This is sick!

[fanatiquefou]

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?

But I was never trying to argue against you on that point! I AGREE with you completely, selective breeding is a bad idea. I was just trying to point out that you were manipulating what's been said in the OP and elsewhere in this post to make it sound like liberals are all in favor of killing fat kids!

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Spartan selection created not only the best fighters in the world, but also the most beautiful people in the ancient western world.

Spartans were said to be some of the most beautiful people to ever lay eyes upon because of the descendence from Heracles. Spartan women were considered the most beautiful gifts the ancient world was given.

 

[CShephard53]

I was just trying to point out that you were manipulating what's been said in the OP and elsewhere in this post to make it sound like liberals are all in favor of killing fat kids!

And I was pointing out that I wasn't. But you said my point was flawed and that my argument didn't stand. Are we done misunderstanding each other? Can we have a truce and continue this discussion?

For the record, I've pointed out my arguments. That it leaves room for the degradation in the value of human life. The thing about nature or God is a sidecomment, so you can get a fuller perspective on what I'm saying. It's not intended as an argument that I want to use to further the discussion, but to give you some insight into how my brain thinks on certain things (or doesn't, depending on if I'm tired or not). I'm a Christian. For me, God determines things. For you, whatever determines things. I'm explaining my thinking. A statement of how I think. The very last sentence in that post, the thing about a supremist attitude is an argument. Go ahead and attack it, but try not to get into a religion debate and attack my faith. Not the place for it.

 

[CShephard53]

So, when I say 'go about things the natural way', I mean have sex- not implant sperm or whatever it is they do. And leave the rest to God. But let's not get into a debate of religion. PM me if you want to attack my view.

 

[fanatiquefou]

And I was pointing out that I wasn't. But you said my point was flawed and that my argument didn't stand. Are we done misunderstanding each other? Can we have a truce and continue this discussion?

For the record, I've pointed out my arguments. That it leaves room for the degradation in the value of human life. The thing about nature or God is a sidecomment, so you can get a fuller perspective on what I'm saying. It's not intended as an argument that I want to use to further the discussion, but to give you some insight into how my brain thinks on certain things (or doesn't, depending on if I'm tired or not). I'm a Christian. For me, God determines things. For you, whatever determines things. I'm explaining my thinking. A statement of how I think. The very last sentence in that post, the thing about a supremist attitude is an argument. Go ahead and attack it, but try not to get into a religion debate and attack my faith. Not the place for it.

I'm not trying to attack your faith, not in the slightest. In case you hadn't noticed my icon, I'm a Christian, too.

 

[fanatiquefou]

So, when I say 'go about things the natural way', I mean have sex- not implant sperm or whatever it is they do. And leave the rest to God. But let's not get into a debate of religion. PM me if you want to attack my view.

When did I ever even mention your religion or anyone's religion in my posts?

 

[DarkLegend28]

With the whole breeding issue going down.. People often forget environmental factors that have to do with ones upbringing.... It wouldnt be a successful project. The human mind is pretty complicated. But breeding humans for the sole purpose of their abilities? Must you question the morality of this issue?

 

[kopilo]

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.

Well that's a bit untrue, liberals might just be more concerned with the logjevity and quality of human life more then quantity of human life than conservatives.

 

[Gwendar Evergreen]

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.

Without commenting one way or another on the issue, I would like to say:
We would not be "stooping" to the level of animals.
We are animals.

 

[kopilo]

uhh, I disagree, animals seem to know how to take care of the earth better then humans. >.>

 

[LouTheWicked]

I agree with Steezie. I don't want fat dumb kids. I want smart strong kids.

Ditto.

 

[CShephard53]

fanatiquefou, relax. I can see your icon. I'm addressing the person who on the last page was attacking the 'go about it the natural way' remark. Not you. The first half of that post that asks for a truce is directed at you. The rest is directed at the general public, mainly nonchristians who might have a problem with the way my mind works. You might say I'm defending myself from an argument that hasn't been stated yet, so it doesn't have to be stated. I'm thinking ahead.

Can we continue the discussion?

 

[fanatiquefou]

All right. Sorry, jawsmetroid, I misread your post and thought it was all directed at me. Sorry for overreacting.

 

[CShephard53]

You are forgiven. I tend not to hold grudges. The only gudge I hold is against evil and willful ignorance.
But anyway. Anyone else going to discuss? Argue against my arguments? Put forward another perspective?

 

[Mling]

People have been "selectively breeding" for all of time. A person values something in people. They "breed" with somebody with that trait. They likely then go on to instill a love of that trait in their children, who learn to value it and so on and so forth.

Something to keep in mind, though, is that when you breed for one thing, it is usually at the expense of something else. My family, for example, has been breeding for intelligence on all sides of both my families, for many generations. A few of my relatives are just frighteningly intelligent. Physically, though, nature kicks our butts.

 

[Adriac]

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

A good answer. Unfortunately, it was a trick question. The right pill is in fact a placebo; whatever fluke of genetics with your chosen mate dictates that your child will be born diabetic.

Do you act to change that or not?

 

[Upisoft]

From the Afterword
By Richard Dawkins


IN THE 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change. Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.
I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?



http://devel.sundayherald.com/life/people/display.var.1031440.0.eugenics_may_not_be_bad.php

I think the real question is what will we do with the persons that do not answer the breeding criteria. Will we kill them or will we leave them alive? If we decide to kill them, when will we do that? While they're still children or when they are adult? If we decide to keep them alive how we will prevent the contamination they could bring in the bred human species? Will we make them sterile or put them in a concentration camps instead? But there is more. If we start to breed people for, say, music and running, we must keep the groups separate, because contamination could occur and our efforts will be in vain. So, perhaps, it is better to put also the groups that are being bred in a concentration camps. Now when all people are separated in concentration camps, my question is who would be the breeders?