The Case for Eugenics in a Nutshell

[Gogf]

now, if eugenics became accepted in a democratic society, what is to stop them from voting for sterilisation of "undesirables"?

Excellent point. Do we want humanity to devolve to a situation where everyone is free from any genetic or appearance variance? That's certainly not good from a natural selection standpoint. What if we need to adapt to some kind of new situation? What will we do with our "perfect" race?

 

[Masquerouge]

If you think that the fetus is already human by the time the disorder is detected, it is worse to kill your child than let him or her be born.

Abortion is not the only eugenic solution here. As I said, if you know you have a recessive gene that could cause a serious genetic disease should you have kids with somebody else sharing that recessive defective gene, should you not want to check that in your spouse before you have kids? That's eugenics.

If we can both agree to leave abortion out of the debate on the ground that there are a lot of non-abortive eugenic measures, I think this would help

But is merely screening for defects eugenics any more than leaving an infant with clubfoot to die on a windswept cliffside, as was done anciently?

Different times, different norms. We would probably have not survived long as a species if all genetically defective people had survived and had been able to reproduce, that's the basis of ToE.
Yet civilization allows us to keep these people, that would otherwise die, alive and well-cared for.
I think the next step is to try to avoid giving birth to genetically defective people when we can, because I do not see how you can morally justify giving birth to a genetically defective person when you could have prevented it. And no matter your religious beliefs, there is always something you can do to help that, such as geneting screening.

 

[Abaddon]

Well, the one example I can think of this happening in this past was in Nazi Germany, where it was controlled by the government.

America had eugenic laws in many states before Hitler was even in power.

 

[Gogf]

America had eugenic laws in many states before Hitler was even in power.

Eugenic laws meaning what?

 

[luiz]

I don't understand how individual liberties are violated when eugenic decisions are made on an individual level.
Once again, because apparently nobody bother reading anything in this thread and just yell "NAZI NAZI", the actual definition of eugenic do NOT, REPEAT DO NOT include anything about them being driven by a non-individual body (government, association, etc.)

And I have never said anything about intelligence or stupidity because, as I said in my first post in this thread that nobody bothered to read because they were too busy yelling "NAZI NAZI", I do not think intelligence is inherited... Though I think stupidity can be a collateral of genetic defects.

Eugenics is simply selecting the best genes, and that is something we all do when we choose a wife, and something we all should do to prevent our kids being born with genetic defects that will make their lives more difficult.

Eugenics, as generally understood, is a government effort to improve the genetic stock of the population. You may argue all you wish about the greek root of the word never mentioning coercion or government in any way, but that's the meaning it has taken. And I for one did not scream "Nazi! Nazi!", even because the Nazis were neither the first nor the last government to force upon the population eugenicist BS.

As for the "individual eugenics" you mention, while I have no moral objections to it, they just strike me as a silly idea. Only an individual with some serious issues would analyze a potential wife based on the quality of the genes, like he is selecting some cow to be the new breeder. "Sorry, can't marry you, your dad got bald too soon".

If you knowingly choose to have a kid with genetical defect that will hamper his/her life, then you're the one with serious moral issues.

If one has the means to eliminate via genetic treatment(something which is today more science fiction than reality. the possible defects that his child might have, he should go for it. But if that's not an option, I don't see what's morally wrong about people with some disability having a kid regardless of the risk of the kid inheriting said disability. People with disabilities can have a fullfiling and happy life, and I would rather be born with some problem than not born at all.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, certainly if I had a recessive genetic disease, I would check to see if my spouse had it as well. This being the case, I might (depending on the disorder) elect to get neutered and adopt, although I would keep any children who came anyways. If that is eugenics, that is okay, but the instance any other person gets involved, it is wrong.

 

[Abaddon]

I wonder how many people who feel they would not "make the grade" would acutally give up their rights without a fight?

 

[.Shane.]

Eugenic laws meaning what?

Like forced sterilizations of certain types of people.

 

[Abaddon]

Well, certainly if I had a recessive genetic disease, I would check to see if my spouse had it as well. This being the case, I might (depending on the disorder) elect to get neutered and adopt.

Could always screen your eggs/sperm and use IVF.... its a milder form of Eugenics by choice...

 

[Masquerouge]

So you should be allowed to neuter your children? That's a ridiculous contention.

That is not what I meant. What I meant is this:i f you know you have a recessive gene that could cause a serious genetic disease should you have kids with somebody else sharing that recessive defective gene, should you not want to check that in your spouse before you have kids? That's eugenics.

If you want to consciously choose not to have a child because you have a genetic defect that you don't want to them have, that's fine. It's your choice to have a child, after all. However, the choice should be yours only; not your doctor's, not the government's, and not your parents'.

Well that choise IS eugenics. And please, can you provide me a moral justification for knowingly inflicting a genetical disease on your kid? Would you do it?

Where am I getting the idea for the government controlling it? Well, the one example I can think of this happening in this past was in Nazi Germany, where it was controlled by the government.

Okay. Nazi Germany was bad, let's all agree on that. Now can we discuss eugenics using the definition of the word, not some horrible perversion?

now, if eugenics became accepted in a democratic society, what is to stop them from voting for sterilisation of "undesirables"?

