This is sick!

[TimmyPage]

Maybe the reason it doesn't bother me is because I'm healthy and 6 foot 4?

 

[CShephard53]

Okay, and we need to get rid of short and fat kids why??? They are humans also. If you, a 'strong and smart' person had an ingrown toe nail and people didn't want to breed people with ingrown toe nails, wouldn't you be a bit offended? Really. You wonder why the conservatives freak out over abortion? Because liberals can't seem to value human life as equal.

 

[fanatiquefou]

Okay, and we need to get rid of short and fat kids why??? They are humans also. If you, a 'strong and smart' person had an ingrown toe nail and people didn't want to breed people with ingrown toe nails, wouldn't you be a bit offended? Really. You wonder why the conservatives freak out over abortion? Because liberals can't seem to value human life as equal.

Relax, calm down - no one has said ANYTHING like what you're claiming here. Again, enough with the scary "liberals want to kill the fat kids!" crap. That's not even close to what is being discussed.

For the record, I'm completely opposed to selective breeding being practiced among humans, but I'm not afraid of having the subject brought up and discussed. Why should we be afraid of open discussion?

 

[CShephard53]

I'm not talking about killing. I'm talking about choosing not to breed them because one can. The argument stands.

 

[chipmunk]

No one said we should eliminate the current short and fat kids. You are valuable to us and society, just maybe not by passing on your genetics.

The idea is that we wouldn't use certain people with undesirable genetic traits for breeding children. It's not that we don't think they have a place, just that ideally we don't want to see people suffer with some of these problems. I don't think people have children and hope they have down syndrome or spina bifida, not because this child wouldn't be loved and valuable, but because these children have more struggles than the "average" kid.

I'd argue that in a way this idea is already practiced. There are people with certain genetic conditions that are choosing not to breed. There are people that check medical backgrounds before deciding to marry someone, wanting to make sure any possible kids have a good chance of being healthy.

 

[kopilo]

Something like only 10% of obesity is caused by genetics, how about working on the other 90%? xD

In reality though I don't see the issue in trying to irradicate disorders/disibilities through selective breeding (shortness is not a disorder or a disability).

I agree, why don't we bring this discussion to the forefront?

 

[Stellar Vision]

The idea brings to mind the movie Gattaca

Say no more.

 

[Steezie]

Something like only 10% of obesity is caused by genetics, how about working on the other 90%? xD

In reality though I don't see the issue in trying to irradicate disorders/disibilities through selective breeding (shortness is not a disorder or a disability).

I agree, why don't we bring this discussion to the forefront?

I agree. This is already done to a certain extent.

The disease Tay-Sachs develops in a child from both parents having the gene that causes it. Tay-Sachs is most common among French Canadians in Quebec and Ashkenazi Jews. Most Jews are asked to get a genetic test before having children or even getting married to prevent passing on Tay-Sachs.

 

[Futuwwa]

If you can understand why inbreeding isn't encouraged (you can...right?) you should be able to understand why selective breeding could be beneficial. I get the feeling you are reading this and jumping to a 1000 conclusions, all of which end with "it's not natural" and "we are playing God!!". Am I right?

Don't forget "It's supported by both Hitler and Dawkins so it must be eeevill!"

 

[The Nihilist]

I'm not talking about killing. I'm talking about choosing not to breed them because one can. The argument stands.

Ingrown toenails are not an obstacle to dominance. If a male is too short, too stupid, or too fat, he will not only be an undesirable mate, but he'll also have a tough time. But these are little things. What we're really talking about is stuff like alcoholism, mental disease, physical disease, and so on. That's the stuff that actually matters.

 

[Adriac]

Okay, and we need to get rid of short and fat kids why??? They are humans also. If you, a 'strong and smart' person had an ingrown toe nail and people didn't want to breed people with ingrown toe nails, wouldn't you be a bit offended? Really. You wonder why the conservatives freak out over abortion? Because liberals can't seem to value human life as equal.

I'll say something like that.

I have two pills. The left one will assure that your child never develops diabetes. The right will assure that your child is born diabetic.

Please, select one.

 

[RichardT]

.

 

[comana]

The idea is worthy of discussion even if it found to be an abhorrent idea.

It is no secret that the "pretty people" are more successful in general. Like it or not, we are all sub-conscioulsy drawn to attractive people. Our genetics do have an impact on our value to society.

As far as selectively breeding humans to ensure attractive traits, or health,or intelligence; well that only gets us to a point where we as a species refine our standards of attractiveness. There will always be those who are placed higher than others in that respect. We don't gain much in the end.

 

[CShephard53]

People with diabetes are just as valuable as people without it. Eliminating, or halting the breeding of and therefore eliminating, people with diabetes would be like telling someone they wouldn't matter as much to society if they had diabetes. Same with any other disease. It devalues those with disabilities and starts down the path Hitler took. Given, it would take some time, but given what you have proposed, using selective breeding to eliminate disabilities, or rather, people with disabilities, it would start down that path. Why? Because other children/teens with those disabilities would be either shunned or devalued more simply because of the disability that, and the rest of society feels it is detrimental to society. This would eventually lead to more euthanasia and abortion based on disability only (the latter already happens, mind you), starting a downward spiral of 'you have to be this way, otherwise you're not good enough for society'. That is a very supremist attitude to take. Given, it happens in the animal kingdom. But why should we stoop to the level of animals in our breeding?

You guys started a discussion. I'm discussing, giving you my perspective.

 

[CShephard53]

So, to answer the question of which pill, I would refuse either pill and go about things the natural way.

 

[comana]

So, to answer the question of which pill, I would refuse either pill and go about things the natural way.

I don't understand how preventing your child from ever getting a disease is any different from trying to cure it if they are diagnosed.

Are you implying that you would let the disease take its natural course without treatment?

 

[fanatiquefou]

I'm not talking about killing. I'm talking about choosing not to breed them because one can. The argument stands.

No, the argument does NOT stand, because you claim that this is something that all or at least most liberals want, and that is patently untrue.

 

[CShephard53]

No. I'm saying it is best to let 'nature' (or more accurately for me, God) take its course in determining what any child I help have is born with. In other words, yes I would seek help for them if it was needed, but I would not halt God/nature from doing His/its job in deciding what is best. I obvously think it would be taking control away from God in order to 'have my way', but for the sake of the discussion I'm including nature- and also because it is better understood.

I'm not implying that I wouldn't seek help if a disease or other malady were present in a child I might be the father of. God provided good medical care for a reason. But stepping in to determine what a child will be like seems to me to be putting myself in God's role, or nature's role in determining it. And supremist- where would the line be drawn in selective breeding? How long would that line be held before it is challenged sucessfully?

 

[CShephard53]

No, the argument does NOT stand, because you claim that this is something that all or at least most liberals want, and that is patently untrue.

I'm claiming that many or most liberals don't hold an either equally high or higher opinion of human life than conservatives, and saying that's why conservatives freak out over abortion. The argument I am using to say selective breeding is not a good idea stands. I'm saying that I will not retract it. Does that make things clearer?

 

[TeddyKGB]

So, to answer the question of which pill, I would refuse either pill and go about things the natural way.

Why is anything that humans do to promote biological change automatically considered apart from nature? Aren't humans part of nature?