Eugenics

[psyadam]

So what do atheists feel about eugenics in general? Personally, heres how I feel about it:

1. Eugenics should not be used as a tool to play God in picking specific traits in their babies.

2. Using modern science to pick the babies gender is the exception

3. Using Eugenics to avoid horrible genetic defects is another good use for eugenics, however one must be careful not to label small things as genetic defects

Yes I am aware that eugenics was propagandized in Nazi Germany

In regards to the connection between Nazism and eugenics: Not all supporters of eugenics back genocide as suitable. I personally am one of them. Plus, the Nazis got their whole idea from the U.S. where sterilization was very popular in the early 1920's.

As far as your points are concerned, I completely agree with number 1. Science can overstep the boundaries. The notion presented in number 2 is an arbitrary borderline you've set for number 1. It's akin to number1 and I think it should be outlawed as well. Number 3 is the best use of a eugenics program.

[psyadam]

Well I know that the prospect of choosing your babies gender is exciting for many couples, for instance, boys tend to be slightly more popular than girls, and the husband may want a boy and the wife may want a girl, so a comprimise may to have one child of each gender.

[The Judge]

psyadam wrote

So what do atheists feel about eugenics in general? Personally, heres how I feel about it:

1. Eugenics should not be used as a tool to play God in picking specific traits in their babies.

2. Using modern science to pick the babies gender is the exception

3. Using Eugenics to avoid horrible genetic defects is another good use for eugenics, however one must be careful not to label small things as genetic defects

Yes I am aware that eugenics was propagandized in Nazi Germany

1.) Agreed
2.) Oh dear, on what basis is this the exception and how is this defensibly different from a poor Asian familiy killing a new born daughter because they can't afford a dowry and therefore wanted a male?
Let nature take it's course otherwise what will be the result since "boys tend to be slightly more popular than girls" (ref???).
If this skewed sex ratio were allowed to thrive - the human race would simply die out.
50:50 is roughly what nature provides. Upset that balance and humans will simply not be effective survivors.
3.) An admirable if naive sentimnet.
What of all those currently living with genetic disorders and disability. Imagine how stigmatised disabled people are (yes they do have feelings), then magnify this by many factors by saying that what makes them them is a medical condition which we can now eradicate: They would feel even more worthless and disenfranchised from society. Worse still, those cunts who derrogate against disabled people will find greater "justification" for their stigma.

Even supposing all disablities / disorders where identifiable as genetic, where would you draw the line at "small things?"

The use of eugenics by the Nazis was one of the greatest horrors of modern history. By sanctioning it with over-simplified definitions of "small things" one is in danger of starting on a slippery slope, particulalry if one has not properly considered some of the wider implications to all members of society as a whole.

[Victus]

The state has no right to legislate who may and may not breed.

First, seperate 'Eugenics' from individual use of technology to assist in the child birth process.

Screening a fetus for genetic defects is not Eugenics.
Technologically modifying the genetics of a fertilized (or unfertilized) egg is not Eugenics.

It's not possible to 'play god' with relation to Eugenics or individual technological intervention for obvious reasons.

Second... Eugenics has nothing to do with technology, it's a state level philosophy of genetic manipulation... it has been used for centuries to breed livestock, pets, and crops. Whether you use forced selection or technology, Eugenics used on people is a gross violation of civil rights and cannot be tolerated.

Isn't euginics choosing the "best" to breed with "the best"? If that's the case, this kind of thing should never be forced onto humans.

But on the subject of genetic manipulation...

I am somewhat against parents being able to choose gender. Why? Because they wouldn't stop there. Maybe they'd want their kid to have father's hair, and his mum's eyes. And then what if they decide to make sure their kid is the smartest, strongest, and best looking? He'd have an unfair advantage, and could only have one because his parents were rich enough to afford it. And suddenly you have a bigger gap between the rich and the poor, and eventually this may lead to more complications.

The Judge wrote

3.) An admirable if naive sentimnet.
What of all those currently living with genetic disorders and disability. Imagine how stigmatised disabled people are (yes they do have feelings), then magnify this by many factors by saying that what makes them them is a medical condition which we can now eradicate: They would feel even more worthless and disenfranchised from society. Worse still, those cunts who derrogate against disabled people will find greater "justification" for their stigma.

