sterilizing & segregating the incapable

Well, for one thing, there is the probability that you would not be here, if such a policy was adopted before your birth. Now, the fact that you would not be here…is that good or bad….I don’t know….you tell me?

0 Replies

Mixed feelings. On one hand social darwinism makes sense, considering our population is rising everyday and our resources are decreasing everyday.

Natural selections control population by death-rates, Eugenics controls population by birth-rate.

But that puts in question human morality.

0 Replies

Who gets to decide?

Why them?

What criteria determine their decision?

This is a bad idea.

0 Replies

Copied and pasted my post from another thread

On an interesting note, killing the "weak" may actually lower our chance for continuity. For example, fat people are clearly inferior, right? Some people eat really little and still they manage to reach 300 pounds. Undoubtedly this is a genetic "weakness". But suppose that all the earth's food supplies diminished drastically. Wouldn't this supposedly "weak" person have a better chance of survival than other humans?
My point is, is that weakness actually betters our chances of survival. Terms like strong and weak depend on circumstance. For an optimum chance of continuity one needs a majority of "strong" people and a minority of "weak" people.

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

Who gets to decide?

Why them?

What criteria determine their decision?

This is a bad idea.

ok...
let's think of this way.

the cure for defected individuals costs the governemt millions, these individuals mate and reproduce will grow in populations, which will lead to the increase of more funds towards their cure.

Also, the government pays for these individuals while these individuals cannot positively contribute back to the government.
and their reproduction will only add to the cost.

can you think of any other solution to solve this problem?

0 Replies

In another thread, Terry, made a comment that resonated with me. She reminded us all that although an individual may have a gene or two that makes them less than what we think a "healthy" human being should be -- they may very well carry other genes that will help -- perhaps greatly help -- the universal gene pool.

She cited Stephen Hawking.

0 Replies

CerealKiller wrote:

the cure for defected individuals costs the governemt millions, these individuals mate and reproduce will grow in populations, which will lead to the increase of more funds towards their cure.

Also, the government pays for these individuals while these individuals cannot positively contribute back to the government.
and their reproduction will only add to the cost.

can you think of any other solution to solve this problem?

What "cure" do you speak of? Some cannot be. "Cured."

What is the criteria for "defected (sic) individuals"? I certainly hope, for your sake, bad spelling and grammar isn't one...

How many millions do you believe this is costing?

What are the statistics on mentally and physically challenged peoples' reproduction?

In other words, why do you think this is a problem that needs solving?

I believe, relative to tax dollars expended, that there are many other areas of much greater concern -- the Iraq War and its billions, for one example -- that require significantly more urgency of attention than this.

0 Replies

jonat3 wrote:

Copied and pasted my post from another thread

On an interesting note, killing the "weak" may actually lower our chance for continuity. For example, fat people are clearly inferior, right? Some people eat really little and still they manage to reach 300 pounds. Undoubtedly this is a genetic "weakness". But suppose that all the earth's food supplies diminished drastically. Wouldn't this supposedly "weak" person have a better chance of survival than other humans?
My point is, is that weakness actually betters our chances of survival. Terms like strong and weak depend on circumstance. For an optimum chance of continuity one needs a majority of "strong" people and a minority of "weak" people.

Nah.. If there were a shortage of food the "strong" people would eat the fat people.

0 Replies

Who are the fat strong people going to eat when they run out of weak slow people? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

No, it's not OK. Period.

0 Replies

Quote:

Nah.. If there were a shortage of food the "strong" people would eat the fat people.

Lol, good point. However the fat man would then have considerably lost weight. I don't think the rest of humanity which by then resemble skeletons would then be strong enough to eat him. Smile

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

CerealKiller wrote:
the cure for defected individuals costs the governemt millions, these individuals mate and reproduce will grow in populations, which will lead to the increase of more funds towards their cure.

Also, the government pays for these individuals while these individuals cannot positively contribute back to the government.
and their reproduction will only add to the cost.

can you think of any other solution to solve this problem?

What "cure" do you speak of? Some cannot be. "Cured."

What is the criteria for "defected (sic) individuals"? I certainly hope, for your sake, bad spelling and grammar isn't one...

How many millions do you believe this is costing?

