Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Eugenics, Ethnicity, + Hypocrisy

Eugenics, Ethnicity, + Hypocrisy
Thread Tools
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 06:28 PM
 
The North Carolina Senate rejected a plan to compensate victims of a mass sterilization plan that targeted mostly poor minorities for decades in the 20th century.

On Wednesday, Senate Republicans refused to support the measure put forth by the House to set aside $10 million in the state budget for compensation, which would have given victims $50,000 each. The move would have made North Carolina the first state to compensate eugenics victims.


"I'm sorry that it happened," Sen. Don East told the Raleigh-based News and Observer. "I just don't think money fixes it."

From 1929 to 1974, an estimated 7,600 people were sterilized by consent, coercion or without their knowledge as a part of the North Carolina Eugenics Board program, according to the N.C. Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation. The office estimates that up to 1,800 victims are still living, and 146 have been verified so far.

Charmaine Fuller Cooper, the executive director, told the News and Observer that the foundation would shut down by the end of the month because state funding is ending.

North Carolina ran one of the country's most active eugenics programs, targeting people who were poor and undereducated, and those with physical or mental disabilities. The North Carolina Eugenics Board, a five-person panel, made its decisions in the name of social welfare.

Elaine Riddick, 58, was one of the victims. Pregnant after she was raped at age 14, Riddick was sterilized without her knowledge when she went to a North Carolina hospital to give birth to her son in 1968. Years later, she learned what had happened to her.

Riddick's attorney, Willie Gary, said Riddick was "hurt" and "in tears" after hearing the state senate's decision Wednesday. Riddick has said she would file a class action lawsuit seeking compensation from the state.

"She's suffered for so long, and now this is just pouring salt on a wound that has been there for years and years and years," Gary told ABC News.

Riddick told her story to ABC News last year.

Deemed "promiscuous" and "feebleminded" by a social worker at the hospital, Riddick, who came from a black family on welfare, was recommended to the state for sterilization. Riddick's illiterate grandmother was told that they were doing a "procedure" that was necessary to help the young girl; she signed the consent papers with an X. The state authorized and paid for the procedure, and without her consent or even her knowledge, Riddick was sterilized shortly after she gave birth.

"They didn't have permission from me because I was too young, and my grandmother didn't understand what was going on," Riddick told ABCNews.com. "They said I was feebleminded, they said I would never be able to do anything for myself. I was a little bitty kid and they cut me open like a hog."

At one time or another in the 20th century, more than half of the states in the U.S. had programs that allowed for the sterilization of those the government deemed unfit to procreate.

When most programs began in the early 1930s, this usually meant those in institutions for mental illness or mental retardation, but over the decades criminals, the blind, the deaf, the disabled, alcoholics, those with epilepsy and ultimately the rural poor on welfare would fall under the umbrella of "unfit to procreate."

In all, 65,000 Americans were sterilized before the last state program was shut down in the early 1980s.

Though detailed, often meticulous records of these sterilizations survive in state archives, America's experience with selective sterilization has for the most part been a buried chapter in the nation's history.
North Carolina Senate Denies Funds for Sterilization Victims - ABCNews.com

Do I really need to elaborate or is the point self-evident?



OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 06:36 PM
 
This is mighty spare on details about the actual senate proceedings, which is kinda sorta relevant IMO.

Not that that info would necessarily vindicate anyone, I just prefer not to rush to judgement.

What's his name sounds like a total douche though.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 06:45 PM
 
Can one of the mods fix the thread title? Looks like the ampersand bug is still around.

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 06:59 PM
 
I've gotta say, the more I look at it the more this comes off as a hit-piece.

As the article says, North Carolina wasn't the only state to have these (categorically abhorrent) eugenics programs. The article also says as of yet no other state has offered compensation.

Do all these states have Republican senates too, or do we have Democrats who don't give a shit either unless they can make some political hay out of it?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 07:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Can one of the mods fix the thread title? Looks like the ampersand bug is still around.

OAW
Here. I'll just report you.

No charge for that.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 07:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I've gotta say, the more I look at it the more this comes off as a hit-piece.

As the article says, North Carolina wasn't the only state to have these (categorically abhorrent) eugenics programs. The article also says as of yet no other state has offered compensation.

