[Ulala]

Okay, but what about like Helen Keller? Deaf, blind, and mute... if she was born today, should she live? Well, I guess those aren't necessarily genetic problems. So depends on what's a genetic deformity and what's not then..
Anyway, what if someone who is genetically deformed doesn't want to die? What if they do? Is it about making the choice for them, or letting them make the choice? Again, I think it comes back to human rights. Isn't it their right to choose? If they don't want to die, should we let them live, reproduce, and "pollute" the gene pool? Or should we end their deformed life?
If they do want to die, should we assist in their suicide?

This isn't really directed in any direction or toward anyone, I'm just thinking aloud.

[Kazan]

Ulala:  the argument of "by that logic this person wouldn't have existed!" means exactly jack trash - if Person X never existed there would be Person Y who did something similiar/same -- the species doesn't revolve around single individuals - it is only influenced by their actions, and only noticably influenced by the actions of groups, typically large groups, of individuals


If they are euthanised before birth/immediately then they never have wants (a baby who is not eventually ends up having wants, needs, etc and therefore gets their human rights)


We should absolutely not let someone who is massively genetically defetive breed - except in one circumstance, they carry the non defective gene and they will do preimplantation genetic diagnosis (and seletion) for their zygotes

If someone, as an adult, wishes to die and are a patient of some sort of major illness then they should go through pysch stuff, etc to see if they're making the right decision -- if they have nothing wrong with them physically they just need psychological help, and it should be given to them.

----------------------------------------------------
Here is why I say the preventing of massively deformed (especially genetically) is a good thing --  The needs of the species vastly outweigh the need of the individual, this individual will do nothing but drain the species, this individual will never know a real life, just a pathetic dependant existance,  if this individual is aborted during pregnancy excellent, if the deformation is not found until birth this individual should be humanely euthanised.  

One who does not grow into a conscious thinking being doesn't really have rights, a person who will grow into a conscious thinking being has their rights because they will eventually understand them and be capable of making those decisions.

[mikhael]

Making decisions about the life or death of individuals based on percieved species' need is a  much deeper abrogation of human rights as circumcision. Using your beliefs ("No to mention I consider it cruel to keep alive the massively deformed.") to justify your position is the same as a rabbi using his beliefs to justify butchering your penis.

Your hypocrisy undermines your original thesis.

[Odyssey]

Also bear in mind that abortion, especially in later stages, is a very painful process for a pregnant women, both physically and mentally. Even more so if it is forced on her without her choice. Forced aborting of possibly deformed children would cause a lot of controversy.

[Kazan]

mikhael: there is no hypocrisy in making a distinction between when human rights begin and when you don't have them yet

a child gets their human rights after they're born and are verified non-deformed

read before calling someone a hypocrit, because they may be making a  distinction - the needs of a single deformed and totaly useless individual should never go over the species -- someone who will cost $40,000/year to keep alive for the next 60 years resuls in a $2,400,000 drain on the economy -- it's just not a sound decision


who said forced... ever heard of social engineering

[Odyssey]

There you go basing an argument upon your own personal views again. By that, reference your "a child gets their human rights after they're born and are verified non-deformed". I'm not in a position to verify that from a legal perspective, but it's definitely very questionable.

And I said forced, and yes I've heard of social engineering. Sure, you can make the public believe stuff. But not all of them. Oh no. Especially not on an issue such as this. And so long as someone speaks out, the issue will remain. You can't deny the physical fact it causes pain, for one.

[mikhael]

Kazan, you're talking about eugenics. We all know where THAT path leads.

[Top Gun]

Kazan: I would actually be bothered to support you on this issue if I believed for a second that you were actually sinceare about suing your parents for abuse. So perhaps we can expect to see a scan of the relevant legal documents that you will/have serve(d) to them in the near future otherwise we are to assume that you're not really that bothered and just blowing off steam/attention seeking here.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by mikhael
Kazan, you're talking about eugenics. We all know where THAT path leads.

/me is currently well beyond pissed

bull**** you ****ing intellectually dishonest piece of ****.  Not all eugenics goes to ****ing killing people and all the ****ing moronic nazi horse**** -- just because some ****ing morons once in history killed in the name of eugenics doesn't mean eugenics is killing

the nazi "eugenics" program was the furthest thing from a eugenics program you could ever find, they were kkilling the smartest and members of their society.   they practiced negative eugenics

Positive Eugenics focuses on encouraging the spread of good genes, and trying to not step on peoples toes are much as possible.  If it is possible for you to produce an off spring with less genetic flaws than you then you should do so - be it via Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis, or even relying on the probabilities of passing genes.  
The only spot where my form of eugenics encourages any killing is the humane euthanization of massively deformed babies.


