Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    And since humans will be acting upon other humans, therefore our HUMAN rights will come into play.
    I repeat Human rights are a human concept they are not real they are NOT fact such as air is made of O N etc.

    I dont know why i bother talking to people who not not accept the inevitable
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blood & Honour)
    I repeat Human rights are a human concept they are not real they are NOT fact such as air is made of O N etc.

    I dont know why i bother talking to people who not not accept the inevitable
    But we could use your reasonings to do anything we wanted as both rights and morality are human concepts, if we disregard them, we can justify anything.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blood & Honour)
    I repeat Human rights are a human concept they are not real they are NOT fact such as air is made of O N etc.

    I dont know why i bother talking to people who not not accept the inevitable
    ive never understaood the argument that because something is a human concept it automatically invalidates it somehow.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    nor have i. And i would also dissent to Blood and Honour. The fact that air is made up of Oxygen plus Nitrogen plus others is a human concept. We perceive that there is air around us. We perceive that it affects us and perceive that it is necessary for us to live. We also perceive that it (air) is made from different componants and that some of these componants are called Oxygen and Nitrogen. I think that makes it a very real human concept .
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Masonne)
    ive never understaood the argument that because something is a human concept it automatically invalidates it somehow.
    It doesnt invalidate it(as much as some would wish this to be so) it merely makes it harder to grasp. There is no such thing as an 'inalienable' right, only those which we are allowed by whatever power we live under.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Masonne)
    ive never understaood the argument that because something is a human concept it automatically invalidates it somehow.
    I know, surely since we are human, and will continue to be human, rights and morality will also remain important.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    It doesnt invalidate it(as much as some would wish this to be so) it merely makes it harder to grasp. There is no such thing as an 'inalienable' right, only those which we are allowed by whatever power we live under.
    True until a point, but i think that said power would have difficulty in denying our basic needs - like food, water, shelter and heat, but could very easily deny us our wants - like pillows, good food, a comfy bed etc. So i think that we all have an 'inalienable right' in terms of our basic needs, but not to our wants. (although in some cultures and societies we do have rights to wants as well which are guarenteed by law etc)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blood & Honour)
    I repeat Human rights are a human concept they are not real they are NOT fact such as air is made of O N etc.

    I dont know why i bother talking to people who not not accept the inevitable
    So what is your argument that we should do it because we can. You have to realise that we are humans and when debating a topic like Eugenics you can't just say that we can do it and therefore we should. This is going to effect the entire population and if a Eugenic program is instituted you will have to look at the oppinions of the population which will be based on morals. I am not saying that Eugenics is right or wronge just that you can't separate it completely from human emotions.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tkfmbp)
    True until a point, but i think that said power would have difficulty in denying our basic needs - like food, water, shelter and heat, but could very easily deny us our wants - like pillows, good food, a comfy bed etc. So i think that we all have an 'inalienable right' in terms of our basic needs, but not to our wants. (although in some cultures and societies we do have rights to wants as well which are guarenteed by law etc)
    True, although when people speak of rights they usually accept the basic needs as being a cerainty(in whatever regime or scenario). Its when we consider such things as freedom of speech, freedom of movement right to political representation - pretty much anything incorporated in the bill of human rights - that people make the mistake of also assuming that all of the rights we happen to have are ours undeniably and should and will always be so. Simply ask a citizen of China or Zimbabwe about our 'inalienable rights'
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    So what is your argument that we should do it because we can. You have to realise that we are humans and when debating a topic like Eugenics you can't just say that we can do it and therefore we should. This is going to effect the entire population and if a Eugenic program is instituted you will have to look at the oppinions of the population which will be based on morals. I am not saying that Eugenics is right or wronge just that you can't separate it completely from human emotions.
    I am sure those who will be really affected by a eugenics policy would have something to say about this. If we were not in the position of power, would we still reccommend this, or if we were going to be affected by it, surely we would not still advocate this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    True, although when people speak of rights they usually accept the basic needs as being a cerainty(in whatever regime or scenario). Its when we consider such things as freedom of speech, freedom of movement right to political representation - pretty much anything incorporated in the bill of human rights - that people make the mistake of also assuming that all of the rights we happen to have are ours undeniably and should and will always be so. Simply ask a citizen of China or Zimbabwe about our 'inalienable rights'
    good point. well made. i stand corrected.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    I am sure those who will be really affected by a eugenics policy would have something to say about this. If we were not in the position of power, would we still reccommend this, or if we were going to be affected by it, surely we would not still advocate this.
    My view on Eugenics is that if someone with a genetic illness wants to be sterilied or wants to have IVF so that they can ensure that their gene is not passed on they should be able to have this done on the NHS. I also think it may be a good idea to test for cirtain genetic disorders in children. All these steps will hopefully mean that people know that they have a hereditary disease and will choose to try to not pass this on to their children. I do however think that is has to be consenting. When the policy in Mandatories that would be wronge.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Really - what are to acheive from research about eugenics - or producing them? Its seems bit brash to suggest this since we even don't know a fraction of what our genome does - I mean really. The Human Genome Project mayhave been a progressive step - but that still is a small step isnt in long terms. You shouldnt tamper with what you dont know, its a recipe for disaster!! :eek:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JnA)
    You shouldnt tamper with what you dont know, its a recipe for disaster!! :eek:
    its also a recipe for progress. a lot of inventions have been accidental, with inventors tampering with what they dont know about (rubber for example)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    One thing that has not been mentioned is fading out natural immunited to certain diseases.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magicalsausage)
    Then what are you planning? Getting all the smart people to breed to create intelligent children? It doesn't work - Eugenics is mainly proposed by people with little to no knowledge of genetics or by those trying to be contoversial.
    im not proposing anything, i was just starting a d&d topic.