Do all these states have Republican senates too, or do we have Democrats who don't give a shit either unless they can make some political hay out of it?
Honestly I can't say one way or the other. This type of stupidity does, in fact, cross political lines. But let's face it, the GOP champions the "pro-life" perspective these days. So my point, which may have been missed, is that the so-called "pro-life" GOP quite predictably threw poor and minority women under the bus when there was MONEY at stake even while trying to use them for incredibly short-sighted political gain.

Republican strategies, now with the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, alienate more minorities | OregonLive.com

I mean one would think this would be right up the GOP's alley if it was all about "pro-life" right? Especially something as egregious as this?

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 07:34 PM
 
I don't think I'm seeing the inconsistency you are.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 08:18 PM
 
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 09:26 PM
 
Eugenic research should be brought back. We have the technology to research it with out causing harm on people now.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 10:08 PM
 
What technology is that?
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2012, 02:27 AM
 
Kaaaaaaaannnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2012, 04:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
What technology is that?
Lets start with the Computer?

We can grow human ears on in a rat.... technology has come a long way since the last research in Eugenics. Science has come a long way too. Ever seen the movie Gattaca? Modern research in Eugenics would attract volunteers. The problem is the ethics. If a gene could be found that is responsible for say violent crime, is it ethical to remove it. But at the same time its easier to agree to remove the gene that causes a disability.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2012, 07:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Eugenic research should be brought back. We have the technology to research it with out causing harm on people now.
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
What technology is that?
You may have missed this bit of news.

New prenatal genetic test offers more information, raises questions - Chicago Tribune

Fetal genetic testing  may reshape abortion debate - Health - Health care - Breaking Bioethics - msnbc.com

Ms. Sanger and HG Wells would be proud.
45/47
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2012, 08:45 AM
 
The Repub's of 1929 are probably a little different than the Repub's of today.

Something that was accepted (Stupidity non-withstanding)
in the past isn't necessarily accepted today.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2012, 09:49 AM
 
I'm just imagining heads exploding if we develop the ability to prenatally detect homosexuality.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2012, 11:42 AM
 
It could surpass the rate of Down's pregnancies that end in abortion. (90%)
Down syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
45/47
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2012, 03:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Eugenic research should be brought back. We have the technology to research it with out causing harm on people now.
This is why I'm giving up on the Pol lounge. I just can't be bothered with the level of stupidity in here any more.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2012, 03:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Modern research in Eugenics would attract volunteers. The problem is the ethics. If a gene could be found that is responsible for say violent crime, is it ethical to remove it. But at the same time its easier to agree to remove the gene that causes a disability.
"Research" implies that we are unsure of the outcome. It could still be a negative outcome, despite the predictive assistance of the almighty computer. What if someone volunteers to have a gene removed (if that were possible), and we are surprised to find that the unpredicted side-effects are worse than the original condition? That person would still be harmed. Even treatments that were proven safe to animals are not free of risk when translated to humans, it's just a fact of life.


Even sidestepping the question of what is a human, suppose that there was an unambiguously guilt-free way to remove disease genes from the population, there is still a risk of later discovering that those disease genes were also providing a benefit which is now gone (like the classic sickle-cell malaria resistance example). In that way, there is still risk of harming humans.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2012, 09:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I'm just imagining heads exploding if we develop the ability to prenatally detect homosexuality.
In before the "Gayttaca" joke.

Seriously though, you don't even need the prenatal part.

Just a test which detects it, period. Heads will asplode.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2012, 10:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
In before the "Gayttaca" joke.

Seriously though, you don't even need the prenatal part.

Just a test which detects it, period. Heads will asplode.
I'm just imagining the typical rabid pro-lifer being faced with the prospect of knowing that their fetus is gay.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2012, 12:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I'm just imagining the typical rabid pro-lifer being faced with the prospect of knowing that their baby is gay.
They will let the baby be born. No different than Down's or Edward's Syndrome other prenatal genetic diagnosis. The Palin's and the Santorum's were faced with this question and chose life, as did this couple.(Anencephaly)
Our Sweet Boy Grayson James

