Compulsory eugenics

...abortion + mandatory = I will fight you for this.

Who are you to decide whether a life is worth living over defects? Yes, there are terminal diseases, and diseases which are nothing but crippling pain for people their whole lives, but that doesn't mean that those with these crippling diseases can't live.

This should be something for parents to decide with their doctors. Not "well-intentioned" people and sure as fuck not the government.

Look at Stephen Hawking. By your thinking, he should have been aborted. And then where would modern quantum physics be? That's just the pragmatic, selfish reasoning too. Unless he says otherwise, nobody can say he doesn't enjoy his life, as limited as it is.

Should screening for diseases be mandatory? I'm not even sure on that. As noted, what if there is a "gay" gene, or other behavioral genes we can detect? Is it right for someone to abort a child merely because they will be gay, or not quite tall enough, or they'll have a hair color the parents don't like? I would say fuck no, but since even this has become a battleground, I guess morality simply isn't self-evident on the matter.

So, to summarize my answer to the questions in the OP: no, making abortion mandatory is not a good idea. At all. Period. You would be taking immediate and unending flak from both the pro-life and pro-choice sides, and they'd both be right in that you'd be wrong.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Making abortion mandatory for genetic defects (in as far as they are 'defects') might also be self-defeating, because it is very likely that many of those genetic defects judged 'awful' actually occur more in highly intelligent people (e.g. social deficiencies) than more stupid people. Thus, at a certain point the society screening for such defects will encounter a certain...shortage...of smart people capable of developing and maintaining the abortion scheme...and other things.

So I predict the rise of Africa and other third world countries if Western countries implement this kind of thing.

"That said, as I've mentioned before, apart from the helmet, he's not exactly bad looking, if a bit...blood-drenched." - juancarlos

This idea is stupid in so many ways I don't think I can list them all.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

Compulsory abortion is icky ...

However, if genetic screening is safe and reliable, I could see making it compulsory, and recommending (and possibly financially rewarding) abortion in some cases (like Down Syndrome).

If your country's short on cash, I could also understand not giving special welfare/benefits to families whose children have a problem that could have been detected and aborted. If you want a kid with Down's syndrome, it's your choice, and don't expect financial support from the rest of society (I don't mean cutting all benefits altogether, that would be punishment, I just mean no benefits related to that specific disorder).

So, compulsory eugenics, no, but encouraging selective abortions, it could improve things.

Point that somewhere else, or I'll reengage the harmonic tachyon modulator.

For the sake of discussion l think that we should focus on the ethics of preventing pregnancies rather then terminating existing ones.

hashtagsarestupid

I'm fairly sure than in America there's already tests that you take, either during a pregnancy or before. I don't know if it's mandatory, but it seems to have become the usual thing.

But either way, I think making abortion mandatory is a really bad idea. It's one thing to require parents to be aware of risks; it is a whole different thing to require that they do something like this. I can't see any way that mandatory abortions would ever be accepted in any real democratic country.

As for the deaf thing; Yeah, last I checked being deaf is not a mental impairment. If deaf parents want a deaf baby, then that's okay. Same thing for dwarf parents and so on.

This conversation is terrifying in ways I can't adequately explain except, remember when they sterilized gays back in the day? yeah, this is kind of like that but creepier, somehow.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

It is all sorts of creepy to go "How DARE you want to keep a child with an illness, have that terminated so I don't have to help pay for it". Personally? Eugenics in general strikes me as stupid, all kinds of things can come out of people and we don't need widespread cullings to eliminate genetic diseases, not with the advances in meditech we are seeing.

I mean its just kind of... icky, I am all for people choosing to abort, but thats the thing, it should be an actual choice as opposed to one where the choices are "abortion" or "poverty".

And if that baby want to be a basketball player or a or a sound technician when he or she grows up. What are you gonna say to them then?

hashtagsarestupid

"Try something else"

as opposed to saying nothing, because they were never born.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

I'm pretty sure that they can come up with a deaf player's league or something. And there are the cochlear implants that the deaf can get now.

In any case, you're nitpicking. You're also taking away choices. You don't improve life by taking away the chance for it, or by interfering in people's reproductive choices.

That, by the time the child grows up, there are going to be medical advances that should make hearing easier.

People seem to get hang up on the concept of compulsory abortion. The OP was referring to the more general concept of genetic counselling and embryo screening.

Yes termination normally goes hand in hand with that, but they are not one and the same.

edited 23rd Aug '11 1:41:01 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

I was more reffering to Slightly Evil Doc's point about how if a woman chooses to keep a fetus with a medical condition she should be the only one paying for it. It basically means that morality and choice become avaliable only to the rich.

