The Case for Eugenics in a Nutshell

[Gogf]

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.

Whether or not you want to have kids is a separate issue; you should have the right to. Why should we be having a debate about an issue of personal choice? What's the debate? Nobody is forcing you to have kids if you think it is morally wrong.

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?

I'm not sure, I've never thought about it. I guess it depends if I'd rather not be alive than have whatever genetic disorder I hypothetically have. I'd be inclined to say I'd prefer to disorder, and that it's not fair to my child not to let him experience the wonder of life.

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?

So we can all agree that forced eugenics is bad?

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.

Can you give a better definition of the issue? Abbadon's definition discussed artificial selection, which is not a self-inflicted process. Few people who do not have serious depression would consider themselves a blight to society that should not be able to reproduce. Most people are grateful for being alive, and they presume that their children would as well, even if they had some sort of genetic illness.

Even if they carry the recessive gene for a terrible genetic disorder, I predict that they would still very often have children. The logic behind this is two fold: nobody wants to be told that their genes are incapable of producing productive children, and few would ever believe that having a genetic disorder is worse than not living. The only way that eugenics can really "advance" a species would be if there was some unbiased arbiter, which would clearly infringe upon the rights of those who might be producing genetically "deficient" children.

Regardless, the concept of eugenics is an incredibly weak one from an evolutionary standpoint. If we're seeking to make society better, more productive, and more adaptive to change, then we should be working towards diversity, not away from it. Einstein and Planck were different; would they have arisen if we were working towards a "better" society as defined by some arbiter? Whether or not this society is even temporarily more productive (how do we know the arbiter is right? What gives him or her the ability to know who can and who cannot be a productive member of society?), the long term consequences on the hardiness of the species as well as its productivity would be horrific.

 

[Gogf]

Like forced sterilizations of certain types of people.

This was in place in the United States?

Abbadon: Even if it was, what does that add to your argument? I said the only example I knew of was Nazi Germany. Does the fact that I didn't know that we used to have ridiculous laws prove anything? We've had a lot of ridiculous laws in the past; would you argue that slavery is a good idea?

 

[Abaddon]

I dont fall quickly, and luckily so far have not come up against that choice i would have to make. I assume i would find out pretty quickly, before i fell for her, and move back from that relationship.

BUT

at 20, im hardly looking at any relatiohships i have in the long long term?!

 

[Dionysius]

<purged.>

 

[Abaddon]

This was in place in the United States?

Abbadon: Even if it was, what does that add to your argument? I said the only example I knew of was Nazi Germany. Does the fact that I didn't know that we used to have ridiculous laws prove anything? We've had a lot of ridiculous laws in the past; would you argue that slavery is a good idea?

Im not argueing anything, you said that was the only example you knew, and i merely pointed out this isnt all a evil nazi plot. Plenty of people were all for it before Hitler got involved.

 

[Masquerouge]

Whether or not you want to have kids is a separate issue; you should have the right to. Why should we be having a debate about an issue of personal choice? What's the debate? Nobody is forcing you to have kids if you think it is morally wrong.

We're having a debate because you think eugenics must imply some form of governmental back-up while I'm saying eugenics are mostly a matter of personal choice.

I'm not sure, I've never thought about it. I guess it depends if I'd rather not be alive than have whatever genetic disorder I hypothetically have. I'd be inclined to say I'd prefer to disorder, and that it's not fair to my child not to let him experience the wonder of life.

Why not have a child without a defect?

So we can all agree that forced eugenics is bad?

Oh yeah Definitely. I think the major point of disagreement here is that I consider eugenics as mostly a matter of private and individual choices.

Can you give a better definition of the issue? Abbadon's definition discussed artificial selection, which is not a self-inflicted process. Few people who do not have serious depression would consider themselves a blight to society that should not be able to reproduce. Most people are grateful for being alive, and they presume that their children would as well, even if they had some sort of genetic illness.

