Choosing your babys?

[LegalSmash]

As long as I can make sure my kid isn't retarded/super fat, I'll leave gender/looks up to chance.

 

This.

 

I really believe we SHOULD breed out retardation in all its forms though, as a public safety matter. I think that eliminating genetic disorder will lower costs of living for us as a nation as well as lower the expenses associated with trying to associate and include said members into society.

 

As for the imbecile and furry complaining about science's aims and the benefits wrought, aside from what IJ said:

 

1. Go read a few articles on the scientific method, research some stuff on it, talk to your teachers, etc., because you sound as retarded as some of the people who we should really be aborting.

 

2. Curing cancer has no profit value to it, we are better off knowing good treatment and preventing it... cancer is largely a preventable disease, although everyone, if they live to be old enough, will develop some sort, its what happens when cell mutation goes haywire. AIDS can be prevented by not fucking someone with AIDs, or you know, practicing safe sex! What a concept! Swine flu dues NOT need to be cured. No flu can be eradicated like that, its a virus, there will be another 3090449039408404940490 for each that we kill off, that will do the SAME THING. Treating symptoms, however, lets us get on with our lives, despite said infirmities... wash your hands more often.

 

3. Science and politics have been tied together since ancient Greeks waxed democratic while committing pederasty over a lunch of lamb and goat cheese.... nothing has changed with this... so long as there is a fringe of stupid people who refuse to accept scientific conjecture on any terms, yet will take religious scripture as incontrovertible proof of X or Y, you will continue to have debased, ignorant commentary, such as yours regarding science and genetics.

 

Lastly, most geneticists are not concerned with breeding out retards, despite the obvious benefits to said procedure, instead, they work on finding tests to identify such deformities earlier in the pregnancy, allowing for parents to make an informed decision whether to have a child that resembles a seahorse for 3 months before it dies at the cost of several 10's of thousands in convalescent care for junior that won't live long enough to know which end of the playground smells worse.

[Ramb0]

You try to put a value on human life and only bad things can come about in my opinion. "Breeding out retards" would be impossible because not only genes lead to mental deficiency. Many things cause it, and it is not only genetics. Injuries, drugs, environment and even just fucked up births all contribute. And who would decide how to breed them out, and how would it be accomplished? Would people be forcibly sterilized if they did not meet certain criteria? Normal IQ parents can have retarded children as well. How would you prevent that from happening?

 

How far would it go. Once the superhumans are being bred then a new class of mentally deficients would be created, people like us. We would be considered inferior and then considered a burden on society. People like we are currently would eventually be considered to be of little use to the society.

 

Also, our society being free would put a damper on the plan to eradicate mentally ill children before they are born. If you allow the government to decide what children should exist, then you are giving them immense power over us. It would be fascism, but almost worse because they are controlling who we are at the core. Also when would it end? If your baby(fetus) has physical and slight mental handicaps, yet the government deemed them too profound to allow it to live and ordered it to be terminated, how would you feel? There is something beyond a humans use to society, it is the ability of the human as an individual to be loved and to love.

 

That core human trait has no value. I am not religious, but the things some of you are spouting are just morally wrong. This is the line of thinking that caused millions of people to be systemetically destroyed. The government decided that doing that was best for the country.

 

No, we need compassion for life in all its forms, and not just based on use for society or we go down a dangerous road that leads to hate and tyranny.

 

Also, I do not completely understand your second point. How would a cure for cancer have no benefit? The cost of treatment and the alleviation of the pain and suffering of the individuals is not benefit enough? AIDS is bad, and it can be prevented. It doesn't mean a cure should not be sought. Anything that can end the suffering should be sought. Prevention is not the only answer.

 

I agree with the abortion thing in certain cases, but it would be impossible to be able to enforce abortions in a free society. It is ultimately the parents decision to keep a child and raise it no matter the handicap. Sure it may cost our health care system money, but there is no way to morally enforce abortions.

[LegalSmash]

You try to put a value on human life and only bad things can come about in my opinion. "Breeding out retards" would be impossible because not only genes lead to mental deficiency. Many things cause it, and it is not only genetics. Injuries, drugs, environment and even just fucked up births all contribute. And who would decide how to breed them out, and how would it be accomplished? Would people be forcibly sterilized if they did not meet certain criteria? Normal IQ parents can have retarded children as well. How would you prevent that from happening?

 

genetic testing can be use to preemptively prevent defective births, the newer tests can find things out weeks into a pregnancy... also remember over 60% of pregs miscarry anyhow. As for drugs, injuries, etc these are post birth factors that occur. Drug addicts having kids should be prevented anyhow, because the kids become society's burden in the end.

