NBC's Snyderman: "It's Pro-Science To Abort Children With Genetic Defects"

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by ideasarebulletproof

 

Just a little remark: one moment is, parents been informed of troubles & hella other one -- they been forced to abort + keep in mind, hospitals could kill 'wrong' babies by silent agreement w/ gov. & insurance companies

I don't really know what you just said. "Hella other one" ??

Whose forcing people to abort?

Killing the "wrong" babies by the government?

Sorry, that's far beyond the pale of paranoid for me.

I really have little to say as i'm not a dad yet though i do hope to be one someday, I will say this though i would like the choice if my child was going to be severely disabled to the point where a decent quality of life would be near impossible for them. i'm not talking minor defects, but if the child will never be able to live on there own without 24/7 care, if they could never hold a simple job, or know some of the simple joys of life that are taken for granted, that what i'm worried about. I'm not saying i would push for a abortion but i would like the chioce to talk it out betweeen me and my future wife and make a choice based on what we think would be best for the child and us. Maybe this makes me a bad person but thats my take on it.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by TrueBrit

 

Depends upon what you interpret to mean eugenics.

A bunch of high minded fanatics who think they have the intellect and moral fortitude to decide the fate of a species by preventing certain traits from continuing, by preventing pairings that they find to cause unpleasant or unwanted mutations, abnormalities, and malformations, rather than treating those things as they come about, like a true practitioner of healing arts would.

Quite bluntly - the ability to reproduce does not of itself establish a good reason to reproduce. People with genetic disorders that cannot be corrected through gene therapy in their offspring should seriously consider abstaining from reproducing in a biological sense.

Says who exactly? Steven Hawking would never have been born under such a regime as you suggest, and the world would be worse off without his input. He is not the only example of a person born with hereditary problems who would not have come about if this dangerous and evil system you so blindly advocate, had been in place. The hell with the whole idea!

Now - if you want to start trying to craft a certain "breed" of human - the more power to you if you can find the volunteers to participate. I don't think it will meet with much success - but if people want to get together and try to work out how to breed and form a race of their own designation... why not?

Well for a start, because the mindset that comes from thinking one has the moral right to decide what makes a person good, whole, or in some way better than another, purely based on genetics always comes with an unhealthy dose of megalomania, which is never a good thing for the people under the system which supports it. I think thats reason enough to avoid the whole idea.

I do not, however, think it is a good idea - or acceptable - to decide to start eliminating undesirable genetic traits involuntarily (IE - "nazi" eugenics).

Eugenics has one sole outcome, and every path toward its goals contains the very sort of fascism that the Nazis held so close to their ideals.

But if people want to voluntarily participate in programs - that's their call.

Not if that desire ends up endangering those of us who live by natures decree, as we have done as a species perfectly successfully up until now. And make no bones about it, that is the only end result. Conflict.

Personally - I'll be looking for my wife to be not just a good person I love and get along with - but a good candidate for producing healthy and adept children.

I want kids to train to survive the apocalypse and rebuild society. They've got to be smart, tough, and vision that can see into the infra-red spectrum (and venom-laced canine teeth).

I'm jesting a little bit - but I want my kids to be equipped to be greater than myself if they so choose to be. And I would hope they do the same for their kids.

Those are laudable goals, but attaining those ends must never be as important as the way you go about achieving them. Training a child to be faster and stronger is a matter of patience not a matter of genetics.The human race has been much stronger than it is today, because for the last few hundred years our lives have become so much easier, what with our inventions, and our medicine. When life gets harder again, so will we. It is in our nature to do so, as has been proven by our current status as the dominant species on the Earth. We require no tinkering with our nature, and could stand to suffer from such tinkering.

And not just in terms of biology - the home environment is pretty crucial to how the early body develops. It plays a huge role in developing and reinforcing an individual.

Of course it does, but that does not change the fact that eugenics is a strict, not a fluid system. It allows for no imperfection, for no instability in any system which uses its template, and the results of a society no matter what size, operating such a system is always going to be an aloof, mightier than thou attitude.

Attitude like that has one outcome. All you would be doing by advocating this system in human evolution, is setting up a target to be justly butchered for its hubris, arrogance, and hatred and distrust of everything outside it, again, inevitable side effects of such a strict and ego reinforcing upbringing.

Eugenics prevents humility, and it is the meek that shall inherit the Earth, not the towering supermen.

Originally posted by SyphonX
How do you abort a sociopath, and is it detectable in the womb?

I would possibly share your sentiments if we could "abort" the sociopaths and destructive psychopaths in this world.. but alas, we cannot. Physical abnormalities and the "disabled" are really not the "problem" in this world, are they? When was the last time someone with advanced cerebral palsy destroyed an entire oceanic eco-system with crude oil, then complained quote, "I want my life back." ?

