While I'm at it, I think sterilization is a perfectly fine measure within the social system.  If someone has had, say, two children taken away by the state, I think the state has every right to sterilize her.  If a guy has become a deadbeat dad to two children, I'd say the same thing.

Imo genetics should NEVER play such a role in how society views or deals with individual choices that those choices are in any way whatsoever forced on anyone.

So:

a) Absolutely not. Nobody has the right to decide something like that for anybody, under any circumstance.  Advising someone to undergo sterilisation is one thing, but the decision should ultimately be that of the individual itself. Always, regardless even of his/her mental faculties.

b) Yes, it is ok to knowingly pass on genetic defects. No line drawn here. People do not reproduce "to pass on genetic defects", but to have children.

c) Euthanasia, if the subject does not conscend, is simply murder. In some circumstances it is impossible for someone to communicate in a meaningful way. This can be a problem if there is no good legislation concerning euthanasia. I think it is very important for any country to adress this issue because:

-It would be clear to physicians when assisting with euthanasia would be legal and when it would not.

-People would be able to write up a set of conditions beforehand in which they state under which extreme conditions they would wish to euthanized. This document should have legal status.

I have to say I agree with you to some degree. Reproduction is not an inalienable right.

Personally, I have Aspberger's and would think it cruel to pass that defect down the germ line. By the time I have kids, if I ever do, I hope there is some way to make sure this doesn't happen. I'm also asthmatic, but I'd feel much worse about passing down Aspberger's, especially with the stigma it has in our society (and deservedly so, I personally can't stand other Aspies who are less high-functioning than I am. They're all annoying).

I think adoption, provided one is capable of taking care of children, is a perfect alternative for people in my position.

Indeed, so long as it was your choice to do so, it is a very practical and responsible choice to make.

Egads, NO! We don't get out rights from out government, for it we did, how did we ever get along before such entities were created? No, we get our rights from mutual contracts and ultimately, empathy. We understand that you won't do X if I don't do Y. You'll do A if I do B. Or substitute dont's for the dos. Ultimately, most human beings realize, through empathy and collective mentality that getting along serves us well.

We've ALWAYS shunned those that did not go along with this sort of herd mentality. Thousands of years ago they were banished or otherwise eliminated, today they are sequestered from the rest of society, typically via imprisonment.

But rights certainly don't flow from government. Rights flow from the people who establish governments. This is a very important distinction.

That said, I agree, that one does not necessarily have a right to reproduce. That said, whenever such things have been restricted in the past they've failed pretty miserably.

Historically speaking, this only ever remains the case temporarily.

I absolutely concur with this, yet i don't think it should be forced on people by decree.

In a bizarre situation where the survival of the species were at stake due to an asteroid or zombie outbreak, I'd certainly have caveats to that - there certainly is no absolute moral system.

And then we have the more extreme end of the spectrum...

Naturally, we are all looking at the NEGATIVE aspects of eugenics. Stop for a moment and ask yourselves what the positive aspects are of PROMOTING the breeding of ideal genetic donors.

Here we are discussing what we want to get rid of rather than what we want more of in society. The subjective appraisals of exactly what constitutes aberrant genetic characteristics destroy the premise itself by virtue of human individuality.

Perhaps looking at it from that aspect, we can gain a more enlightened viewpoint. 'Deltas' and 'Epsilons' have their places in any present society. However, if you promote breeding of the handsome while maintaining the present birth rate among the less-than-optimal human gene pool then it becomes a greater probability of breeding them out in the long run.

Accepting the 'bad' alongside the 'good' has its benefit evidenced in achieving a 'mean' standard, in other words. Averaging humanity rather than seeking any sort of subjective 'perfection' seems much more feasible.

The 'Idiocracy' post elsewhere on here(haven't read it yet) reminds me of the first five minutes of the movie in which the happy/cute/intelligent couple waited to have a baby and then it was too late. Soooo, the problem wasn't overbreeding by the less-than-desirable, it was the underbreeding of the desirable for interaction and improvement of the less-than-desirable.

