Eugenics, for or Against?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
If we created a pill that guarantees our kids would never get cancer, wouldn’t we give it to them in a heartbeat?

If we could modify their genetic code to provide the same protection, wouldn’t we also do it in a heartbeat?[/quote]

A kid taking a pill and corrupting the marital act are two different things, sorry.[/quote]

I understand your religious beliefs govern what is or isn’t appropriate, but the OP did ask that we keep religion out of it.

For the sake of argument though, let’s say that it was medically possible to modify harmful strands of DNA in either the father or the mother without interfering with the marital act. Would you support it if it meant saving your child from a debilitating or deadly disease?

62

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

Um, no we don’t. I said proof and humans. You said deduced from and bacteria. These are seriously different things. Also progress is not the boogeyman. The boogeyman is the boogeyman. Eugenics is not progress except in the eyes of those who get to control it, for them it is like becoming god, getting to decide which human lives are valuable and which are not that is the ultimate tieranny and that is the boogeyman.[/quote]

I think you are confusing absolute certainty and proof. These are two entirely different concepts when it comes to science.

I also think you are confusing eugenics with negative eugenics (as mentioned earlier in this thread). Eugenics does not require a negative component.

63

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
If we created a pill that guarantees our kids would never get cancer, wouldn’t we give it to them in a heartbeat?

If we could modify their genetic code to provide the same protection, wouldn’t we also do it in a heartbeat?[/quote]

Exactly. Some of these questions are a no brainer. Others are a little tougher.[/quote]

Yeah, I was hoping to get into that too.

So what questions are tougher, and why?

How is designing a baby with blue eyes any different than intentionally marrying another person with blue eyes, so you can keep blue eyes in the family?

Class warfare? Should we disallow the development of an anti-cancer pill just because most people wouldn’t be able to afford it? And what if it became cheaper over time, but only if it was initially available to the wealthy?[/quote]

Again I agree with you on both of these. The questions I think are tougher are with regard to what would be considered “improvements” over and above normal human characteristics. Whether or not we should allow these types of changes is a different question than eye colour because of the possible implications for society at large.
[/quote]

I’m not surprised you agree, but am betting some of the people following this thread would be opposed to genetic engineering for eye color, or only available to the wealthy.

Let’s take it further. What is our opinion on the morality of splicing human and animal DNA? What if this accomplished the creation of a new species? Moral or immoral?

64

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
If we created a pill that guarantees our kids would never get cancer, wouldn’t we give it to them in a heartbeat?

If we could modify their genetic code to provide the same protection, wouldn’t we also do it in a heartbeat?[/quote]

Exactly. Some of these questions are a no brainer. Others are a little tougher.[/quote]

Yeah, I was hoping to get into that too.

So what questions are tougher, and why?

How is designing a baby with blue eyes any different than intentionally marrying another person with blue eyes, so you can keep blue eyes in the family?

Class warfare? Should we disallow the development of an anti-cancer pill just because most people wouldn’t be able to afford it? And what if it became cheaper over time, but only if it was initially available to the wealthy?[/quote]

Again I agree with you on both of these. The questions I think are tougher are with regard to what would be considered “improvements” over and above normal human characteristics. Whether or not we should allow these types of changes is a different question than eye colour because of the possible implications for society at large.
[/quote]

I’m not surprised you agree, but am betting some of the people following this thread would be opposed to genetic engineering for eye color, or only available to the wealthy.

Let’s take it further. What is our opinion on the morality of splicing human and animal DNA? What if this accomplished the creation of a new species? Moral or immoral?

[/quote]

All techonology when first made available is only available to the wealthy first. This is inescapable in a capitalist society. It is only after this that technology is then adapted and filtered down to the mass market. This is the miracle of consumer capitalism and is responsible for the greatest rate of advancement that the human race has seen so far. To object to a technology because only wealthy people can afford it is a poor argument.

With regard to splicing human and animal DNA, you are indeed taking it further. So much further that it is a different question, although there are common themes. If you were to create a new species that is obviously going to be a problem. On the other hand though, genetic engineering has already done this.

GE tomatoes are spliced with a particular gene from pigs that results in a longer lasting and firmer tomato, but it is still a tomato. To extrapolate the argument, if you were to apply this to humans, and could produce a better human being by splicing certain genes from other species, that result in say a stronger immune system, better looking skin, or more intelligence, then the objections evaporate as far as I’m concerned.

