Page all of 2 12>
Topic Options
#7679 - 04/14/08 04:15 AM Bad genes
Simon Offline
pledge


Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 78
What is peoples opinion on bad genes, handicaped babies and so on. I think it is a real problem, the question is, what can we do about it?
_________________________
-I am the drinker of worlds-
- Slaanesh

Top
#7682 - 04/14/08 05:15 AM Re: Bad genes [Re: Simon]
Sinistar Offline
member


Registered: 10/07/07
Posts: 174
Loc: New York City
They let you live, didn't they? How ignorant do you sound right now?
_________________________



Top
#7683 - 04/14/08 06:10 AM Re: Bad genes [Re: Sinistar]
Sinistar Offline
member


Registered: 10/07/07
Posts: 174
Loc: New York City
Okay, maybe people won't understand some of this since we PM'd each other.

You were discussing bad genes and this "genetic cleansing" theory of yours. What if the govenment was responsible for the "bad genes" of which you speak? I don't know what country you're from, but here in the U.S., money lines up the pockets of the agencies that were ironically created to protect you.

Mercury content is known to be present in the vaccine preservative Thimersol, but wait, isn't mercury volatile and poisonous? I'm no scientist, but it doesn't sound as if this should really go into your body. Yet the Food and Drug Administration let this one slide because pharmaceutical companies like Eli Lilly and Merck pay them off. There's still the question if Thimersol causes Autism. Should the government then fix their own mistake and kill off kids with Autism because mercury broke down either the kids' or their parents' genetic structures?

Also, there are more than a few cattle ranch employees who have the USDA stamp at their disposal ready to conveniently approve some bad carcasses for America's consumption. Beef recall anyone? Just another facet of government handiwork even if I digress from genetics a bit.

It doesn't sound very tough to talk about killing someone because he was born a certain way. What if it was your kid?

Come on, you read the Satanic Bible once; "Death to the weak" and all that good stuff but like I said in the PM, read between the lines.

I know that it would've probably been better to let this go, but it did get personal...
_________________________



Top
#7685 - 04/14/08 06:45 AM Re: Bad genes [Re: Sinistar]
Simon Offline
pledge


Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 78
If you took it personal, I apologise for that, and I don't go after everyone that is handicaped. But, when it comes into the seriousness that it will hinder the person from having a good life. I see it meaningless. Small handicaps isn't a problem, it is when it stops the future of the person inflicted. Your son will probably have a great life, and he will become a good man, like yourselves. But if it gets serious, what shall you do?
_________________________
-I am the drinker of worlds-
- Slaanesh

Top
#7686 - 04/14/08 06:46 AM Re: Bad genes [Re: Sinistar]
MaggotFaceMoe Offline
member


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 164
Loc: Finland
 Originally Posted By: Sinistar

It doesn't sound very tough to talk about killing someone because he was born a certain way. What if it was your kid?


They don't need to be born so it's not actually killing someone. Just something.
It may sound a bit harsh, but whether it was my kid or the neighbor's, I'm very much for terminating them before birth should they be somehow retarded. And I don't mean autism, but disformed or other more severely handicapped infants.
Mothers go through many screening processes when pregnant, and we now have the knowledge to tell when the baby will be born retarded. Retarded aren't productive, they only consume.
I'm very much for positive eugenics, but the name carries a very negative label for some reason. More effort should be put to understanding genes that cause the problems, but for some mysterious reason it's not seen as very ethical and we shouldn't be playing gods with life. But why shouldn't we? I understand why to some aborting handicapped babies might sound unethical, but then how can it be controversial to try to find a better way which would profit all of us.

Top
#7692 - 04/14/08 09:20 AM Re: Bad genes [Re: MaggotFaceMoe]
LUCIFERIFIC Offline
active member


Registered: 02/01/08
Posts: 629
Loc: CA
I read in class that Eskimos back in the old days took a walk into the ice when they were old to die; ridding their community of a burden. In their culture euthanasia wasn't a bad thing. I guess it depends on how we are conditioned by our society and our personal emotions when it come to this subject. I liked Dr. kavorkian. Remember him? This has nothing to do with bad genes.

On topic: I agree with Simon, and Maggot. At the same time I agree with Sinistar and say we leave the handicap alone to be. Wha maters is thos that believe in eugenics practice it themselves with others who believe in it to achieve something for the future, while the outsiders's genes becomes more corrupt.

