We must de-stigmatize eugenics

[Rev. Rye]

[Joods]

Given that I already have a child with down syndrome, I can emphatically tell you that I would NOT abort a baby if I knew it was going to be born with ANY kind of disability.

As to the first question - looks aren't everything. I'd rather surround myself with beautiful minds. People I can connect with on a mental level.

[Lucanus]

1) Would you prefer to marry a good-looking man or woman?

2) Would you abort if you knew your child would have Down's syndrome?

If you answered "Yes" to any of these questions, you already support eugenics.

Lol no. Eugenics is systematic and organized, and its application is mandated by the state with the explicit goal of "making the human race better"... Whatever that means. Choosing a partner is not even close to eugenics, as you only see their body and not their caryotype or genome. See that beefy jock over there? Absolute unit. He may be shredded and very, very attractive, but oops, he's carrying a Robertsonian translocation of chromosomes 14 and 21 that results in him having a very high chance of generating Down children. Bet you didn't see that one coming.

Now let's say for the sake of argument that you do get together with Mr. Beefcake over there and try to have a child with him. You get pregnant and find out that your son will have Down syndrome, and that your husband has that condition. In the end, what happens next is up to you to decide. If you don't have enough time or money to guarantee your Down child a decent life, you can choose to have an abortion. And I think it's easy to see how that's different from state mandated eugenics.

No one doubts that it is immoral to involuntarily sterilize individuals let alone entire races.

*Inhales*

Boi

But all parents want healthy children and in 15 years, we will even have genetic tests for mental illnesses. It would be immoral not to abort if you knew your fetus had all the genes for schizophrenia. 

Nah. Mental illness has a genetic component, but it isn't necessary nor sufficient to its development. You aren't born schizophrenic just like you aren't born - I dunno - a fascist, or a flat earther. Mental illnesses are not genetic syndromes. Google "pubmed", click on the first link that appears and then type "mental illness hereditability" in the search bar.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

1) Would you prefer to marry a good-looking man or woman?

2) Would you abort if you knew your child would have Down's syndrome?

If you answered "Yes" to any of these questions, you already support eugenics.

No one doubts that it is immoral to involuntarily sterilize individuals let alone entire races. But all parents want healthy children and in 15 years, we will even have genetic tests for mental illnesses. It would be immoral not to abort if you knew your fetus had all the genes for schizophrenia. 

We ought to free the word eugenics from the stigma it has been received thanks to the Nazis and others. I'd wager that most of the research in genetics today is going to be used in eugenics in the future, regardless of whether we refer to it that way.

If your own parents had been eugenicists, I wouldn't have had to read that rubbish, so I suppose it has its good points.

Boru

[Little lunch]

Can we start by aborting the psychopaths first?
Then we won't have to hear about eugenics ever again.

[I_am_not_mafia]

You can't de-stigmatise Eugenics. The term is tarnished beyond repair with its association with the Nazis. All you can do is give it a different name.

This is why it's instead now referred to as the Insurance Industry.

[vorlon13]

At some point, humans will have to re-engineer some of the population to re-occupy vacant slots in the bio-sphere due to human predation and/or loss of habitat to various currently extant useful species.

I'd say an early variant to be engineered would be a human derived, but non-sentient, replacement for cattle.  Meat eating will always be a demand of the populace, and this is how that issue can be fixed.

A human derived 'food' animal would be designed to survive and thrive on a very inferior/subsistence diet and yet remain tasty, nutritious, and tender to eat.

I'd note the nations basements are filled with prototypes even today.  Overweight game addicts would have some useful genes for this project.  A little work on flavor and survivability, and you'd have it.  I also note, they would have to be docile and easy to subdue.  Shouldn't be too hard to dial in something very successful.

Too much marble, not enough muscle. 

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, human bacon !!!

[Anomalocaris]

Too much marble, not enough muscle. 

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, human bacon !!!

I heard human flesh even taste like pork, and prohibition against eating pork in Bronze Age and Iron Age middle eastern societies may have had its origins in the association between pork and human flesh.

[Mister Agenda]

[Anomalocaris]

1) Would you prefer to marry a good-looking man or woman?

2) Would you abort if you knew your child would have Down's syndrome?

If you answered "Yes" to any of these questions, you already support eugenics.

No one doubts that it is immoral to involuntarily sterilize individuals let alone entire races. But all parents want healthy children and in 15 years, we will even have genetic tests for mental illnesses. It would be immoral not to abort if you knew your fetus had all the genes for schizophrenia. 

We ought to free the word eugenics from the stigma it has been received thanks to the Nazis and others. I'd wager that most of the research in genetics today is going to be used in eugenics in the future, regardless of whether we refer to it that way.

1. I prefer to marry good looking women, but they seem too stupid to return this extraordinary compliment. So I am not sure letting their genes admix with mine would actually be eugenic and not counter-eugenic.

2. Didn’t have to face the choice, but i’d say no. However, eugenics is not about any life choice that might have a specific impact on the gene pool of the next generation. It is about systematic and coercive policy to weed out portions of the gene pool.

3. Leadership begins with oneself. Why have you not removed yourself from the gene pool?