Nothing in this moral grey area is clear cut and each premise should be looked at carefully and individually.

65

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

Um, no we don’t. I said proof and humans. You said deduced from and bacteria. These are seriously different things. Also progress is not the boogeyman. The boogeyman is the boogeyman. Eugenics is not progress except in the eyes of those who get to control it, for them it is like becoming god, getting to decide which human lives are valuable and which are not that is the ultimate tieranny and that is the boogeyman.[/quote]

I think you are confusing absolute certainty and proof. These are two entirely different concepts when it comes to science.

I also think you are confusing eugenics with negative eugenics (as mentioned earlier in this thread). Eugenics does not require a negative component.
[/quote]
I am not confusing the two. I am rejecting the EVIDENCE you are using to PROVE what I was saying as inadequate to be proof. I understand fully that absolute certainty and proof are different and that in fact science offers no absolute certainty for anything it can only prove things. If you’ve got more evidence for me by all means enlighten me, but the logical leap from a single celled organism, to a multi-celled organism, and on to an organism as complicated as a human being is beyond the realm of proof.

On your other point of confusing negative eugenics and eugenics… Isn’t this all in the eye of the beholder? You can’t have eugenics without negative aspects, because if for no other reason I don’t like it and think it’s bad. Humans are not a collective. We are individuals so there will always be disagreement about good and bad, right and wrong, thus when someone starts meting [spelling?] out what aspects of and which lives are valuable and what sacrifices must be made for the collective good some people will be short changed.

66

[quote]forlife wrote:
we keep religion out of it.
[/quote]

And, like I originally said…I’m not bring religion into this, I’m using Natural Law, a valid moral code that prosecutors used to convict the people at the Nuremberg Trials. Just because the moral code from which I argue has absolutes, doesn’t mean I’m bringing religion in to it. I’m using reason and philosophy.

67

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
If we created a pill that guarantees our kids would never get cancer, wouldn’t we give it to them in a heartbeat?

If we could modify their genetic code to provide the same protection, wouldn’t we also do it in a heartbeat?[/quote]

Exactly. Some of these questions are a no brainer. Others are a little tougher.[/quote]

Yeah, I was hoping to get into that too.

So what questions are tougher, and why?

How is designing a baby with blue eyes any different than intentionally marrying another person with blue eyes, so you can keep blue eyes in the family?

Class warfare? Should we disallow the development of an anti-cancer pill just because most people wouldn’t be able to afford it? And what if it became cheaper over time, but only if it was initially available to the wealthy?[/quote]

Again I agree with you on both of these. The questions I think are tougher are with regard to what would be considered “improvements” over and above normal human characteristics. Whether or not we should allow these types of changes is a different question than eye colour because of the possible implications for society at large.
[/quote]

I’m not surprised you agree, but am betting some of the people following this thread would be opposed to genetic engineering for eye color, or only available to the wealthy.

Let’s take it further. What is our opinion on the morality of splicing human and animal DNA? What if this accomplished the creation of a new species? Moral or immoral?

[/quote]

All techonology when first made available is only available to the wealthy first. This is inescapable in a capitalist society. It is only after this that technology is then adapted and filtered down to the mass market. This is the miracle of consumer capitalism and is responsible for the greatest rate of advancement that the human race has seen so far. To object to a technology because only wealthy people can afford it is a poor argument.

With regard to splicing human and animal DNA, you are indeed taking it further. So much further that it is a different question, although there are common themes. If you were to create a new species that is obviously going to be a problem. On the other hand though, genetic engineering has already done this.

GE tomatoes are spliced with a particular gene from pigs that results in a longer lasting and firmer tomato, but it is still a tomato. To extrapolate the argument, if you were to apply this to humans, and could produce a better human being by splicing certain genes from other species, that result in say a stronger immune system, better looking skin, or more intelligence, then the objections evaporate as far as I’m concerned.

Nothing in this moral grey area is clear cut and each premise should be looked at carefully and individually.[/quote]

I agree. There’s value in exploring the extremes, as they help define the moral boundaries that would ultimately guide such research.

For example, you say creating a new species is obviously going to be a problem. Why? What if the new species was superior to our own?They might threaten our existence, but they also might promise a future we couldn’t dream of. As you pointed out, we already do this with vegetables and animals. Why is it immoral to do the same with humans? What about using animal organs to preserve human life?

I’m not taking a position, just asking questions at this point.