Well maybe a better definition of the issue would be to argue how far you can go to prevent your kid from having a genetical defect.
Regarding the artificial selection, I guess that if you're against abortion you would not want embryo screening. But would spermatozoid and egg screening be okay?

Even if they carry the recessive gene for a terrible genetic disorder, I predict that they would still very often have children. The logic behind this is two fold: nobody wants to be told that their genes are incapable of producing productive children, and few would ever believe that having a genetic disorder is worse than not living. The only way that eugenics can really "advance" a species would be if there was some unbiased arbiter, which would clearly infringe upon the rights of those who might be producing genetically "deficient" children.

To me that issue is whether or not it is acceptable to knowingly have a genetically defective kid when you could have prevented it, and my stance on the issue is that it's akin to hurting your kid. Really bad, and for life. So would you like to be alive if your parents were hurting you everyday?

Regardless, the concept of eugenics is an incredibly weak one from an evolutionary standpoint. If we're seeking to make society better, more productive, and more adaptive to change, then we should be working towards diversity, not away from it. Einstein and Planck were different; would they have arisen if we were working towards a "better" society as defined by some arbiter? Whether or not this society is even temporarily more productive (how do we know the arbiter is right? What gives him or her the ability to know who can and who cannot be a productive member of society?), the long term consequences on the hardiness of the species as well as its productivity would be horrific.

You seem to imply that eugenics means uniformity. I do not see why. You can still have a lot of diversity without the genetical defects. And regarding the question of the arbiter, I think both you and I know very well what a genetical defect is. To me eugenics is not improving the human race by selecting the best traits, it's improving it by removing the defective one. I think there's a huge difference.

 

