Page 2 of 2 <12
Topic Options
#7744 - 04/15/08 07:49 AM Re: Bad genes [Re: School Bully]
Xutech Offline
stranger


Registered: 03/18/08
Posts: 34
Loc: Australia
There are plenty of handicapped people who have made extraordinary contributions to the sum of human knowledge and experience. I would also be loathe to place the killing stick in the hands of my government, giving them the right to define which people would be handicapped enough to be "removed".
The Plutocracy we live in today is bad enough.

I have no problem with the rule of the claw, and no problem with voluntary suicide or abortion for that matter.

Satanism is not some kind of cryptofascism.

It is a stand for personal freedom, difference and non-participation, where it suits the individual.

Top
#7749 - 04/15/08 09:44 AM Re: Bad genes [Re: Xutech]
MaggotFaceMoe Offline
member


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 164
Loc: Finland
Why get stuck on the nazistic view of eugenics, since it's not them that even invented it.
Positive effects could be gained through eugenics, hereditary diceases' factors could be rooted out and thus improve the health of population.
It wouldn't have to come to exterminating people.

Top
#7753 - 04/15/08 11:16 AM Re: Bad genes [Re: MaggotFaceMoe]
truthseeker2000 Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/12/08
Posts: 20
Loc: Upstate SC
Why worry ourselves over individuals that have no real effect on our lives or the genetic disposition of our descendants. Truly genetically handicapped persons are not likely to reproduce and are generally taken care of by the excess of society and the love of their friends and family. I think that the real concern for genetics lies in the fact that survival of the fittest is no longer the determining factor in human evolution. In most cases, the smarter and more successful an individual is, the less likely that individual is to reproduce. And if the individual does reproduce he or she is likely to have fewer children than other, less fit individuals.

In the past, if you were fit and clever you could provide for a large family with many wives and children. If you had trouble providing for yourself then you certainly couldn't provide for a large household. Think of the genetic influences of Ghengis Kahn on today's Asian population, Niall on current Irish populations and other successful and influential individuals. In today's more gender neutral society this should apply to men as well as women. However, we seem to have created a society where successful humans do not pass along their genetic advantages and those that are less successful do.

I realize, of course, that being poor, unlucky or otherwise unsuccessful in life is in no way indicative of genetic inferiority in and of itself. But, in general when you consider the population as a whole, those on top got there by some cunning or strength that provided them an advantage over the others.
_________________________
Lucifer's Light Liberates mankind

Caligula WSA
~~352~~

Top
#7755 - 04/15/08 12:41 PM Re: Bad genes [Re: Simon]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
Sterilization would be the best and most humane way to deal with the problem of defective genetic stock in our species. There would be no need for a "culling", it would simply take longer to weed out the problem genes, spreading out over successive generations.

However, the aborting of unborn children that have been diagnosed with hereditary diseases or a severe handicap should also be taken into consideration, at the discretion of the parents. Yes, without the many contributions of handicapped people such as Stephen Hawkings, we would never have come so far in the scientific field. He's disproved/debunked many theories of Einstein that were once considered as absolute truth. He's a contributing member of society. But I think the main thing is that Hawkings was not born crippled, that the Lou Gherig disease impaired him later in his life. I don't believe that it's possible to test for Lou Gherig's disease in the unborn, and it definitely wasn't possible back in the 1940's.
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#7756 - 04/15/08 02:38 PM Re: Bad genes [Re: truthseeker2000]
MaggotFaceMoe Offline
member


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 164
Loc: Finland
The reason for worry isn't in the truly handicapped but rather hereditary diseases like heart conditions and cancer and the rest that are either fatal or other wise degenerating.
Through genetic research and generally applied politics for eugenics could prove to be the key to slow or even stop the deteriorating of our species.

Top
#7761 - 04/15/08 06:32 PM Re: Bad genes [Re: MaggotFaceMoe]
Stag Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/20/07
Posts: 84
 Quote:
Through genetic research and generally applied politics for eugenics could prove to be the key to slow or even stop the deteriorating of our species.


Our species is 'deteriorating'...? Did you happen to skip that particular lecture in Remedial Biology?