68

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
we keep religion out of it.
[/quote]

And, like I originally said…I’m not bring religion into this, I’m using Natural Law, a valid moral code that prosecutors used to convict the people at the Nuremberg Trials. Just because the moral code from which I argue has absolutes, doesn’t mean I’m bringing religion in to it. I’m using reason and philosophy. [/quote]

The idea of Natural Law is subject to the same criticisms as the idea of religion, in the scope of this topic. It’s impossible to debate intelligently when people assume ethereal absolutes like Natural Law, particularly when there is no objective evidence for this assumption. Your claim that it violates Natural Law can’t be trumped, any more than the claim that it violates the will of god.

Then again, I’m not sure you can completely divorce any discussion of morality from such assumptions.

69

I think people can look at the current vaccination issues to see where this might lead. Individuals make decisions for their kids not considering the cost to the greater population. Outbreaks and deaths from diseases that were nearly eradication decades ago are popping up in often wealthy neighborhoods (I point this out because of the class distinctions made earlier). What might be best for an individual may be worse for the greater population.

Animal species are healthier and more adaptive the greater their genetic gene pool. There are risks in shrinking the human genetic pool - especially since gene interactions are very poorly understood. Isolating what a particular gene may or may not do is ignoring the other genes involved in whether the gene is question is trigger and how the outcome manifests.

It is like saying that genetic manipulation is needed because a man has a gene that says he will get prostate cancer. One of the treatments for prostate cancer is doing nothing because it usually grows so slowly and shows in old men who will probably dies of something else before the cancer kills them. Now, if that gene that ‘needs to be removed’ also serves another function - even as placeholder - the alternatives after removal are unknown and could potentially be much worse.

70

First about your post on the top of page three ^ how can you justify killing an embryo because a small number die for various reasons in mothers womb around this country??

Vaccinations mean nothing. I had very few vaccinations as a kid. My mom smoked all the time and I was often sick during the winter because I was inside the house and around second hand smoke that much more. I moved out when I was 17 and have never lived in the same house as a smoker and guess what?? I am never sick!! My fucking God, quit telling me you KNOW how a child will turn out when you don’t even have a clue as to how real life works!! Try to tell me you are NOT pro choice!? And tell me what this vaccination problem is you speak of.

So we need more variation in the human genetic population?? Well you are wrong, plus I know we all do NOT fuck out cousins like you.

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
I think people can look at the current vaccination issues to see where this might lead. Individuals make decisions for their kids not considering the cost to the greater population. Outbreaks and deaths from diseases that were nearly eradication decades ago are popping up in often wealthy neighborhoods (I point this out because of the class distinctions made earlier). What might be best for an individual may be worse for the greater population.

Animal species are healthier and more adaptive the greater their genetic gene pool. There are risks in shrinking the human genetic pool - especially since gene interactions are very poorly understood. Isolating what a particular gene may or may not do is ignoring the other genes involved in whether the gene is question is trigger and how the outcome manifests.

It is like saying that genetic manipulation is needed because a man has a gene that says he will get prostate cancer. One of the treatments for prostate cancer is doing nothing because it usually grows so slowly and shows in old men who will probably dies of something else before the cancer kills them. Now, if that gene that ‘needs to be removed’ also serves another function - even as placeholder - the alternatives after removal are unknown and could potentially be much worse.[/quote]

71

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

Um, no we don’t. I said proof and humans. You said deduced from and bacteria. These are seriously different things. Also progress is not the boogeyman. The boogeyman is the boogeyman. Eugenics is not progress except in the eyes of those who get to control it, for them it is like becoming god, getting to decide which human lives are valuable and which are not that is the ultimate tieranny and that is the boogeyman.[/quote]

I think you are confusing absolute certainty and proof. These are two entirely different concepts when it comes to science.

I also think you are confusing eugenics with negative eugenics (as mentioned earlier in this thread). Eugenics does not require a negative component.
[/quote]
I am not confusing the two. I am rejecting the EVIDENCE you are using to PROVE what I was saying as inadequate to be proof. I understand fully that absolute certainty and proof are different and that in fact science offers no absolute certainty for anything it can only prove things. If you’ve got more evidence for me by all means enlighten me, but the logical leap from a single celled organism, to a multi-celled organism, and on to an organism as complicated as a human being is beyond the realm of proof.

