CockneyRebel
Mick Avory, Sensitive brown-eyed Sweet Pea
Joined: Jul 18, 2004
Age: 38
Posts: 87176
Location: In a quiet and peaceful garden, where gentle Mick Avory-like Sweet Peas grow.
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I disagree with that woman's values and beliefs. I feel that every life is precious and that every human life should be protected from conception until natural death. Everybody deserves a birthday.
_________________
The darling, unworldly Mick Avory with hands like shovels, who wouldn't dare choose to hurt a soul: I'm the cuddly, adorable Kink. Sweet Peas: http://s76.photobucket.com/albums/j37/Cocknee/Kinks/Sweet%20Pea%20Smileys/ Other: http://www.mybrowsercash.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
zzmondo
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 19, 2012
Age: 19
Posts: 866
Location: Columbus, Ohio
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CockneyRebel wrote: | | I disagree with that woman's values and beliefs. I feel that every life is precious and that every human life should be protected from conception until natural death. Everybody deserves a birthday. |
I'm behind you on that statement.
_________________
Always open to PM's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Jacoby
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
Posts: 4021
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What is up with all this sicko "ethicists" coming out lately? 'And people wonder why academics get a bad rap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Woofer123
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: Mar 17, 2012
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Eugenism, without a doubt, is a vile philosophy which science must make imperative to rid itself completely of.
There should international laws banning eugenics and it's practices.
It is a sick set of ideas, espoused by equally sick people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 47
Posts: 12751
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Woofer123 wrote: | Eugenism, without a doubt, is a vile philosophy which science must make imperative to rid itself completely of.
There should international laws banning eugenics and it's practices.
It is a sick set of ideas, espoused by equally sick people. |
No argument here.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
techn0teen
Phoenix
![]()
Joined: Sep 15, 2010
Age: 21
Posts: 663
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, eugenics. One of the most half-baked ideas ever created in the history of this planet. Humans, with all their faults and limitations of knowledge, have the nerve and ego to say what is "normal", "healthy", and "valuable".
The main problem I have with eugenics is they practice traitism; the belief that one part of a person's body determines the whole. These beliefs are false as they fail to take into consideration the entire person.
If eugenicists were in a position of political power when Albert Einstein was born, he would have been killed. When Einstein was young, people speculated he might be mentally retarded. Einstein was a late speaker and so are a lot of other aspies.
Eugenicists are most popular where people are most desperate for survival (lack of resources). |
|
| Back to top |
|
splinter
Butterfly
Joined: Feb 27, 2011
Age: 22
Posts: 14
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hahaha i find the whole area of eugenics as incredibly narrow minded. It seems to treat human beings like a resource. Fitting in with a fascist mind set. Putting human life down to cash . And somebody using the excuse ow was like that before preindustrialization simply why don't they go live out in the wilderness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
hanyo
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 01, 2011
Posts: 3443
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shatbat wrote: | | Hum... that article made me think about abortion more than anything... stating that killing a newborn is just the same as doing it in the womb brings a strong case against abortion. |
It doesn't bring a case against abortion for me but the big difference to me is that when a woman is pregnant and doesn't want to be she either has to abort it or have it, there is no other choice. Once it is born if you don't want it you can give it to someone else that does want it.
If they discover a way to take a fetus out of a woman and put it in another woman or an artificial womb and it was widely available and free for the mother I'd rethink my feelings on abortion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sweetleaf
Metalhead
Joined: Jan 07, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 14827
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| zzmondo wrote: | | CockneyRebel wrote: | | I disagree with that woman's values and beliefs. I feel that every life is precious and that every human life should be protected from conception until natural death. Everybody deserves a birthday. |
I'm behind you on that statement. |
How are we defining conception......I mean I hate to be the devils advocate here, but would that mean if someone rapes me for instance I should not have the right to go get that morning after pill and swallow it so I don't have to worry about having a rapists offspring? Not to mention there is no way I could afford to have a baby. Or are we meaning once it starts actually developing?
_________________
It's like alice in wonderland except, my names not alice and this is the real world not a dream. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29309
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Woofer123 wrote: | Eugenism, without a doubt, is a vile philosophy which science must make imperative to rid itself completely of.
. |
What is wrong with intelligent mating to increase the pobability of producing a biologically sound infant? Do you have an issue with quality?
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29309
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:52 pm Post subject: Re: Infanticide |
|
|
| jojobean wrote: |
Ironicly anyone who believes and advocates eugenics, in my belief, is not the least bit "normal".
|
Are people who are involved in breeding show dogs abnormal? Breeding show dogs and such like is eugenics applied.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 47
Posts: 12751
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:15 pm Post subject: Re: Infanticide |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | jojobean wrote: |
Ironicly anyone who believes and advocates eugenics, in my belief, is not the least bit "normal".
|
Are people who are involved in breeding show dogs abnormal? Breeding show dogs and such like is eugenics applied.
ruveyn |
But a dog and a human being are worlds apart.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29309
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:05 pm Post subject: Re: Infanticide |
|
|
| Kraichgauer wrote: |
But a dog and a human being are worlds apart.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
Eugenics is applied genetics. It is scientific selective breeding and is done with plants, animals and people. What is wrong with careful mate selection? Is it unethical to think about the kind of children one might bring into the world?