 

How far would it go. Once the superhumans are being bred then a new class of mentally deficients would be created, people like us. We would be considered inferior and then considered a burden on society. People like we are currently would eventually be considered to be of little use to the society.

 

Put the Gattaca DVD away, getting rid of terrible afflictions that occur in utero will not make a race of superhumans, but it WILL prevent us from having to slow down the classroom while the one armed child with down syndrome gets off the cabinet and stops peeing on people's bookbags. Most US states have "inclusion policies" which require the retarded children to be placed in regular classrooms, rather than their own... this royally screws learning for the rest of the kids

 

Also, our society being free would put a damper on the plan to eradicate mentally ill children before they are born. If you allow the government to decide what children should exist, then you are giving them immense power over us. It would be fascism, but almost worse because they are controlling who we are at the core. Also when would it end? If your baby(fetus) has physical and slight mental handicaps, yet the government deemed them too profound to allow it to live and ordered it to be terminated, how would you feel? There is something beyond a humans use to society, it is the ability of the human as an individual to be loved and to love.

 

They already have that power, the states have the power to remove kids at their decision that "the best interest of the child" is at stake. Your petty statements about fascism are not only incorrect, but are moot because such control has existed since the creation of the juvenile justice system and the CDC being able to quarantine... nice try though.

Personally, I'd be fine with the government curtailing the incident of misshapen, profoundly mentally retarded humans that will not live past 3-6 months of life and cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions to prolong their suffering.

 

LOL at your comments about love.

 

That core human trait has no value. I am not religious, but the things some of you are spouting are just morally wrong. This is the line of thinking that caused millions of people to be systemetically destroyed. The government decided that doing that was best for the country.

 

No, I'm not wrong, or technically right. I think you should get off your moral high horse and realize that compassion is better served by giving rest to a creature that will not survive and will only know pain, suffering, and debased existence throughout its short life.

No, we need compassion for life in all its forms, and not just based on use for society or we go down a dangerous road that leads to hate and tyranny.

 

Just please, get off the soapbox... its unbecoming.. are you going to sing kumbaya next?

 

Also, I do not completely understand your second point. How would a cure for cancer have no benefit? The cost of treatment and the alleviation of the pain and suffering of the individuals is not benefit enough? AIDS is bad, and it can be prevented. It doesn't mean a cure should not be sought. Anything that can end the suffering should be sought. Prevention is not the only answer.

 

No. Suffering that is totally preventable does not need to be eliminated, then our species gets stupider. We should not be fucking everything that moves. Hence, AIDs is one of those things that you should be wary of when you decide to embark on needle drugs, unprotected sex, or visiting parts of the third world to engage in the aforementioned activities.

 

Medicine, according to both political parties in this country is apparently a business rather than a means by which to prevent human suffering. sickness, disease, suffering will always exist. A virus that spreads through human contact that is generally (80-90% of the time) purely elective contact is not something to piss away money on. I'd prefer they spend money on stem cell research to regrow arms and legs for soldiers that lost them then allowing someone the option of promiscuous sex without any consequence whatsoever.

 

As for cancer, its something that occurs in human physiology once you reach a certain age... that is just what it is.. curing cancer is like trying to prevent the sunrise, or our planet's eventual destruction due to the sun imploding or whatever... its not feasible.

 

I agree with the abortion thing in certain cases, but it would be impossible to be able to enforce abortions in a free society. It is ultimately the parents decision to keep a child and raise it no matter the handicap. Sure it may cost our health care system money, but there is no way to morally enforce abortions.

 

 

Yes there is, neither party has the balls to step up and say it though. In the infamous words of Oliver Wendell Holmes in Buck v. Bell, "Three generations of imbeciles is enough".

 

 

Done.

[Ramb0]

genetic testing can be use to preemptively prevent defective births, the newer tests can find things out weeks into a pregnancy... also remember over 60% of pregs miscarry anyhow. As for drugs, injuries, etc these are post birth factors that occur. Drug addicts having kids should be prevented anyhow, because the kids become society's burden in the end.

 

Yes, genetic testing is very accurate but how would you implement it? Would you force every single person to get genetic testing for their children, then force abort the "defective" children? What level of defect would be the "line" that you'd abort at? Would it just be retardation? What if the child had a sound mind but had severe physical problems that would cause him to be a "burden on society"?

 

Drug addicts having kids is bad yes, but really unpreventable at this point in time. The best we can get is taking the kids away from those abusive environments... And my point of the injuries was that even if you tried to breed out defects there would always be plenty left due to other factors... There is no quick and easy solution to these problems.