Anecdotal reference:

I have one crewmember who shows up to work early raring to go, yet he consistently makes poor decisions, has difficulty adapting to change, and smells funny.

On the same crew, I have one that shows up late, cannot talk and work at the same time, and has difficulty adapting to change, BUT he can perform beautifully on the job during the production phase.

Recently, these two individuals came to me separately complaining about the other. My response to their petulance was to point out to them both that:

"Your good qualities do not cancel the effects of your bad qualities. Just be happy that you have a boss like me that can see the good in everyone. Get back to work."

I'm not addressing this level.  What I'm saying is that all the philosophy in the world and a quarter won't buy you the right to a phone call from jail if the government says you don't have a right to a phone call from jail.

If you happen to live in a country where you don't have X right, you don't have X right.

Just to be clear, I'm not really advocating eugenics.  I'm pointing out that at a governmental level, it's a perfectly valid way to get something accomplished, and if a government has the power to enforce it, then discussion of rights is sort of pointless.

Any attempt to make sterilization and euthanasia common is going to very quickly lead to corruption of humanity as we know it. If "society"(those in power) only lets those it deems worthy to breed, you're gonna be in a dystopian society within a couple centuries, easy. They'll selectively begin breeding the ones who are happy being subservient. I'm in favor of returning to natural selection, but us people just seem to be too smart to die at a rate that would keep the population stable.

The main problem is who decides who is worthy. As an atheist and therefore a political minority, I don't like the majority enforcing their way, especially in this manner, on me. Also, my family has a history of degenerating eyesight, high cholesterol in the men, and a few mental disorders on my mom's side. Alcoholism is also common on my mom's side, and I've had problems with it myself. However now I'm in excellent physical condition and appear at the moment to be free of any mental or physical diseases. I don't even have any allergies.

According to all of my standardized test scores at least, I'm in the top 10% most intelligent of every student in my graduating year in the country. However my GPA barely hovers around a 2.0.

So someone please explain how in the hell we can decide if someone is allowed to breed. I've got plenty of indicators either way. Are we going to trust an incompetent bureaucracy like the government to make these complicated decisions?

DISCLAIMER:  This is not a statement of my position.  It's only food for thought.

It occurs to me that this sort of goes along with the "Evolution: Natural or Unnatural" discussion.  Many animals streamline their genetic diversity.  Anytime you have one male and a harem, you're streamlining genetic diversity.  Any creature that leks is doing it, too.

Looking at the way humans reproduce, it's hard for me to imagine a program that would have the kind of broad sweeping streamlining.  Consider that we have reasonably good evidence that a significant (~10%, by some estimates) number of children are not the children of their mother's husband, even though he believes they are.  Also, international travel, almost ubiquitous exogamy, and multiple marriages will serve to keep the genetic diversity robust.

In short, it's possible that politics really doesn't have enough power to alter the gene line for very long.  Also, I think that humans are a LOT more creative about gene diversity than we give them credit for, so eugenics is possibly more a discussion of cultural power, not necessarily gene diversity.

i dont like because i am a.d.h.d. and i would not be here because my mom was PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIA and also miltary doctors told her when she was 13 she would not have kids. and if this was still in use i would of not been born. sorry i dont see it ever ok because who has the right to decide.

General

With our current lack of natural selection it is imperative that we apply un-natural selection in order to prevent de-evolution.  De-evolution such as the less educated reproducing more resulting in an overall decrease in human intelligence and people being born & living & reproducing that are dependant upon artifical means to survive.

I find this to wrong morally because for many reasons.  It is sad to see people being living sad lives, it is bad for the genetic pool and the future of the human race, and it means less sufficiency in the human population.

Where is the line drawn?  Who draws it?  I do not know.  Eugenics is essential, but not practical in today's world.  In the utopia that is Star Trek, it would be possible.

I am pro-assisted suicide.  But non-consenting doesn't work so long as they are capable of giving consent.  If they can intellectually give consent and say no: then it is wrong.  If they cannot intellectually give consent (i.e. a baby), then it is okay as long as it is for the greatest good (the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people).