[Abaddon]

~~~~
hang on a minute abaddon, if the girl had a shortsighted father and autistic brother
you would break up with her for fear of imperfect children?

No, but i wouldnt consider the relationship in the longterm unless we would go via IVF.

 

[Gogf]

Im not argueing anything, you said that was the only example you knew, and i merely pointed out this isnt all a evil nazi plot. Plenty of people were all for it before Hitler got involved.

Once again, why is that relevant? People make mistakes. Hitler was an example of why eugenics can never work. The fact that people weren't able to realize that without a disgusting example is not a good justification for the practice.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I would like to have children who don't have disorders, but I would not know they did until it was too late in my view to do anything about it. I would not intentioanlly bestow any disorder on my children but if they had one I would still raise them.

 

[Masquerouge]

Once again, why is that relevant? People make mistakes. Hitler was an example of why eugenics can never work. The fact that people weren't able to realize that without a disgusting example is not a good justification for the practice.

Correction: Hitler was an example of why state-organized eugenics can never work

 

[Abaddon]

So we can all agree that forced eugenics is bad?

Yep!

Even if they carry the recessive gene for a terrible genetic disorder, I predict that they would still very often have children.

And do so, just through IVF so the recessive gene carrying eggs/sperm are screened.

Regardless, the concept of eugenics is an incredibly weak one from an evolutionary standpoint. If we're seeking to make society better, more productive, and more adaptive to change, then we should be working towards diversity, not away from it. Einstein and Planck were different; would they have arisen if we were working towards a "better" society as defined by some arbiter? Whether or not this society is even temporarily more productive (how do we know the arbiter is right? What gives him or her the ability to know who can and who cannot be a productive member of society?), the long term consequences on the hardiness of the species as well as its productivity would be horrific.

Not really, the lack of genetic diversity only becomes relevant in very small populations, between us we have zillions and zillions of alleles. The loss of shortsightedness, or risk of breast cancer is hardly a bad thing.

In "normal" populations within nature, the mutant alleles that give a advantage thive and the weaker alleles die out. We have created a society were weaker alleles persist.Evolution within humans has slowed majorly, almost to standstill... we are now evolving for increased breeding, nothing more as all other factors have been annulled.

 

[Masquerouge]

I would like to have children who don't have disorders, but I would not know they did until it was too late in my view to do anything about it. I would not intentioanlly bestow any disorder on my children but if they had one I would still raise them.

So would I, with I think the main difference being that I would consider abortion a legitimate choice.

 

[GenMarshall]

I am against Eugenics. It seems to be a way to wead out the regular people and to create an elitist society.

 

[Masquerouge]

I am against Eugenics. It seems to be a way to wead out the regular people and to create an elitist society.

I think I'm going to cry.

 

[Abaddon]

I would like to have children who don't have disorders, but I would not know they did until it was too late in my view to do anything about it. I would not intentioanlly bestow any disorder on my children but if they had one I would still raise them.

Genetic screening? Your not killing anything (you select again eggs and sperm not a zygote)

 

[Masquerouge]

Genetic screening? Your not killing anything (you select again eggs and sperm not a zygote)

Though, to be fair, that is not a 100% guaranty that your kid will not have genetical defects, but it's a pretty good shot.

 

[Abaddon]

true, but it removes any obvious fault that has been passed down the generations.. random new ones may always show up.

 

[GenMarshall]

I think I'm going to cry.

Why are you going to cry?

If it involves restricting reproduction to only a select individual to bread perfict people, I am against that
If it involves using immoral processes to scan and process human eggs and sperm and then implant them invitro, I am strongly against that.
If it involves the use of abortions to flush out and eliminate an unborn human being because that child has a few defects, I am against that as well.

Eugenics, weather it is forced or not, is still wrong in my eyes.

 

[Gogf]

We're having a debate because you think eugenics must imply some form of governmental back-up while I'm saying eugenics are mostly a matter of personal choice.

Okay, let me rephrase: if it's merely personal choice, what's the point of this thread? Asking what our choice is?

Why not have a child without a defect?

How?

Oh yeah Definitely. I think the major point of disagreement here is that I consider eugenics as mostly a matter of private and individual choices.

I don't understand the concept or the reason for this thread if that's what it is. Everyone can make their own choice. It's not a political issue and it's not one that we can really discuss on broad terms with any kind of accuracy or bearing on reality.

Well maybe a better definition of the issue would be to argue how far you can go to prevent your kid from having a genetical defect.
Regarding the artificial selection, I guess that if you're against abortion you would not want embryo screening. But would spermatozoid and egg screening be okay?

I'm against abortion in the third trimester, no matter what the reason, excluding a medical threat to the mother. Before your post, I would have said I supported it before that, but now I'm not so sure. If you intend to have a child, can support them and give them a good life, and choose not to have them because you believe that their life wouldn't be worth living because of a genetic disorder, is that fair? Right now I'm leaning toward the "it's morally wrong but should be allowed by law" stand, but I'm not really sure.

To me that issue is whether or not it is acceptable to knowingly have a genetically defective kid when you could have prevented it, and my stance on the issue is that it's akin to hurting your kid. Really bad, and for life. So would you like to be alive if your parents were hurting you everyday?

That's a terrible analogy. If I had both a genetic disorder and loving parents, I'm quite sure that I would be grateful to be alive. There are people who don't even have this, after all. You're assuming these children would be better off not alive than alive, which, in my view, is a totally unacceptable assumption.

You seem to imply that eugenics means uniformity. I do not see why. You can still have a lot of diversity without the genetical defects. And regarding the question of the arbiter, I think both you and I know very well what a genetical defect is. To me eugenics is not improving the human race by selecting the best traits, it's improving it by removing the defective one. I think there's a huge difference.

No, there really isn't. The lines get blurred. If we root out traits we don't like without letting nature find the best ones, we will eventually end up with a relatively uniform species. The future of our species cannot be entrusted to some people who not have the knowledge of wisdom to realize which traits will be useful in the future.

 

[Abaddon]

If it involves using immoral processes to scan and process human eggs and sperm and then implant them invitro, I am strongly against that.

What immoral processes are those? I didnt realise IVF was frowned upon...