Even supposing all disablities / disorders where identifiable as genetic, where would you draw the line at "small things?"

The use of eugenics by the Nazis was one of the greatest horrors of modern history. By sanctioning it with over-simplified definitions of "small things" one is in danger of starting on a slippery slope, particulalry if one has not properly considered some of the wider implications to all members of society as a whole.

Excellent comment. I know there's some people with autism who post on the internet, and take the whole attempt to develop gentic screening as the world telling them "People like you shouldn't exist." A particularly impressive blog on this topic is http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/.

And since they've developed pre-natal testing for Down's Syndrome, a lot of pregnant women report being pressured by their physician to have the test and abort any fetus with Down's Syndrome, regardless of wheither or not they'd be willing to raise a child with Down's. The assumption being that everyone should want to make sure that people like that never come into existence.

Victus wrote

The state has no right to legislate who may and may not breed.

So the age of consent should be, "as soon as you can reproduce"?

[psyadam]

ako wrote

Excellent comment. I know there's some people with autism who post on the internet, and take the whole attempt to develop gentic screening as the world telling them "People like you shouldn't exist." A particularly impressive blog on this topic is http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/.

Being a homosexual, I can fully understand how autistics would not want a "cure"

edit: I'm reading the wiki article on autism and it actually sounds alot like me...

It's interesting to note that autism is not the only contraversial disorder. Even more common and less severe is Attention Deficit Disorder, and perhaps (not less severe) BiPolar disorder. I knew someone who had bipolar who killed himself, it was quite sad :(

[The Judge]

That's as maybe, but given your favourite subject (homosexuality) and your preoccupation with the social discrimination you suffer, I very much doubt you are autistic. ;)

This is because, autism is essentially a social disorder often accompanied by language and other behavioural problems.

Being heterosexual, homosexual or bi-sexual is a social thing. Attraction to the same or opposite sex is a social thing. Concern for the state of gays / bis / heteros in society is a social thing.

I have met one inspirational woman with autism (high functioning) Ros Blackburn who describes herelf as asexual. She gave an incredible lecture and used this Power Point Presentaion as part of a 2 hour lecture to put across the viewpoint of a person with autism.

She has no desire to partake in a sexual union and consequently has no sexual orientation. She'll masturbate etc. for the sake of pleasure, but has never sought companionship since she is autistic - i.e. self conerned (from the Greek autos meaning self).

Like most mental disorders, people can recognise elements of descriptions in themselves. One can think of many mental disorders as essentially normal human cognitions gone into overdrive.

Have a look at the PPP link and see what you think Psy ;)

[The Judge]

Many disorders are controversial. There are always mass-debates :bop: about what diagnostic criteria should be included various psychiatric classification systems.

The biggest controversy is that the two main systems DSM-IV and ICD-10 are based on and validated using predominantly white / European particiapnts. ICD-10 is better from a multi-cultural perspective, but peoples minority ethnic / cultural beliefs often confuse western psychiatrists who end up over/underdiagnosing what the West calls mental illness.

In terms of genetic modification for physical traits, I don't see how this is so different from what already goes on, say with laser vision correction. This procedure costs a lot of money and improves a physical attribute, one far more significant (and more difficult to improve) than physical strength.

With curing genetic diseases, I disagree completely with Judge's reasoning, i.e. that it would make disabled people feel bad if others were prevented from developing disabilities. There is no justification for allowing people to be born with preventable disabilities; the fact that "Misery loves company" does not justify increasing misery.

[psyadam]

Well, while I was reading the autism article on wikipedia, and they were talking about the "pro-cure" versus "anti-cure" autistics, I couldn't help but laugh and think about the latest X-Men movie. I really liked the latest X-Men movie btw, and I feel like people who want to be cured of something should be able to seek it, while others who are content should not feel obligated to change.

[Choobus]

psyadam wrote

however one must be careful not to label small things as genetic defects

Dude, don't worry, it's called a wang and you're supposed to have one. Ann Coulter isn't, but she's a freak of nature. Yours is meant to be there and is not a genetic defect. (and neither is your oft stated desire to stick it up some dudes back door).