Anyone heard of Eugenics?
- Thread starter Syterion
- Start date
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
He was also an Austrian, a weakling, and he made a pretty poor soldier.
bobgote
Trousers
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.
samildanach
Necrophile
Funny that we have been talking about this as Eugenics has just hit the news head-lines here in the U.K. A girl who had cleft pallette as a youngster ( she is an absolute stunner now BTW ) is trying to stop the practice of aborting a foetus on the basis of them having cleft pallettes. Having a cleft pallette is "OCCASSIONALLY" associated with much more serious developmental abnormalities but the practice as it stands at the moment enables late abortions purely on the proof of a cleft pallette with no evidence of serious abnormalities being required.
Cleft pallete itself is pretty trivial and can be fixed with some surgery. What do you guys think of that? It seems to me that you can be aborted on the basis that you are not a very photogenic foetus.
Cleft pallete itself is pretty trivial and can be fixed with some surgery. What do you guys think of that? It seems to me that you can be aborted on the basis that you are not a very photogenic foetus.
I can't help but have the feeling that the more generally acceptable the abortion of "abnormal" foetuses becomes, the more we will be seeing stuff like this. First it's Down's kids, but then pregnancies will be terminated for relatively treatable reasons.
I personally don't want to start drawing the line for "serious abnormality" (as I would qualify)... but the criterion will almost certainly get worse and worse the more it is used. Why? Simply because the more we perceive disabled life as worthless life, the worse place the world becomes for those who do not fit the norm, as the general perception is that they should be dead already. Also, is the goal of this very activity not to reduce number of the disabled among our midst? This would mean that people have less and less contact with those who are different, and thus have even less understanding of what kind of an issue they're dealing with... so it's bound to get worse the more you do it.
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?
I personally don't want to start drawing the line for "serious abnormality" (as I would qualify)... but the criterion will almost certainly get worse and worse the more it is used. Why? Simply because the more we perceive disabled life as worthless life, the worse place the world becomes for those who do not fit the norm, as the general perception is that they should be dead already. Also, is the goal of this very activity not to reduce number of the disabled among our midst? This would mean that people have less and less contact with those who are different, and thus have even less understanding of what kind of an issue they're dealing with... so it's bound to get worse the more you do it.
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?
And here we agree again, HuckFinn. I am not a fan of abortion myself, but I am altogether pro-choice, and accept that the mother has the right to decide, wheter I agree with her or not.
Hence, I can not oppose such practise, even if I condem the reasons behind it.
Regards
.
Hence, I can not oppose such practise, even if I condem the reasons behind it.
Regards
.
samildanach
Necrophile
I thought you might have been offended by this Huck. The suspicion of "serious abnormality" was the reason trotted out by the consultants who were interviewed on T.V. to explain the practice.
Yes this is my impression also. It really comes down to the Doctors perception of the worth of the foetus. If they are willing to advise a patient to terminate their pregnancy on the basis that there may be a chance that the foetus has developmental problems - then your chances of being born are slim and none if they have got evidence.
This is disturbing because the decisive factor in what the Doctors advice is could be down to money. Given that most of the U.K.s health budget is swallowed up by the very young and the very old - the reasoning employed may be if this kid is born it may require a significant amount of cosmetic and corrective surgery and we really can't afford to channel the resources necessary into this one individual. Also old folks are often capable of sticking up for themselves and refusing to be railroaded having grown accustomed to people trying to use their age against them. Young pregnant women are a much easier target if you want to start trimming your expenditure in my view.
Agreed
Just get me drunk! Usually works.... so long as not too drunk.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Tall, strong and fit in mind, body and spirit, fair, blond hair, blue eyes, highly intelligent, morally upstanding and incorruptible, pure, ideal racial background (What can be better than a blend of Nordic and Anglo-Saxon, raised in heavenly climes of the Antipodes?
), ideal class and upbringing, successful, and in possession of all necessary and admirable attributes for the triumph of the people. Not yet got two Iron Crosses, but the plan unfolds to its proper pace.No, that fits all my criteria and philosophy.
As always, an observation like a pencil without any lead.
Bobgote did hit it on the head a few posts back - 'Eugenics isn't (necessarily) about purging the unfit, but breeding to improve the species.' There is no need to actively eliminate those not selected for breeding; natural selection and sterility will do that in due course.
It certainly does not mean throwing the elderly into a vat of fire; such a fate is reserved for other groups.
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 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?
It is.
It's tough logic, but if there is a blanket approval of (early-term) abortion on demand, then there is nothing that says that problems with the foetus are not just as much a motive as any.
Echoing Fred, even if I recognize the right of a person to choose an action, this does not mean I would have to accept, on ethical grounds, the reasons behind the choice.
There are a few exceptions where even I would choose differently. There are malformations of the foetus that indeed do prevent life in general, leading to a short and cruel existence. Take anencephaly for example. It generally leads to a near total destruction of the brain cortex, meaning that the baby never will reach consciousness... the situation is pretty close to being stillborn.
Even my own illness comes in such severe forms that the baby hardly develops any bone at all. Death follows typically within the first months or year of life.
Now... these are cases where I am not all that certain it's all worth the pain, especially with the ability of modern medicine to just prolong the pain...
samildanach
Necrophile
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
She could have practiced some good genetic hygeine in her selection of a mate. Choosing a fine Ango-Saxon thoroughbred such as your good self for instance, rather than waiting to the last moment to decide a disabled child just doesn't fit with her self-image.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
She could have practiced some good genetic hygeine in her selection of a mate. Choosing a fine Ango-Saxon thoroughbred such as your good self for instance, rather than waiting to the last moment to decide a disabled child just doesn't fit with her self-image.
