[Nuke]

for eugenics sake abort thr rape babys! rapists should not be allowd to procreate. i take no sides in the nature / nurture argument as both sides have merit. to say one means more than the other is lunacy. when somone has both the genes of a rapist and grew up in a loveless home because they were the spawn of terror, the rape baby has a good chance of following in their fathers footsteps. so by alowing abortion in case of rape, youre supporting evolution. you can say the same thing about abortion in case of stupidity, but sence stupidity is a less offensive crime. you can instead of abort the feotus, say impose mandatory marriage between the idiots that didnt use a rubber, or abort and sterilize the both of them. to be fair, let them choose.

That is complete bollocks, really, and I presume it's just stirring-up-ness in the same sense as 'nuke the world' etc.

im dead serious, what, you think im some 14 year old script kiddie with a morbid sence of humor? mankind has clearly lost somthing sence the acception of civilization. as for nuke the world, that creates a situation  where the human race could potentially have a future. a society is not worth having if it cannot sustain itself in the extreme long term. a star burns brightest when its about to go out.

for eugenics sake

Eugenics is a horrific, stupid idea. Please don't say things like "supporting evolution" about eugenics. That's not what evolution is. It's not even close. You're twisting the ideas of generations of scientists to support a lunatic, inhumane idea.

eugenics is a program for controlling evolution by manipulation of breeding. hitlers implementation was not perfect and was established out of racism instead of a actual need to improve humanity. i personally support eugenics as a corrective measure to fix problems in the way people procreate, such as rape, unwanted birth or sexual manipulation on part of women (the ones who get knocked up so as to collect welfare and child support, thus living an apathetic life). if parents want a child then theirs a good chance they planned it out and a better chance that child can grow up without problem. however if a situation arises when a potential child (embriotic, not feotic) is to be denied a normal life due to irresponsible human behavior then measures should be taken to ensure the avoidance of a next generation of serial killers, rapists, and crazies.

[aldo_14]

im dead serious, what, you think im some 14 year old script kiddie with a morbid sence of humor? mankind has clearly lost somthing sence the acception of civilization. as for nuke the world, that creates a situation  where the human race could potentially have a future. a society is not worth having if it cannot sustain itself in the extreme long term. a star burns brightest when its about to go out.

Actually, I thought you were acting a bit of a twat..... one of the very definitions of civillisation and humanity is, after all, not resolving differences by peaceful means.

[Black Wolf]

for eugenics sake

Eugenics is a horrific, stupid idea. Please don't say things like "supporting evolution" about eugenics. That's not what evolution is. It's not even close. You're twisting the ideas of generations of scientists to support a lunatic, inhumane idea.

Err, no it isn't. Eugenics is a very good idea. It's exactly the same as breeding a better breed of dog or cow. Just when applied to the human race, issues of morality pop up. Saying its a "stupid idea" is just allowing yourself to be swept up in the negative connotations the word has picked up.

Now, I'm not a card carrying eugenecist by any stretch and I don't endorse it, because of the moral issues mentioned earlier. But consider, if two people with a crippling physical/mental genetic disability wanted to have a child where there was a 100% chance of the child having the same disability, wouldn't you consider that terribly selfish? That right there is base level eugenics.

adn it wasn't stupid by a long shot..well, not as much as you anyway:D

Oooh... Cutting.

[Bobboau]

due to there being a number of deeply ingrained emotional systems built into humanity needed to allow us to live socaly, I don't think eugenics will ever work, I do on the other hand have hope for genetic engeneering.

[Mars]

I'm quite hoping fundis / worry warts will allow scientists to do research into this because it'll help a lot of people.

[Nuke]

due to there being a number of deeply ingrained emotional systems built into humanity needed to allow us to live socaly, I don't think eugenics will ever work, I do on the other hand have hope for genetic engeneering.

well if eugenics does away with emotionally disturbing situations, such as rape, then it would have a positive stabilizing effect on the built in emotional systems as well. still eugenics can only solve half of that problem. the nurture part of the equation remains unresolved. one must engineer a means to ensure that every human being is allowed to live an emotionally stable life. seems most people cannot think beyond their own existance, and untill that problem is solved mankind will not progress.

[Bobboau]

the problem with the eugenic aproch is two fold, there is the whole 'it wrong to dictate who you can and can't have childeren with' argument, wich is mostly ingrained in empathetic emotions, wich is mostly ingrained in instinctive behavior (imho), but perhapse the bigger problem is it is indirct and slow, it would take many many generations to acomplish with eugenics what genetic engeneering could do in a single generation, all that is needed is a firm understanding of what genes do what, natural selection would fill in any gaps we miss no need for an unatural selection process, when we have the ability to rewrite the genome.

[Nuke]

either way its still a long term thing. genetic engineering is a less safe aproach, as then you have to deal with bugs in the code, so to speak.

[Bobboau]

like I said, natural selection will iron out the bugs.

[aldo_14]

The whole concept of eugenics is daft, because it's based entirely on human notions of 'ideal' which are biased and skewed by human faults.

[Shadow0000]

for eugenics sake abort thr rape babys! rapists should not be allowd to procreate. i take no sides in the nature / nurture argument as both sides have merit. to say one means more than the other is lunacy. when somone has both the genes of a rapist and grew up in a loveless home because they were the spawn of terror, the rape baby has a good chance of following in their fathers footsteps. so by alowing abortion in case of rape, youre supporting evolution. you can say the same thing about abortion in case of stupidity, but sence stupidity is a less offensive crime. you can instead of abort the feotus, say impose mandatory marriage between the idiots that didnt use a rubber, or abort and sterilize the both of them. to be fair, let them choose.

This apply only to male to female rape ?, I don't need to cite the others, right ?

The Evolutionary theory sees (male) propensity to rape (females) as being based on natural selection as an evolved reponse to better transmit the male (rapists') genes to future generations. For example, Ellis states that the "world record for the number of offspring fathered by a human male is 888, whereas 69 offspring is the most ever borne by a one human female." These sex disparities mean that those males who can inseminate the largest number of females by "whatever methods necessary (including force)" might win in the contest to pass down their genes. However, once again this theory fails to explain male-male, female-male and female-female rape. In fact, the occurrence of male-male and female-female rape, where genes cannot be passed down at all, would seem to contradict the evolutionary theory of rape.

So, if a a woman rapes a man, gets pregnant, of course she wanted to, then the baby should be aborted because she will pass rapist genes to her baby, or maybe that theory is so well based that "just applies for men" or there is just an excellent explanation that proves that, or maybe masculism has joined science...

[Bobboau]

The whole concept of eugenics is daft, because it's based entirely on human notions of 'ideal' which are biased and skewed by human faults.

to a degree that is true, but there is some **** thats frik'n obviusly something that no one should have to live with, plenty of genetic deseises.

[aldo_14]

The whole concept of eugenics is daft, because it's based entirely on human notions of 'ideal' which are biased and skewed by human faults.

to a degree that is true, but there is some **** thats frik'n obviusly something that no one should have to live with, plenty of genetic deseises.

That's fair enough - all we have to be careful not to lapse into discrimination - although the modern context of eugenics almost always refers to 'improving' the body rather than repairing it.  Certain genetic illnesses can be pretty clearly classed - and fairly - as defective in the sense of expected 'normal' human functionality, so I don't think developing cures or screening is the same as, say, picking breeding pairs. 

Um, so the concept of 'improving' humanity as a species through human selection is just stupid.