Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would it be morally justified to save the lives of the many, by the sacrifice of the few? If you think 10% is too large of a number, what if it was only 5%? or 1%? or .1%?
At what point would seemingly immoral behavior be justified for the greater good?
Cancer is caused by a variety of factors. Genetic mutations in our cell cycle is one of the main causes. Preventing a certain population from perpetuating because of the fact that they are prone to developing cancer will do no justice in ridding this disease.
So the question doesn't boil down to whether you want to be alive or not, because you would be alive regardless. The only question is, if you had the choice to be deaf, or to not be deaf. Which would you choose?
No that is not the question. You are proposing preventing people from reproducing if they some defect, so either they reproduce and a child with this same defect is born, or they are prevented from reproducing and the child is not born. In case A a child with the defect is born. In case b the child does not exist. The choice is between deaf and not existing. In either of the cases there is no non deaf child born. The choice between deaf and non deaf does not exist. In your scenario there will be no non deaf child born whatever choice is made. Again you are ignoring the reality to suite your agenda.
Communist China isn't exactly applying any sort of Eugenics program. If anything, China is actually creating a backwards Eugenics program.
The only people that are affected by the "one-child policy", are people who live in urban areas, and who are Han Chinese(the vast majority of the population).
The minority groups of China are exempt from this policy, as are agricultural workers. Which means they are effectively breeding themselves out of existence. Of course, when theres 1.3 billion of you, you probably won't really miss a few million here and there.
While you may or may not accurately descibe current Chinese "one child" policy however it doesnot accurately describe the history of the policy and the immesurable damage done in human potential destroyed. I can only assume that Redshadowz either did not watch the documentary link I provided or ignored the facts presented within.
The highlighted statement above is beyond reprehensible. There are evil people throughout history who have behaved similarly to the statement highlighted and they will forever be recorded in the annals of human history as the purveyors of genocide.
Last edited by lifelongMOgal; 02-07-2010 at 10:27 AM..
Reason: spelling
No that is not the question. You are proposing preventing people from reproducing if they some defect, so either they reproduce and a child with this same defect is born, or they are prevented from reproducing and the child is not born. In case A a child with the defect is born. In case b the child does not exist. The choice is between deaf and not existing. In either of the cases there is no non deaf child born. The choice between deaf and non deaf does not exist. In your scenario there will be no non deaf child born whatever choice is made. Again you are ignoring the reality to suite your agenda.
Look, women drop an egg that could potentially become a child every single month for almost 30 years. Do you believe that every egg is a child that could have been born but was heinously destroyed? Do you believe the millions of abortions every single year, are some child that could have been alive, but was heinously destroyed? Do you believe women who have miscarriages caused by things like overexertion, or nutritional deficits are a child that should have been born but wasn't?
Do you support a womans right to have an abortion? What do the women give as their reason for having an abortion? Usually it is because they aren't "ready", that they aren't mature enough. Which basically amounts to "the world is better off without the child". Because if they didn't believe the world would be better off without the child, they would be a horribly selfish person to want to destroy that life.
The truth is, regardless of if you have children or not, the world will continue on without you. If you had not been born, the world would hardly be any different. If you had not been born, there is a good chance that the world actually would have been better off.
The truth is, eugenics is not a life issue, anymore than abortion. Eugenics is an issue of "freedom". Should the government be able to take away someones freedom to have children?
One of the things I find very hypocritical about many of the people who oppose eugenics. They are more than happy to force women who receive welfare, to take birth control. They are more than happy to force women with multiple children, who are on welfare, to get their "tubes tied".
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
While you may or may not accurately descibe current Chinese "one child" policy however it doesnot accurately describe the history of the policy and the immesurable damage done in human potential destroyed. I can only assume that Redshadowz either did not watch the documentary link I provided or ignored the facts presented within.
The highlighted statement above is beyond reprehensible. There are evil people throughout history who have behaved similarly to the statement highlighted and they will forever be recorded in the annals of human history as the purveyors of genocide.
No, you obviously have not read about the "one-child policy". And that video is grossly exaggerating the truth about the one-child policy in a form of propaganda.
"It officially restricts the number of children married urban couples can have to one, although it allows exemptions for several cases, including rural couples, ethnic minorities, and parents without any siblings themselves. A spokesperson of the Committee on the One-Child Policy has said that approximately 35.9% of China's population is currently subject to the one-child restriction. The policy does not apply to the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau, or Tibet."