Kayla
_________________________
Lux Ex Tenebris
Lux Lucet Ex Orientis


~~352~~


Top
#7694 - 04/14/08 09:23 AM Re: Bad genes [Re: MaggotFaceMoe]
PigFeeder Offline
member


Registered: 03/17/08
Posts: 294
Loc: Near Montreal, QC
I don't know.. I'm all for killing off the weak and making ourselves stronger and better, but it seems to me that everyone has the right to live and should be given a chance. Besides you never know what may happen. They might get better, they may also make the parents stronger and better. If the family isn't poverished they should have the baby. I'll give you an example, a story in my life.

When I was younger, about 10, give or take 2 years, we lived in a place where they were doing a housing project, spraying pesticides amongst other chemicals. My mother was pregant with my little sister at the time, and she feared for the health of her baby. Months and months later she is born and already the baby was having problems breathing right at birth. A couple months later we noticed that my little sister would cry nearly ALL the time. My little sister by the way is the fifth child of my mother, so in saying this I'm letting you know she wasn't an idiot when it cae to taking care of a child. Of course babies cry, that's there way of communication. But it's not normal for a baby to cry non-stop for hours, not sleeping, and rarely eating. So we took her to the nearby clinic where we waited for hours. The doctor gave my sister a brief check-up and told us it was an earache. So for a week or two we gave her the antibiotics but she continued to cry. We brought her to the hospital and they said it was still the earache. The idiot's, if they only did there job right..

This is when the icestorm hit in southern Quebec, where we were now living. Our car had been smashed by a fallen tree, electricity was out everywhere, we were hungry, tired, and extremely cold. We stayed alive using a gas camping heating/cooking utility we had dug out from the basement. We lived like that for about a weak or two cooking canned meals on the gas stove and heating up water for bathing. One day the cops came to our house and told us we couldn't stay at our house providing current weather, he told us about a small local shelter type thing that was up so we packed and stayed there.

My little sister was still continously crying and screaming, depriving my mother of any sleep she needed. so graciously one of the people working there offered to care for the baby when my mother got some sleep. So everyone helped everyone there for the few weaks until the storm passed over. One of the supervisors there told my mother about a local doctor/specialist. What he specialising in slips my mind. We had called for an appointment and he came over a few days later. As soon as he felt my sister's stomach he knew right away.. She had cancer.

So she was rushed to a hospital and put in a type of intensive care, a sterilized room where we couldn't touch her for close to 6 weeks. Apparently the cancer had progressed so far as to be pushing on her lungs, proventing any decent breathing, her Kidney was pushed to the other side of her stomach, and her spine had nearly enough cancer pushing on it, it had come to a point of almost breaking. They did surgery and removed most of the cancer but the doctors gave her a 30% chance of living. They told my mother she should give up, that there wasn't much hope.. She refused to give up on her child and she spent every waking moment with her. My father had to quit work for awhile, and us children had to be temporarily placed in a foster home. Almost 6 months later my little sister is making tremendous recovery and doing very well. She was even allowed to walk around the hospital a bit. She had to stay there alltogether for nearly a year and a half. She had her life.. But the intensive chemo-therapy had claimed her hearing and some of her eyesight. Heartbreaking news to my mother, and somewhat of a tradeoff. Two senses for her life. Unable to hear when she was young, she could not hear words or be taught. She is now in grade 3 or 4, but at a level of grade 2.

The pesticide was apparently later banned as later found out to be a probabable cause of cancer, breathing-related problems, and several other symptoms.

She's now in school, alive, doing very well. Now you can say there are so many negative sides to this story, it's unbelievable. Yes we lost a lot, but my mother still has her daughter and loves her very much. But you'd have to be me, the oldest to se what was gained. It brought my family, my parents although divorced now, were once more together then I had ever seen them. Everyone appreaciated each other a lot more. It also made my parents a lot stronger than they used to be. I think that more was gained than lost by keeping her alive. Although it's not abortion, euthanasia was an option my mother was allowed. But my sister is instead alive, and were all probabally a lot happier having her, then if she was given up on.


Of course she is just one case, this wouldn't be the case for every other person born or to be born with a defect. But there's alwasy the chance, no matter what some so called doctore who thinks he knows everything says. Personally my oppinion is that no other human being should be given the right to kill another human being. Euthanasia should only be allowed when the person to be terminated has given consent. The only type of exception for me would be if someone was raped, then abortion should be allowed. Or if someone gets pregnant, and are COMPLETELY and 100% not financially stable enough to care for a baby.

My philosophy on that is: "If you're old enough and mature enough to have sex, then your old enough to be careful about it. And if you're old enough to have sex, then you're old enough to face the consequences brought upon by your actions. Even if it means a child."



 Originally Posted By: Simon
What is peoples opinion on bad genes, handicaped babies and so on. I think it is a real problem, the question is, what can we do about it?