It's the eugenicists of the world who advocate eradicating the world those who are in their view, less than perfect. Margaret Sanger referred to them as "human weeds"
45/47
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2012, 04:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don't think I'm seeing the inconsistency you are.
What was the Left doing for all those years to try and protect these people's civil rights? Talk about hypocrisy... why aren't the Democrat controlled houses in more liberal states rushing forward to provide compensation? This was happening for decades and they're just now screaming about it? I suppose something this juicy is worth keeping in your back pocket so you can tactically use it as political currency later.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2012, 01:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
What was the Left doing for all those years to try and protect these people's civil rights? Talk about hypocrisy... why aren't the Democrat controlled houses in more liberal states rushing forward to provide compensation? This was happening for decades and they're just now screaming about it? I suppose something this juicy is worth keeping in your back pocket so you can tactically use it as political currency later.
Why are you repeating a point I already made back at me as if I need to be schooled?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2012, 03:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Why are you repeating a point I already made back at me as if I need to be schooled?
I was agreeing with you.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2012, 07:52 PM
 
A couple of observations, mostly on topic:

I kind of agree with the NC senator that said he didn't think money could fix anything done by the state's eugenics program. How could money undo forced sterilization? It certainly could not give back to a person the ability to have a natural, biological family.

Trisomy genetic errors, (21, 18, whatever), are tragic and difficult to deal with. In a few cases, with what is called "mosaic" Downs, the effects are relatively minor; one of my professors has a sister with mosaic Downs, and she demonstrates many of the outward, physical manifestations, particularly the short stature and characteristic epicanthic folds - she looks Downs - but she has a graduate degree in nursing and is particularly intelligent. But this is a major exception. Aside from perhaps identifying that a fetus is or is not displaying a mosaic impairment (which you cannot separate out into "good" or "bad"), there is no way to tell from genetic testing how severe the impact of one of these trisomy flaws might be. Raising a child without such errors is a chore, but it takes a special kind of parent to be up to the challenge of raising a child who will be impaired to the extent that these errors cause. Further, Downs is linked to maternal age and the extra genetic material almost always comes from the mother. This means that the person making the decision on whether or not to complete a pregnancy with a Downs fetus is almost always a woman in her 40s, who is faced with the potential for having to be not just an active parent into her 60s, but a parent with significantly greater challenges than other parents would face. I am surprised that the statistic Wiki lists is only 90%.

Let's not paint Margaret Sanger with exactly the same brush used by the politicians in North Carolina. While she was advocating reduction of the "unfit" population, she was also advocating for reproductive rights for women, in particular the right to not get pregnant in the first place. It was she who was responsible for the movement that actually legalized any forms of pregnancy prevention at all. Her mother had 18 pregnancies in the span of 22 years and died at age 50. It was not uncommon for women to have many pregnancies that resulted in a child who did not survive past infancy, and beyond the personal tragedy of such losses, at that time medicine had little idea of the physical toll of repeated pregnancy on a woman. Being pregnant most of her life, with children less than a year apart in age, was a terrible burden on far too many women in Sanger's day. Aligning with the eugenicists in suggesting a way to avoid the "unfit," Sanger championed birth control first and foremost, not forced sterilization. It appears that her association with the eugenics crowd may have been a strategy to aid in legalizing birth control.

Finally, I believe that a little knowledge about one's genetics is a dangerous thing. Whether it is the individual or an insurer with "a little knowledge," lacking sufficient and appropriate information about what a person's genetic makeup means, either way is bad and can lead to very bad decisions.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2012, 09:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
A couple of observations, mostly on topic:

I kind of agree with the NC senator that said he didn't think money could fix anything done by the state's eugenics program. How could money undo forced sterilization? It certainly could not give back to a person the ability to have a natural, biological family.
Are you against financial compensation for injury?
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2012, 10:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Are you against financial compensation for injury?
So your saying the current taxpayers should be punished for the acts of those 40 politicians years ago?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2012, 11:02 PM
 
No, I'm not saying that.

I didn't make a statement, I asked a question.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2012, 06:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Are you against financial compensation for injury?
If financial compensation can help, OR if that compensation will prevent the perpetrator or others from injuring others, I am completely in favor of it. But how can money give someone back their life?

I am NOT against compensation as such, but financial compensation would be trivial compared to the suffering these victims experienced. How about "you never have to pay any sort of taxes to any city, county or the state for anything, ever again." Or "your family, limited to very close relatives, is excused from taxation by the state or any entity within the state." That isn't quite "financial" compensation, but it would equate to the state acknowledging that IT, through misuse of law, was responsible for their suffering. Wouldn't that be a lot better than saying "here's $50k, it's all we could afford right now, and we're very sorry."

