Phanerothyme Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 As you say, that is one interpretation of the term eugenics. It was practised in America, too. (Including forced sterilisation etc) The general principle of eugenics is to create some kind of master race, a race of perfection, where infirmities, impurities and "flaws" are eliminated by "Good Breeding". (She :gag:s) The general principle of eugenics is to have healthy children who go on to have healthy children. Which is better, a world where there are few, if any, hereditary diseases - or this one? Eugenics aren't necessarily the great nazi evil so many people think of when they hear the word, because there are positives to things like pre-conceptive screening for hereditary diseases and so on. No-one needs to die, be experimented on, be sterilised or aborted for eugenics to deliver real, tangible health benefits and savings. Today's eugenics are about understanding the human genome, not weeding out "undesireables". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuy Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 The general principle of eugenics is to have healthy children who go on to have healthy children. Which is better, a world where there are few, if any, hereditary diseases - or this one? Eugenics aren't necessarily the great nazi evil so many people think of when they hear the word, because there are positives to things like pre-conceptive screening for hereditary diseases and so on. No-one needs to die, be experimented on, be sterilised or aborted for eugenics to deliver real, tangible health benefits and savings. Today's eugenics are about understanding the human genome, not weeding out "undesireables". Is this the new Fabian spin on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Screening for abnormalities and terminating if any found??!!? terminating if a couple cant afford it?!!?!! You're disturbed. I find your desire to force women to go through with a 9 month life changing and potentially life threatening pregnancy that they don't want to be disturbing. You're convinced that your moral position on the matter should be more important than the desires of the person actually involved, that's just wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuy Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I find your desire to force women to go through with a 9 month life changing and potentially life threatening pregnancy that they don't want to be disturbing. You're convinced that your moral position on the matter should be more important than the desires of the person actually involved, that's just wrong. In my view there should be no obligation on the state to terminate a fetus/baby (for non-medical emergency reasons) at a mothers request; if some people choose to interpret that as "forcing women to go through with an unwanted pregnancy" thats their prerogative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 It makes sense for the state to offer the service, given the ultimate cost to the state of the alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 In my view there should be no obligation on the state to terminate a fetus/baby (for non-medical emergency reasons) at a mothers request; if some people choose to interpret that as "forcing women to go through with an unwanted pregnancy" thats their prerogative. I agree, if on demand abortion wasn't available, a continued pregnancy is no more forced than a person who eats and drinks is forced to defecate and urinate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I agree, if on demand abortion wasn't available, a continued pregnancy is no more forced than a person who eats and drinks is forced to defecate and urinate. Let us say then, that if on demand abortion is not available, then a person has no choice but to abort it via illegal methods, or to give birth to a child that they do not want. How wonderful those options sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Let us say then, that if on demand abortion is not available, then a person has no choice but to abort it via illegal methods, or to give birth to a child that they do not want.How wonderful those options sound. Ever heard of putting it up for adoption as yet another alternative ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Ever heard of putting it up for adoption as yet another alternative ? I have. Ever heard of an unloved child being stuck in an orphanage? *searches for the most sarcastic smiley he can find* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cressida Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Ever heard of putting it up for adoption as yet another alternative ? Well said:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.