This is a spin off of ABQ's thread but it really should eliminate most of the talk of Religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

In ABQ's thread I posed the question what's your take of the group Project Protection? I specifically avoided the term Eugenics because the word has a very negative connotation. It is most infamously tied to the Nazi Movement but a little known fact is that America at one time was routinely sterilizing the feebleminded. Buck v. Bell.

Today the idea of Eugenics is back on the forefront and the tides are slowing churning to possibly start accepting the potential benefits to eugenics. A group that I've been researching lately is Project Prevention. *I am in no way promoting this organization*

The idea behind that organization is to offer drug addicts who have already gave birth to a child, money to sterilize themselves. The objective of PP is to "Project Prevention seeks to reduce the burden of this social problem on taxpayers, trim down social worker caseloads, and alleviate from our clients the burden of having children that will potentially be taken away.�

In the US, PP will pay women; you have at least 1 child, $300 to permanently prevent them from her becoming pregnant again. They are attempting this program in the UK and I believe Africa.

There are many detractors to the program for the obvious and the not so obvious religious, ethical, moral, racial, etc... reasons. However, many people are starting to see some real benefits to this idea. There are many different pathways a supporter or detractor of eugenics can take, so, what say you?

 

Originally Posted by budo09

So do they pay for the sterilization as well?

No, From what i've read it's a pretty cheap procedure though.

FYI: To receive the money, the clients have to show evidence they have been arrested on a drug-related offence, or provide a doctor's certificate saying they use drugs, and further evidence is needed confirming that the birth-control procedure has taken place.

While I think it is a good idea to put less strain on the government's resources from crack babies, welfare payments, medicaid, etc. I have real problems with this even though the woman is making the "choice." Bribing a woman who is potentially addicted to drugs with money is a little sketchy. The money is attractive to drug addicts, at least possibly, because they can buy drugs/are low income individuals.

Even though they make the choice, something about it bothers me, meh.

 

Originally Posted by TheFirm53

It's definitely dirty. Barbara Harris, the CEO of PP doesn't sugar coat the issue. She has done studies and fully admits the money she gives the women goes directly to drugs.

In fact, her advertising slogan has been, ""DON'T Let a Pregnancy get in the way of your crack habit."

Pretty disgusting imo

 

Originally Posted by Lameass_

do you really want idiocracy to come to life?

I don't know what or if there is a correct answer. I personally don't agree with PP but I think the topic is fascinating.

I'll give you a personal example, my wife and I choose not to take the pre-natal tests that can be done to determine whether your fetus might have down syndrome or other possible diseases. We turned that option down. Our decision was that no matter what we were going to keep the baby and love it regardless. I forget the stats but the % was extremely high that when parents learn that their baby will be retarded, they almost always abort the fetus. That is a form of eugenics.

 

Originally Posted by Lameass_

so they make stupid people infertile? wheres the problem. i think you should have to take a test to be able to have a fuckin kid anyways

do you really want idiocracy to come to life?

absolutely ridiculous. there are countless numbers of former drug addicts who have cleaned up their lives and kicked their past drug habits. Many hold jobs and are now productive members of society. To take the gift of bearing children away from them due to personal problems is unthinkable.

I support eugenics.

The only argument against it you can make is that by in effect killing off what we deem as faulty genetics we are also losing chances of positive genetic mutation.

I'll take that to do away with retardation, genetic diseases, etc. To also take away overpopulation. Because one bad apple(Hitler) took it to such an extreme a good, progressive idea got buried and had to be white washed to survive in spirit but not great execution (planned parenthood/marriage counseling). I am surprised by thefirm's position, he could ensure that a strong healthy offspring would be born. Instead he rolled the dice on allowing a defect to be born. I can understand religious considerations, or parental love yet a defect adds no value to society as such they should be disposed of.

 

Originally Posted by hrk

By denying the most basic aspect of what it means to be human, any form of eugenics is a crime against humanity. We are not animals.

A mentally handicapped person(retard) can not act out on your premise of making discoveries of the universe, if they could by some miracle, they would have an equally hard time conveying that discovery to others. As such would they not be a beast? Which you readily admit we are allowed to cull.

i would totally bang a eugenic chick

Im with the dude who supports the need to pass a test to procreate. However, I believe that retards should be allowed to procreate due to them not having a chance to pass the test. It is those that have the opportunity to gain knowledge that neglect said opportunity who should be barred from procreating - and ironically, procreate the most.

We are fucked.

I like the idea of there being a way to pare the world population that's non-dependent on natural catastrophe or human violence. If some drug addicts choose sterility for cash I hardly see how that can't be a good thing for the addict and the rest of the world the vast majority of the time. And if medical science and technology continue to progress to enable potential parents to prevent the birth of children who have a serious genetic defect in more instances, it's a positive thing.

At that point it's up to the parents to decide whether or not to continue the pregnancy and should always remain so. But I personally don't see how a compassionate, caring adult would allow the birth of a child which would have a greatly reduced quality of life at best, perhaps a life of suffering and misery at worst.

 

Originally Posted by snaggs

you're starting to come across as one of those guys who just believes the opposite of the mainstream because it makes you feel smarter.

Not every idea from the mainstream NOR the fringe is right or wrong, black or white. I appreciate someone who looks harder at the issues, I worry about a guy who seems to reject EVERYTHING that is commonly accepted out of hand.

At what point does Darwin address the human mind? Do you really think you are the equivalent of a monkey or toad, snaggs? That is a serious question. What sets you apart from animals?

And lol at something being right because it is commonly accepted.

I reject Darwinism because it is a tool used to strip man of his humanity, and I reject globalism because it is a tool used to control populations and attack the American system. That hardly qualifies as rejecting EVERYTHING that is commonly accepted out of hand.

Also, I don't think I am smarter than anyone. I do, however, have more access to the truth than most. I am just trying to convey that information to people smarter than I.

Also wanted to note, snaggs, a connection you are apparently missing. You cannot destroy America, without first destroying the conception of man on which America was founded. If man is just another animal, he is unworthy of the protections given to him by the constitution. If the upward development of humanity through the use of the human mind via scientific and technological progression is a myth, then America was just a giant fraud perpetrated on the world community.

Eugenics specifically, and Darwinism more generally, attack this conception of man (as an entity, created in the image of the creator, able to use his mind to discover and improve upon the universe, for the benefit of the species and its posterity.)

The world community, at Nuremburg, rightfully rejected eugenics as a crime against humanity.

From wikipedia:

Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion."[1]




What, again, does eugenics propose we do to certain segments of the population?

 

Originally Posted by 2Slick4u

I like the idea of there being a way to pare the world population that's non-dependent on natural catastrophe or human violence. If some drug addicts choose sterility for cash I hardly see how that can't be a good thing for the addict and the rest of the world the vast majority of the time. And if medical science and technology continue to progress to enable potential parents to prevent the birth of children who have a serious genetic defect in more instances, it's a positive thing.

At that point it's up to the parents to decide whether or not to continue the pregnancy and should always remain so. But I personally don't see how a compassionate, caring adult would allow the birth of a child which would have a greatly reduced quality of life at best, perhaps a life of suffering and misery at worst.

i have no idea whether or not i am in favor or eugenics or not. i think i need to mull it over a lil more. however, i disagree with your statement. specifically how you wouldnt understand how a compassionate, caring adult would allow the birth of a child which would have a greatly reduced quality of life at best, perhaps a life of suffering and misery at worst.

the first thing i find wrong with this is that u r trying to play Fortune teller. no one has any idea what someone's future may hold. a misdiagnosis could happen. even doctors arent perfect. moreover, advances in medical science are happening all the time. 10 years from now we could cure whatever disease or affliction that the "unwanted or undesired" may have.

but the greatest of all my points lies in a personal story of mine. long story short, my aunt's cousin was retarded. he couldnt speak beyond grunts. he had several physical impediments. but i will tell you something, he was the happiest man you could ever meet. he smiled all the time and it was infectuous. his parents were super happy. was their life a little harder? yes. but they loved their son. he lived into his late 50's and everyone who knew him loved him. there was no more misery in his life than in any of ours. he had a fantastic life. given ur scenario, he would have never been born. his parents would have never been filled with the joys of having him as their son. just because someone isnt physically or mentally perfect doesnt mean their life isnt worth living.

That's the fundamental difference between us, you believe humans to be greater than animals while I believe humans to be the greatest animal. As much as you espouse our intelligence, our level of cognition and reasoning our actions are motivated by instinct. If we were truly greater than every other creature that came from the primordial ooze; anger, jealously, distrust, hate wouldn't exist. All of these feelings are irrational, the human mind should be able to do away with these shackles of beastdom. Yet we can not. Any entity that allows itself to be ruled and guided by irrationality or instinct is comparable to an animal. Remove these structures of society and the comforts they afford us and see how very quickly the savageness of "humanity" comes to the light.

As for your other point, if undesirability is based on race, I am not okay with it. If it is based on quantitative criteria, I am okay with it. Blacks have little worry of being erased as the whites (who I am assuming you are saying are the ones in power/"deciders") would not do away with their entertainment.