregnancies and the other group is slurred disparingly for not appropriately practicing eugenics in avoiding genetic abnormalities in children, in the avoidance of interbreeding.

Science/Technology has enhanced that ability for personal eugenics, through prenatal care, contraceptives, voluntary sterilization, and the legality of abortion.

Per statistics over 90% of women provided a choice do practice personal eugenics, when the information and a legal choice to abort a child with Down syndrome is provided. It is likely that the same similiar inherent taboos that normally discourage one from marrying their sibling. are in part responsible for the choice for an abortion in a case where there are genetic abnormalities.

Morals and ethics, don't always reflect nature and reality.


Interestingly, while modern technologies that provide greater choices for personal eugenics through birth control enhances the chances of survival for entire families when resources are low, and allows individuals to abort individuals with genetic problems; it also provides healthy individuals, with unlimited resources, the choice not to reproduce at all, which is counter to the bio/social ideology of the historical eugenics movement, and even counter to the natural human instinct that most healthy individuals with resources possess to reproduce.

The results, in part, are some developing countries, that have high resources, that are not maintaining their populations.


The ethicists are providing an academic argument of the potential of aborting healthy infants that have survived birth for no other reason than a personal choice. It's not just an ethical issue; it is as much of a natural taboo to kill a healthy human infant when resources are plentiful, as it is for someone to marry their sibling. However, interestingly enough, the natural propensity of personal positive eugenics plays a role in the taboo, to promote the survival of the entire species.

The level of natural taboo is so high, that the academics that discussed it in an article, received death threats for even entertaining an ethical argument for it.


Aborting a pregnancy has a similiar natural taboo factor, for some individuals that haven't experienced a personal circumstance that results in such a decision; it's unlikely that the controversy will ever end, not just because of morals/ethics/legalities, but also because of the overall natural drive to continue the species as a whole.


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

A small irony, the science of Eugenics was based in part on Darwinian evolution, and Darwin married his first cousin. When the only accessible mate is a first cousin, or economics/cultural factors come into play, those factors can overide the concerns of the slightly greater potential for genetic abnormalities in children.

More ironic was the The First International Congress of Eugenics in 1912 was supported by many prominent persons, including: it's president Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin and his first cousin, Emma.


To suggest that one is not impacted by personal eugenics, is to suggest that one is not human.

We can call it something else like I found this trait attractive in a mate, but "natural eugenics" plays a role even when reproduction is not the result.

Science and technology, expands upon the natural propensity for eugenics among many living things; and most ironically, changing that "natural process" of eugenics, seen most everywhere in the animal kingdom, with no full understanding of what the overall positive or negative impact might eventually be to the species as a whole.

Most of us eat the result of the "modern science of eugenics", when we bite into a "perfect looking" piece of corn on the cob. There's no escaping eugenics; it's not just a philosophy or science, it's a way of life for most everything living thing that inhabits the earth.

And finally, there is no one to blame for it, except for DNA.

Half baked? Most of the plant and animal products we use are the result of selective breeding. Almost all the wheat in bread is genetically modified or selectively bred ( or is it selective bread?).

ruveyn

But even genetically "flawed" people have worth. Much more than a stalk of corn, or a dog.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Many pure bread dogs have a large number of genetic conditions or even some of the traits that they were bred for are detrimental to there health. Also if any of ye ever looked at dairy cattle they are only skin and bones because there body is producing so much milk its detrimental to the animals health. I am not completely agents selective breeding but it must be very carefully managed or there will be long term problems
In humans there are things that may be useful but must be done with extreme care. One thing that comes to mind is in the case of is in certain Jewish populations there are genetic screenings that are done. The person is not told the results but when they want to have children with another person involved in the scheme they can find out if they are compatible genetically. In this the case being neither has the same resesive gene that could cause a disease in there children.
In this case no one in the community ever finds out who is carrying faulty genes hence no stigma

That is to screen out Taye-Saches syndrome. It isn't selective breeding to perfect the "race".

ruveyn

Two days ago, near where I live, a woman drowned her 4-year-old son,
He was Autistic.
She is in custody and had her first hearing today, will probably be sent to a mental facility instead of prison.
Perhaps the little boy would be considered 'Genetically flawed', but HE didn't kill anyone.

Rest In Peace, Daniel.

Sylkat