What are the statistics on mentally and physically challenged peoples' reproduction?

In other words, why do you think this is a problem that needs solving?

I believe, relative to tax dollars expended, that there are many other areas of much greater concern -- the Iraq War and its billions, for one example -- that require significantly more urgency of attention than this.

I presented a hypothetical situation and wanted your idea for a solution. The Iraq War has nothing to do with the subject.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

No, it's not OK. Period.

Why ?

0 Replies

To start with, as PDiddie already asked, where would you draw the line?

Presumably at least some of these uppity crips wouldn't WANT to be sterilized, so there would have to be some apparatus in place to force them. There would have to be some agency that could tap you on the shoulder and say, "Hey you. Yes you. I don't care what you have to say about it, you're going to be segregated and/ or sterilized."

Fun. The Nazis did this really well.

That isn't even going into whether your whole basis -- it would save money -- has any merit. Any cites?

Or whether your sterilization scheme would do anything about it. Just what percentage of all disabilities do you think are genetic?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

To start with, as PDiddie already asked, where would you draw the line?

Presumably at least some of these uppity crips wouldn't WANT to be sterilized, so there would have to be some apparatus in place to force them. There would have to be some agency that could tap you on the shoulder and say, "Hey you. Yes you. I don't care what you have to say about it, you're going to be segregated and/ or sterilized."

Fun. The Nazis did this really well.

That isn't even going into whether your whole basis -- it would save money -- has any merit. Any cites?

Or whether your sterilization scheme would do anything about it. Just what percentage of all disabilities do you think are genetic?

What happens to 'genetically ill' children once their parents can no longer care for them? Have you ever lived near a group care home? They're spoon fed a meaningless life (and often abused). The spoon that feeds them, made necessary by their parents' own selfishness, is paid for by society. Such children are hardly more than living dolls, playthings for their parents.

It was something else entirely, when such problems could not be forseen. Now, it is possible to know virtually from the moment of conception. If, a week into pregnancy, you and your wife were to find out that your child would be born brain dead, would you have the kid - so that you could have your very own human vegetable to 'love' - or would you abort the kid? If a child is desired so badly, why give birth to a child who will never live life to the fullest, when there is an over-abundance of healthy children in need of homes, just waiting to be adopted? IMO to do so is to deprive a future for a child who is full of creative potential, but lacks the means to realize it.

0 Replies

That's nice.

That's completely different from what you opened with.

"Should group homes for disabled children be improved?" or "Are parents who abandon their disabled children scumbags?" would be a topic worth discussing.

(Still interested in cites on how many millions of dollars these kids cost us -- it's a pretty small subset, kids who have disabilities that arise from genetic causes and whose parents cannot care for them.)

0 Replies

It is about a determining criteria. That's fine if someone has the luxury of birthing, and caring for, a mentally or physically handicapped person. But does that person have the right to enslave everyone else to care for that choice she made? no. If the ability to independently support such children is not there, then "society" suddenly has a determining interest in whether such a child should be brought into this world.

True, many of them take "base" jobs - which is also fine, as long as it is all entered into freely (ie. not subsidized). Would "welfare moms" take such jobs? Well, yank that welfare safety net away, and let them face the true consequences of their decisions - take such a job, beg, or starve - and I bet you would see the jobs being filled.

In the movie Gattaca - the difference is when the situation exists that removes personal accomplishment from the equation. Ethan Hawke's character was able to beat a genetically superior brother. Cool. When reward and success is tied to personal effort and results then the whole concept would be meaningless.

The fact is that there exists a boundary below which it is impossible for a person to be self-sustaining. Artificially sustaining such people (especially at the coerced expense of healthy individuals) goes against the natural mechanisms in place to thin the species and ensure that only the most able individuals survive, thus compromising the species as a whole.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

(Still interested in cites on how many millions of dollars these kids cost us -- it's a pretty small subset, kids who have disabilities that arise from genetic causes and whose parents cannot care for them.)

http://www.dcwatch.com/auditor/audit030.htm

0 Replies

"Inferior" genes could be useful later on, and add to genetic diversity at any rate. Not to mention that denying people human rights because of their genes is wrong.

0 Replies

sterilizing & segregating the incapable

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know