People with Taye-Sachs disease in their family line should seriously consider not breeding, for example. Or people with cystic fibrosis. I am not talking about involuntary sterilization, but of careful consideration about ones fitness for making children. People with faulty genetic background can always adopt. There are plenty of children who need parents.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
aghogday
KATiE MiA
Joined: Nov 26, 2010
Posts: 4744
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | Woofer123 wrote: | Eugenism, without a doubt, is a vile philosophy which science must make imperative to rid itself completely of.
. |
What is wrong with intelligent mating to increase the pobability of producing a biologically sound infant? Do you have an issue with quality?
ruveyn |
There is scientific evidence that "Personal Eugenics" is already an inherent part of human nature, and has always been part of it, just as it is in the rest of the animal kingdom.
Incestous marriage is both inherently taboo and illegal, and first cousin marriage is a criminal offense in some states, in part, because it is understood to result in a higher risk of genetic disorders among the children of these marriages.
The majority of individuals that have avoided sexual contact with their close blood relatives have participated in the natural practice of personal eugenics. In most states in the US, 1st cousin marriage is restricted or prohibited and in some states like Texas it is a criminal offense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage
So, per marriages among blood relatives, personal Eugenics is widely personally practiced and socially/legally enforced, however since it is inherently understood as something to be avoided; there aren't too many people getting upset about this aspect of eugenics both personally practiced and socially/legally prohibited, that reduces the potential for genetic abnormalities.
And those that do oppose the restriction of marrying their first cousin, refer to it as discrimination; not likely that eugenics would be a politically correct term, but it is in part a basis for legal restrictions on first cousin marriage in the US.
Most women given a choice of aborting a child with genetic abnormalities, will take this choice, and are at times described disparingly with the term "Eugenics", however a common slur in backwoods communities is that interbreeding has resulted in genetic abnormalities; less politically correct terms are commonly used to described the perceived genetic abnormalities.
So in these cases one group of people is slurred disparingly with the term eugenics for avoiding genetic abnormalities in pregnancies and the other group is slurred disparingly for not appropriately practicing eugenics in avoiding genetic abnormalities in children, in the avoidance of interbreeding.
Science/Technology has enhanced that ability for personal eugenics, through prenatal care, contraceptives, voluntary sterilization, and the legality of abortion.
Per statistics over 90% of women provided a choice do practice personal eugenics, when the information and a legal choice to abort a child with Down syndrome is provided. It is likely that the same similiar inherent taboos that normally discourage one from marrying their sibling. are in part responsible for the choice for an abortion in a case where there are genetic abnormalities.
Morals and ethics, don't always reflect nature and reality.
Interestingly, while modern technologies that provide greater choices for personal eugenics through birth control enhances the chances of survival for entire families when resources are low, and allows individuals to abort individuals with genetic problems; it also provides healthy individuals, with unlimited resources, the choice not to reproduce at all, which is counter to the bio/social ideology of the historical eugenics movement, and even counter to the natural human instinct that most healthy individuals with resources possess to reproduce.
The results, in part, are some developing countries, that have high resources, that are not maintaining their populations.
The ethicists are providing an academic argument of the potential of aborting healthy infants that have survived birth for no other reason than a personal choice. It's not just an ethical issue; it is as much of a natural taboo to kill a healthy human infant when resources are plentiful, as it is for someone to marry their sibling. However, interestingly enough, the natural propensity of personal positive eugenics plays a role in the taboo, to promote the survival of the entire species.
The level of natural taboo is so high, that the academics that discussed it in an article, received death threats for even entertaining an ethical argument for it.
Aborting a pregnancy has a similiar natural taboo factor, for some individuals that haven't experienced a personal circumstance that results in such a decision; it's unlikely that the controversy will ever end, not just because of morals/ethics/legalities, but also because of the overall natural drive to continue the species as a whole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
A small irony, the science of Eugenics was based in part on Darwinian evolution, and Darwin married his first cousin. When the only accessible mate is a first cousin, or economics/cultural factors come into play, those factors can overide the concerns of the slightly greater potential for genetic abnormalities in children.
More ironic was the The First International Congress of Eugenics in 1912 was supported by many prominent persons, including: it's president Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin and his first cousin, Emma. 
To suggest that one is not impacted by personal eugenics, is to suggest that one is not human.
We can call it something else like I found this trait attractive in a mate, but "natural eugenics" plays a role even when reproduction is not the result.
Science and technology, expands upon the natural propensity for eugenics among many living things; and most ironically, changing that "natural process" of eugenics, seen most everywhere in the animal kingdom, with no full understanding of what the overall positive or negative impact might eventually be to the species as a whole.
Most of us eat the result of the "modern science of eugenics", when we bite into a "perfect looking" piece of corn on the cob. There's no escaping eugenics; it's not just a philosophy or science, it's a way of life for most everything living thing that inhabits the earth.
And finally, there is no one to blame for it, except for DNA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29309
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techn0teen wrote: | Ah, eugenics. One of the most half-baked ideas ever created in the history of this planet. Humans, with all their faults and limitations of knowledge, have the nerve and ego to say what is "normal", "healthy", and "valuable".
. |
Half baked? Most of the plant and animal products we use are the result of selective breeding. Almost all the wheat in bread is genetically modified or selectively bred ( or is it selective bread?).
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