On your other point of confusing negative eugenics and eugenics… Isn’t this all in the eye of the beholder? You can’t have eugenics without negative aspects, because if for no other reason I don’t like it and think it’s bad. Humans are not a collective. We are individuals so there will always be disagreement about good and bad, right and wrong, thus when someone starts meting [spelling?] out what aspects of and which lives are valuable and what sacrifices must be made for the collective good some people will be short changed.[/quote]

Negative Eugenics is the forced MURDER of living people on the basis that their genes are inferior.

Positive Eugenics is the purposeful altering of our genes to allow desirable charcteristcs to flourish and undesirable ones to disappear. No one is forced to do anything and no one is killed.

72

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
First about your post on the top of page three ^ how can you justify killing an embryo because a small number die for various reasons in mothers womb around this country??

Vaccinations mean nothing. I had very few vaccinations as a kid. My mom smoked all the time and I was often sick during the winter because I was inside the house and around second hand smoke that much more. I moved out when I was 17 and have never lived in the same house as a smoker and guess what?? I am never sick!! My fucking God, quit telling me you KNOW how a child will turn out when you don’t even have a clue as to how real life works!! Try to tell me you are NOT pro choice!? And tell me what this vaccination problem is you speak of.

So we need more variation in the human genetic population?? Well you are wrong, plus I know we all do NOT fuck out cousins like you.

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
I think people can look at the current vaccination issues to see where this might lead. Individuals make decisions for their kids not considering the cost to the greater population. Outbreaks and deaths from diseases that were nearly eradication decades ago are popping up in often wealthy neighborhoods (I point this out because of the class distinctions made earlier). What might be best for an individual may be worse for the greater population.

Animal species are healthier and more adaptive the greater their genetic gene pool. There are risks in shrinking the human genetic pool - especially since gene interactions are very poorly understood. Isolating what a particular gene may or may not do is ignoring the other genes involved in whether the gene is question is trigger and how the outcome manifests.

It is like saying that genetic manipulation is needed because a man has a gene that says he will get prostate cancer. One of the treatments for prostate cancer is doing nothing because it usually grows so slowly and shows in old men who will probably dies of something else before the cancer kills them. Now, if that gene that ‘needs to be removed’ also serves another function - even as placeholder - the alternatives after removal are unknown and could potentially be much worse.[/quote]
[/quote]

It is getting a bit old when people keep on equating embryo’s to living human beings. It is true to say that an embyro is living human tissue, but it is not a human being. It is no more a human being than my liver cells are. Each one of those cells has the genetic instructions to create a complete human being and subsequent copy of me, and they are alive. They are not human beings though, they are liver cells.

Embyro’s are collections of stem cells and nothing more. You cannot argue the case that an unborn child is even close to a human being until late in term. Society and the rest of the civilised world accepts this fact as evidenced by our abortion laws and mature attitude to this.

73

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

Um, no we don’t. I said proof and humans. You said deduced from and bacteria. These are seriously different things. Also progress is not the boogeyman. The boogeyman is the boogeyman. Eugenics is not progress except in the eyes of those who get to control it, for them it is like becoming god, getting to decide which human lives are valuable and which are not that is the ultimate tieranny and that is the boogeyman.[/quote]

I think you are confusing absolute certainty and proof. These are two entirely different concepts when it comes to science.

I also think you are confusing eugenics with negative eugenics (as mentioned earlier in this thread). Eugenics does not require a negative component.
[/quote]
I am not confusing the two. I am rejecting the EVIDENCE you are using to PROVE what I was saying as inadequate to be proof. I understand fully that absolute certainty and proof are different and that in fact science offers no absolute certainty for anything it can only prove things. If you’ve got more evidence for me by all means enlighten me, but the logical leap from a single celled organism, to a multi-celled organism, and on to an organism as complicated as a human being is beyond the realm of proof.

On your other point of confusing negative eugenics and eugenics… Isn’t this all in the eye of the beholder? You can’t have eugenics without negative aspects, because if for no other reason I don’t like it and think it’s bad. Humans are not a collective. We are individuals so there will always be disagreement about good and bad, right and wrong, thus when someone starts meting [spelling?] out what aspects of and which lives are valuable and what sacrifices must be made for the collective good some people will be short changed.[/quote]

Negative Eugenics is the forced MURDER of living people on the basis that their genes are inferior.

Positive Eugenics is the purposeful altering of our genes to allow desirable charcteristcs to flourish and undesirable ones to disappear. No one is forced to do anything and no one is killed.

