|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 5:51 am
On a little personal note. When I was expecting my 3rd child. I was exposed to raditation for 6 hours. I was strongly advised to have an abortion. I saw many doctors/counsolers etc.
In my heart I could not. This is him now (Well this past Christmas)
 He sings in our town choir. He is involved in C.A.T.s. and wants to be a Marine. This is what the doctors wanted me to get rid of. I thank God I didn't listen to doctors and specialist who know better than me! There are so many in our history who where not perfect but were amazing and have done things "normal" people can not!
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 5:52 am
Moon Rabbit Reisen I admit the Nazi reference wasn't the best thing to mention. Deleting it now. I just thought of it as a case of "good idea, terrible approach". Wouldn't it be great if nobody under the age of 60 needed glasses? If nobody needed behavior correction medication? If nobody under 60 needed hearing aids? If nobody needed cochlear implants? If nobody needed seeing eye dogs unless their eyes got damaged? Quote: Remember that without some forms of mental illness (like bipolar, which I have) we may not have seem the brilliance of people like Robin Williams or Kay Redfield Jamison. Robin Williams has a mental illness? eek 
Robin Williams and many many other insanely brilliant people.
LINK
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 5:54 am
Pink Fregia On a little personal note. When I was expecting my 3rd child. I was exposed to raditation for 6 hours. I was strongly advised to have an abortion. I saw many doctors/counsolers etc.
In my heart I could not. This is him now (Well this past Christmas)
He sings in our town choir. He is involved in C.A.T.s. and wants to be a Marine. This is what the doctors wanted me to get rid of. I thank God I didn't listen to doctors and specialist who know better than me! There are so many in our history who where not perfect but were amazing and have done things "normal" people can not!
I applaud you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 5:55 am
Pink Fregia On a little personal note. When I was expecting my 3rd child. I was exposed to raditation for 6 hours. I was strongly advised to have an abortion. I saw many doctors/counsolers etc.
In my heart I could not. This is him now (Well this past Christmas)
He sings in our town choir. He is involved in C.A.T.s. and wants to be a Marine. This is what the doctors wanted me to get rid of. I thank God I didn't listen to doctors and specialist who know better than me! There are so many in our history who where not perfect but were amazing and have done things "normal" people can not! I'm proud of you for not getting an abortion too. Did you know that a fully-functioning heart develops within the first 21 days of pregnancy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 5:59 am
Postcard Girl Moon Rabbit Reisen I admit the Nazi reference wasn't the best thing to mention. Deleting it now. I just thought of it as a case of "good idea, terrible approach". Wouldn't it be great if nobody under the age of 60 needed glasses? If nobody needed behavior correction medication? If nobody under 60 needed hearing aids? If nobody needed cochlear implants? If nobody needed seeing eye dogs unless their eyes got damaged? Quote: Remember that without some forms of mental illness (like bipolar, which I have) we may not have seem the brilliance of people like Robin Williams or Kay Redfield Jamison. Robin Williams has a mental illness? eek
Robin Williams and many many other insanely brilliant people.
LINK
Cool. If you will re-read the first post, I've edited it a second to include a comment that I might simply resent being learning-disabled and genetically prone to near-sightedness and be taking the sentiment that nobody deserves to be born that way to an extreme degree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 2:43 am
It would be difficult because one cannot determine what is truly a "defect". Consider this: most people would consider Sickle Cell Anemia a defect. However, it evolved in Africa as a genetic solution to malaria. The mutated (sickle shaped) hemoglobin cell impairs development of the malarial parasite. Here is a good article if you are interested http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/malaria_sickle.htmlSo, is it truly a defect? When humans can completely see all angles and know all possible outcomes, then possibly eugenics might be a viable strategy. Until then....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 2:50 am
BlueVidder It would be difficult because one cannot determine what is truly a "defect". Consider this: most people would consider Sickle Cell Anemia a defect. However, it evolved in Africa as a genetic solution to malaria. The mutated (sickle shaped) hemoglobin cell impairs development of the malarial parasite. Here is a good article if you are interested http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/malaria_sickle.htmlSo, is it truly a defect? When humans can completely see all angles and know all possible outcomes, then possibly eugenics might be a viable strategy. Until then.... I retracted my statements long ago and the only reason this thread is still around is because I am not a moderator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 2:54 am
Actually, I came back into the thread to edit my original comment to say that I understood the OP had the the best intentions when speculating. I am not berating you at all. I understand your viewpoint and have a lot of empathy for you. Just trying to shed a little light on the subject which had been around for ages tempting mankind.
