Woah, that must have been one hell of an accident!Originally posted by Sobieski II
Not intentionally
"Okay, now eferywun, listeen carevully! Kill eferywun vu does not have zee ideal blue eyes und blonduh hair! ... Oh schit."
Woah, that must have been one hell of an accident!Originally posted by Sobieski II
Not intentionally
ok so some jobs go, but others will come. the medical field would broaden, especially since the new society revolves around it. Elderly can still serve a use, and aging in itself isn't a flaw we can fix (yet). Eugenics isn't (necessarily) about purging the unfit, but breeding to improve the species.Originally posted by Laughing Gull
whole industries are built up around the care of incurable mental patients. without them, the industries would not exist.
eliminate certain genetic illnesses, and there will be no demand for medicine or treatment for those illnesses. so the pharma companies take a hit in the pocket.
there would be no need for R&D for improving the treatment or medicine, so there will be less demand for R&D type capital equipment.. so the companies that provide the capital equipment takes a hit in the pocket, too.
Well, the plastics company that provides up-to-spec plastic tubing to the capital equipment manufacturers is out of business too.
all those people without jobs. so now they can't buy that XBox at Best Buy, and that hurts Best Buy, and a butterfly sneezed in the forest and then it snowed at my house in So. Cali in July shortly thereafter.
In America, taking care of people who medically need to be taken care of is big business. Eugenics would eventually end that business because there wouldn't be anyone to take care of, except for the elderly.... but in a society where Eugenics would be embraced, I imagine the dependant elderly would be tossed in a vat of fire and disposed of...
edit: usage, spelling, content
Originally posted by HuckFinn
I personally don't want to start drawing the line for "serious abnormality" (as I would qualify)...
I am carefully supportive of a woman's right to abortion in general... not a big fan of it, but have not found the conviction to outright ban it on the basis of her having to be able to make the decisions regarding her own body. Now, I must also accept the logical corollary of this.. that a woman may abort a disabled foetus if she wants to, even if it's simply because of the disability. It's a sad thing that someone would stop wanting the baby after there is something "wrong" with it, but that's just the way the world works, I guess. Now, my greatest worry in this is that there is no time and perhaps not even an ability to make an informed choice, especially if there are increasing pressures in society to "do the right thing" and get the abortion for the slightest of reasons... just imagine that you're told that you're bearing a child with disability X... you're quite likely to just hit the panic button and abort without ever bothering to find out what it is about and even considering the possibility that you and your child might actually make it through happy and whole.
Now, there is one point I strongly disagree with... late-term abortions simply because of disability are wrong. The abortion-on-demand criterion should be the same for all foetuses... just to be fair. Not having an early-term diagnostic for the condition is no excuse.
I think we're concentrating a bit too much on negative eugenics here... what about positive eugenics? How would you encourage those with "desirable genes" to breed? Pay them for babies?
Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
So Darkshade, inform me why you aren't fit to be bred out of your own population.
I'm very curious.
Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
As for aborting abnormal or damaged fetuses, is not bowing to the right of the individual woman just allowing eugenics on a personal level?![]()
Originally posted by WillJ
"Okay, now eferywun, listeen carevully! Kill eferywun vu does not have zee ideal blue eyes und blonduh hair! ... Oh schit."