[/quote]
What’s desirable? You might be able to tell me that no one is killed, but no one is forced to do anything? That’s a stretch as I am sure some people would be told not to breed. “Eugenics (let me quote from Webster) is: a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed.” What you seem to be talking about as positive eugenics is gene therapy (that I might be in favor of). That my friend is different entirely as it infringes on no one’s liberty, but rather is promoting healing of disease in a person rather than eradication of undesirable qualities via controlled breeding.

74

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
we keep religion out of it.
[/quote]

And, like I originally said…I’m not bring religion into this, I’m using Natural Law, a valid moral code that prosecutors used to convict the people at the Nuremberg Trials. Just because the moral code from which I argue has absolutes, doesn’t mean I’m bringing religion in to it. I’m using reason and philosophy. [/quote]

You cannot be claiming the virtues of reason when you bring to the discussion table the “sacredness of the marital act”.

If the only way check the premises of your arguments definitively is to have a direct line to god to settle the matter, then you are not using reason, you are using an interpretation of what you have chosen as your religion.

75

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
First about your post on the top of page three ^ how can you justify killing an embryo because a small number die for various reasons in mothers womb around this country??

Vaccinations mean nothing. I had very few vaccinations as a kid. My mom smoked all the time and I was often sick during the winter because I was inside the house and around second hand smoke that much more. I moved out when I was 17 and have never lived in the same house as a smoker and guess what?? I am never sick!! My fucking God, quit telling me you KNOW how a child will turn out when you don’t even have a clue as to how real life works!! Try to tell me you are NOT pro choice!? And tell me what this vaccination problem is you speak of.

So we need more variation in the human genetic population?? Well you are wrong, plus I know we all do NOT fuck out cousins like you.[/quote]

Why do you think that your case applies to everyone?

76

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
First about your post on the top of page three ^ how can you justify killing an embryo because a small number die for various reasons in mothers womb around this country??

Vaccinations mean nothing. I had very few vaccinations as a kid. My mom smoked all the time and I was often sick during the winter because I was inside the house and around second hand smoke that much more. I moved out when I was 17 and have never lived in the same house as a smoker and guess what?? I am never sick!! My fucking God, quit telling me you KNOW how a child will turn out when you don’t even have a clue as to how real life works!! Try to tell me you are NOT pro choice!? And tell me what this vaccination problem is you speak of.

So we need more variation in the human genetic population?? Well you are wrong, plus I know we all do NOT fuck out cousins like you.

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
I think people can look at the current vaccination issues to see where this might lead. Individuals make decisions for their kids not considering the cost to the greater population. Outbreaks and deaths from diseases that were nearly eradication decades ago are popping up in often wealthy neighborhoods (I point this out because of the class distinctions made earlier). What might be best for an individual may be worse for the greater population.

Animal species are healthier and more adaptive the greater their genetic gene pool. There are risks in shrinking the human genetic pool - especially since gene interactions are very poorly understood. Isolating what a particular gene may or may not do is ignoring the other genes involved in whether the gene is question is trigger and how the outcome manifests.

It is like saying that genetic manipulation is needed because a man has a gene that says he will get prostate cancer. One of the treatments for prostate cancer is doing nothing because it usually grows so slowly and shows in old men who will probably dies of something else before the cancer kills them. Now, if that gene that ‘needs to be removed’ also serves another function - even as placeholder - the alternatives after removal are unknown and could potentially be much worse.[/quote]
[/quote]

It is getting a bit old when people keep on equating embryo’s to living human beings. It is true to say that an embyro is living human tissue, but it is not a human being. It is no more a human being than my liver cells are. Each one of those cells has the genetic instructions to create a complete human being and subsequent copy of me, and they are alive. They are not human beings though, they are liver cells.

Embyro’s are collections of stem cells and nothing more. You cannot argue the case that an unborn child is even close to a human being until late in term. Society and the rest of the civilised world accepts this fact as evidenced by our abortion laws and mature attitude to this.
[/quote]
You’ve got to be kidding when you say, “Embyro’s are collections of stem cells and nothing more. You cannot argue the case that an unborn child is even close to a human being until late in term. Society and the rest of the civilised world accepts this fact as evidenced by our abortion laws and mature attitude to this”.