You make a good point about sociopaths. I don't know if there are embryonic tests that can be performed to detect sociopathy, but if such a test existed provided consistent, accurate results, a positive test result would be grounds for immediate termination, IMO. Sociopaths are dangerous to the public, and suffer from a complete lack of conscience that prevent them from living happy, productive lives. In general, I am not in favor of selectively terminating pregnancy based on genetic culling, but in the case of sociopaths, it truly is better for everyone that they be identified and suppressed as early as possible.

reply to post by draco49


There is no way to detect sociopathic and psychopathic tendancies before birth in all cases. However, there is a gene, reffered to as the Warrior Gene, which has been linked with anti-social personality disorders. In simple terms this genes presence in some individuals can cause increased capacity for violence. However, the mere presence of the gene does not indicate a certainty of ill behavior or evil.

For example, although some serial killers probably have the gene, so do honourable and reasonable folks who happen to be more than capable of defending themselves. Look up Monoamine oxidase A for more information.

Why don't we just cut to the chase and give parents the right to take their children to death camps?

Your kid grows up doing well, no 'defects' and has some hope to be a 'productive member of society'? All's fine and good.

Your kid's born with a hair lip, a psychological disorder, turns into a child serial killer, doesn't get straight A's in school or fails to score that winning touch down?

'Come on junior - we're going for a little ride...'

peace

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by draco49

 

There is no way to detect sociopathic and psychopathic tendancies before birth in all cases. However, there is a gene, reffered to as the Warrior Gene, which has been linked with anti-social personality disorders. In simple terms this genes presence in some individuals can cause increased capacity for violence. However, the mere presence of the gene does not indicate a certainty of ill behavior or evil.

For example, although some serial killers probably have the gene, so do honourable and reasonable folks who happen to be more than capable of defending themselves. Look up Monoamine oxidase A for more information.

I am aware of the so-called "warrior gene", and how it can lead to aggression, thrill-seeking, and reckless behavior. I hadn't heard about it being tied to sociopathy, which is very different from anti-social behavior. Anti-social behavior is present in both sociopaths, and non-sociopaths, and is subjectively judged in terms of current social standards. Sociopathy is a characterized by a complete lack of conscience, and inability to empathize. Current psychiatry has been unsuccessful in tying the disorder to neurotransmitter imbalances, unlike other mental disorders, inferring that it is caused by a physical defect of the brain. Monoamine oxidase is tied to the other personality disorders that can be alleviated by use of psychotropics, which often come in the flavor of some sort of MAO inhibitor. More recently, psychiatry has moved away from MAOIs in favor of SSRIs and SSNRIs (Prozac, Effexor, Cymbalta, etc).

reply to post by newcovenant


...and just who, pray, decides what is malformed? Unfit to live? I've met some truly beautiful people who are just about the most vile things walking this earth...

I've also met some "malformed" people who are among the most beautiful... So tell me, who decides what constitutes malformed?

What is malformed? Kind of a gray area there, don't you think? Full of opportunity for abuse. Until our grasp of ethical behaviour matches our intelligence, eugenics is a bad idea.

reply to post by milominderbinder


Rational doesn't make it right. Never has, and never will.

One man's rational brought us the Killing Fields of Cambodia... The Death Camps in Europe... Reeducation Camps in China, and elsewhere... Death Squads in Nicaragua.

Rational has brought much beauty into the world, 'tis true...but much that is ugly, as well.

I'll take a caring heart over rational ones, any day.

reply to post by Maxmars


I can honestly say "none." In my cosmology, nothing is ever wasted. Genius isn't born; it's what some who are "born" grow into. My "belief" is no less valid than yours. In fact, historically speaking, mine is far more popular and commonplace.

Originally posted by draco49
You make a good point about sociopaths. I don't know if there are embryonic tests that can be performed to detect sociopathy, but if such a test existed provided consistent, accurate results, a positive test result would be grounds for immediate termination, IMO. Sociopaths are dangerous to the public, and suffer from a complete lack of conscience that prevent them from living happy, productive lives. In general, I am not in favor of selectively terminating pregnancy based on genetic culling, but in the case of sociopaths, it truly is better for everyone that they be identified and suppressed as early as possible.

Well, I wasn't being serious, just making a point that of all the so-called "problems" in this world we have to deal with, people with disabilities are not one of them. (Nothing to stop a disabled person from being a sociopath.. but ya know.)

I wouldn't support abortion by means of a sociopath test if it existed, was just having a poke at sarcasm!

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by newcovenant

 

...and just who, pray, decides what is malformed? Unfit to live? I've met some truly beautiful people who are just about the most vile things walking this earth...

I've also met some "malformed" people who are among the most beautiful... So tell me, who decides what constitutes malformed?

What is malformed? Kind of a gray area there, don't you think? Full of opportunity for abuse. Until our grasp of ethical behaviour matches our intelligence, eugenics is a bad idea.

