Questions about the answerer are not allowed on Y!A.
The nazis tried eugenics ( "lebensborn") but it failed to produce superior babies. Soon after WW2, real scientists figured out why: You cannot infliuence which 23 of your 46 chromosomes will be passed on to the baby you make
You cannot support unregulated abortion without also supporting genocide (or eugenics as you prefer to call it.)
Women who are willingly pregnant with a perfectly healthy fetus are being encouraged to abort their child (and what woman who is willingly pregnant calls her child a "fetus") based on prenatal testing for common genetic markers.
Many people with down's syndrome live happy lives. They're some of the best people I've ever met... but the medical community has found ways to detect this in utero and then pressure mothers to abort their child that they were prepared to have until learning the news.
We see abortions for intersex conditions as well. Healthy children, the mothers want the child, why is abortion allowed when it is no longer about the woman's body but instead the woman not liking the outcome of the mating?
I do not support or encourage it but as genetic engineering techniques like CRISPR become more commonplace in humans it is something that will unintentionally happen unless we are proactive about regulating it.
Everyone agrees that CRISPR should be used to treat deadly genetic diseases but where does it go from there? What about non-life threatening genetic mutations like dwarfism or Down-syndrome? Is correcting those mutations a benefit for humanity or is it hurting the natural diversity of the human experience? There are lots of ethical issues we'll have to confront.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
Normally I don't...
But looking at the beliefs of actual democraps...
It's hard to argue against the benefits of a robust eugenics program that focuses on usefulness to society rather than superficial traits like race.
Lolz
See the Ethan Hawke movie "Gattaca".
Questions about the answerer are not allowed on Y!A.
The nazis tried eugenics ( "lebensborn") but it failed to produce superior babies. Soon after WW2, real scientists figured out why: You cannot infliuence which 23 of your 46 chromosomes will be passed on to the baby you make
You cannot support unregulated abortion without also supporting genocide (or eugenics as you prefer to call it.)
Women who are willingly pregnant with a perfectly healthy fetus are being encouraged to abort their child (and what woman who is willingly pregnant calls her child a "fetus") based on prenatal testing for common genetic markers.
Many people with down's syndrome live happy lives. They're some of the best people I've ever met... but the medical community has found ways to detect this in utero and then pressure mothers to abort their child that they were prepared to have until learning the news.
We see abortions for intersex conditions as well. Healthy children, the mothers want the child, why is abortion allowed when it is no longer about the woman's body but instead the woman not liking the outcome of the mating?
I do not support or encourage it but as genetic engineering techniques like CRISPR become more commonplace in humans it is something that will unintentionally happen unless we are proactive about regulating it.
Everyone agrees that CRISPR should be used to treat deadly genetic diseases but where does it go from there? What about non-life threatening genetic mutations like dwarfism or Down-syndrome? Is correcting those mutations a benefit for humanity or is it hurting the natural diversity of the human experience? There are lots of ethical issues we'll have to confront.
Neither - but I full well realize that this is, pragmatically, what Planned Parenthood is doing.
no, its a denial of human individualism
I bet trump wishes he could do it retroactively on his kids .
No! Eugenics is just the PC correct term for genocide.
No. It's a failed and dangerous theory.