Eugenics is poor science, and poor social policy. Please explain how euthanizing certain members of the populous for their 'bad genes' will impact positively on society at all. Bear in mind the social changes that would have to take place before such a coercive policy could be enacted.

Stag

Top
#7776 - 04/15/08 10:46 PM Re: Bad genes [Re: Stag]
PigFeeder Offline
member


Registered: 03/17/08
Posts: 294
Loc: Near Montreal, QC
You know I just thought of a past 'news item' I had seen. In Texes weren't they doing something similar to killing the mentally challenged; individuals who weren't as smart and had mental issues. If I'm incorrect please do me the favour of showing me the truth. This was a while back, I just have this recollection of seeing something about that on the news channel.
_________________________
For all murderers, I am the leader.
Forever, Rob, The 49 PigFeeder.
NecroMantic Sin.

Top
#7805 - 04/16/08 05:21 AM Re: Bad genes [Re: Stag]
MaggotFaceMoe Offline
member


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 164
Loc: Finland
Eugenics isn't about euthanizing the people with defects.
You are most likey referring to the nazi style of eugenics now...
Eugenics has been used in the past as an excuse to get rid of unwanted people, but it isn't exactly what it was meant for.

A short quote: Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering.

Focus being on the modern means...

Here, have a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Top
#7828 - 04/16/08 06:28 PM Re: Bad genes [Re: Nemesis]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
It would seem that a form of sterilization already taking place, but unfortunately it is creating the opposite effect as far as passing on good genes and rooting out the bad ones goes. Overall, the intellectually and financially elite are breeding less. The poor and uneducated are breeding more, and the better half of society are picking up the tab. And please note that I am not referring to the “poor and uneducated” in the sense of people who have found themselves stuck in a bad situation and who are actually looking to improve upon themselves and overcome their obstacles. What I’m referring to are those content to spend a lifetime in that form of existence.

If you need a license to drive a car, operate complex machinery and perform other tasks that have the potential to destroy or improve upon human life, you should need a license to breed. If you need training to fight in the army, work in the healthcare industry or generally be put in situations that alter the lives of those around you, it should also be mandatory for people to take a course in basic parenting. If you have to be a certain age to vote, drink, smoke, run in an election and so forth, their should also be a minimum age requirement for pregnancy. I’m not up to date on the exact figures, but it has been proven that the younger a woman is when she gives birth, the lower the quality of life for that infant becomes a larger percentage of the time.

This certainly isn’t an attack against people out there who are parents and actually care about the welfare of their child, and who are doing the best they can to give that child the best possible life. If such measures were in place, it would mean society offering more help to these people, and hopefully eliminating the deadbeats who view their offspring as meal tickets and use them more to fill psychological voids in their own lives rather than caring about the quality of their children's lives. The irony is that in first world countries, people value the freedom to make stupid decisions more than they value the future of human civilization.

Top
#7836 - 04/16/08 08:35 PM Re: Bad genes [Re: Succubus666]
PRO DOM Offline
stranger


Registered: 04/15/08
Posts: 21
You know Tala de Sade, I have to say I've thought the same thing as I know that I have a five year old who's education has already cost me over $50,000 and so there is no way in hell I am going to afford a second child. Competition is fierce and it is true that the educated are waiting longer and longer to have generally only one kid to the 4 children whose mother is on welfare. Still, It only takes the few and elite to run the universe and those not qualifying will never be in charge or will they? Hmmmmm.
Top
#7865 - 04/17/08 07:47 AM Re: Bad genes [Re: Succubus666]
PigFeeder Offline
member


Registered: 03/17/08
Posts: 294
Loc: Near Montreal, QC
I don't disagree with anything you said, but perhaps it is only fair you get to control what you do with your baby. Yes I know, it isn't fair that the life born from you has to suffer, but it is your body, your the one that makes it happen.. So I don't think there will be a age minimum on pregnancy. Mandatory parenting courses wouldn't be a bad idea, but it certainly doesn't mean that the parent will actually apply anything nor will it really make them that much of a better parent. It can yes, but it won't always.. Just my opinion..