It is very important question indeed. Genetic defects, retardation, deformity - these are things that people would be determining whether to bring someone into this world. So why aren't we focusing on fixing these problems rather than give people more power to avoid them?

These hardships that come with these diseases are what makes us human. These hardships build character for those touched by a life that has overcome odds. Where does it end and who makes these decisions where it ends? What about if they find a racism gene, a greed gene, a gene that gives one a propensity to rob banks? What if they find an a-hole gene? People are a mix of good, bad, ugly and beautiful. If you can only value someones life because they *appear* to be blemish free, then you are missing out on some wonderful experiences and people.

I'm very saddened by many of the replies. According to what i'm reading from many of you, I should have been terminated, though the technology to find genetic diseases was not around when I was in my mommys tummy.

Just search for Alison Lapper...

en.wikipedia.org...

She was born with what I would consider a serious congential disorder, but she has added to society. She has had a child who was born healthy. She is a life who may well have been extinguished with ideas like this happening.


I admit I am scared to death of having a child with a deformity, I don't know how I would cope, IF I could cope. But I really don't think (I'll admit I can't know until/if I'm in that situation) I'd try and talk my partner into having an abortion because of it.

If I am not ready to be a parent to a child with a disability I don't think I am ready to be a parent. I am the grown up, I need to act like it and not destroy lives (or possible lives depending on how you see it) because I got myself into a situation on purpose that I am not ready to deal with.

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by Maxmars

 

I can honestly say "none." In my cosmology, nothing is ever wasted. Genius isn't born; it's what some who are "born" grow into. My "belief" is no less valid than yours. In fact, historically speaking, mine is far more popular and commonplace.

Does a particular cosmology invalidate a persons position? I only ask because if the answer is yes, than your position has as little validity as mine. If no, then it is a matter of choice... as I have been stating all along.

I simply choose to believe that only the parents can decide if eugenics is a path they wish to follow.

I disagree that society can manage individuals... down that road lies 'cattle' and other livestock as 'products' to be consumed. I'm cynical enough to accept that the larger construct of governance lends itself to such 'management' of "human resources." But I'm disinclined to volunteer to participate in the culling.

Originally posted by Sinny
Nope! Sorry! I'm all for it.

Its like selectively breeding cattle... Your not gonna breed anyone with disease now are you?

It amazes me when people continue with pregnancies that the scan has shown to be highly defected, like severe downs syndrome. I look at those people sitting in wheel chairs pretty much cabbaged all their life... And that aint no life!

Breed serious disease and deformaties out of us. Simple. Its for the greater good after all.

Why can't some people grasp that?

To YOU it ain't no life, but you don't get to make that definition for others. People think when they hear of my life and how I am very limited, that I must go crazy, that they could never do it. Sure,I have it hard, but I do more than most people do, even with my limitations. By that I mean doing more for other people. Everyone has the ability to contribute to society, even though your eyes may not see it. When my mom got sick and couldn't take care of herself any longer I was mad at first, I had just finished school (which took my twice as long as the other students due to my disability) and couldn't wait to put my skills to use, and finally start getting out of debt. God had other plans. I could have continued on my original path, but after several days of pouting and being mad at God, something changed in me. Long story short, I put aside everything, moved my mom up by me because even though I was the least physically equipped to take care of her, due to my own disease, I was the most emotionally and mentally equipped. The next year and a half was the hardest but best of my life. The word hard is the understatement of the year. Angels literally carried me. It was the BEST thing I have ever done in my life, it showed me more what its truly important in life; people. And that every person no matter what condition they are in has value, something I wasn't sure of going into it. In order to see and gain the value from people, you have to be ready to accept how it is being offered, it might not come in a package that is pleasing to the eye, but true beauty is found in it. I learned what true beauty and bravery are from watching my Mom when she was sick. But I could have chosen to stay bitter and mad that it interrupted my life and plans.

And....diseases and deformities are not going to be bred out of us. Not when there are so many environmental factors going on, some we know about, some which haven't been proven. I think what needs to be bred out off us is our self centered, greedy, indulgent attitudes.

All you have to do is look at what people with this "Defects" have contributed to our society so far. Many times a person deficient in one area excels at another area. Call them savants or "idiot" savants if you want. I don't know have advanced this science is so far, but how many Stephen Hawkings would be aborted due to a "defect"? This is is the start down the road to an society of identical looking "perfect" people.

We have 7 billion people, lets not make more. Genetic defects or not, we have TOO MANY. Let's also not prolong lives either as WE ARE TOO MANY.

Just think about it, in Nature the strongest, fastest, smartest and best able to handle all problems survive.

How many of you are that? In the top of strength, speed, adaptability and intelligence?

Really?

Derek

reply to post by Viesczy


There is only one best in each of those categories... does everyone else have to die?

reply to post by Viesczy


This is one of those "lead by example" moments. Since you think it appropriate to kill off people to free up parking spaces then by all means you go first.