Simon, you sound like a completely ignorant backtown.. You say it so heartlesly and carelessly, I really hope for your sake you don't have a child who turns out handicapped, I'll feel sorry for the child. Maybe that's what you need, something to make you realize. It isn't a problem, it's a factor. It's mindless people like you who are the problem. You think automatically death is the answer. Ever heard of a cure? It's something that is always a possibility, and recovery is as well. It may be a small chance, but it has happened many times over. Also when you start a debatable topic such as this, maybe you should offer more insight as how you feel about it. Try offering up some pro's and cons as well. Just a suggestion to make your posts a little more interesting to read and more useful.

P.S. This is all a reply to Simon's question and the topic in general. I keep forgetting to change it to whom I am replying to.


~~Snow~~.


Edited by PigFeeder (04/14/08 09:32 AM)
Edit Reason: P.S. added
_________________________
For all murderers, I am the leader.
Forever, Rob, The 49 PigFeeder.
NecroMantic Sin.

Top
#7706 - 04/14/08 06:37 PM Re: Bad genes [Re: PigFeeder]
rob_church Offline
member


Registered: 11/02/07
Posts: 194
Loc: alberta , canada
euthanasia is tricky topic,while i belive it should be some ones choice to have an abortion or not, or even kill themselves if they choose. if we where to wipe out bad genes then we would not have people like stephen hawking and the like.and of course then theirs always the question of where does one draw the line? one persons idea of defective can vary quite a bit from anothers, and we might end up at the point where if you don't have blond hair and blue eyes you are defective.ie hitlers perfect race.i can see both sides to this topic.

it would come down to regulation as their will always be some loud voice proclaiming and deciding for the masses what is right and wrong,what is defective and what is superior,one just has to hope its not another hitler at the other end deciding what is defective genes. if it was left to the individual as it is now then i don't see a problem. but many are saying if (we)implying that it should be regulated,enforced, and mandatory and i can see a whole fuck load of problems coming out of that as its a very slippery slope.
_________________________
http://www.sintheticgraphics.com

Top
#7708 - 04/14/08 07:55 PM Re: Bad genes [Re: Simon]
fakepropht Moderator Offline
Big Slick
active member


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 990
Loc: Texas
Welcome aboard Hitler. And the rest of the world thought you committed suicide, yet you were just laying low for the last 60 years. By the way, where do we draw the line? Do we only eradicate the ones that clearly can't take care of themselves? Or do we also eradicate the addicted? After all, they put a strain on our health care system and insurance. Should we also eradicate the eccentrics? Usually they pose no danger, but they aren't perfect. Like the "cat lady" living with 50 or more cats. If you ever find yourself in Washington, DC take a tour of the Holocaust Museum. You'll feel right at home.
_________________________
Beer, the reason I get up every afternoon.

Top
#7715 - 04/14/08 08:56 PM Re: Bad genes [Re: fakepropht]
School Bully Offline
member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 142
Loc: Melbourne
The only reason to passionately advocate life rights for handicaped [sic] babies is if you are one, have one or know of one.

There's nothing more shallow than trying to make out you care for the lives of strangers.

That's nothing more than moral posturing.
_________________________
.


Top
#7719 - 04/14/08 09:24 PM Re: Bad genes [Re: School Bully]
fakepropht Moderator Offline
Big Slick
active member


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 990
Loc: Texas
 Quote:
The next year, the National Socialists-Nazis-took control of Germany. On July 14, 1933, the new government issued its "Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Diseases." This law was far more directive than the Weimar government's plan. People with so-called hereditary illnesses had to be sterilized, even if they objected. And the list of persons classified as hereditarily ill included those suffering from "congenital feeble-mindedness, schizophrenia, manic depression, hereditary epilepsy, Huntington's chorea, hereditary blindness, hereditary deafness, and serious physical deformities." People with chronic alcoholism could also be sterilized. The law established some 200 Genetic Health Courts at which teams of lawyers and doctors would subpoena medical records in order to choose candidates for sterilization. The Court proceedings were secret, and the decisions could rarely be reversed.


 Quote:
Doctors and nurses around the country continued to select and kill people and cover up their actions. Physician historian Edzard Ernst writes that Aktion T-4 "turned out to be nothing less than a 'pilot project' for the extinction of millions in the concentration camps." Most of the health care practitioners involved in T-4 simply transferred their "technology for killing on an 'industrial scale'" to the Aktion 14f13 program. Through this next program, six million Jews were exterminated in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as well as millions of political prisoners, Gypsies, the handicapped, those too ill to work, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, Afro-Europeans, and Soviet and Polish prisoners-of-war.