It's a good thing to talk about this! Please don't feel bad about what you originally posted. I can see true unselfishness in your motives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:07 am
BlueVidder Actually, I came back into the thread to edit my original comment to say that I understood the OP had the the best intentions when speculating. I am not berating you at all. I understand your viewpoint and have a lot of empathy for you. Just trying to shed a little light on the subject which had been around for ages tempting mankind. It's a good thing to talk about this! Please don't feel bad about what you originally posted. I can see true unselfishness in your motives. I guess applying selective breeding to humans like that is a good theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 5:32 am
As someone who was born as the butt of many genetic jokes (cancer, autism, poly-cystic ovaries, blindness and several other defects all run in my family) I really do get where you're coming from. I was lucky as I managed to avoid getting the worst of it, the only thing that I did inherit was (ironically enough) a ******** up reproduction system, making it impossible for me to conceive naturally.
My brother was not so lucky. He has autism, only half a working kidney, dyslexia, dyspraxia and is only partially sighted. But would it have been better for him to have never been born? No, not in the slightest. He's a happy, good person. One of the best I've ever met. I feel the world, or at least my world specifically, would have been worse without him.
So from a scientific standpoint, I do understand what you mean. However, you fail to see the benefits these people bring to the world. Sometimes it's the people who have the most unlucky start to life who end up bringing the best changes to the world, because they have so much more to gain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 5:56 am
Elke Octavia As someone who was born as the butt of many genetic jokes (cancer, autism, poly-cystic ovaries, blindness and several other defects all run in my family) I really do get where you're coming from. I was lucky as I managed to avoid getting the worst of it, the only thing that I did inherit was (ironically enough) a ******** up reproduction system, making it impossible for me to conceive naturally.
My brother was not so lucky. He has autism, only half a working kidney, dyslexia, dyspraxia and is only partially sighted. But would it have been better for him to have never been born? No, not in the slightest. He's a happy, good person. One of the best I've ever met. I feel the world, or at least my world specifically, would have been worse without him.
So from a scientific standpoint, I do understand what you mean. However, you fail to see the benefits these people bring to the world. Sometimes it's the people who have the most unlucky start to life who end up bringing the best changes to the world, because they have so much more to gain. I would never advocate murder. Preventing conception, maybe, as nobody IMO deserves to have to deal with with nature's cruel jokes. But not murder of those already born with them. I'm not THAT removed from human sentiment when it comes to this particular subject. But it seems any amount of removal from human sentiment is too much. :/ I would do anything to be rid of my bad eyesight and autism. I took what back what I said, anyway. I would have deleted this thread if I could have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 6:36 am
Elke did not mention anything about murder, actually, but rather was elaborating the point that if eugenics had already been implemented, then their brother would not have been born and their life would have been worse without him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intellectual Conversationalist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 6:47 am
Ryzan Vixtul Elke did not mention anything about murder, actually, but rather was elaborating the point that if eugenics had already been implemented, then their brother would not have been born and their life would have been worse without him. I did get her point. However, I do feel sorry for those who were born deaf, blind, mentally handicapped, physically deformed... I was merely showing I am not heartless. I kept getting attacked because of my willingness to remove myself from human sentiment to a certain point when considering how a situation could be made better if making the situation better means doing some actions that would be EXTREMELY unpopular despite the fact that no harm came to anybody and people could pretty much live their lives as they always have. My reasoning is that if making situations better means making billions of people extremely unhappy until the desired result is achieved... wouldn't the well-being of the people of the future be more important than the happiness of the people of the present?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 7:13 am
Read [past tense] his profile, Stephen Hawking was not born that way, but it may have been in his genes. Who knows?