You? As a voter? I do not see where eugenics imply sterilization, and I never used the term "undesirable".
Eugenic imply that moral choice: how can you willingly give birth to a genetically defective kid? Eugenics imply, for instance, that you're responsible enough to screen for genetic defects when the chance is great that you can transmit a defective gene that will impair your kid. The government should have nothing to do with it.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, as per your example, although rockets have been used for both WMDs and space exploration, as far as I can tell eugenics have only produced Nazis and US sterilization laws and the like. Where are its good fruits?

 

[Abaddon]

As for the "individual eugenics" you mention, while I have no moral objections to it, they just strike me as a silly idea. Only an individual with some serious issues would analyze a potential wife based on the quality of the genes, like he is selecting some cow to be the new breeder. "Sorry, can't marry you, your dad got bald too soon".

I honestly do, i want my children to be fantastic, and will do what i can to achieve that.

I am proud of my Family and its Name.. it doesnt mean anything.. we dont have a significant history, but i see each generation building on the next.. more wealth/power etc. If i chose a partner who is intelegent and pretty.. chances improve my children will be aswell.

Nothing a certaintly, but im increasing my chances rather than marrying a dunce munter!

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It is human nature to seek the most attractive spouse we can find (which in practice means one as attractive as us) as well as full of other good qualities. As many of these qualities are partially genetic, in a sense by having standards when we look for a spouse we are practicing a form of eugenics - but one quite different from that of the OP.

 

[Masquerouge]

Eugenics, as generally understood, is a government effort to improve the genetic stock of the population. You may argue all you wish about the greek root of the word never mentioning coercion or government in any way, but that's the meaning it has taken. And I for one did not scream "Nazi! Nazi!", even because the Nazis were neither the first nor the last government to force upon the population eugenicist BS.

Why not use the definition of the term? What is wrong with it?

As for the "individual eugenics" you mention, while I have no moral objections to it, they just strike me as a silly idea. Only an individual with some serious issues would analyze a potential wife based on the quality of the genes, like he is selecting some cow to be the new breeder. "Sorry, can't marry you, your dad got bald too soon".

Explain to me how this is silly: if you know you have a recessive gene that could cause a serious genetic disease should you have kids with somebody else sharing that recessive defective gene, should you not want to check that in your spouse before you have kids? That's eugenics.

If one has the means to eliminate via genetic treatment(something which is today more science fiction than reality. the possible defects that his child might have, he should go for it. But if that's not an option, I don't see what's morally wrong about people with some disability having a kid regardless of the risk of the kid inheriting said disability. People with disabilities can have a fullfiling and happy life, and I would rather be born with some problem than not born at all.

Once you're born, you're born, and nobody should be able to terminate you or neuter you because you have some genetical defects, which will always happen anyway.
But letting your own kid be born with a genetical defect when you could have prevented is is to me morally wrong. I guess we disagree on that, then.

 

[Abaddon]

Well, as per your example, although rockets have been used for both WMDs and space exploration, as far as I can tell eugenics have only produced Nazis and US sterilization laws and the like. Where are its good fruits?

Well the fruits would be there, if it had ever been done... Its only been done in abhorant ways previously.

We all practice our own eugenics by selecting our partner, but if we only had a more obvious direction for our choices

 

[Dionysius]

<purged.>

 

[Masquerouge]

Well, certainly if I had a recessive genetic disease, I would check to see if my spouse had it as well. This being the case, I might (depending on the disorder) elect to get neutered and adopt, although I would keep any children who came anyways. If that is eugenics, that is okay, but the instance any other person gets involved, it is wrong.

That's eugenics to me. That's the point I'm trying to get across. Eugenics are not summed up by the Nazis, some good can come out from eugenics.

Well, as per your example, although rockets have been used for both WMDs and space exploration, as far as I can tell eugenics have only produced Nazis and US sterilization laws and the like. Where are its good fruits?

any time the conception of a genetically defective person has been avoided is to me a good fruit.
Note that as science will improve we should be able to do a lot more.

 

[Masquerouge]

if i was the kid i would rather live with a defect than not at all.

That's logically pointless. If you had not been conceived, you would not think anything.

 

[Masquerouge]

It is human nature to seek the most attractive spouse we can find (which in practice means one as attractive as us) as well as full of other good qualities. As many of these qualities are partially genetic, in a sense by having standards when we look for a spouse we are practicing a form of eugenics - but one quite different from that of the OP.

Yup. Definitely. Note that I'm not discussing the OP (I said in my first post I disagreed with all 5 points) but eugenics.

 

[luiz]

I honestly do, i want my children to be fantastic, and will do what i can to achieve that.

I am proud of my Family and its Name.. it doesnt mean anything.. we dont have a significant history, but i see each generation building on the next.. more wealth/power etc. If i chose a partner who is intelegent and pretty.. chances improve my children will be aswell.

Nothing a certaintly, but im increasing my chances rather than marrying a dunce munter!

It's all fine and dandy untill you fall in love with a girl with a short-sighted father and an autistic brother