Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Eugenics. Is it really that bad philosphy?
11 Answers
The human condition is part genetic and part socialisation. This can be argued politically to a degree, with the more left of centre opting for the nuture debate in relation to crime, under-achieving etc.
Eugenics, advocated by Hitler himself are seen as a very right wing way of playing God with our children. Modelling them before they are even born, creating a "perfect child" (whether that is the 6 foot Ayrian blondie blue-eyes in Hitlers opinion).
An interesting debate on local radio focused on the argument "Are Eugenics really that bad?"
Any sane person would argue that children should be brought up with morals and good health, whatever political spectrum they come from.
So, if a criminal gene could be isolated or a growth hormone altered, or genes pre-destined for cancer, heart problems etc could be isolated and thus altered as well, is this such a bad thing??
A few things spring to mind. The 24 week abortion rule can be extended if the baby is a spastic, then surely this is a mild form of Eugenics, albeit destructive. Yet the marxist brigade would tend to favour "pro-choice".
The argument for designer babies came up. What difference does it make if you genetically alter your baby or dress them up in designer gear?? Is it not right that a parent would want a healthy and beautiful baby?? So why not change the genes as opposed to change the baby?
Also, evidence (non-political) has strongly suggested that women choose their men as potential mates and subconsciously look at the future offspring. Hence they elect the class tall, dark, handsome and further intelligent male to have better children. Is this not a form of Eugenics to a small degree? Cont.....
Eugenics, advocated by Hitler himself are seen as a very right wing way of playing God with our children. Modelling them before they are even born, creating a "perfect child" (whether that is the 6 foot Ayrian blondie blue-eyes in Hitlers opinion).
An interesting debate on local radio focused on the argument "Are Eugenics really that bad?"
Any sane person would argue that children should be brought up with morals and good health, whatever political spectrum they come from.
So, if a criminal gene could be isolated or a growth hormone altered, or genes pre-destined for cancer, heart problems etc could be isolated and thus altered as well, is this such a bad thing??
A few things spring to mind. The 24 week abortion rule can be extended if the baby is a spastic, then surely this is a mild form of Eugenics, albeit destructive. Yet the marxist brigade would tend to favour "pro-choice".
The argument for designer babies came up. What difference does it make if you genetically alter your baby or dress them up in designer gear?? Is it not right that a parent would want a healthy and beautiful baby?? So why not change the genes as opposed to change the baby?
Also, evidence (non-political) has strongly suggested that women choose their men as potential mates and subconsciously look at the future offspring. Hence they elect the class tall, dark, handsome and further intelligent male to have better children. Is this not a form of Eugenics to a small degree? Cont.....
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bewlay Bros. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Cont......Finally, people say I have some prejudices which is hog wash. However, I have nothing whatsoever against gaylords. I do not like bi-sexuals but full blown ones are fine in my book. But if, and it is a big IF, a gaylord gene is isolated, would parents want this removed from their child? Would anybody really want a gay child? Yes, they are accepted without issue, rightfully so, but with the lack of future grandchildren, prejudice they will encounter etc, I am sure they would prefer to stick with hetro children if truth be told.
So are Eugenics really that bad?
So are Eugenics really that bad?
its a really sticky question ... if i agreed that eugenics was a good thing then i wouldnt be here, my life would have been ended before it even began, because of someone elses view of what was best. It dosent feel like the best to me because i am happy, productive to society, and make other people happy.
However, there are certain attributes that society would undoubtedly be better without. the danger of course is that what those attributes are very subjective so who would make the decisions? out of 60 odd million peple in the uk, there are those that think, for example that petty criminality isnt such a bad thing, whereas there are others who think that could quite easily be engineered out.
is there anyone who would say that someone who is going to face a lifetime of pain and disability wuld be better off not being born? i bet there would be but again i say who are these people who can make decisions on behalf of others?
