Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Nialler · 06-21-2007, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christina Mirabilis

I have what is likely a genetic disorder, and I wouldn't take a chance on passing it on to a child.

What does 'allow' mean to you? Forced sterilization? Mandatory abortions? Who gets to decide what 'flawed' means? If they proved that stupidity was an inherited trait, should all folks with IQs below a certain point be added to the list? (And no mods, I'm not calling him stupid.)

Yeah, drawing the line as to what is tolerable or not is hard. I have no problem with the existence of such a line, though--I see no moral difference between child abuse inflicted after birth and causing the same level of harm via genetics.

I also have genetic issues that I consider to completely preclude reproduction--it's just as well I have no interest in it anyway.

So where do you draw the line then?

It seems a helluva a lot of people here are very keen to interfere in the rights of others to procreate.

To call it child abuse is disgusting.

What about the situation I was in - where our child showed two minor signs (only detected at 8 months) which could mean a chromosonal abnormality? Would you have advocated an abortion then? Would you accuse me of child abuse for allowing the birth to go ahead - despite no absolute assurance that everything was perfect (as was the case in the end). Would you have suggested that the child be euthanised afterwards in teh event of any problem?

We are both healthy parents, and our child is thankfully perfect. We are grateful for that every day. Had the child had significant problems I hope that we would have been the same.

To suggest that our decision to proceed with the birth in the face of incomplete assurances about our child's health was "child abuse" is a disgusting suggestion, and I decry it with all my force.

As for the suggestion that had either of us had a possible genetic disorder that could be passed on, I would still retain the right to consider the chances, and would resist any effort to deprive us of trying for a healthy baby.

This is eugenics in all its ugly transparency. Nothing else.

Nialler · 06-21-2007, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OripahsTrebor

Wait, I mean to say no to this question!

Quote:

What does 'allow' mean to you? Forced sterilization? Mandatory abortions? Who gets to decide what 'flawed' means? If they proved that stupidity was an inherited trait, should all folks with IQs below a certain point be added to the list? (And no mods, I'm not calling him stupid.)

I only support embryo selection or genetic engineering to increase intelligence. But, let's not discuss a technology that is AT LEAST three decades away. Eugenics is a question for the distant future.

No, there is no need for forced abortions or sterilizations yet. I fail to see what significant eugenic benefit such policies can yield.

Bull-fucking-shit. To even think that the technology may be there in the future is to wish for it and to wish for its use in that manner. It IS eugenics no matter what weasel words you wish to describe it. There's been far too many such words of late; "race realist" being another.

Have the courage to at least use the proper terms for what you describe, instead of hiding behind stupid phrases.

OripahsTrebor · 06-21-2007, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nialler

Quote:

Originally Posted by OripahsTrebor

Wait, I mean to say no to this question!

I only support embryo selection or genetic engineering to increase intelligence. But, let's not discuss a technology that is AT LEAST three decades away. Eugenics is a question for the distant future.

No, there is no need for forced abortions or sterilizations yet. I fail to see what significant eugenic benefit such policies can yield.

Bull-fucking-shit. To even think that the technology may be there in the future is to wish for it and to wish for its use in that manner. It IS eugenics no matter what weasel words you wish to describe it. There's been far too many such words of late; "race realist" being another.

Have the courage to at least use the proper terms for what you describe, instead of hiding behind stupid phrases.

Embryo selection is eugenics and I've never attempted to conceal that. Manipulating allele frequencies in a human population using biotechnology would be considered a eugenic practice. In fact, Lynn calls it eugenics and does not attempt to use any euphemisms.

Nialler · 06-21-2007, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OripahsTrebor

Embryo selection is eugenics and I've never attempted to conceal that. Manipulating allele frequencies in a human population using biotechnology would be considered a eugenic practice. In fact, Lynn calls it eugenics and does not attempt to use any euphemisms.

Well then don't try to imply that a debate on eugenics is 30 years away, or whenever the technology is available. You have been repeatedly hammering the eugenics drum here, and I will repeatedly remind everyone what is that you are describing.