I think the only thing I'd have against it is when the gene-scientists are wrong or detect something minor. For instance, my mother had diabetes before me, and so the doctors assumed I would have it. Well, I don't. If eugenics was in place, I probably would not have been born. And then, let's say I still carry some gene that gives a 56% chance my child will have the gene that creates a defect. So, now I, a "normal" human being with no defects can't have children because of a recessive gene or whatever? That was suck a**, dude.
I wanna say I'd like it if we could stop stupid parents from having children, like that crazy girl on Maury who had sex with 300 men. Perhaps the mom should have had a hysterectomy. But there are so many special cases where the person turns out extraordinary and all this that it couldn't be accepted. And then the whole "not in my back yard" thing. I wouldn't want someone telling me my genes are unsuitable for having children. Let me be the judge of that.
But my parenting abilities! Sure, give me a class before I get pregnant, that's fine. Make sure I pass. And make sure the standards are accurate, of course.
I don't wanna raise rude, spoiled, disrespectful people.
I myself don't understand why we keep the ones that don't at all contribute to society, the ones that can't do anything for themselves. People can do good for other people besides people who don't do anything but stare at the wall. Waste of natural and human resources imo. But that's not this discussion!
Don't feel bad about expressing your opinion! I myself have my own seemingly immoral thoughts about how things should be handled, and thoroughly enjoy having a boyfriend and best friend open-minded enough not to chastise me for thinking and expressing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 7:29 am
Different...Very. Read [past tense] his profile, Stephen Hawking was not born that way, but it may have been in his genes. Who knows?
I think the only thing I'd have against it is when the gene-scientists are wrong or detect something minor. For instance, my mother had diabetes before me, and so the doctors assumed I would have it. Well, I don't. If eugenics was in place, I probably would not have been born. And then, let's say I still carry some gene that gives a 56% chance my child will have the gene that creates a defect. So, now I, a "normal" human being with no defects can't have children because of a recessive gene or whatever? That was suck a**, dude.
I wanna say I'd like it if we could stop stupid parents from having children, like that crazy girl on Maury who had sex with 300 men. Perhaps the mom should have had a hysterectomy. But there are so many special cases where the person turns out extraordinary and all this that it couldn't be accepted. And then the whole "not in my back yard" thing. I wouldn't want someone telling me my genes are unsuitable for having children. Let me be the judge of that.
But my parenting abilities! Sure, give me a class before I get pregnant, that's fine. Make sure I pass. And make sure the standards are accurate, of course.
I don't wanna raise rude, spoiled, disrespectful people.
I myself don't understand why we keep the ones that don't at all contribute to society, the ones that can't do anything for themselves. People can do good for other people besides people who don't do anything but stare at the wall. Waste of natural and human resources imo. But that's not this discussion!
Don't feel bad about expressing your opinion! I myself have my own seemingly immoral thoughts about how things should be handled, and thoroughly enjoy having a boyfriend and best friend open-minded enough not to chastise me for thinking and expressing it. I was inspired by an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, actually. There was this planet inhabited entirely by people who were as genetically "pure" as possible, due to being settled by scientists that did basically what I have in mind but took it so far as to abort people who were likely to have defects that would place a burden on society. I liked the thought of achieving such results through controlled reproduction, but did not approve of killing unborn babies to achieve such results. Other than that, the idea sounded effective and logical. Well, my plan for improving human genetics is far less severe than my plan for fixing the problem of pollution caused by fossil fuels. Basically, I would give fossil fuel based industries whatever was a reasonable amount of time for that particular industry to convert it's operations over to eco-friendly methods. If it couldn't, too bad. It would have to shut down and go out of business, to be bought out and taken over by someone willing to make things more friendly for the environment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