In short: GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS - THAT WAS A WHOLE CLUSTER**** OF LOGICAL FALLACIES IN ONE SENTANCE

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Top Gun
Kazan: I'll be with you on this one if you put your money where your mouth is. Do you really have the guts to try and sue your parents? I would respect you a lot more if I believed that you were actually sinceare. So perhaps we can expect to see a scan of the relevant legal documents that you will/have serve(d) to them in the near future otherwise we are to assume that you're not really that bothered and just blowing off steam here.

why do you always direct it at people's parents - if the parents where misinformed it's not their fault - it's the doctors, which i am willing to believe quite readily from the situation with the medical community

but if my parents made the decision knowing exactly what it was destroying they're going to be seven forms of hell for them to pay -- don't even think I have any compunctions about going after my parents.

[Top Gun]

Maybe not but they're the only people you stand a minute chance of being able to win against which would serve as a deterrant. So if you're that concearned you could attempt to sue them to frighten possibe future parents that might wish to get this done and yours would be colateral damage. Otherwise this amounts to nothing more than letting off steam.

[vyper]

Mankind has evolved to the point we are at right now, only though long and painfull processes. Those of us that believe in a less religious, less blindly led world: we can only hope that in the future mankind will evolve to the point where he doesn't require religion (and it will come, as current trends in religious following proves) nor will he require to perform physical alteration to himself or other to feel he is a complete person. The future is unwritten, yet it is predictable through our past - we will change. Here endeth the lesson!

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Kazan


/me is currently well beyond pissed
[personal attacks and offensive rant removed. see above]

You know, Kazan, you really need to get "your head out of your ass". You will also note that I did not mention either the Nazis or germany. You did. I merely stated that you were describing eugenics. You read an awful lot into the statement that had no place being there. In short, you constructed logical fallacies in your head and applied them to my statement.

When I learned formal debate, one of the things I learned was that losing your temper is a bad tactical move. Cursing and telling someone they have their head in their bottoms is also a bad move. I also learned that you should argue the opponent's point, not what you think his point is.

I live in a US state that had a eugenics program until the 1974. It had nothing to do with Nazis, or germany. They sterilized people they felt would contribute negatively to the gene pool. The law that created this board was instituted in 1929, and was not removed until this very year, though the program was defunct in 1974. During this time 8000 Americans had their lives destroyed in the name of 'bettering the gene pool'. Women had their fetuses forcibly aborted. Sterilization was forced removal of the ovaries and womb or removal of the testicles. No mere tubal ligations for these people. They sterilized girls as young as 10.

Forget the Nazis, Kazan. Look at yourself. You come from a culture that allowed that, even after we saw the horrors of World War 2.

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by mikhael
Kazan, you're talking about eugenics. We all know where THAT path leads.

After all, Hitler loved eugenics...

[Kazan]

mikhael - you implying it was enough

I do not 'construct logical fallcies' - i only use the official ones  

The situation you describe was negative eugenics -  force, I propose to engineer society so that there will be no "force" required - but that people will understand that it is their duty and will not have compunctions with doing their part to help the species.

Yous hould know where I stand before you try and criticize me

[Ulala]

Originally posted by Kazan
...this individual will never know a real life, just a pathetic dependant existance,  if this individual is aborted during pregnancy excellent, if the deformation is not found until birth this individual should be humanely euthanised.

Who's to say this individual will never know a real life? There are lots of challenged individuals who may not know real life the same as you and I, but they still know real life. Shouldn't it be the individual's decision?
Ack, gotta go.. class is out.. will talk later.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Kazan
but that people will understand that it is their duty and will not have compunctions with doing their part to help the species.

Bull****. Go marry your girl, get her pregnant, and tell her right before birth that the child will have to be killed if he/she has a "severe" deformity. Then come back here and post a picture of the slap and scratch marks all over your face.

If you think that mentally healthy parents will willingly give up their offspring, then.... gah, nevermind. I'm NOT going there.

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by vyper
Mankind has evolved to the point we are at right now, only though long and painfull processes. Those of us that believe in a less religious, less blindly led world: we can only hope that in the future mankind will evolve to the point where he doesn't require religion (and it will come, as current trends in religious following proves)  

Can you show me the statistical proof that the amount of religious people in the world has decreased by an amount to support your concluesion?

According to the data i have, which may not be infalliable, but it at least appears to be somewhat accurate shows the amount of non-religious people is decreasing.

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/8933/wrptext.htm

[vyper]

It was a broad sweeping generalised statement - and I have no site based evidence. Just look at the abandonment of churchs in this country.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Sandwich


Bull****. Go marry your girl, get her pregnant, and tell her right before birth that the child will have to be killed if he/she has a "severe" deformity. Then come back here and post a picture of the slap and scratch marks all over your face.

If you think that mentally healthy parents will willingly give up their offspring, then.... gah, nevermind. I'm NOT going there.

wow! what a flaming assumption!!! hahahahahahaha

/me laughs his ass off and doesn't bother to respond -- figure out why i am laughing moron