However, there are certain attributes that society would undoubtedly be better without. the danger of course is that what those attributes are very subjective so who would make the decisions? out of 60 odd million peple in the uk, there are those that think, for example that petty criminality isnt such a bad thing, whereas there are others who think that could quite easily be engineered out.
is there anyone who would say that someone who is going to face a lifetime of pain and disability wuld be better off not being born? i bet there would be but again i say who are these people who can make decisions on behalf of others?
Sadly it seems true that the only thing we learn from history is that people don't learn from history.
Are you planning to set up a group to enforce the correct breeding of the country? You could deck them out in snappy uniforms.
Eugenics is the opposite of choice. It is the attempt to forcibly direct the breeding of a society to try to achieve some goal.
It is the forcible separation of those not approved to reproduce together.
It is sterilisation at gunpoint.
You are mixing up the abortion argument - in which the family makes the decision with an appalling and discredited pseudo-science with a really nasty history.
They are very very different things
Are you planning to set up a group to enforce the correct breeding of the country? You could deck them out in snappy uniforms.
Eugenics is the opposite of choice. It is the attempt to forcibly direct the breeding of a society to try to achieve some goal.
It is the forcible separation of those not approved to reproduce together.
It is sterilisation at gunpoint.
You are mixing up the abortion argument - in which the family makes the decision with an appalling and discredited pseudo-science with a really nasty history.
They are very very different things
A few points.
- Without ugliness, beauty cannot exist.
- Without choice, morality cannot exist. Would you rather live with robots who are programmed to do only good, or people who behave well perhaps less frequently but who have overcome the temptation to behave badly?
- The very fact that you use the term 'gaylords' suggests that do have something against them.
- Everyone is bi-sexual to some degree.
- Without ugliness, beauty cannot exist.
- Without choice, morality cannot exist. Would you rather live with robots who are programmed to do only good, or people who behave well perhaps less frequently but who have overcome the temptation to behave badly?
- The very fact that you use the term 'gaylords' suggests that do have something against them.
- Everyone is bi-sexual to some degree.
Just a few points of contention.
Jake peg leg. I am not mixing up the abortion argument, I am comparing it. I am very much pro-choice (which is in line with my liberal attitude). Abortion is a choice against nature. It is carried out when the baby is a spastic because both the unborn and the parents will have a better quality of life if it never lived. Also, if the health of the mother is at risk, the baby may be aborted. Is this not the having a "designer life". How is this different from a "designer baby"? It is adapting science (abortion is a scientfic (re: medical) procedure, the same as genetic modifications. So abolishion of the gene (termination) is better than altering it?? mmmm I have a drip in my spare bathroom tap, I must therefore knock my house down!!!
Quinlad.
I am not in the least bit bi-sexual. What a silly statement. And my use of the word gaylord is not, nor has ever been offensive?? It is was, who is offended?? A gay man being called a Lord??? i would love to be a lord. the only people who takes umbrage at such terms are left wing, politically correct marxist tw4ts, who deserve to die. So who cares? I can categorically swear on my Father's life, I hold no ill will or prejudice to gaylords whatsoever.
SP, as ever, your deep insight in to such matters is welcoming. As an only child, I must admit to taking umbrage to my Mothers new wallpaper.
I did hear once, and have said on here before, that I knew a mother who wanted a gaylord son, on the selfish pretension that the only woman her son would ever truly love was his mother.
Depending on your politics, I find this quite touching.
Jake peg leg. I am not mixing up the abortion argument, I am comparing it. I am very much pro-choice (which is in line with my liberal attitude). Abortion is a choice against nature. It is carried out when the baby is a spastic because both the unborn and the parents will have a better quality of life if it never lived. Also, if the health of the mother is at risk, the baby may be aborted. Is this not the having a "designer life". How is this different from a "designer baby"? It is adapting science (abortion is a scientfic (re: medical) procedure, the same as genetic modifications. So abolishion of the gene (termination) is better than altering it?? mmmm I have a drip in my spare bathroom tap, I must therefore knock my house down!!!
Quinlad.
