90% of people are eugenicists

Edit: Sorry, wrong thread

(edited 6 years ago)

Around 90% of women with fetuses diagnosed with Down's Syndrome choose to abort.

A tragedy, or common sense? An evil desire for perfect children, or a natural desire to not have children who will not lead full, happy lives?

http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/abortion/new-abortion-figures-a-tragedy

(Please excuse the biased source)

Misleading thread title is misleading.

Your post is basically saying 90% of people dont want to have kids with birth defects. Well you're wrong. It's 100%.

This is a total non-story.

Reply 2

Vikingninja

Well the child isn't going to live a proper life and depending on the severity of it they will have more paths in life far limited. For the parents supporting a child with a mental disability can be hard and can also be costly which will be difficult for those who aren't earning much.

Reply 3

Listers

Mate about 20 people in Florida just died because of Islam.

Reply 4

Tootles

Original post by Nidhoggr

Misleading thread title is misleading.

Your post is basically saying 90% of people dont want to have kids with birth defects. Well you're wrong. It's 100%.

This is a total non-story.

********. Many parents choose not to have abortions when their child is going to have a birth defect - not only including Downs but other disabilities.

Reply 5

Listers

Original post by Mathemagicien

FTFY

(Sarcasm of course)

But are you sure it was a Muslim?

Not being a bigot but the news say she wore a suicide vest and was carrying a bomb. Plus the FBI already said that the attack is leaning towards Islamic terrorism

Reply 6

Listers

Original post by Mathemagicien

You sure she wasn't one of those 'not true Muslims'?

Probably trying to spread islamic peace in the peaceful period of ramadan.

Did i mention peace?

Reply 7

Tempest II

As long as the parents have the choice I don't mind. I don't think we should force potentially disabled babies to be aborted but I certainly respect a parent's decision should they choose to abort.

Original post by Mathemagicien

Eugenics is still a taboo subject, and has been since the 1990s. Many people are against genetic engineering to fix inheritable diseases, and many against abortions of disabled fetuses.

In terms of genetic engineering, I believe this is one of those occasions where religion is holding back science. I do think designer babies shouldn't be allowed (at least until we understand the possible long term effects of engineering human DNA) but genetically preventing potential disabilities should be allowed & even encouraged.

Reply 8

Joinedup

Just cos 90% of people choose to do a thing, doesn't mean they want the government to step in and force everyone to do that thing.

Reply 9

Tempest II

Original post by Mathemagicien

You are basically saying you agree with liberal eugenics - allowing parents to abort disabled children, while also wanting people to have the choice to use technological solutions to correct genetic flaws in unborn children.

More specifically, religious morals are holding back science, which are present even in agnostics. I struggle to think of a time when this has not been the case.

Going off topic slightly: In principle I'd probably go as far to say I support Libertarian Eugenics.
But the path to "hell" is paved with good intentions so although it may seem like creating a genetically stronger, more intelligent human race is a wonderful idea, I fear that it'd lead to a rise in inequality that would be too great. It'd certainly be worrying, for example, if a scientist (either accidentally or intentionally) created a race of super-human Hitlers or Stalins in an attempt to enhance mankind. And, as I mentioned before, without thorough research/testing it could lead to long term damage to human DNA.

So in practice I'd say yes I support Liberal Eugenics as long as it's not completely uncontrolled.

Reply 10

Abstract_Prism

Original post by Vikingninja

Well the child isn't going to live a proper life and depending on the severity of it they will have more paths in life far limited.

By that logic, should abortions of babies with these sorts of birth defects be mandatory?

Reply 11

Vikingninja

Original post by Abstract_Prism

By that logic, should abortions of babies with these sorts of birth defects be mandatory?

Parents choice, they decide what is best for the child.

Reply 12

Abstract_Prism

Original post by Vikingninja

Parents choice, they decide what is best for the child.

But you've just said that their life is going to be so bad that it warrants their termination.

In that case, is it not cruel on the child to let them live? Why should the parents be allowed to deice this, when it's apparently so easy to declare that they would be better off not being born? Why should the State not intervene in this supposedly clear-cut issue?

Reply 13

Vikingninja

Original post by Abstract_Prism

Never said that it warrants termination, only said that life would be worse. Parents decide what's best for their child and if they decide that they don't want the child to suffer via this then they can.

Reply 14

Abstract_Prism

Original post by Vikingninja

But you've justified their termination by saying that their life will be worse?

I can't work out what you're saying. Are you saying that the lives of people with birth defects are so bad that they shouldn't be permitted to live them, or not?

If you say no, then that would mean that all these abortions of fetuses with birth defects is immoral and unjustified. In this case, abortions should not be allowed on the grounds of birth defects, just as they are not allowed based on the sex of the baby.

If you say yes, then surely letting the child live would be inhumane, and therefore all fetuses with birth defects should be terminated on humanitarian grounds. Letting the parents decide would not be humane, correct?

Simply saying 'let the parents decide' is not consistent with either strands of logic; it would be akin to tossing a coin.