The "I *Heart* Eugenics" Thread

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Why not? What is objectively wrong with this?

seriously....

I agree that there is something icky sticky eugenicky about it, but I'm seriously asking on what basis you find this to be 'not very good ethics'?

the decision to carry a fetus to term and deliver a baby should not be gender based. the sex doesn't make any difference, does it?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the decision to carry a fetus to term and deliver a baby should not be gender based.

what are the appropriate criteria?

[sike]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

what are the appropriate criteria?

mama still wants to party?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

what are the appropriate criteria?

seems the appropriateness is not a decision for others to make, it a decision of the mother.

your question was why basing the decision to terminate on the gender was unethical. if the mother was evaluating if she should carry to term, the gender of the baby shouldn't have any influence on that decision as it makes no difference. a male or a female baby are identical in all elements save for their gonads.

[sike]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

seems the appropriateness is not a decision for others to make, it a decision of the mother.

your question was why basing the decision to terminate on the gender was unethical. if the mother was evaluating if she should carry to term, the gender of the baby shouldn't have any influence on that decision as it makes no difference. a male or a female baby are identical in all elements save for their gonads.

you just painted with far too wide a brush there, md. You can't possibly tell what "makes no difference" to anyone other than yourself....and I don't think you have ovaries.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by sike

you just painted with far too wide a brush there, md. You can't possibly tell what "makes no difference" to anyone other than yourself....and I don't think you have ovaries.

so your viewpoint is that gender does make a difference? an no I have no ovaries...but I have been complimented for my breasts.

[sike]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so your viewpoint is that gender does make a difference?

From what I understand about abortion law, its really up to the individual woman to decide on what determining factor/s motivate her to abort her pregnancy....so issues like gender could be reasonable if it was deemed such by an individual woman. If she found out she was carrying a male and only wanted a female is no different from her deciding that she just didn't want a baby at this time at her life because it would be so inconvenient and slow down her pursuit of self advancement. That is at least how I understand the abortion law. But I am no expert.

but I have been complimented for my breasts.

this talk just got a little hotter.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

seems the appropriateness is not a decision for others to make, it a decision of the mother.

i'm still not clear on what you're saying...

You say that "the gender of the baby shouldn't have any influence on that decision as it makes no difference." But let's assume for the sake of argument that it does matter to the mother -- clearly it can matter to the mother whether the baby is going to be a girl, or mentally retarded, or kind of like flacolaco.

...if the mother decides she wants to abort the baby because it does not (or will not) have testicles, is that unethical in your view? If so, why?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

i'm still not clear on what you're saying...

You say that "the gender of the baby shouldn't have any influence on that decision as it makes no difference." But let's assume for the sake of argument that it does matter to the mother -- clearly it can matter to the mother whether the baby is going to be a girl, or mentally retarded, or kind of like flacolaco.

...if the mother decides she wants to abort the baby because it does not (or will not) have testicles, is that unethical in your view? If so, why?

if you feel compelled to compare mental incapacity to being a female...well, what can I say to bring logic to the discussion?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

if you feel compelled to compare mental incapacity to being a female...well, what can I say to bring logic to the discussion?

You have yet to make anything like a cogent argument as to why you think it is unethical to abort babies on the basis of gender.

Perhaps you're abandoning the discussion, not because I've reasonably grouped females and the mentally-challenged together as groups more subject to the scourge of eugenics, but instead because you are unable to address the question?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

You have yet to make anything like a cogent argument as to why you think it is unethical to abort babies on the basis of gender.

Perhaps you're abandoning the discussion, not because I've reasonably grouped females and the mentally-challenged together as groups more subject to the scourge of eugenics, but instead because you are unable to address the question?

sure have, the argument that a male child and a female child are congruent in all respects save their reproductive organs (which of course makes no difference until puberty) is a logical response.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

seems the appropriateness is not a decision for others to make, it a decision of the mother.

your question was why basing the decision to terminate on the gender was unethical. if the mother was evaluating if she should carry to term, the gender of the baby shouldn't have any influence on that decision as it makes no difference. a male or a female baby are identical in all elements save for their gonads.

If killing a human is the decision of the mother, then you might as well love Hitler's views as well.

He decided that killing was the decision of the government and based much of his killing on religion.

It is the exact same way of thinking turned to a different direction. This is exactly why the German people allowed the holocaust -- just like you would allow it - it starts in the head with not seeing people as human. Once upon a time slaves weren't seen as human either.

Maybe you would rather the king decide, like maybe the president -- maybe the next one will want all blue eyed to be killed.

Stupid is as Stupid does, and giving the right to kill to a woman just because she is a woman is just as stupid as giving it to you or me.

Abortion isn't any different than killing millions of jews, or slaves. It is just whether or not someone in some government can justify themselves with the killing and make it law.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

If killing a human is the decision of the mother, then you might as well love Hitler's views as well.

He decided that killing was the decision of the government and based much of his killing on religion.

It is the exact same way of thinking turned to a different direction. This is exactly why the German people allowed the holocaust -- just like you would allow it - it starts in the head with not seeing people as human. Once upon a time slaves weren't seen as human either.

Maybe you would rather the king decide, like maybe the president -- maybe the next one will want all blue eyed to be killed.

Stupid is as Stupid does, and giving the right to kill to a woman just because she is a woman is just as stupid as giving it to you or me.

Abortion isn't any different than killing millions of jews, or slaves. It is just whether or not someone in some government can justify themselves with the killing and make it law.

your viewpoint is based on a definition you have made of when life begins. your viewpoint is extreme, and (this shouldn't surprise you) there is no basis of support for your viewpoint other than your opinion.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

your viewpoint is based on a definition you have made of when life begins. your viewpoint is extreme, and (this shouldn't surprise you) there is no basis of support for your viewpoint other than your opinion.

Really........no basis except my opinion.

Wow

So my definition of when life begins differs from who -- I mean what percentage of people in the world?

Isn't there anyone else on this planet that believes that life begins at conception - at least when there is a heartbeat.........

I guess I am all alone and my viewpoint is extreme -- but I'll keep it anyway.

Now as to the no basis -- you are kidding/lying to yourself if you don't see a basis for it -- whether you agree or not.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Really........no basis except my opinion.

Wow

So my definition of when life begins differs from who -- I mean what percentage of people in the world?

Isn't there anyone else on this planet that believes that life begins at conception - at least when there is a heartbeat.........

I guess I am all alone and my viewpoint is extreme -- but I'll keep it anyway.

Now as to the no basis -- you are kidding/lying to yourself if you don't see a basis for it -- whether you agree or not.

who knows what percentage of the world believes that life begins at conception vs life begins at a heartbeat vs life begins upon a central nervous system vs life begins at birth?

there is no absolute answer to the question, some believe what they believe by their own thoughts/analysis, some believe what they believe because their religious leadership told them how to believe.

I see those who believe that life begins at fertilization to have an extreme viewpoint, just as I see those who believe that life begins at birth to have an extreme viewpoint. neither of these have a basis in logic, whether you agree or not.