~~Snow~~
_________________________
For all murderers, I am the leader.
Forever, Rob, The 49 PigFeeder.
NecroMantic Sin.

Top
#8585 - 05/10/08 06:47 AM Re: Bad genes [Re: PigFeeder]
Necrophillah Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/08/08
Posts: 6
I for one think it would be nice to stop bad genes. Not killing them off... but sterilizing them.. not to breed.

To better the human race...

WHY? I'm tired of taxer payers paying for SSI because of bad genes. I'm not talking about those that were fine and tragedy struck them... but those born into it.

Example: A mentally ill person having a child. I now that child is put on SSI and living off the taxpayers for all their lives.... I personally know people like this. I don't think they need to have kids and taxpayers paying them to have more!! Stopping the bad genes by sterilizing them I feel is good for all.

Some people don't live on the SSI but have bad genes - I realize this and feel the gene needs to stop.

Disease that can be passed from parent to child needs to stop.

I'm fine but if I meet someone who is ok as well and we ended up with a child and that child ended up with a bad gene then I believe the child needs to be sterilized.


I don't think killing them is the proper answer... just sterilizing them.

Abortion IS another option.... If I was aborted I would never have known the difference anyway.


It is a great possibility the government IS spreading this... they are trying to reduce the world population.. and I agree this world is overpopulated. [I personally believe the government is doing a lot of it - though some is natural, as history has shown].

Euthanasia - I'm all for.... for medical reasons or personal reasons.

Handicapped - I don't put them in the bad gene category.


Is this Arrogant of me -- quite possibly... but I'm fine with the idea that I might have been aborted or sterilized.

Are criminals with bad genes? Or those mentally ill living in an asylum? Some believe so. I think looking at the genes themselves give the answer - the individual.
_________________________
In London there is a man who screams when the church bells ring. ~H. P. Lovecraft

Top
#8591 - 05/10/08 10:34 AM Re: Bad genes [Re: Necrophillah]
Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1753
Loc: New York
I agree 100%. I'm not all that happy with my genes either, although I am self sufficient and such, but I chose not to breed for that reason. Hence "Responsibility to the responsible" in real practice, and honest self examination.

I will admit that part of me would like to have children, but I can always "hook up" with someone who already has them, in which case, I might even do some "good" by providing for a child who could use an extra parent.
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#8596 - 05/10/08 02:44 PM Re: Bad genes [Re: Necrophillah]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
"I for one think it would be nice to stop bad genes. Not killing them off... but sterilizing them.. not to breed. "

What do you define as bad genes?


"Example: A mentally ill person having a child. I now that child is put on SSI and living off the taxpayers for all their lives.... "

Was the mentally ill person abused or raped in a state supervisored home? Did someone marry them? If the child of the metally ill is normal (which can happen) they wont be on ssi their whole lives.

"Disease that can be passed from parent to child needs to stop"

Such as hepatitis, aids, syphilis, diabetes, color blindness, bad eyesite, allergies, drug addiction, mitrochondria issues, etc??
Where do you draw the line?

"I don't think killing them is the proper answer... just sterilizing them."

That happened alot during the 1950/1960. Even people who were not mentally disabled were forced to undergo sterilization treatment if they were hospitalized in an institution. One actually fought back and sued the state and doctors after it was done to her without her conscent.

"Are criminals with bad genes? Or those mentally ill living in an asylum? Some believe so. I think looking at the genes themselves give the answer - the individual."

So depending on who is in power and the political temperature, and the justice system, that should determine who has bad genes or not.
Just hope religion never becomes part of that equation, or we may be on the list.

Where do you draw the line? Who should be allowed to make that decision? Would be backdated and people forced into clinics? or would children be grabbed from their parents after birth?


There are modern testing techniques that can determine a childs genetic disposition towards birth defects. This allows the parents knowledge and choices that were not available even 10 years ago. That said, we still can't test for everything, science hasn't advanced that far, but we can use the knowedge we have to make the best possible decisions. It is a hard choice that is best left up to the parent, not the state.

M
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
Page 2 of 2 <12


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.113 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 27 queries. Zlib compression disabled.