I know my stances are not popular (do to limiting freedoms), but I think it would result in the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people... and the betterment of human kind in the long run.

By badass mutation what do you mean? Are we talking about a third arm? Cuz that's a keeper.

In the context of experiencing life it's safe to say the possibility of having it suddenly snuffed out is frightening. You may be glad to be here but the flip side is that had you not been born you would never have known the difference. Non-existence is not painful. It's nothing.

You still haven't answered the question of who makes these decisions. Who sets guidelines for what a "dud" child is? Or "a strong sense of ethics and responsibility"?

This is the rationale Hitler used in exterminating Jews. He referred to them as genetically inferior, negative impacts on society, etc. He also killed many handicapped, mentally retarded, and terminally ill people(forced euthanasia, regardless of whether they were in pain or not). What's to stop those in power form creating their own personal version of what they think humans should be? I don't trust ANYONE with that kind of power. Not one person, not a group of people, no one.

As a high school dropout, you don't think academics should be a qualifier. Neither do I, but many people probably do. And even if those in power are democratically elected, if the majority wants higher education standards for those allowed to live, you'd be out of luck.

Everyone tries to pose this question as if they don't honestly know. I think that's a cop out. Violent people, lazy people, addicted people, hateful people, dishonest people (thieves) are duds. You know that.

Ethics would entail helping others in a time of need. Transacting business at fair market rates is ethical. Not fucking a chick whose drunk off her ass while you're stone cold sober is ethical. Returning a wallet stuffed full of cash to it's rightful owner is ethical. Not using superior intellect or physical strength to take what is not rightfully yours is ethical. Earning your keep and contributing an amount that it is at a minimum, equal to the resources you draw from is ethical.

We all know that individuals who exhibit the behavior and philosophies that stand in contrast to these examples are at best unsavory. Limiting the influence of the worst of these people imo would be ethical.

Hitler's rationale was shoddy at best. It was an escapist fantasy for people who did not want to accept responsibility for their own hand in their situation or honestly face the truth of a global depression. They were jealous of the (dare I say) superiority of the Jews, whose success was the result of hard work. I'm not for euthanizing individuals who can conciously decide that any discomfort they experience due to their illness or disability is outweighed by their desire to live or love of life. In fact I think it's a strictly personal decision that everyone should express to their loved ones and physicians.

What could stop someone from taking it too far? Here in America the system of checks and balances that would have to be overcome to implement even a mild form of eugenics and euthanasia springs to mind.

I think you missed my point. Many intelligent people either decided to forgo higher education in favor of other plans or (as in my case in hindsight) poor judgment. People make mistakes. I didn't state that anything as drastic as having to be college educated to continue living or being allowed to breed should be implemented and no one would support that. Besides, In the states anti-intellctualism seems to be so rampant that no one would vote to have an entire society made up strictly of "elitists".

Absolutely not. I'll go even further. Her parents should be locked up for allowing an adult with the mind of a child to have two kids.

Morals are not absolute, but I think that's the general consensus. I'd be willing to bet that whether you'll admit it or not, people who exhibit these behaviors bothers you to some degree.

We're seeing it again with Iraq vets. This time we know what it's called. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The morals of the society they left behind hadn't changed that drastically by the time they returned. The trouble is that it's nearly impossible to spend a year or more in constant danger, watching people you've bonded with brutally killed, and living in a constant state of alertness and perhaps paranoia and come out unchanged. It's not their fault. They didn't choose war and considering how many are supporting anti-war candidates like Obama and Ron Paul, I think it's safe to say they want it even less now. To greet them as they come home and say "Thanks for your sacrifice, but you're broken now so we'll have to put you down" is both absurd and disgusting.

Where are you from? It's not that easy here. A law like that would have to be approved by both houses of congress and signed by the president. If the president vetoes the bill, it has to pass through congress and carry a 2/3's majority to override the veto; and even then it could be struck down by the Supreme Court. All people whose careers are dependent on the whims of pro-lifers and hippies alike. Look at the shit storm over Terri Schaivo. There was no doubt she was a vegetable with no hope of recovery and an assload of fundies fought to the end for her husk.