Sad but true.

Sarah palin's 'courage' in choosing life falls more than a little flat when you remember she is a millionaire.

edited 23rd Aug '11 1:51:51 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

I did say "If your country's short on cash".

Point that somewhere else, or I'll reengage the harmonic tachyon modulator.

Cutting back on foreign wars wouldn't hurt either.

I know many people have an ideological need to take a 'progressive stance' towards eugenics, but I personally think of it is a matter of personal responsibility.

Let's say a couple's child is brain damaged from oxygen starvation because they almost drowned her out of carelessness when given her a bath. Do they have any business raising a child? No, because they had a responsibility to see that their child was safe, healthy and unharmed which they failed to uphold despite it being easily preventable.

now let say we have a couple you both have a long history of genetic diseases who are considering having kids. Doesn't this same responsibility apply to the children they're going to have?

edited 23rd Aug '11 7:05:34 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

There's several reasons here ... 1) most of the research shows that it's not solely genetics, but rather teratogenetics - the expression of genes, the timing at which they're activated (or not activated) by hormones; 2) if there's a genetic predisposition (which seems likely) then it's not a single gene; there's some pair*

^{or was it trio? I forget}

of genes that is more common among gay men, which in women helps promote nurturing and caretaking impulses, which helps promote the survival of the species; 3) there's also some evidence that there are psychological factors imprinted on the personality at a very young (<5 years) age that are difficult/impossible to change. However, due to Viewers Are Morons, that gets shortened down to "It's genetic!" because 99% of people on both sides of the issue are too dumb/lazy to actually study the information.

The counter-argument is, "Why do you want your children to be handicapped/disadvantaged? Don't you love your children and want the best for them?" Both arguments are disingenous and less than honest. That said, I believe that some IV clinics have started doing testing for identifiable traits such as hair/eye color, and I know they can test for gender*

^{one of the topics about abortion had mention of clinics in India that automatically dispose of female embryos}

.

There are tests, for certain conditions; however they generally screen for those by looking at the parents' DNA to look for the genes*

^{such as Cystic Fibrosis, which my wife is a carrier for but I am not}

. However, there are literally thousands of genetic disorders, which range from the annoying up to fatal, and every one of them costs money, so generally they only test for ones that are known or likely to run in your family.

That one never made sense to me; I mean, they don't want to have sex with someone they can breed with anyway. /derail

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Clinics in India that automatically dispose of female embryos.

That's horrible to hear ;_;

Indian gurlz 4 teh hotness

hashtagsarestupid

Thread hop: No. Just no. Over my cold dead body and all that. And this is personal - I dated someone who would under your scheme be mandatorily aborted. If it means none of her, no.

edited 23rd Aug '11 10:00:28 AM by Cojuanco

The counter-counter-argument being, "how the hell should the OP—unless he is handicapped himself—know that people with disabilities 'don't live' and should automatically be aborted?" Who would decide what's a bad enough disease? People still think homosexuality is a disease in some circles, after all.

No. This is trying to pull an "I know better than you." People don't have that right to decide things like this for others, period.

I am now known as Flyboy.

I didn't say I agreed with it just that I've seen that argument before. And for non-fatal diseases, yes, I agree with you - just because someone is deaf, or paralyzed, or have Down's Syndrome, does not mean they cannot live an enjoyable and productive life. But, for an example, what about Cystic Fibrosis, a disease that is always fatal, usually before the person with it reaches 18? If the point is to minimize suffering, is it not better to end that life mercifully and painlessly before they develop consciousness, rather than make them suffer through years of their own lungs deteriorating inside them until they finally die choking on their own blood?*

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Well, my teacher gave us the whole spiel about that, and all the people in the video we watched said it sucked, but they still enjoyed life.

Unless it's an absolutely terminal disease (i.e. they won't even hit 10), I don't think it's a good idea. CF, after all, is likely to kill you, not guaranteed. They still live good lives, as a general rule.

I am now known as Flyboy.

The main prolem I see with full genetic screening (rather than only looking for horrible illnesses) is a parent's arms race to make their kids smarter, stronger, more beautiful, à la Ga T Ta CA. Should this be their right, as parents?

MANDATORY abortion is retarded. Not just inhumane, but downright suicidal: there's a legitimate Slippery Slope to fear here.

The Quiet One. No OTT. No unfunny. No squick. No crusades. Harmless and clean.

No, parents shouldn't have that right, because it will go from "I want to have an abortion because I got pregnant at the wrong time" to "I want to have an abortion because my child won't have the color eyes I like!"

No.

I am now known as Flyboy.