I am not in the least bit bi-sexual. What a silly statement. And my use of the word gaylord is not, nor has ever been offensive?? It is was, who is offended?? A gay man being called a Lord??? i would love to be a lord. the only people who takes umbrage at such terms are left wing, politically correct marxist tw4ts, who deserve to die. So who cares? I can categorically swear on my Father's life, I hold no ill will or prejudice to gaylords whatsoever.
SP, as ever, your deep insight in to such matters is welcoming. As an only child, I must admit to taking umbrage to my Mothers new wallpaper.
I did hear once, and have said on here before, that I knew a mother who wanted a gaylord son, on the selfish pretension that the only woman her son would ever truly love was his mother.
Depending on your politics, I find this quite touching.
Deep in their hearts mums know that it's always useful to have a gay son.
Perhaps not if they have only one son, but the 'spare' in 'an heir and a spare' is much more useful if gay.
To whit:
1. Mothers of gay sons can always look forward to at least one tastefully chosen Christmas gift.
2. Mothers of gay sons will always have someone on their side whenever they have an argument with their husbands.
3. Mothers of gay sons can look forward to the time when their sons equally gay sons fuss over them for no apparent reason.
4. Other women get old, mothers of gay sons tend to just get 'fabulous'. No-one is yet sure why this is.
5. Mothers of gay sons will never, ever have to know the offside rule.
Unfortunately it doesn't work out the same with mothers of lesbians. The best they can wish for is that they have a child who can put up shelves or shift a piano when called for.
Perhaps not if they have only one son, but the 'spare' in 'an heir and a spare' is much more useful if gay.
To whit:
1. Mothers of gay sons can always look forward to at least one tastefully chosen Christmas gift.
2. Mothers of gay sons will always have someone on their side whenever they have an argument with their husbands.
3. Mothers of gay sons can look forward to the time when their sons equally gay sons fuss over them for no apparent reason.
4. Other women get old, mothers of gay sons tend to just get 'fabulous'. No-one is yet sure why this is.
5. Mothers of gay sons will never, ever have to know the offside rule.
Unfortunately it doesn't work out the same with mothers of lesbians. The best they can wish for is that they have a child who can put up shelves or shift a piano when called for.
Just to be pedantic, you said " both the unborn and the parents will have a better quality of life if it never lived."
If something is unborn, who can it have a quality of life contadiction there.
Anyway, that said, I don't agree with the whole eugenics arument. In my very humble opinion with my limited experience in this field, there should be no outside interverntion in the creation of human life, if a baby is born with blue eyes and auburn hair then so be it, if it's born with a leaning towards a criminal lifestyle, again, so be it.
If Hitlers parents had had his political leanings and access to eugenics, then he would never have been born, he was hardly tall, blond and ayrian was he?
If something is unborn, who can it have a quality of life contadiction there.
Anyway, that said, I don't agree with the whole eugenics arument. In my very humble opinion with my limited experience in this field, there should be no outside interverntion in the creation of human life, if a baby is born with blue eyes and auburn hair then so be it, if it's born with a leaning towards a criminal lifestyle, again, so be it.
If Hitlers parents had had his political leanings and access to eugenics, then he would never have been born, he was hardly tall, blond and ayrian was he?
sp1814
sorry mate, you are also wrong
Unfortunately it doesn't work out the same with mothers of lesbians. The best they can wish for is that they have a child who can put up shelves or shift a piano when called for.
I happen to know two young girls who are both lesbians and between them couldn't shift a toy piano let alone a grand or upright piano, in fact they are both more girly than your gay son analogy
sorry mate, you are also wrong
Unfortunately it doesn't work out the same with mothers of lesbians. The best they can wish for is that they have a child who can put up shelves or shift a piano when called for.
I happen to know two young girls who are both lesbians and between them couldn't shift a toy piano let alone a grand or upright piano, in fact they are both more girly than your gay son analogy
Eugenics is the attempt to steer a population's genetic evolution.
That is different from abortion because the couple involved has a choice.
If you stop giving the couple involved a choice and start to say all babies with certain characteristics must be aborted - that is Eugenics.
