Abortion & Eugenics

[Bill Mattocks]

The shallow people will support eugenics, others will be forced to compete, those too poor will fall further behind. Nothing seperates the poor from the rich like access to medical technology.

Now that I'm reading about it, the topic of the opposite of eugenics (dysgenics) argues that human beings are provably becoming less intelligent because the stupid breed more than the intelligent. In this model, rather than the poor (or if you will, the uneducated/ignorant and therefor often poor) do indeed inherit the earth, and in fact bring human intellect down on average by destroying any genetic tendency towards higher intelligence.

In some ways, once might even consider it a survival trait; high intelligence is not a survival trait in our modern society. Being stupid, uneducated, but able to somehow 'get along' and be able to breed unfettered seems to be the 'nature-preferred' model and will outcompete intelligent (and therefore often wealthy) people. In the dysgenics model, the poor win because they're stupid and breed without restraint. It's interesting to consider. I could see such notions giving way to violent ideologies.

 

[cdunn]

That bright line turns out to be pretty murky, unfortunately. Even when "brain waves" can be detected in the fetus, that is not consciousness, at least not yet. Isolated neurons in a cell culture dish will display "brain waves" of their own, and no one thinks a handful of neurons firing in a plate is self-conscious. When neurons begin firing in the fetus, the connections are still too simple to support consciousness. At some point consciousness is definitely there, but no one can pinpoint a moment where it emerges. My opinion? It's going to be a slow continuum, like very slowly waking up from a deep sleep, and there is no single moment we will be able to point to that defines the beginning of consciousness.

This is true, but there's also going to be a point where we can no longer stand up and go, 'no, we know that nothing is going on here yet.' I would think that the complete negative is more important, ethically, than the fact that the transition is slow.

 

[MA-Caver]

http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/gattaca/

You beat me to it. This film is important because it shows one POSSIBLE future. Designer babies where they'll have all the attributes a parent can wish for and the child is a "welcomed and privileged member of society" where as all others are regulated down to lower caste positions in society and not allowed to rise above their station(s). After seeing the film (and repeated viewings) I knew that it is a society that we must fervently fight against having. It's just wrong on so many levels.
In such a society a Stephen Hawking would never have been nor allowed the accolades and honors and respect his mind commands in today's society.
As for terminating the pregnancy due to possible (or confirmed) birth-defect... no. Especially no if it doesn't endanger the life of the mother (or child). I am against it for spiritual reasons. My belief is that such children are born to test the compassion and amount of love, patience and understanding of the parents. Autistic children are probably those whose minds are so far advanced/developed beyond ours that we cannot begin to "catch up" to them. They didn't ask to be that way, nor are down-syndrome or cerebral palsy or any other type of birth-defect. I was born with a cleft palate... should I have been terminated?? In an Aryan dominated world, I probably would've been and Martial Talk would've been bereft of my posts... a sad thing indeed :wink2: .
If a child is born to you and your mate that way then how much love do you really have inside you to care for it in the best way possible under your current circumstances.

If the birth of the child would endanger the life of the mother and/or child then termination would be the best option IMO. Example, my present GF (previously married/divorced) gotten pregnant (unplanned) and she already has a weak heart and 40% lung capacity. Pregnancy takes a physical toll upon a woman's body to begin with... provided she's reasonably healthy to begin with. With her, after dozens of tests, it was determined that neither she nor the baby would survive by the end of the 2nd term. So the pregnancy was terminated. It was hard on her because she was loving being pregnant. Yet she also wanted to survive. Now she has a IUD to protect her in the future.
Another example... a friend and his wife had 4 healthy strong boys and were pleased with the 5th pregnancy. Both aren't poor but do live marginally enough to keep the 4 boys comfortable, well fed and etc. One is now a newly recruited Marine. The 5th however was tested in the womb and found to be short a chromosome and thus was born as a Down Syndrome child. The couple were offered termination but decided to keep it anyway in spite of pending medical bills and the child was born a week premature, which started the monstrous medical bills they now have to start paying off (insurance not withstanding). It imposed a financial hardship on the already struggling family but they're happy and proud of their child as much as they are with their 4 other "normal" children. Their personal beliefs are that the child is fortunate to not understand the evils in this world, that it would be relatively innocent throughout it's life. They also realize that the child may never grow old or have it's own. It's retardation is too severe to be considered "high-functioning" and will have to be cared for throughout it's life. Both parents are fine with that. It's a good child and much loved. How many of his kind are sent to boarding schools 9-10 months out of the year? How many are simply abandoned at orphanages or adoption agencies or centers?
Having a child specially tailored is selfish, egotistical and just plain mean-hearted IMO. Take what life gives you and make the best of it.

 

[Empty Hands]

If a child is born to you and your mate that way then how much love do you really have inside you to care for it in the best way possible under your current circumstances.

Have you ever raised a child with serious birth defects or congenital diseases, or known someone who has? It's easy for you to say that someone should raise a child no matter what, but raising some children takes a monstrous toll on their family, emotional, physical and financial. Sometimes such children die young and in pain anyways. I wouldn't make such a blanket judgment, not when the cost to someone else is so high. It is their decision to make, they really shouldn't be judged for it.