That was a joke. Again, it won't happen here over night.

Again, the people will elect their leaders based on the policies they've worked for or against in the past, and the policies they say they will work for or against in the future. If the people want a pro-eugenics agenda the people they elect will reflect that. As has been shown by opposition to the death penalty, abortion, and right to die cases it's a mixed bag which tends to cancel out motions for and against any extreme proposition; and very little legislation has occurred in our 232 year history without some level of compromise. Any thing this big would likely require a constitutional amendment, which is not an easy thing to do. Moreover the Supreme Court exists as a buffer between the majority and the minority. If they find it in violation of the Bill of Rights or the Constitution they can overturn it. You can't just ride roughshod over a group of people without a sound reason. Is it so impossible that these people can't be informed by physicians and psychologists?

It is possible (and likely) that some have and will lie to us about their goals. If they've lied to us, it is on the people to recognize it (another good reason for testing potential voters intelligence and awareness) and vote them out. If we don't, then we deserve whatever horrors our leaders have in store for us.

Hitler's rise to power was due in part to the lack of checks and balances, and the ceding to him of those that existed. Something that could happen here if the republicans have their way. The atrocities that happened were based on his ability to incite age old prejudices, and his arguments would only have been sound to those who already bought into his hateful and irrational mentality.

You could do like we 've done here and vote the bastards out. If Denmarks constitution is so flimsy as to allow ethnic/religious discrimination I would say you are far more at the mercy of your legislators than I am.

I would fight against that. There is a difference between eugenics aimed at limiting physical and emotional suffering due to bad genes and bad parenting, and eugenics aimed at racial or spiritual purity.

I personally find this "What if someone abuses it?" mentality deplorable. It's the same kind of heel dragging and hand wringing that has prevented America from adopting more progressive welfare, national healthcare, stronger environmental regulation, and a more progressive criminal justice system.

The bigot says: If we allow gay people to marry, pretty soon people will want to marry their pets. It will be the end of civilization!

That's absurd. A pet can't give consent.

The auto industry says: If you tighten emissions and phase out the combustion engine we'll go out of business. It will mean economic ruin!!

Bullshit. If they reinvest in green technologies and pave the way for a cleaner future they'll be seen as innovators and perhaps heroes. If they don't their failure will be their own fault. That is the epitome of capitolism. Adapt or die.

You say: What's next? If grandma gets a cold we just take her out back and shoot her? Doom I say!!! Dooooooommmmmm!!!!!!!!1111111

Of course not. Why would you kill someone with a chance of recovery? Why would you kill someone who, despite their infirmities, still feels that their life has meaning and value? Why would we execute a teenager who (through poor guidance) decides to steal a car for the first time.

Why would you not allow a family to take a loved one in a vegetative state off of life support if their doctor informs them they will not recover? Why wouldn't you allow them to be relieved of that financial burden? Why would you want someone who cannot take proper care of one child, to have two or three?

Forced? My current attitude is "Free snippin's? Tits!"

But seriously, I am 1,000% against any program based on anything other than negative genetic predispositions and a pattern of destructive behavior.

The times they are a changing. The republican party has generated so much ill will locally and internationally that barring the intervention of Jesus Christ himself they won't have nearly the influence they've had over the last 12 years.

I swear to god if another customer interrupts me while I'm trying to discuss philosophy on the internet.....

Umm her parents aren't much more advanced and she was 21 when she had the 1st one not much they could really say/do about it.

If by "advanced" you mean competent, then shouldn't they be keeping a closer eye on their child? Perhaps slipping her some birth control?

might of been eugenics but it is also technoracy to from what i heard and to make people happy making no money and under complete government control. just what i heard somewhere. but i don't know but if it is i don't like the idea much less Huxley don't like him.

General

Sounds like the perfect candidates for sterilization.