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2012, 07:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
So your saying the current taxpayers should be punished for the acts of those 40 politicians years ago?
Yes. The state doesn't get to avoid paying restitution because it dragged its feet for decades.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2012, 11:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
If financial compensation can help, OR if that compensation will prevent the perpetrator or others from injuring others, I am completely in favor of it. But how can money give someone back their life?
Maybe they can buy him a clone?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2012, 03:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Gubment did some downright nasty things to people. The man from my thread didn't see a dime, and there wasn't a whole lot of outrage in my thread. Just a 2nd page news article and mild reactions from the NN.

Why now is there outrage, do you suppose? Elections looming? Political ammunition?

EDIT: This man did nothing but have alcoholic parents, mind you. That and lived in CA.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2012, 03:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
This is why I'm giving up on the Pol lounge. I just can't be bothered with the level of stupidity in here any more.
Have you ever looked at the early field of medical research... A lot of stuff you benefit from now medically came from very horrible experiments. Eugenics has a bad name mostly because of the very early days of it and the Nazi's. Early medical research was just as ugly in those days too. The only stupidity here is closed minds to science for no good reasons.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2012, 03:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
"Research" implies that we are unsure of the outcome. It could still be a negative outcome, despite the predictive assistance of the almighty computer. What if someone volunteers to have a gene removed (if that were possible), and we are surprised to find that the unpredicted side-effects are worse than the original condition? That person would still be harmed. Even treatments that were proven safe to animals are not free of risk when translated to humans, it's just a fact of life.
How many people died in early heart operations and early brain operations before it was perfected into something that is common today? Science and research shouldn't be held back because of "what if"s


Even sidestepping the question of what is a human, suppose that there was an unambiguously guilt-free way to remove disease genes from the population, there is still a risk of later discovering that those disease genes were also providing a benefit which is now gone (like the classic sickle-cell malaria resistance example). In that way, there is still risk of harming humans.
Wouldn't research in the field be better to fully understand everything, for and against. For all we know a mistake from the removal of a diseased genes could also lead to the cure of something else or a better understanding of something else like cancer.

Research is one thing, general adoption and application is another thing. Just because we find a way to say cure homosexuality does not mean it would ever be used legally.


If babies where left to fend for themselves in the first year of birth with no medical intervention at all, nature would take care of most of the failures on its own. The problem is medical advancements has removed nature and allows those that would never have made it to live and reproduce.

The strong survive the weak parish. It the way it should be. At least with Genetic research problems can be corrected or prevented. And generally people could be enhanced. Just imagine if we could genetically make it so we required a 3rd less of the calories we do now in a world ever so quickly running out of resources. Or a world where we develop the ability to add regeneration to organs that can't. Heart damage, no worries in 2 years it will be regenerated. Improving ourselves shouldn't be looked at as such horrible thing. After all we already do this with Animals.
( Last edited by Athens; Jun 25, 2012 at 04:05 PM. )
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2012, 04:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Have you ever looked at the early field of medical research... A lot of stuff you benefit from now medically came from very horrible experiments. Eugenics has a bad name mostly because of the very early days of it and the Nazi's. Early medical research was just as ugly in those days too. The only stupidity here is closed minds to science for no good reasons.

Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are direct links between progressive American eugenicists such as Margaret Sanger and Harry H. Laughlin and racial oppression in the US and in Europe. Harry H. Laughlin wrote the Virginia model statute [85] that was the basis for the Nazi Ernst Rudin's Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring. Laughlin's assistance to Adolf Hitler's cause resulted in an honorary doctorate from Heidelberg University in 1936.[86] Ernst Rudin also wrote articles on eugenics for Margaret Sanger's Birth Control Review. Sanger stated during work related to her "Negro Project", "The minister's work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."[87] While there are two alternatives as to the interpretation of that quotation, Margaret Sanger not only attended, but actually spoke at a New Jersey meeting of the Ku Klux Klan auxiliary.[88]
And you wonder why PPA sets up their clinics in predominantly minority areas.
( Last edited by Chongo; Jun 25, 2012 at 08:55 PM. )
45/47
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2012, 06:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
How many people died in early heart operations and early brain operations before it was perfected into something that is common today? Science and research shouldn't be held back because of "what if"s
That still does nothing to support your original claim of "with out causing harm on people now."