 

[Twin Fist]

i suppose someone would accuse me of being a facist if i said that people should be implanted with a BC device and have to pass an IQ test to get it removed after they are old enough.....

 

[Empty Hands]

i suppose someone would accuse me of being a facist if i said that people should be implanted with a BC device and have to pass an IQ test to get it removed after they are old enough.....

Someone certainly would...

 

[Sukerkin]

It is ghosted with fascism to suggest such a thing but I'm not sure it wouldn't be a good idea in the long run. Maybe not an IQ test in the simplest of meanings that we are now familiar with but certainly some measure to stop the decline of the species. For it is true, the ignorant/poverty-stricken proliferate and the educated/prosperous fade away - not an outcome to welcome, no matter how egalitarian it is.

 

[Empty Hands]

It is ghosted with fascism to suggest such a thing but I'm not sure it wouldn't be a good idea in the long run. Maybe not an IQ test in the simplest of meanings that we are now familiar with but certainly some measure to stop the decline of the species.

Same problems as always. Who decides what constitutes "decline"? Who decides who the undesirables are and who keeps them from breeding? Using what means? Humanity is not competent to exercise such power, which is why fundamental human rights are so important. If we can only stop the "decline" by exercising tyranny, then we don't deserve to survive.

For it is true, the ignorant/poverty-stricken proliferate and the educated/prosperous fade away - not an outcome to welcome, no matter how egalitarian it is.

Birth rates decline as living standards increase. As living standards are increasing even in the Third World, the population is expected to level off and maintain later in this century. I'm not sure how anyone could see this as anything but a good thing. Our planet has a finite capacity, which technology can ameliorate but only until a certain degree. If we all want to live like those of us in the First World, the population must stabilize.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

i suppose someone would accuse me of being a facist if i said that people should be implanted with a BC device and have to pass an IQ test to get it removed after they are old enough.....

Aside from the fact that doing so pretty much takes a flying leap over the privacy concerns that the abortion compromise is based on......that's idea's just screwed up to begin with. Nevermind the question of which side of the child-making process gets the BC device automatically installed at birth.

 

[Twin Fist]

oh, dont get me wrong, i dont think the idea is legal, viable, or advisable

I just think there might be a good side to it.....and if you met some of the reatrds that give birth, that WE ALL SUPPORT with our tax dollars, you might re-think it

 

[MA-Caver]

Have you ever raised a child with serious birth defects or congenital diseases, or known someone who has? It's easy for you to say that someone should raise a child no matter what, but raising some children takes a monstrous toll on their family, emotional, physical and financial. Sometimes such children die young and in pain anyways. I wouldn't make such a blanket judgment, not when the cost to someone else is so high. It is their decision to make, they really shouldn't be judged for it.

I say this gently Empty Hands... go back to my post and pick up where I talked about "Another example:" and thus I DO know what this family went through and not by hear-say or was "told"... they're very good friends of mine that I've known for years ... likewise I've other friends who have disabled children and have on occasion been a nanny to them... so umm... yeah I think I DO happen to have a very good idea of what a family goes through, after knowing various families throughout my life. No blanket statement I make... I have also seen children rejected simply because they were DEAF. I've known families to adopt inner-city children because their crack-smoking mommas didn't want them anymore and the kids have either mild or severe defects depending upon how much of that crap their worthless, don't give a crap except for the dope mommas smoked/used during pregnancy.
So please... I may post a lot of tongue in cheek stuff... but when it comes to kids and the love that they so desperately need and sadly how thousands of them don't get it, I'll be serious as a heart attack and share my experiences/observations/thoughts/feelings on the matter.
:asian:

 

[Tez3]

I don't disagree that this will and even has happened, but I respectfully think you're sidestepping the question. Presume the parents have selected as best they can for whatever eugenic properties they wish; a child that matches the couch, or one with a big brain or an eventual height of over six feet tall. Then, prenatal genetic testing tells them that despite their best efforts, this is not to be with this particular fetus. How now?

To be honest I don't know, being Jewish means that our community here at least tests for a condition called Tay-Sachs that is predominently carried by people who are genetically Jewish. We've chosen, most of us, to be tested to see if we carry that gene so that we can decide whether to have children or not. Some parents chose not to test nor do they test the foetus, a child with Tay-Sachs will die before they are four usually after suffering a lot. I suppose the answer is that it is down to the individual, I can't answer for anyone else.
As for chosing eye colour , hair etc there are always going to be selfish stupid people. Chosing the sex of your child could be important though as some conditions are gender specific.
One thing though the sheer amount of posts since your first I think shows that people will discuss this issue even if they don't agree! Discussions can only be good though, for me it helps me think about my own position, I can read and say, oh no don't agree with that or yes, exactly right or quite often..ah I didn't think of that! Nice one Bill!

 

[Sukerkin]

Same problems as always. Who decides what constitutes "decline"? Who decides who the undesirables are and who keeps them from breeding?

I do of course - silly person to ask such a question!

