RE: Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?
August 11, 2017 at 12:22 pm
(This post was last modified: August 11, 2017 at 12:30 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
(August 10, 2017 at 12:05 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: It starts with editing out disease genes, then you have mandatory sterilize the people carrying the disease to protect the gene pool, insurance cost reduction, the common good etc. Especially since certain demographics are prone to certain "deficiencies" the "corrupted races" can be editted out. Then since we know which genes might cause depression or anti social behavior we need to proactively edit those out to create a more happy and compliant populace, you know, public safety, etc....and since gentlemen prefer blonds then it should be mandated that all new children be edited to include that. And since people with blue-eyes are happier...
Of course we cannot forget epigenetic factors, some diseases will still happen because of environmental effects or accidents. Those people will be considered a burden to society and even the people who love them will come to understand that because of their "poor quality of life" the old, infirm, and disabled need to be eliminated "for their own good" (sorry, we already do that)
Of course none of that will ever happen...HERE
The thing is empathy is a rather plastic concept. If I was a "useless eater" and a "burden on the national health system" then surely I would want to be terminated for the common good.
Well said, and definitely along the lines of what what I was saying.... it would open up a whole can of worms.
(August 11, 2017 at 7:14 am)Hammy Wrote:(August 10, 2017 at 1:49 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: You haven't read much bioethics lately, have you? Infanticide is already on the table.
Actually I'm aware that there are pro-life people who think that such a thing is immoral. It's not immoral because they're not infants, they're stem cells, and they're stem cells that save lives.
ETA: Oh are you referring to this?
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03...011-100411
After-birth abortion? It's only immoral if the infant would suffer more from being euthanized than they would if they were kept alive. And yes it should be considered a legitimate ethical topic, as all ethical topics should be worth debating properly with logic... rather than closed off by absolutists who think X, Y and Z are moral/immoral in and of themselves without actually provided logic for their consqeuestnalist reasons for being moral/immoral.
Euthanizing infants??? Holy shit...
There are people with disabilities on this forum...
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh