Is there anything wrong with practicing Eugenics? It seems that the whole argument against it has been "muh nazis" and "Pro-life", none of which bear much of strength in terms of political argument, just an emotional argument which is ridiculous in and of itself. So, what is wrong with Eugenics? Why would it be wrong to remove those who would be born with down's syndrome, autism, and various other congenital and various other physical and mental debilitations. The cost of forcing tax payers to pay for a single one of those "persons" would reach the thousands if not millions over the lifetime of the severly disabled. Why not abort them while they are in their fetal stage, which would in effect be around $600 in total? Why not encourage the strengthening of societies genetic make-up and help wipe-out genetic anomalies that cause these failures?
>>72039855
If you find someone attractive, and have a kid with them, you're practicing Eugenics.
I just found out that hotwheels supports eugenics... interesting to read what he says given his own genetic debilitations. I am not a nazi supporter, in fact, I find those people to be as annoying as SJW's; but it is an interesting read.
>http://www.dailystormer.com/hotwheels-why-i-support-eugenics/
>>72039855
There's nothing wrong with eugenics or abortion in order to get rid of genetically undesirable babies as long as it is done for that purpose only and not getting rid of females like Easern Asian countries.
The problem is that it would involve telling certain people who are otherwise healthy but on the lower average end of the IQ spectrum to not reproduce, though I frankly think that there should be a program for minorities to get stipends for undergoing hysterectomies and vasectomies but that would be unacceptable in today's climate.
I guess I should point out that I have an autistic brother who is dependant on social security, my dad, and myself. I cannot stand him and do often wish that he would disappear forever; but my parents are pro-life conservatives... I myself am strongly conservative, but having been around my brother my whole life and having read and studied a bit on eugenics, it has changed my opinion. what is truly disheartening is that there is presently no procedure that can detect autism in a fetus. It's truly a curse having to deal with something as repugnant as an autist that has the mind of a 7 year old and will never have future aspirations and will continue to be a net negative towards society. I myself worry that I may have autistic children were I to get married... I would love to have a large family, but the thought of an autistic child is truly frightening to me and my brother only reaffirms that every time I look at him.
Is no one interested in discussing this topic?
>>72040458
>Simply offering people with debilitating, genetically dominant genetic diseases $100,000 cash
Has this guy ever heard of something called preimplantation genetic diagnosis or prenatal testing and abortion? There are diagnoses where taking a prenatal test forces the couple to abort the fetus if it has the disorder (most notable is probably Huntington).
>Couples who both carry a recessive gene could be offered a smaller sum, like say $10,000
Most recessive disorders show up unexpectedly with no family history. Testing makes sense for disorders that are statistically common in certain populations, such as cystic fibrosis (1 in 25-30 Caucasians have a mutant allele). I really hope he isn't suggesting every person in a couple that carries a "recessive gene (sic)" should not have children, because estimates are that every individual carries around 4 recessive mutant alleles that are either lethal or highly disruptive for the individual's fitness when homozygous.
By the way, the Ashkenazi Jews are great at eugenics, check out Dor Yeshorim for example.
>>72039855
It shouldn't be manditory by the government shouldn't but they should sponsor it instead of abortion. Just cut out the middle man and shut up feminists.
>>72039855
Because removing the people who manifest these conditions would not remove the conditions themselves, since they are the product of recessive genetic mutations that are spread throughout the entire population among otherwise healthy people. Its only a problem when two people with the recessive traits breed.
The problem also comes when you start trying to define what constitutes "abnormalities" and who gets to decide who dies. This means Government, and Bureaucracy and eventually a shambling shit show.
Consider this supreme court case as exhibit A for why Eugenics was abandoned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
>>72039855
It's based on a totally valid premise (genetic science), but there are way too many unpredictable consequences. If we wanted to eliminate a nasty genetic disease, like sickle cell or Tay-Sachs, we might interfere with the connected genes that confer immunity from potentially dangerous infectious disease. If we engineered a population to have higher intelligence, we'd probably see notable increases in conditions that can correlate with high intelligence, for example anxiety and depressive disorders. When we abort a fetus with autism, we might be interfering with the birth of the next Einstein or Mozart.
Then there's the notion of defining what constitutes "better" genes. Having the state define such a concept would be at best very subjective. At worst it could turn into serious political misuse of psychiatry, like what happened in Russia in the 70s.
>>72044743
Also its important to remember genetics is not as simple as high school biology punnet squares would have you believe.
Think more punnet hexadecahedrons.
>>72044901
This. Getting into things like human intelligence and cognitive traits is much more complex than determining a guinea pig's fur color.
