Eugenics isnt bad and we need to stop acting like it is

Page 1 of 2 [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

salad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2011
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,226

01 Aug 2021, 11:18 pm

The only part of eugenics that is bad is the racism part

But the part of eugenics that wants to improve the genetic breed of a stock isnt bad, and calling it ableism detracts from the fact that objectively many people like me suffer from certain maladaptive genes that are passed filtered out of the gene pool

We need to stop acting as if all genetic expressions are created equal because they're not

There are many people, me included, suffering agonizing existences because of terrible genes that never would have been expressed had society not declared eugenics an anathema to society


_________________
"One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it."

Master Oogway


Harry Haller
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2021
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 141
Location: to the West

01 Aug 2021, 11:30 pm

Interesting thought.
-- Of course the difficulty is in deciding what is "good" and what is "bad."

For example sickle cell anaemia might be considered "bad" -- but then we find it confers protection from malaria to the sickle-cell afflicted.

The other difficulty is that genetics is estimated to be only 50% of the gene expression (from Scandinavian identical twin studies of schizophrenia for example)

The other 50% is epigenetics.

edit: and welcome back glad yer here returned :D



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,859
Location: Aux Arcs

01 Aug 2021, 11:59 pm

I think there should be free genetic screening available for prospective parents.If they carry the gene for a disease that’s genetic like Huntington’s, they can choose to adopt or foster a child rather than pass along a fatal illness.
Welcome back.


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


Fireblossom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jan 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,419

02 Aug 2021, 2:54 am

Depends how far it goes. Forbidding people with serious illnesses that are likely to be passed down to the next generation from donating sperm or eggs for others to use is perfectly fine in my opinion, but sterilizing people with inheritable, bad conditions by force is not okay. Neither is pressuring those people to get sterilized. Sharing information about the risks to them is fine and should be done, but with that, one needs to be careful to not make it seem like they're being pressured.

Misslizard wrote:
I think there should be free genetic screening available for prospective parents.If they carry the gene for a disease that’s genetic like Huntington’s, they can choose to adopt or foster a child rather than pass along a fatal illness.


Agreed. It should just be made sure that people like that aren't pressured in to not having children. It would also help if adopting was made easier. Not that I know the details, but one of the problems is that it's really expensive. As for fostering, I don't know how it works in other countries, but here you often have to deal with the biological parents too since they still have rights to their children and can decide things regarding them. Plus, there's always the chance of losing foster kids if the situation in their home gets better, so that can turn people away from becoming foster parents.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,358

02 Aug 2021, 3:48 am

Misslizard wrote:
I think there should be free genetic screening available for prospective parents.If they carry the gene for a disease that’s genetic like Huntington’s, they can choose to adopt or foster a child rather than pass along a fatal illness.
Welcome back.


Yeah I prefer this line of thinking than simply embracing eugenics given its less than savoury history. A lot parents use this excuse to throw away their disabled kid.

Parents will eventually be able to get genetic counselling on a wide range of heritable conditions and make a considered decision on whether to have a child.

This will stop the practice of throwing unwanted disabled children into institutions (or worse) if the parents know their genetic risk.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,358

02 Aug 2021, 3:49 am

Fireblossom wrote:
but sterilizing people with inheritable, bad conditions by force is not okay. Neither is pressuring those people to get sterilized.


I'm hoping the OP isn't going in that direction.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 85,203
Location: Queens, NYC

02 Aug 2021, 5:34 am

Nope….eugenics is bad….all around. Screw it!

And no…I don’t believe we autistics carry “defective” genes.

And I’m a short man, not overly strong. Big s**t….so what? I’m not defective. Strong muscular smart people can produce non “optimal” offspring very easily.

I have no kids….but genetics didn’t play a role in my decision.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 85,203
Location: Queens, NYC

02 Aug 2021, 5:44 am

And also: people who suffer (allegedly because of their genes) frequently produce offspring who transcend their alleged “genes.”

Oprah Winfrey is a prime example. She transcended her alleged “genes.”

She, and many others, give eugenics a big Middle Finger.



carlos55
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,259

02 Aug 2021, 6:29 am

Like many things there’s good and bad forms of Eugenics.

It’s just the actions of the NAZIs that gave it a bad name.

Fixing bad genes in babies before their born so are born healthy and free of disability is good, in fact it’s being done now with HIV I believe.

Using it to sterilize or target ethnic groups is bad.


_________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."

- George Bernie Shaw


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 85,203
Location: Queens, NYC

02 Aug 2021, 6:43 am

Down Syndrome—yes. If they could find gene therapy for it, and with no side effects, I’d be in favor of it. Certainly much better than aborting the baby.

For something like Asperger’s: Hell no!



SocOfAutism
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2015
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,788

02 Aug 2021, 8:27 am

Lots of people can find examples of something they'd love to have eradicated. Maybe it's something you don't see value in because you don't have it, or maybe it's something you don't see value in because it's something you see as a fault in yourself. Getting rid of something because YOU don't like it is messed up.

I have a rare, debilitating, untreatable, ultimately fatal genetic disease and I am happy the way I am. If I could somehow silence my defective gene, I have no idea what else it would change. I would not do it. I chose to have a child knowing he may have my disease as well.