Our abortion laws are screwed up. We also can prosecute as murder the life of an unborn child extinguished by another person. Using our laws as reasoning that you can’t argue this has got to be one of the most foolish things I have ever heard that and the “mature attitude to this”. You make me sick.

77

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

Um, no we don’t. I said proof and humans. You said deduced from and bacteria. These are seriously different things. Also progress is not the boogeyman. The boogeyman is the boogeyman. Eugenics is not progress except in the eyes of those who get to control it, for them it is like becoming god, getting to decide which human lives are valuable and which are not that is the ultimate tieranny and that is the boogeyman.[/quote]

I think you are confusing absolute certainty and proof. These are two entirely different concepts when it comes to science.

I also think you are confusing eugenics with negative eugenics (as mentioned earlier in this thread). Eugenics does not require a negative component.
[/quote]
I am not confusing the two. I am rejecting the EVIDENCE you are using to PROVE what I was saying as inadequate to be proof. I understand fully that absolute certainty and proof are different and that in fact science offers no absolute certainty for anything it can only prove things. If you’ve got more evidence for me by all means enlighten me, but the logical leap from a single celled organism, to a multi-celled organism, and on to an organism as complicated as a human being is beyond the realm of proof.

On your other point of confusing negative eugenics and eugenics… Isn’t this all in the eye of the beholder? You can’t have eugenics without negative aspects, because if for no other reason I don’t like it and think it’s bad. Humans are not a collective. We are individuals so there will always be disagreement about good and bad, right and wrong, thus when someone starts meting [spelling?] out what aspects of and which lives are valuable and what sacrifices must be made for the collective good some people will be short changed.[/quote]

Negative Eugenics is the forced MURDER of living people on the basis that their genes are inferior.

Positive Eugenics is the purposeful altering of our genes to allow desirable charcteristcs to flourish and undesirable ones to disappear. No one is forced to do anything and no one is killed.

[/quote]
What’s desirable? You might be able to tell me that no one is killed, but no one is forced to do anything? That’s a stretch as I am sure some people would be told not to breed. “Eugenics (let me quote from Webster) is: a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed.” What you seem to be talking about as positive eugenics is gene therapy (that I might be in favor of). That my friend is different entirely as it infringes on no one’s liberty, but rather is promoting healing of disease in a person rather than eradication of undesirable qualities via controlled breeding.[/quote]

What about the eradication of genetic diseases and disabilities? In some cases the ONLY way to do this would be to intervene genetically.

The word eugenics has a strong negative connotations due to our abhorrent modern history. This is why many people have a strong gut reaction on hearing the word. When writing the thread title, I deliberately chose the more controversial wording to get people to voice their opinion. If I had called the thread

“The eradication of disease and improving the human race through modern genetic techniques”

I think many people, yourself included would be voicing different opinions. I am in no way advocating a philosophy where: people are killed, forced to do anything against their wishes, or are to be considered inferior because they have genetic defects.

78

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
“The eradication of disease and improving the human race through modern genetic techniques”[/quote]
I’ve got no problem as I stated just previously with gene therapy/healing individuals using genetic techniques.

79

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
First about your post on the top of page three ^ how can you justify killing an embryo because a small number die for various reasons in mothers womb around this country??

Vaccinations mean nothing. I had very few vaccinations as a kid. My mom smoked all the time and I was often sick during the winter because I was inside the house and around second hand smoke that much more. I moved out when I was 17 and have never lived in the same house as a smoker and guess what?? I am never sick!! My fucking God, quit telling me you KNOW how a child will turn out when you don’t even have a clue as to how real life works!! Try to tell me you are NOT pro choice!? And tell me what this vaccination problem is you speak of.

So we need more variation in the human genetic population?? Well you are wrong, plus I know we all do NOT fuck out cousins like you.

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
I think people can look at the current vaccination issues to see where this might lead. Individuals make decisions for their kids not considering the cost to the greater population. Outbreaks and deaths from diseases that were nearly eradication decades ago are popping up in often wealthy neighborhoods (I point this out because of the class distinctions made earlier). What might be best for an individual may be worse for the greater population.

Animal species are healthier and more adaptive the greater their genetic gene pool. There are risks in shrinking the human genetic pool - especially since gene interactions are very poorly understood. Isolating what a particular gene may or may not do is ignoring the other genes involved in whether the gene is question is trigger and how the outcome manifests.

