Gee, with so many people telling you how wrong you are, isn’t it possible you’re not seeing something?
Considering that the arguments against screening have amounted to nothing more than “Oh noes! their going to get rid of teh gays! and Nazis! Nazis! everywhere”, no.
Those counter arguments are illogical, Logic isn’t Nice, Polite historically sensitive or politically correct. The alternative is that we should celebrate the diversity of people who are forced live their lives subjected to debilitating genetic conditions.
Because governments have a much worse record with reproduction. In the abstract, simply preventing people from passing on genetic defects is a perfectly reasonable position. In the real world, that’s not what governments actually do with that sort of power.
No, another alternative is to accept that government coercion, in this case, is a cure worse than the disease.
I don’t see why it always has to be that way,Der Trihs. Are you saying that we will never be free from racism?
monstro Considering the recent history of eugenics you think that we’re really enlightened enough to make such decisions? Why not sterilize families that have a high propensity for single motherhood? Your Mama was a single Mother, your Grandma too? You as well? Well, let’s make sure your kids don’t breed.
But you can accomplish that goal without government control of reproduction. The government just needs to make the birth control easily available and cheap, and give the women a chance to do something meaningful other than have babies. The people will use it if it is available and it is in their economic interest to not have a lot of children, regardless of what their religion says. There are exceptions, of course, but on a population level, that’s what will happen- the birth rates of American Catholics, for example, are about the same as those for other Americans, even though the Catholic Church says very different things about birth control than most Protestant churches do.
Racism isn’t the point. Eliminate racism, and it would just be another group. The poor, gays, left handers, atheists, Muslims; whatever happens to be the bugaboo of the people in power at the time.
Christians
So it seems.
Helen Keller… Of course, this is about principles, not lists.
And this is not about anybody deliberately misunderstanding you. This is about the way your ideas have always been marketed and applied, historically, whether it’s in Nazi Germany, the U.S., or elsewhere. It’s always about improving humanity by weeding out undesirables using the latest technology, which always coincidentally happens to reinforce existing prejudices. (But it’s only a coincidence THIS time. The others were a fluke.)
One is enough.
I can disagree with nothing here, but it is very hard to achieve even the smallest of footholds towards this mindset, when everyone is starving. It takes a few generations of educated people to begin the transition away from blind religious obedience. It takes money, food, and medical care to get a population ready for education. We need to achieve that first, and I cannot think of a way to meet that goal.
But government abuse is not limited to eugenics. Our tax dollars are going to an unjust war as we speak, but that doesn’t mean that our government shouldn’t ever have the power to use military force, does it?
I beg to differ on your assertion that the track record for eugenics is worse than anything else. Not in a world where governments have used and continue to use police and militaries to carry out ethnic genocide and other atrocities.
All that means is that humans are irresponsible with their power. It doesn’t mean that an idea is bad because historically it was implemented by a malevolent regime. It’s foolish to think that a technology should not be applied to the betterment of all. It is in everyone’s interest to eliminate diseases. The fact that a few people with such conditions also happened to be savants does not counterbalance the immense suffering of the vast majority who were not so fortunate.
Any government no matter it’s principles is only as benevolent as it’s leaders. If they are bigoted small minded racists, then they will apply their power accordingly regardless of ability to pre-screen. if they are a benevolent government interested in improving the life of their people then they will responsibly apply their technologies and policies.
And you’re proposing giving them a lot more power and a lot more room to harm each other with that irresponsibility. That’s the problem.
Then the people can better themselves without this enormous intrusion into their lives. What you’re actually talking about is giving governments power to do what’s best for everyone, regardless of how everyone feels about it.
We are not talking about a “single malevolent regime” here. Find me any sizable human population without racists and bigots and maybe I’d trust them with something like this. Somehow I think the government you have in mind would be hard to find. We’ve already seen this happen in the U.S. Do you think human nature, or the nature of Americans, has changed that much in the last 100 years?
Actually, yes. We’ve seen the rise of civil rights, and most kids these days are pretty blase’ about interracial relationships and homosexuality. Really, I’ve got quite a lot of hope for the future if we can get past our growing pains that we are enduring currently. There will probably always be pockets of intolerance, but they are growing smaller. The biggest problems are economically tied to cultural issues in America (immigration). People in times of plenty tend be a lot more tolerant than in a leaner climate. It is in our interest to keep a bountiful climate present for long enough, for us to grow culturally disdainful of bigotry. It won’t be easy, but I believe it can be accomplished.
It definitely seems a slippery slope to me. There are many people who have handicaps, who are still able to effectively contribute to society and there are quite a few people out there with “good genes” who don’t contribute jack shit.
Not here, since they have all the power. Elsewhere, where they aren’t in power ? Quite likely.
And they’ve used it to defend themselves and others, or simply not used it at all. And having a military most places in a necessity for national survival; and the police are a necessity for a civilized society. We don’t need eugenics to survive as a species or nation, and the record for government mandated eugenics is much more one sided than the record for government use of the military.
When has this idea NOT been implemented in an unethical fashion ? Perhaps it happened that way somewhere - but if so, that’s definitely the aberration.
It’s funny because you go to the Evangelical message boards and they feel like they are oppressed by the Northeastern Liberal Elite.
Christians tend to be whiners with a martyr complex. They are ALWAYS “oppressed”, always victims, even while they oppress or kill others.