And btw Down's people are awesome. My husband used to be "punished" on the schoolbus by being sat next to a boy with Down's. The driver didn't know that the boy with Down's was my husband's cousin and they were friends.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,830

02 Aug 2021, 9:00 am



"The part of eugenics that wants to improve the genetic breed of a stock isn't bad"

This Reminds me of the Day That 'Richard Dawkins' Put His 'Common Sense
Of Love' Away And Said A Woman Aborting A "Down's Child" Would Be Doing

A Service

Of 'Good'

For HumanKind

As that Child Wouldn't

Nearly Be Productive
Enough for

Suitable

Cause and Effect;

Yet What If That Down's

Child Became An Adult And Was

The Only One Brave Enough to Smile

At A Stranger At Church And Shake Their Hand;

Could That Down's Adult Save A Life That Day...

True, Never
Doubt the

Super Power

of Just One Smile

That Is Loving and Sincere

And too "Ill-Educated" to Have A 'PoiSon Agenda'...

Meanwhile, All the 'Smart Folks' In Church Who Remain
Unvaccinated During A Deadly Pandemic Where the
Children At Hand Are At Most Risk As Now They Will
Be the Victims of Infection As Readily As Adults Left

Both Unmasked

And Un-Protected...

As Least A Down's

Child Is Not So Ignorant

To MaNufacture Organized Deceit...
Anyway, Every Greatest Weakness in My Life Eventually

Became my Greatest Strength Now Starting Out Weak
Becoming the Strongest Dude in the Room Starting

Out With No Words Until 4, Now Leading the World
in Most Words Of EPiC Long Form Poem Written, Once Described
As A Dizzy Fly Lost on Terrestrial Earth Now Public Dancing

More Than Half

The Distance

of the Globe

in 95 Months too...

Noted As Famous and
Legend By Passerby Folks...

Sure with All the Irrefutable

Evidence At Hand on a 6-Inch Screen

At the Forrest Gump

Bus Stops

Of Life

That For me
At Least Are Globe-Wide Now....

True, What if 'They' Erased 'Forrest Gump' From
The Earth By Making Him Perfect And Bland with
No Real Stellar Life Days Accomplishments Got Good

News Forrest Gump

Is Fiction

And i Am

Real; The Unwanted
Toys of Humanity Become
Strong Enough to Rule Their World...

HUMANS ARE NOT NEARLY SMART
ENOUGHT TO TRY TO OUTGUESS NATURE... (or me)

OR DO WE NEED THE NIGHTLY NEWS TO FIGURE THIS OUT...

OR DO i NEED

TO PROVIDE

ALL THE EVIDENCE AGAIN..;)



_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 56,888
Location: Stendec

02 Aug 2021, 9:08 am

Eugenics made its first official appearance in American history through marriage laws.  In 1896, Connecticut made it illegal for people with epilepsy or who were "feeble-minded" to marry.  In 1903, the American Breeder's Association was created to study eugenics.

John Harvey Kellogg, of Kellogg cereal fame, organized the Race Betterment Foundation in 1911 and established a "pedigree registry".  The foundation hosted national conferences on eugenics in 1914, 1915 and 1928.

As the concept of eugenics took hold, prominent citizens, scientists, and socialists championed the cause and established the Eugenics Record Office.  The office tracked families and their genetic traits, claiming most people considered unfit were immigrants, minorities, or poor.

The Eugenics Record Office also maintained there was clear evidence that supposed negative family traits were caused by bad genes, not racism, economics, or the social views of the time.  However, Oklahoma in 1908 banned marriage "between a person of African descent" and "any person not of African descent"; Louisiana in 1920 banned marriage between Native Americans and African Americans (and from 1920–1942, concubinage as well); and Maryland in 1935 banned marriages between Black people and Filipinos.  While anti-miscegenation laws are often regarded as a Southern phenomenon, most western and plains states also enacted them.

From 1909 to 1979, around 20,000 sterilizations occurred in California state mental institutions under the guise of protecting society from the offspring of people with mental illness.  Many sterilizations were forced and performed on minorities.  Thirty-three states would eventually allow involuntary sterilization in whomever lawmakers deemed unworthy to procreate.

In 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that forced sterilization of the handicapped does not violate the U.S. Constitution.  In the words of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes, "… three generations of imbeciles are enough".  Thousands of people underwent the procedure.

In the 1930s, the governor of Puerto Rico, Menendez Ramos, implemented sterilization programs for Puerto Rican women.  Ramos claimed the action was needed to battle rampant poverty and economic strife; however, it was also a way to prevent the so-called superior Aryan gene pool from becoming tainted with Latino blood.

According to a 1976 Government Accountability Office investigation, between 25 and 50 percent of Native Americans were sterilized between 1970 and 1976.  Some sterilizations happened without consent during other surgical procedures such as appendectomies.  In some cases, health care for living children was denied unless their mothers agreed to sterilization.

Forced sterilizations, ban on mixed-race marriages ... is THIS the kind of "Eugenics" the OP is proposing?


_________________
 
• Veritas Illuminata • Semper Illuminans •


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,859
Location: Aux Arcs

02 Aug 2021, 11:34 am

Some genetic diseases are fatal while the child is still an infant.Testing would give options.Who wants to carrying a baby to term only to watch it die in the NICU?No quality of life and possibly horrible pain.
If I had a fatal genetic disease my choice would be to not have any children.Why would I want to inflict that suffering on another person?Life is hard enough already.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6185816/


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 85,203
Location: Queens, NYC

02 Aug 2021, 11:39 am

I was speaking of gene therapy in the womb for Down Syndrome. Far in the future.

I’ve known some swell people with Down Syndrome.

The abortion of Down’s babies is atrocious at best.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,358

02 Aug 2021, 8:36 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
The abortion of Down’s babies is atrocious at best.


I'm guessing the OP hadn't considered this.