And the big difference between the research that causes harm to people but is Ok vs that which causes harm to people and is not Ok is the question of whether those people were at risk already. If you do research on someone who is about to die of a heart attack either way, and the research might possibly save their life, that is a different situation than if you have a perfectly healthy (even if deemed "inferior" by some) test subject and you're doing something that could cause more harm than they're already at risk of.



Wouldn't research in the field be better to fully understand everything, for and against. For all we know a mistake from the removal of a diseased genes could also lead to the cure of something else or a better understanding of something else like cancer.

Research is one thing, general adoption and application is another thing. Just because we find a way to say cure homosexuality does not mean it would ever be used legally.
The risks of the research are more than the risks of not doing the research. That's the difference.


If babies where left to fend for themselves in the first year of birth with no medical intervention at all, nature would take care of most of the failures on its own. The problem is medical advancements has removed nature and allows those that would never have made it to live and reproduce.

The strong survive the weak parish. It the way it should be.
No, it's not.

Just imagine if we could genetically make it so we required a 3rd less of the calories we do now in a world ever so quickly running out of resources.
We're generally suffering from the exact opposite problem.

Or a world where we develop the ability to add regeneration to organs that can't. Heart damage, no worries in 2 years it will be regenerated. Improving ourselves shouldn't be looked at as such horrible thing. After all we already do this with Animals.
This has nothing to do with eugenics. This type of research goes on without eugenics, and I don't even know how a fully-embraced eugenics program would even help it. Trying to design a person that heals itself is way harder than trying to heal that person directly, fancifully optimistic technology or no.

Novel medical technology is all well and good, as long as the subjects or early adopters give informed consent. The difference with eugenics (by definition) is that it targets the next generation, who are unable to give informed consent because they don't even exist yet.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2012, 04:17 PM
 
I think the major problem is what is considered Eugenics and what is not.

By the mid-20th century eugenics had fallen into disfavor, having become associated with Nazi Germany. This country's approach to genetics and eugenics was focused on Eugen Fischer's concept of phenogenetics[9] and the Nazi twin study methods of Fischer and Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer. Both the public and some elements of the scientific community have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced "racial hygiene", human experimentation, and the extermination of "undesired" population groups. However, developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century have raised many new questions and concerns about the meaning of eugenics and its ethical and moral status in the modern era, effectively creating a resurgence of interest in eugenics
As for my original claim, the research could be conducted in virtual computer models only and perhaps living tissues, that would cause no harm to people. If the end result of the research created stronger smarter more resistant people, I can't see that as harm either if theoretical moved to practical.

I'm not advocated forced sterilizations or human testing like what the Nazi's did or early governments did.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2012, 07:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I think the major problem is what is considered Eugenics and what is not.
No, any attempt to improve the status quo of the human germline is consistent with what I said earlier. 1, it meddles with future generations (in fact that is the entire point), and those future generations don't have the chance to give informed consent. 2, it starts off with people who are not already at risk (as opposed to people with diseases who wish to be cured), therefore the acceptable risks from the research itself are proportionally lower (than for research on diseases, for example).


As for my original claim, the research could be conducted in virtual computer models only and perhaps living tissues, that would cause no harm to people.
That would also provide us with no useful information, not until the results were verified in people, at which point the risks become as real as the rewards.

If the end result of the research created stronger smarter more resistant people, I can't see that as harm either if theoretical moved to practical.
That's like saying that gambling at a casino (or the stock market) is harmless because the end result might be doubling your money, and you can't see the harm in that. You're ignoring the risks.

I'm not advocated forced sterilizations or human testing like what the Nazi's did or early governments did.
But you are advocating human testing, just with volunteers instead of prisoners. That would be (and is) fine for research that only affects the volunteer, as long as they give informed consent. The difference with eugenics is that it purposefully tries to change the fortunes of the volunteer's future offspring, who can't give consent.

If the question was about trying to improve on the status quo in a non-heritable fashion (like lifestyle drugs, performance enhancers, narcotics, etc), proper informed consent could account for the reduced risk tolerance I mentioned in point 2 at the top of this post. But unlike those cases, eugenics fundamentally affects future generations, who can't give informed consent, so there's simply no solution to that ethical dilemma (besides not doing it). Eugenics without heritability is not eugenics, it's just gene therapy, which has already been approved in clinical trials before.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2012, 08:20 PM
 
So you are saying Potential parents require consent first to have children from there yet unborn children?

