| 6 Feb 12, 4:35 PM Cosmic1 UK(SW), 7 yrs £   |
Eugenics on value to society never works. You quickly run out of parking wardens and then all hell breaks loose as the roads grind to a halt full of badly parked cars and that's even before we get to the management consultants. David London Alternative Market - the place to be on the first Sunday of the month | ||||
| 6 Feb 12, 5:16 PM Ro_Laren UK(S), 3 yrs |
Class Act?! Where you been, girl? We've missed you! | ||||
| 6 Feb 12, 7:05 PM Vareox UK, 2 yrs  |
This has been a huge issue in the deaf community with some going as far as to refuse treatment which could restore hearing based on just those arguements. I think the problem lies in ascribing a value to a particular human. It is quite easy to defend the position that a person with 5 working senses has an advantage over one with only 4 but it is less clear cut if you say that one is worth more. Personally I don't see that it would demean, for example, deaf parents, if their deaf child were given treatment which gave them the abilty to hear but I'm not living their life. A major 'difficulty' for the deaf community is that they *are* a community, the prevalence of deafness has allowed the formation of language and shared values, almost a society within society. To be given back your hearing would make you part of another society. I think we need to be careful about how we use the term 'eugenics', it doesn't just cover the brutal image of culling the less 'valuable' it also includes selecting embryos or 'fixing' genetic material. Can anyone argue that it is right to sterilise two deaf people? Not well enough to convince me. But who can argue(without recourse to religion) that it is wrong to correct a hereditary trait like deafness in genetic material? When we give fertility treatment and select the 'best' embryo that is eugenics. When we select the embryo without that hereditary disease that will kill the child before its 5th birthday we are practicing eugenics. I think when we only see eugenics as that stuff that Hitler did we run the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
| ||||
| 6 Feb 12, 7:56 PM Xafar UK(S), 12 yrs £    |
germany took its inspiration for compulsory sterilization from the USA... indiana having had a policy for such in place since 1907... germany even sent civil servants to the USA to be shown how the american system worked so they could better implement it... winston churchill as home sectary introduced a bill to do the same here as a part of the mental deficiency act... http://reducetheburden.org/?p=931 for more information... Mac
"Me Man Whore... You Jane..." | ||||
| 6 Feb 12, 9:23 PM stillwondering UK(CH), 14 mths |
Do you not agree then? Do you think that their plan shows intelligence? Do you think that someone who would force a pubescent girl to be sterilised would make a good parent? | ||||
| 6 Feb 12, 10:50 PM misunderstoodslave UK(OL), 2 yrs |
I have often thought that it would be sensible to make it compulsory for all girls to have contraceptive implants till say 21. No class-based exceptions. Will never happen, of course. The girls I see whose babies we remove again and again, I wonder if they'd be better off if they hadn't had those children, all that pain, but then how dare I say that? And what about the ones where we remove two, three, even four for adoption, but eventually she finds a decent chap and manages to care for one? (Ok, there aren't many of those.) I wish I could make some of those young girls wait, just a little longer, till they had some kind of sense of themselves, knew how to live in the world. But you can't. And of course, eugenics never tackles middleclass abuse. We aren't in the business of removing middleclass children, no matter how emotionally abused they may be. The parents make too much fuss, you see. Probably just as well or mine would have been taken years ago!!
| ||||
| 6 Feb 12, 10:54 PM AmberStClare UK(BN), 5 yrs |
Calm down dear, I was only joking
I'm the one your mother warned you about | ||||
| 6 Feb 12, 11:10 PM lush_london UK(WC), 6 yrs |
Well clearly anyone so unfamiliar with appropriate use of the apostrophe should never be allowed to reproduce.
| ||||
| 6 Feb 12, 11:29 PM carenza_lionheart UK(NN), 24 mths  |
I find it more worrying that they had to qualify the "sperm" with the word "man's"...what other kind would you try and fertilise a human egg with? :-/ The one who claims to be innocent - who wants to test the claim? | ||||
| 7 Feb 12, 9:22 AM tallulahme UK, 2 yrs |
|