"Nonetheless, a 2008 survey undertaken by the Pew Research Center showed that over 76% of the Chinese population supports the policy."
"The limit has been strongly enforced in urban areas, but the actual implementation varies from location to location. In most rural areas, families are allowed to apply to have a second child if the first is a girl, or has a physical disability, mental illness or mental retardation."
It is exactly what I said. The policy is focused on married couples in Urban areas of the overwhelmingly Han Chinese areas of the country. Because the policy does not affect ethnic minorites and areas like Hong Kong, Macau, or Tibet.
Which means. Rural inhabitants of China are "breeding" themselves out, by only allowing themselves to have one child. While ethnic minorities and rural inhabitants are allowed to have more than one child. Which to me, is basically like a case of reverse eugenics.
Look, women drop an egg that could potentially become a child every single month for almost 30 years. Do you believe that every egg is a child that could have been born but was heinously destroyed? Do you believe the millions of abortions every single year, are some child that could have been alive, but was heinously destroyed? Do you believe women who have miscarriages caused by things like overexertion, or nutritional deficits are a child that should have been born but wasn't?
Do you support a womans right to have an abortion? What do the women give as their reason for having an abortion? Usually it is because they aren't "ready", that they aren't mature enough. Which basically amounts to "the world is better off without the child". Because if they didn't believe the world would be better off without the child, they would be a horribly selfish person to want to destroy that life.
The truth is, regardless of if you have children or not, the world will continue on without you. If you had not been born, the world would hardly be any different. If you had not been born, there is a good chance that the world actually would have been better off.
The truth is, eugenics is not a life issue, anymore than abortion. Eugenics is an issue of "freedom". Should the government be able to take away someones freedom to have children?
One of the things I find very hypocritical about many of the people who oppose eugenics. They are more than happy to force women who receive welfare, to take birth control. They are more than happy to force women with multiple children, who are on welfare, to get their "tubes tied".
No, you obviously have not read about the "one-child policy". And that video is grossly exaggerating the truth about the one-child policy in a form of propaganda.
"It officially restricts the number of children married urban couples can have to one, although it allows exemptions for several cases, including rural couples, ethnic minorities, and parents without any siblings themselves. A spokesperson of the Committee on the One-Child Policy has said that approximately 35.9% of China's population is currently subject to the one-child restriction. The policy does not apply to the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau, or Tibet."
"Nonetheless, a 2008 survey undertaken by the Pew Research Center showed that over 76% of the Chinese population supports the policy."
"The limit has been strongly enforced in urban areas, but the actual implementation varies from location to location. In most rural areas, families are allowed to apply to have a second child if the first is a girl, or has a physical disability, mental illness or mental retardation."
It is exactly what I said. The policy is focused on married couples in Urban areas of the overwhelmingly Han Chinese areas of the country. Because the policy does not affect ethnic minorites and areas like Hong Kong, Macau, or Tibet.
Which means. Rural inhabitants of China are "breeding" themselves out, by only allowing themselves to have one child. While ethnic minorities and rural inhabitants are allowed to have more than one child. Which to me, is basically like a case of reverse eugenics.
The documentary showed both sides of the story for the Chinese "one child" policy. I have a cousin who adopted 2 chinese children from these orphanages because the parents could not or would not keep these children due to the Chinese "one child" policy.
The infanticide and other atrocities which resulted years ago from China' "one child" poicy are well documented. One lame Wiki article with a common definition hardly is a defense for that.
First you form your arguement over eliminating cancer, then you say it is for improving quality of life, now you say it is about freedom. Do you care to stop dancing about and address the evils that have been committed in the past, here in the United States, and in other countries, in the name of Eugenics and forced population control?
Would it be morally justified to save the lives of the many, by the sacrifice of the few? If you think 10% is too large of a number, what if it was only 5%? or 1%? or .1%?
At what point would seemingly immoral behavior be justified for the greater good?
I would always be opposed. The government should not have sovereignty over an individual's own body.
I wouldn't necessarily oppose a campaign to discourage those selected people from reproducing without restricting their choice; it would have to be very respectful and there would have to be a lot of hard science behind the projected results. However this may lead to discrimination if one does choose to reproduce, so it may not be a good idea anyway.
No, you obviously have not read about the "one-child policy". And that video is grossly exaggerating the truth about the one-child policy in a form of propaganda.
Which means. Rural inhabitants of China are "breeding" themselves out,
I'm curious; have you ever been to China - ever travelled throughout China?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
