new start

victoriatangoman wrote:

> > I think it's utterly reprehensible. It involves killing or
> sterilising
> > people, when these people have commited no crime.
>
> I'm not sure if your statement was mistyped and was supposed to be a
> conditional (I think . . . IF it involves killing . . .) then I'm
> sure most of us are in agreement.
>
> If what you wrote is in fact what you meant, then we're in
> disagreement about the very definition of eugenics. That it was
> practiced the way you write is indeed true, and not an excuse, but
> the mispractice of the past in no way must DEFINE the very concept.

Sounds like you want to redefine the word they way you want it to be,
not the way it is used. Dangerous idea for you since the word is highly
inflamatory, dangerous for society, since it is easy for the meaning to
slip back to its old usage.

> As you allude to below, the act of pre-implantation embryo screening
> is a eugenic act.

No. It isn't; unless the screening is imposed by society. It's 'merely'
abortion, just very early abortion.

> Now you're getting into abortion issues by not
> implanting an embryo, so the take is a little muddier than your
> above definition depending on your personal position on when life
> begins.

No, no. Eugenics isn't ultimately about abortion, it's about power- it's
about who decides. If it's society or doctors deciding for couples, then
it's eugenics. If it's the couples then it's family planning in the true
sense of the word, not the ghastly eugenics sense. There is a big, big
difference. It's like the difference between slaves and servants or
employees.

> Looking for a mate that you fancy is the same principle but totally
> innocent of the evil connotations inherent in the defintion you
> raised. Add some technology to the mate selection process, e.g
> screening for predisposition to cystic fibrosis, ALS, Parkinson's
> disease, and you're still practicing eugenics without killing any
> one. You're now just hurting their feelings by rejecting them.

If the couples are making the best decisions for them, then I'm not
uncomfortable.

> > If anyone has the right to do that, it is a parental
> responsibility, and
> > parents have been doing this sort of thing since the beginning of
> time.
> > I mean, women essentially choose their mates, and they choose
> based on a
> > variety of things, of which health is the prime one, and
> personality,
> > intelligence etc. They do a pretty good job on the whole.
> >
> > There's an assumption in eugenics that you even know that a
> particular
> > disability or trait is genetic, and that you can remove it by
> > sterilising individuals.
>
> Well, there has been a lot of genetic research going on during the
> last century, and many advances in the last decade. We now know how
> to identify specific genetic sequences for some diseases. This will
> only increase.

Sure, in some cases. But that's based on the single gene model which is
known to be, in general, wrong.

For example you can have a mutation and still not get a disease because
another gene comes into play that codes for a protein that sorts it out.
Of course not everyone will have the other gene, and not all of these
other genes will have been identified for decades if ever. So the tests
we have are probabilistic right now and are likely to remain so.

> The sterilizing issue is heinous for it takes away a fundamental
> human right to procreate. That is was done in the name of bad
> science is unjustifiable. Look to history for guidance on how
> science advances over time. We learn more and do better with that
> knowledge. I don't condemn religion for the evils that it has
> perpetrated thoughout history. I look to the good that some
> religions can do.
>
> Will sterilization be a tactic in the future? I hope not, but
> unfortunately I think some more authoritarian regimes will probably
> implement it because they want results NOW, and they care not a whit
> about human rights. Look to China with its one-child policy.

That's not exactly eugenics because they weren't selecting for genetic
traits (allegedly); but it's in the same ballpark.

> > In practice it's not always clearcut,
>
> Indeed, it is not always clearcut.
>
> > and many genes code for propensities and are recessive. In those cases
> > you'd have to genetically wipe out a whole family to remove the
> genes from
> > the gene pool.
>
> No you wouldn't. You'd just have to decrease their preponderance
> over time. The people with such sequences have more and more trouble
> finding mates and over time the issue takes care of itself.

No, in practice. Recessive genes don't manifest themselves unless both
parents have them, so they're mainly a problem in smallish populations.
For example a lot of Norwegians are prone to certain diseases due to the
historically small population of their country, but as they outbreed
these disease apparently vanish; the genes are still there in the
population, but they are recessive, so both parents will almost never
have them. In fact most genetic diseases ARE recessive and most people
have several recessive genetic diseases that aren't manifested for that
reason.

As a concrete example, sickle cell anemia requires two different genes
to be present at once- so as blacks interbreed with other races the
disease should gradually fade away- the genes are still there, but
almost never meet up in one individual. Indeed, having either one of the
genes is an advantage as they seem to give increased resistance to
malaria, you just don't want both of them at once. Should we sterilise
or abort everyone with one or other of these genes? No, of course not.
(Although lots of racists would probably suggest it as a "good idea").

> To
> invoke mass killing and sterilization is a strawman. Completely
> unwarranted.

No. That's what it has meant in practice in the past. In future it may
mean enforced abortions depending on, say, who the father- is on racial
grounds.

> Indeed many genetic disorders are becoming rarer- outbreeding is
> > occuring making the recessive genes less likely to manifest. This
> is a
> > good thing.
>
> The fact that they are becoming rarer, for instance Tays Sachs
> diesease in the Jewish community, is a result of eugenic practices.

No. These are people choosing for themselves. That's not eugenics.
That's just sensible parenting. As I say, parents have always been
choosing. It's when organisations start telling people what children
they can't have that the problems start.

> You'll note that the Jews are NOT killing or sterilizing each other.
>
> http://www.join.org.au/health/taysachsmelbourne.htm

I expect some antiabortionists would disagree.