If doctors were to start performing abortions based on the couple's asthetic desire for a child with blonde hair - that would be worrying and probably should not be allowed but it still wouldn't be Eugenics.
There is significant concern that abortions are performed on inapropriate grounds like cleft palate in this case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Jepson
But that's not Eugenics - there's light years between that and arresting a woman and forcibly terminating her pregnancy because a gentic test claims she might be carrying a child with a supposed "criminal gene".
So the answer is Eugenics are bad - really, really bad!
That is different from abortion because the couple involved has a choice.
If you stop giving the couple involved a choice and start to say all babies with certain characteristics must be aborted - that is Eugenics.
If doctors were to start performing abortions based on the couple's asthetic desire for a child with blonde hair - that would be worrying and probably should not be allowed but it still wouldn't be Eugenics.
There is significant concern that abortions are performed on inapropriate grounds like cleft palate in this case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Jepson
But that's not Eugenics - there's light years between that and arresting a woman and forcibly terminating her pregnancy because a gentic test claims she might be carrying a child with a supposed "criminal gene".
So the answer is Eugenics are bad - really, really bad!
Yes eugenics is bad. Historically it has been the forcible control of conception/breeding and on occasion murder of those who were deemed not to fit. As jake comments this isn�t about people choosing partners because they consider they will make a good parent, but all about imposition and control.
One perceived downside (apart from moral and ethical) is that if you could �breed� out certain characteristics there may be an unwelcome side effect. For instance if you could breed out aggression as a means of controlling the violent underclass that inhabit your Britain, you may also find that when your want to deal with your perceived enemy, instead of testosterone charged fodder for your Army, you have a bunch of social workers!
Most scientific types tell us that it will be almost impossible to eliminate the part of the gene that causes the nasty bit, such as terrible illness, without eliminating other vital parts as well. In addition what is nasty bits and what are not are very subjective. Some people with Downs Syndrome for example argue to eradicate their chromosome defect is an attempt to eliminate genetic diversity, not better not worse, just different. That some parts of society discriminate against them is the fault of the rest of society. Historically black people were classed as secondary race, surely not even you with your extreme views would suggest that black people should have been prevented from existence to �save� them the awful impact of discrimination and racism
Finally if you are not already converted, think about the implications of such programmes if the control was in the hands of the wrong person. Say, left wing feminist nutters like myself were managing breeding. For starters, Chavs, drug addicts, Muslims and Lesbians would be forced to breed at an increased rate, whilst socio economic groups 3+ would only be allowed to breed females, any middle class/upper class male children would be exposed at
One perceived downside (apart from moral and ethical) is that if you could �breed� out certain characteristics there may be an unwelcome side effect. For instance if you could breed out aggression as a means of controlling the violent underclass that inhabit your Britain, you may also find that when your want to deal with your perceived enemy, instead of testosterone charged fodder for your Army, you have a bunch of social workers!
Most scientific types tell us that it will be almost impossible to eliminate the part of the gene that causes the nasty bit, such as terrible illness, without eliminating other vital parts as well. In addition what is nasty bits and what are not are very subjective. Some people with Downs Syndrome for example argue to eradicate their chromosome defect is an attempt to eliminate genetic diversity, not better not worse, just different. That some parts of society discriminate against them is the fault of the rest of society. Historically black people were classed as secondary race, surely not even you with your extreme views would suggest that black people should have been prevented from existence to �save� them the awful impact of discrimination and racism
Finally if you are not already converted, think about the implications of such programmes if the control was in the hands of the wrong person. Say, left wing feminist nutters like myself were managing breeding. For starters, Chavs, drug addicts, Muslims and Lesbians would be forced to breed at an increased rate, whilst socio economic groups 3+ would only be allowed to breed females, any middle class/upper class male children would be exposed at
1 to 11 of 11
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
News12 mins ago
Will There Be A Christmas Top Of The...
Artists25 mins ago
Film, Media & TV26 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles42 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.