It is like saying that genetic manipulation is needed because a man has a gene that says he will get prostate cancer. One of the treatments for prostate cancer is doing nothing because it usually grows so slowly and shows in old men who will probably dies of something else before the cancer kills them. Now, if that gene that ‘needs to be removed’ also serves another function - even as placeholder - the alternatives after removal are unknown and could potentially be much worse.[/quote]
[/quote]

It is getting a bit old when people keep on equating embryo’s to living human beings. It is true to say that an embyro is living human tissue, but it is not a human being. It is no more a human being than my liver cells are. Each one of those cells has the genetic instructions to create a complete human being and subsequent copy of me, and they are alive. They are not human beings though, they are liver cells.

Embyro’s are collections of stem cells and nothing more. You cannot argue the case that an unborn child is even close to a human being until late in term. Society and the rest of the civilised world accepts this fact as evidenced by our abortion laws and mature attitude to this.
[/quote]
You’ve got to be kidding when you say, “Embyro’s are collections of stem cells and nothing more. You cannot argue the case that an unborn child is even close to a human being until late in term. Society and the rest of the civilised world accepts this fact as evidenced by our abortion laws and mature attitude to this”.

Our abortion laws are screwed up. We also can prosecute as murder the life of an unborn child extinguished by another person. Using our laws as reasoning that you can’t argue this has got to be one of the most foolish things I have ever heard that and the “mature attitude to this”. You make me sick.[/quote]

The fact that abortion is WIDELY accepted in the population is evidence that the MAJORITY of people do not consider embryos to be equivalent to children.

80

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
First about your post on the top of page three ^ how can you justify killing an embryo because a small number die for various reasons in mothers womb around this country??

Vaccinations mean nothing. I had very few vaccinations as a kid. My mom smoked all the time and I was often sick during the winter because I was inside the house and around second hand smoke that much more. I moved out when I was 17 and have never lived in the same house as a smoker and guess what?? I am never sick!! My fucking God, quit telling me you KNOW how a child will turn out when you don’t even have a clue as to how real life works!! Try to tell me you are NOT pro choice!? And tell me what this vaccination problem is you speak of.

So we need more variation in the human genetic population?? Well you are wrong, plus I know we all do NOT fuck out cousins like you.

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
I think people can look at the current vaccination issues to see where this might lead. Individuals make decisions for their kids not considering the cost to the greater population. Outbreaks and deaths from diseases that were nearly eradication decades ago are popping up in often wealthy neighborhoods (I point this out because of the class distinctions made earlier). What might be best for an individual may be worse for the greater population.

Animal species are healthier and more adaptive the greater their genetic gene pool. There are risks in shrinking the human genetic pool - especially since gene interactions are very poorly understood. Isolating what a particular gene may or may not do is ignoring the other genes involved in whether the gene is question is trigger and how the outcome manifests.

It is like saying that genetic manipulation is needed because a man has a gene that says he will get prostate cancer. One of the treatments for prostate cancer is doing nothing because it usually grows so slowly and shows in old men who will probably dies of something else before the cancer kills them. Now, if that gene that ‘needs to be removed’ also serves another function - even as placeholder - the alternatives after removal are unknown and could potentially be much worse.[/quote]
[/quote]

It is getting a bit old when people keep on equating embryo’s to living human beings. It is true to say that an embyro is living human tissue, but it is not a human being. It is no more a human being than my liver cells are. Each one of those cells has the genetic instructions to create a complete human being and subsequent copy of me, and they are alive. They are not human beings though, they are liver cells.

Embyro’s are collections of stem cells and nothing more. You cannot argue the case that an unborn child is even close to a human being until late in term. Society and the rest of the civilised world accepts this fact as evidenced by our abortion laws and mature attitude to this.
[/quote]
You’ve got to be kidding when you say, “Embyro’s are collections of stem cells and nothing more. You cannot argue the case that an unborn child is even close to a human being until late in term. Society and the rest of the civilised world accepts this fact as evidenced by our abortion laws and mature attitude to this”.

Our abortion laws are screwed up. We also can prosecute as murder the life of an unborn child extinguished by another person. Using our laws as reasoning that you can’t argue this has got to be one of the most foolish things I have ever heard that and the “mature attitude to this”. You make me sick.[/quote]

The fact that abortion is WIDELY accepted in the population is evidence that the MAJORITY of people do not consider embryos to be equivalent to children.
[/quote]
That is not the same as saying “You cannot argue…” Plus, widely accepted and majority of people also could be a stretch.