From my stance they don't really have much say in anything. If I decide to have a baby with some one who is black and my child who is part white and part black is unhappy I didn't get consent from him first before making him I would tell him to go see a shrink.

I also can't really see a child who finds out he is a designer baby with a very fit body, very high IQ saying Damn you mother and father for making me better. I see them thanking them.

The real problem which I am surprised you have not touched, something a lot more valid to being opposed to it is the class creation it leads to. Those that are improved and those that are not. Improved people would have the best jobs make the most money and live well while the normals would be left as the under class. That is a far more valid argument to make against it.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2012, 11:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
So you are saying Potential parents require consent first to have children from there yet unborn children?
No, consent is required to change the status quo ("nature"). Having children, or not having them, is the status quo. Deciding to purposefully depart from that path carries certain risks. People have a tendency to discount the risks and only consider the rewards, specifically when it's someone else who will have to live with the consequences if you guess wrong. That's exactly why it's important to insist that the patient themselves give consent. No one besides them (or including them if they are impaired) is in a position to fairly evaluate the risks.

I also can't really see a child who finds out he is a designer baby with a very fit body, very high IQ saying Damn you mother and father for making me better. I see them thanking them.
You assume a 100% success rate. That is foolhardy. You would be lucky to get a 99% success rate, and then what do you tell to the 100th child that has flipper arms because of the research you did? It was worth it? They didn't sign up for this, and no one else has the right to sign for them.

The real problem which I am surprised you have not touched, something a lot more valid to being opposed to it is the class creation it leads to. Those that are improved and those that are not.
You assume a 100% success rate. What about the 3rd class, the failures who now can't even measure up to "normal," all because of your choices, your gamble?

Improved people would have the best jobs make the most money and live well while the normals would be left as the under class. That is a far more valid argument to make against it.
This is actually irrelevant to eugenics, you can get to that debate with just doping. No need to tamper with the germline.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2012, 08:50 AM
 
www.maafa21.com Watch and learn.
45/47
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2012, 09:43 AM
 
Blind links are so enticing.

Oh, wait, no – the opposite of that.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2012, 09:51 AM
 
But wait... watch implies it's a video. Isn't video the absolute bestest way to rapidly disseminate information?
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2012, 10:00 AM
 
@Chongo I don't understand?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2012, 10:17 AM
 
Maafa 21 details the eugenics roots of the American Birth Control League, now known as Planned Parenthood.
[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLnNi_qb7nY[/VIDEO]
45/47
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2012, 10:41 AM
 
You are confused...

Eugenics didn't lead to racism. Racists used eugenics as one of many tools to reach a goal. Its like saying guns should be banned because they lead to the death of black people. Sorry its just a tool, it was the hands of the person firing the gun that lead to the death.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2012, 10:53 AM
 
Here's the Wiki article, for people not wanting to watch an entire frigging documentary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maafa_21

This may not be the representation they want, but that's what happens when you leave your "about" page blank. You force people to seek other sources.


FWIW, I call bullshit. You don't need a secret conspiracy for genocide via family planning when you have crack.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2012, 01:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
And you wonder why PPA sets up their clinics in predominantly minority areas.
Fnck, that's a stupid thing to say. Only an idiot would believe that. Minorities are poorer, so they need free services, so free services are located in their neighbourhoods. Or do you think black people without health insurance should ride the bus uptown for 2 hours into the posh district so they can get a free pap smear and some condoms?

But then again, you'd a proud, preachy, proselytizing member of backwards church that believes - in 2012!! - that contraception is evil. So I expect all sorts of stupid things to come out of your mouth.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2012, 02:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Maafa 21 details the eugenics roots of the American Birth Control League, now known as Planned Parenthood.
Everyone knows that Sanger was a eugenicist and a racist. The Planned Parenthood website itself will tell you that, so this "expose" is a phoney re-tred of common knowledge. None of this has ANYTHING to do with Planned Parenthood today.

Providing family planning services to any woman in America, including black women, is not racism or eugenics, and anyone who thinks so is a goddamn idiot.

Anti-PP zealots are bigger scumbags than creationists, Jews for Jesus, and gay conversion therapists put together.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2012, 02:27 PM
 
What do you have against anti-PP people?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:29 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,