    if i were to propose anything, i wouldnt proposing that people should be forced to breed or banned from breeding (this is the "bad" nazi-type eugenics); more along the lines of allowing people to do what they choose, go out with whoever they want, etc, but also having a sperm and egg bank of "successful" donors (clever people, sporting champions, etc etc) (with the requirements for "success" chosen democratically) and using these as a basis of IVF children, which could be adopted by couples who cant have children naturally. of course its not going to be entirely successful, due to the random nature of reproduction and not all "successful" traits being genetic themselves. but eugenics has been happening for centuries now, with animals, like breeding race-winning horses etc, which shows it can work (within the boundaries of the definition of "success")
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blood & Honour)
    I personally am in full support, we're human, we can do it, then why not?
    Rubbish.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elpaw)
    im not proposing anything, i was just starting a d&d topic.

    if i were to propose anything, i wouldnt proposing that people should be forced to breed or banned from breeding (this is the "bad" nazi-type eugenics); more along the lines of allowing people to do what they choose, go out with whoever they want, etc, but also having a sperm and egg bank of "successful" donors (clever people, sporting champions, etc etc) (with the requirements for "success" chosen democratically) and using these as a basis of IVF children, which could be adopted by couples who cant have children naturally. of course its not going to be entirely successful, due to the random nature of reproduction and not all "successful" traits being genetic themselves. but eugenics has been happening for centuries now, with animals, like breeding race-winning horses etc, which shows it can work (within the boundaries of the definition of "success")
    But "clever" people are not thus through genetics - it comes down firstly to upbringing and then to hard work (even though, I know, in some cases people can achieve without effort). To suggest that just because somebody is intelligent means that they will pass on "clever genes" to their children seems absurd. Granted, your claim does hold more true in the case of sporting champions, but then why do we need their influence in the gene pool above anyone else?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    My view on Eugenics is that if someone with a genetic illness wants to be sterilied or wants to have IVF so that they can ensure that their gene is not passed on they should be able to have this done on the NHS. I also think it may be a good idea to test for cirtain genetic disorders in children. All these steps will hopefully mean that people know that they have a hereditary disease and will choose to try to not pass this on to their children. I do however think that is has to be consenting. When the policy in Mandatories that would be wronge.
    But why should we foster such an attitude when with modern advances embryos can be checked to see if the condition has been passed on?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magicalsausage)
    But why should we foster such an attitude when with modern advances embryos can be checked to see if the condition has been passed on?
    Because some people may be opposed to the use of IVF and embryo screening in this way. Particually people who feel that life starts at conception. Therefore I don't believe that this policy should be forces on people with genetic illnesses. It should be optional. Also if you are talking about aborting embroys which carry the genetic illness some people may also be opposed to this and again I don't think it should be forced.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 9, 2004
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.