Humanity is not competent to exercise such power, which is why fundamental human rights are so important. If we can only stop the "decline" by exercising tyranny, then we don't deserve to survive.

Speak for yourself, Bio-boy! I'm a Liberal Fascist AND a historian AND an economist and so am perfectly placed to make such decisions {double }.

Birth rates decline as living standards increase. As living standards are increasing even in the Third World, the population is expected to level off and maintain later in this century. I'm not sure how anyone could see this as anything but a good thing. Our planet has a finite capacity, which technology can ameliorate but only until a certain degree. If we all want to live like those of us in the First World, the population must stabilize.

More seriously, absolutely. That is why it is important in the long term to aim for stable populations, living in non-boom-and-bust economies, fed by sustainable agriculture. Otherwise we're heading down the same road as the Maya and the Roman's.

 

[Jenna]

I think congratulations to you all for discussing some uncomfortable issues with a good degree of objectivity, morality and philosophy.

I think though that we are able to take dispassionate stances in theoretical matters of organised programmes of eugenics only because we ourselves feel that we / our loved ones / our potential progeny etc. would "meet the cut" as it were, whether that be in terms of physical integrity, genetic disposition or bizarrely, IQ.

There is no other way to see it. This is dangerous ideology.

 

[Tez3]

I think congratulations to you all for discussing some uncomfortable issues with a good degree of objectivity, morality and philosophy.

I think though that we are able to take dispassionate stances in theoretical matters of organised programmes of eugenics only because we ourselves feel that we / our loved ones / our potential progeny etc. would "meet the cut" as it were, whether that be in terms of physical integrity, genetic disposition or bizarrely, IQ.

There is no other way to see it. This is dangerous ideology.

It is indeed. With the best will in the world and with others well-being at the forefront of our minds we can still be led into doing something that is indefensable.

 

[Twin Fist]

no one ever talks about the "fundamental human right" of a baby to be born without the mother killing it cuz she doesnt want to lose her figure, or she was too stupid to figure out her birth control....

 

[RandomPhantom700]

no one ever talks about the "fundamental human right" of a baby to be born without the mother killing it cuz she doesnt want to lose her figure, or she was too stupid to figure out her birth control....

Actually, we have. This is just as disgusting a reason as eugenics to have an abortion. However, as I and others have said, a pregnant woman's rights under Roe v. Wade extend up to a certain point and do not change based on her motivation. It's her right.

I'm sorry you don't agree with the response, but it is being addressed.

 

[Twin Fist]

why is there a "right" to murder a baby right up to the minutes BEFORE it is born?

abort an 8 week fetus, distastefull, but whatever

abort a 28 week BABY, thats another thing all together

for that matter, why is it ok to murder a BABY but not to execute a murderer?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

In my reading on this subject, I have discovered that there are groups that argue for the right, not of any unborn child (or fetus if you prefer) to survive, but of specific unborn children; for example, those with Down Syndrome. It sounds daft to me, but apparently there are those who feel that being born with Down Syndrome is a 'class' of people who are being systematically removed from the population through selective abortion. I had no idea, really.

Let me take that and propose a thought experiment. Let us say (I realize it's not true, but please play along) that a genetic component to homosexuality was discovered. A simple prenatal test can determine whether or not a child will be born with a predisposition to homosexuality. Now, given this, is it OK for a family (or a woman) to choose not to give birth to a child who will most likely grow to become a homosexual person? What if the end result is a world without homosexuals? I am not proposing this thought experiment out of any antipathy towards homosexuals, nor do I believe that such a thing is possible; the point here is to place an immovable object in front of an irresistible force so that we can examine (mentally) what the outcome might be. Your thoughts?

 

[Tez3]

In my reading on this subject, I have discovered that there are groups that argue for the right, not of any unborn child (or fetus if you prefer) to survive, but of specific unborn children; for example, those with Down Syndrome. It sounds daft to me, but apparently there are those who feel that being born with Down Syndrome is a 'class' of people who are being systematically removed from the population through selective abortion. I had no idea, really.

Let me take that and propose a thought experiment. Let us say (I realize it's not true, but please play along) that a genetic component to homosexuality was discovered. A simple prenatal test can determine whether or not a child will be born with a predisposition to homosexuality. Now, given this, is it OK for a family (or a woman) to choose not to give birth to a child who will most likely grow to become a homosexual person? What if the end result is a world without homosexuals? I am not proposing this thought experiment out of any antipathy towards homosexuals, nor do I believe that such a thing is possible; the point here is to place an immovable object in front of an irresistible force so that we can examine (mentally) what the outcome might be. Your thoughts?

There are various degrees of Downs Syndrome with the worse entailing heart and other medical conditions that make living terribly difficult for the child.
Most parents I think are willing to take their children 'as they come', loving them whatever but there has always been some who for their own selfish reasons will not accept what nature sends, before prenatal tests these parents have sent their unacceptable children away or even killed them as the Trojans did when they left handicapped and weakling children exposed on mountains. Female babies in some countries are still killed, a boy child wouldn't even if a test showed they were liable to be gay, they'd simply be taught not to show their true nature thus causing untold damage to them.