I will also remind people that in your case and in Lynn's case it is intimately concerned with racial selection (your IQ excuse provides that link), so it is not just a matter of avoiding children with two heads that is under discussion - it is actual elimination of a race. That is something which was advocated by the great Lynn himself.

OripahsTrebor · 06-21-2007, 07:52 AM

I suppose we can use eugenics to prevent these scenarios from happening to any human again:

Quote:

Now suppose the boy sitting behind her is getting a D, but his IQ is a bit below 100, at the 49th percentile. We can hope to raise his grade. But teaching him more vocabulary words or drilling him on the parts of speech will not open up new vistas for him. It is not within his power to learn to follow an exposition written beyond a limited level of complexity, any more than it is within my power to follow a proof in the American Journal of Mathematics. In both cases, the problem is not that we have not been taught enough, but that we are not smart enough.

Now take the girl sitting across the aisle who is getting an F. She is at the 20th percentile of intelligence, which means she has an IQ of 88. If the grading is honest, it may not be possible to do more than give her an E for effort. Even if she is taught to read every bit as well as her intelligence permits, she still will be able to comprehend only simple written material. It is a good thing that she becomes functionally literate, and it will have an effect on the range of jobs she can hold. But still she will be confined to jobs that require minimal reading skills. She is just not smart enough to do more than that. ...

To say that even a perfect education system is not going to make much difference in the performance of children in the lower half of the distribution understandably grates. But the easy retorts do not work. It's no use coming up with the example of a child who was getting Ds in school, met an inspiring teacher, and went on to become an astrophysicist. That is an underachievement story, not the story of someone at the 49th percentile of intelligence.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009531

Gee, Charles Murray writes in such a dolorous tone; these hypothetical children do not have an auspicious future because of their genes.

Nialler · 06-21-2007, 08:09 AM

More bullshit. If we raise the median, then we still have the 49 percentilers.

And people will advocate weaning out those embryos too.

Why don't you cut to the racial element of this which you have been keen to do all along?

OripahsTrebor · 06-21-2007, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nialler

More bullshit. If we raise the median, then we still have the 49 percentilers.

And people will advocate weaning out those embryos too.

Why don't you cut to the racial element of this which you have been keen to do all along?

Well, one would be raising absolute ability. I do not see anything wrong with that though.

No, I prefer to refrain from discussing race. Race isn't the focal point of cognitive ability.

Every population has variation in innate cognitive ability and as Charles Murry and Richard Herrnstein argue, this variation cause occupational and social stratification in modern societies. I never said Caucasian and Asian societies were immune from this form of genetic stratification in their societies. We should yen to eliminate such stratification so it is not a racial issue.

The AntiChris · 06-21-2007, 08:40 AM

Thread reopened.

Users are reminded that speculation about motives is rarely conducive to civil discourse. Please stick to debating the arguments and avoid provocative or potentially inflammatory labnguage.

Thank you.

Chris (Mod,MF&P)

Nialler · 06-22-2007, 10:30 AM

Please provide a definition of "flawed".

A rigorous one.

JamesBannon · 06-22-2007, 10:35 AM

Threads like this boil down to "I don't like you! Bang, you're dead!".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-21-2007, 08:09 AM	#16
Nialler Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Paris Posts: 8,473	More bullshit. If we raise the median, then we still have the 49 percentilers. And people will advocate weaning out those embryos too. Why don't you cut to the racial element of this which you have been keen to do all along?

06-21-2007, 08:40 AM	#18
The AntiChris Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: UK Posts: 5,932	Thread reopened. Users are reminded that speculation about motives is rarely conducive to civil discourse. Please stick to debating the arguments and avoid provocative or potentially inflammatory labnguage. Thank you. Chris (Mod,MF&P)

06-22-2007, 10:30 AM	#19
Nialler Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Paris Posts: 8,473	Please provide a definition of "flawed". A rigorous one.

06-22-2007, 10:35 AM	#20
JamesBannon Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Paisley, Scotland Posts: 5,819	Threads like this boil down to "I don't like you! Bang, you're dead!".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.