 

Put the Gattaca DVD away, getting rid of terrible afflictions that occur in utero will not make a race of superhumans, but it WILL prevent us from having to slow down the classroom while the one armed child with down syndrome gets off the cabinet and stops peeing on people's bookbags. Most US states have "inclusion policies" which require the retarded children to be placed in regular classrooms, rather than their own... this royally screws learning for the rest of the kids

 

I never saw Gattaca actually. And maybe I went a bit too far with that, but if you strive for genetic "perfection" than anyone who doesn't meet the perfection will not fit in with society. Striving for genetic perfection leads to a dangerous road in my opinion. And I have never seen full on down syndrome kids in a class with regular kids. The most I have seen is them eating in the same cafeteria but they usually go to their own special needs classes....

 

They already have that power, the states have the power to remove kids at their decision that "the best interest of the child" is at stake. Your petty statements about fascism are not only incorrect, but are moot because such control has existed since the creation of the juvenile justice system and the CDC being able to quarantine... nice try though.

Personally, I'd be fine with the government curtailing the incident of misshapen, profoundly mentally retarded humans that will not live past 3-6 months of life and cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions to prolong their suffering.

 

Well I don't know as much about the law as you of course but I thought certain criteria had to be met before taking the child away. If the parents cannot provide adequate care for the disabled child then it can be taken, correct? This is a good thing if it would be in the childs better interest because often times the parents don't have the resources to take care of a severely disabled child... That isn't the same thing as forcibly removing the children from life itself though. Won't the state usually strive to keep the child in the parents hands if at all possible?

 

I actually agree with you about the severely disabled. If the child will not be able to live or be able to enjoy any quality of life, it should be mercifully killed. It would be ridiculous to keep a baby without a brain alive for instance. Children like this should be either euthanized or taken off life support. But that is a different topic dealing with the legality of euthanasia..

 

No. Suffering that is totally preventable does...

 

Ok, why did we eradicate smallpox then, and malaria from our nation? If a cure for these horrible diseases can be found it would save tons of medical costs and pain for the people that would unduly suffer. Stopping the diseases entirely is the best option. I don't even understand why someone would oppose these cures other than the companies that directly profit from the diseases...

 

About population control, poverty and disease are what cause people to have more kids in the first place. If only 1 in 10 people survive past 50, instead of having 3 kids they might have 10 kids just so they can improve their chances of having long living children. Diseases, poverty and suffering contribute more to the population spiraling out of control than stopping the diseases. People will compensate. Education about birth control and improvement of quality of life is a better option for many of these poor peoples. improvement of quality of life and education are much better for stopping the out of control populations than the letting the diseases run their course..

 

And about the cancer thing... I never said a cure was possible, I said hypothetically if there was a cure or a way to slow down the cancer enough for it to the negligible, then we should definitely implement it. Also, survival rates for most cancers have dramatically increased by way of better treatments. Maybe a complete cure isn't possible, but we can get a whole of a lot better than what we have now..

[Lux]

Certain things are at risk with a choice. If everyone is perfect then there will be no one to do the vital yet academically simple jobs in every society. That is just the tip of the iceberg, yeah get rid of disabilities and diseases but don't go too far. Legal puts it harshly but fairly tbh with disabled, retarded, generally wasteful people. If they have no use to society then their existence is a burden. In a life where most of us are going to be far from "well off" in terms of rolling in heaps of money the fact that our tax money is being wasted is frustrating.

 

Also Legalsmash to simply state that cancer is not curable seems a bit naive to me. We as humans are by no means near the peak of our potential capabilities.....infact will we ever be? I don't and will not be bothered to look into the matter more, but people are trying so obviously there is hope that there will be a breakthrough, although when or if it will happen is a mystery.

[skitzophranic]

That's just sick. I'd love my baby no matter how it comes out. And I would never do something like that to my unborn child.

[Ramb0]

Lux you see, you have to figure who would decide if the being is fit to live or not? Would it be the government? The parents? Private companies? Our new supreme galactic overlords?

 

Giving anyone power such as that would be extremely dangerous to our freedoms in general as they would have control over peoples baby's very life and death.

 

Sure, removing some human "waste" may benefit society, but what is the cost and who will decide what waste to keep and what waste to dispose of?

[Italian Jew]

Giving anyone power such as that would be extremely dangerous to our freedoms in general as they would have control over peoples baby's very life and death.

 

Sure, removing some human "waste" may benefit society, but what is the cost and who will decide what waste to keep and what waste to dispose of?

 

Wouldn't it be a freedom if the parents were allowed to choose what to do?

[Ramb0]

Yes, in my opinion that's how it should be, and frankly how it is in most places. Its actually not the parent(s) that decide, it is the mother specifically. 90% of down syndrome cases actually end in termination.

 

Now the debate turns to pro-choice vs pro-life.

[Harbor]

hows this disturbing? There is a movie about it we watched in BIO.

 

I would make my kid mini michael phelps.