Again, where do we draw the line at killing for the greater good of society? Line up all the old people, since they are no longer productive to greater outcome. Line up the smokers, drinkers, dykes, and faggots. Toss in the overweight. How about the baby with a gimp leg? Handicapped, yes. Able to benefit society, yes.
_________________________
Beer, the reason I get up every afternoon.

Top
#7736 - 04/15/08 12:32 AM Re: Bad genes [Re: School Bully]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

Hi there,

 Originally Posted By: School Bully
The only reason to passionately advocate life rights for handicaped [sic] babies is if you are one, have one or know of one.

There's nothing more shallow than trying to make out you care for the lives of strangers.

That's nothing more than moral posturing.


While not caring for strangers personally as a race of beings one can see the implications in judging the value of a human by anything other than his mind… What if your parents were deemed too ignorant to breed, or too handicapped to live… What if your great great great grand pappy were called stumpy and was born with only one leg… Yet in your perfect world he would be destroyed… Where would you now be?

Some of us enjoy life and understand its many forms… I myself realize that humanity while flawed has created everything I so enjoy… Therefore while I may not truly care for the upcoming generations or the problems they face… I can hope that they like us will overcome their problems and continue on living and enjoying life…

Where some see modern medicine only making the weak live longer… Others that truly think can see the weak being made strong, some stronger for the troubles they go through just to do things we take for granted…

~T~

This is where you usually just shoot a simple insult down your nose at me…
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#7737 - 04/15/08 12:55 AM Re: Bad genes [Re: fakepropht]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

I'm almost afraid to post this as the added traffic may get this guy banned... This will cause my post to become useless...

Oh well...

The Show Must Go On (Pink Floyd: The Wall)

((Stereo)) In the Flesh - Pink Floyd (Vinyl Recorded)

~T~
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#7740 - 04/15/08 04:36 AM Re: Bad genes [Re: fakepropht]
School Bully Offline
member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 142
Loc: Melbourne
 Originally Posted By: fakepropht
 Quote:
The next year, the National Socialists-Nazis-took control of Germany. On July 14, 1933, the new government issued its "Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Diseases." This law was far more directive than the Weimar government's plan. People with so-called hereditary illnesses had to be sterilized, even if they objected. And the list of persons classified as hereditarily ill included those suffering from "congenital feeble-mindedness, schizophrenia, manic depression, hereditary epilepsy, Huntington's chorea, hereditary blindness, hereditary deafness, and serious physical deformities." People with chronic alcoholism could also be sterilized. The law established some 200 Genetic Health Courts at which teams of lawyers and doctors would subpoena medical records in order to choose candidates for sterilization. The Court proceedings were secret, and the decisions could rarely be reversed.


 Quote:
Doctors and nurses around the country continued to select and kill people and cover up their actions. Physician historian Edzard Ernst writes that Aktion T-4 "turned out to be nothing less than a 'pilot project' for the extinction of millions in the concentration camps." Most of the health care practitioners involved in T-4 simply transferred their "technology for killing on an 'industrial scale'" to the Aktion 14f13 program. Through this next program, six million Jews were exterminated in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as well as millions of political prisoners, Gypsies, the handicapped, those too ill to work, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, Afro-Europeans, and Soviet and Polish prisoners-of-war.


Again, where do we draw the line at killing for the greater good of society? Line up all the old people, since they are no longer productive to greater outcome. Line up the smokers, drinkers, dykes, and faggots. Toss in the overweight. How about the baby with a gimp leg? Handicapped, yes. Able to benefit society, yes.


I'm afraid your red emoticon and World War II propaganda is wasted on me, fakepropht. I have a very soft spot for Hitler.

Hitler was an artist; one who deployed power to impose a personal fantasy on Germany. Politicians, much like George W Bush are usually content to manage or to adjust reality, leaving the invention of alternative possible worlds to professional dreamers. But the dictator imagines the state; the people who live in it are characters he has created, elements in a design over which he has total control. Satanists, like artists, accustomed to sovereignty in their own small world can only warm to the notion of the visionary despotism of the Third Reich.

.
_________________________
.


Top
#7741 - 04/15/08 04:41 AM Re: Bad genes [Re: ta2zz]
School Bully Offline
member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 142
Loc: Melbourne
 Originally Posted By: ta2zz


This is where you usually just shoot a simple insult down your nose at me…


At least you got that one right.

So don't worry your little head about it any more my little monkey. There'll always be someone to look after you... you're very cute.

.
_________________________
.


Top
#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: 1725
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 all of 2 12>


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

Generated in 0.04 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 42 queries. Zlib compression disabled.