The "I *Heart* Eugenics" Thread

[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.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the argument that a male child and a female child are congruent in all respects save their reproductive organs

so....it's wrong to select the girl for abortion because there is no difference between the boy and the girl, except those things which make boys different from girls. That line of reasoning leaves a little bit to be desired.

Are you saying that differences in reproductive organs are not a suitable basis for a mother to decide to abort her child? I think an adequate response one might make to this goes something like, "oh yeah. sez who?"

Maybe we should ask the question another way -- Of all the possible reasons a mother-not-to-be might base her decision to have an abortion, what reasons are unethical in your view?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

so....it's wrong to select the girl for abortion because there is no difference between the boy and the girl, except those things which make boys different from girls. That line of reasoning leaves a little bit to be desired.

Are you saying that differences in reproductive organs are not a suitable basis for a mother to decide to abort her child? I think an adequate response one might make to this goes something like, "oh yeah. sez who?"

Maybe we should ask the question another way -- Of all the possible reasons a mother-not-to-be might base her decision to have an abortion, what reasons are unethical in your view?

I never paused to try and make a list. do you wish to?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

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.

They are not congruent - else you would not be able to tell the difference between them.

And even if they were, why would that make it unethical?