Eugenics...

[lawrocket 3]

I look at quade's post about the asshat in Tennessee, where the asshat is apparently is arguing for eugenics in government policy.

Most would find that wrong. But, eugenics are pretty common everywhere.

For example, California has the "expanded AFP program." This is a blood test can detect potential fetal abnormalities, like spina bifida, and other defects liek trisomy 21 or trisomy 18.

The State of California recommends these tests. In fact, genetics counseling is its own field, wherein prospective parents can use tests and histories to assess the fetus's risk factors for cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, or any of a number of other genetic factors.

Often, these tests and counseling result in findings of genetic defects that are survivable, but not desirable. Some of these problems yield long-term health care costs and other societal problems.

The parents often are left with the option of raising a "defective" child or terminating the pregnancy. This stems from the idea that these humans are inferior, and should not be granted life. At the very least, it provides a societal argument for how inefficiency is reached with these children being born.

It seems an uncomfortable idea that genetic testing and counseling has a eugenics backbone. Most find these tests to be good and positive. Is there a difference between abortion of those who carry the "wrong" genes and the sterilization of those with Down's that occurred thoughout history? (p.s., yes I recognize that the poor and prisoners were also sterilized)

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DrunkMonkey 0]

Personal choice...The RWCF's hate it when someone has freedom of choice on any matter...

[lawrocket 3]

Hmmm. Explain your position in regards to how it relates to governmental policy advocating eugenics....

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

eugenics in government policy.

That's the most disturbing part of it. With those other tests you mentioned, the parents are being told something about their child and then given a choice. Most mothers probably already have an idea what race their baby is going to be, and they have a choice. But the gov't mandating abortion based on any of those factors is f'd up.

Not that everything else on that site isn't f'd up either.

[quade 4]

It IS the business of the parents.

It is NOT the business of government.

All one need do is take a trip down memory lane at the U.S. Holocaust Museum and see what just the simple collection of eye and hair color data on 3x5 cards can lead to.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[PhillyKev 0]

Quade, that's a fantastic point. But damnit, you invoked Godwin and there are no exceptions to that law.

[quade 4]

I'm sorry about that, but in this particular case, it applies about as well as any example in the history of the world.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

You are correct. These eugenics programs typically do not require termination of the pregnancy.

On the other hand, they do advocate it. My wife and I were referred to genetic counseling for my son. we turned it down, since we'd keep him, anyway. Why waste the money and time on it if it won't change our minds.

Sure, most mothers know what the race will be. Does that matter if the baby is an acondroplastic dwarf? What about if the baby was a carrier of an immune deficiency? What if the woman was poor and learned that her baby had a rare heart defect that would require tens of thousands of dollars to repair?

THe state tells them this. Why? Usually, so it can save this money by quick elimination of the undesirables.

What other useful purpose would these tests, like AFP, serve?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quade, point given. I guess I was not explicit enough with this.

My question is whether or not the state should be engaged in implicit eugenics, i.e., "We're not gonna force you to abort that mongoloid, but hink about it - the kid's gonna grow up to be a waste of resources and won't ever amount to anything. Why not save some troubles for you and the world, and forget this one and go make another one that won't be defective?"

I seriously considered this issue just a few short months ago. I personally do not believe that it is the best thing to make a policy advocating getting these tests.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Zenister 0]

How is information ever a negative? As long as the parents are given the freedom to decide what choice is best for them what difference does it make? Should the state never give advice, make recommendations (not requirements) to its citizens about how their procreation would be most beneficial (from the state’s view) to society?

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Should the state never give advice, make recommendations (not requirements) to its citizens about how their procreation would be most beneficial (from the state’s view) to society?

The word for that is "eugenics."

That's my point. It's what Hitler did - only he followed through via force, and not through soft suggestion...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Zenister 0]

exactly.. that is the point.. as long as it is information only with the parents being allowed to make the decisions, why not encourage parents to seek as much information on the health and status of their offspring? would it be better to have them completely unprepared for dealing with a life long illness?

I dont see it as significantly different than using a sonogram to determine sex....unless the government writes polices make it so there are significant advatages to following their recommendations (aka china and male/female ratios) the choices are still left to the parents who now have more information to make informed decisions...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[juanesky 0]

Quote

It IS the business of the parents.

It is NOT the business of government.

Then why would most liberals say it is responsibility of the government to help those misfortunate that have kids by the dozen and live on welfare for their whole lives????.

Hope you see the irony of your statement

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Dagny 0]

Overall, I believe the prenatal testing for congenital defects is beneficial. Some of the diseases are survivable, several are not. Some are debilitating, several are not. Trisomy 18 is a fatal condition. Screening early for these tests isn't simply a matter of providing the option to terminate the pregnancy, but it does help both the family and the physicians prepare for the birth. A trisomy 21 baby is likely to have congenital defects to the heart in addition to the developmental delays and mental retardation. Recognizing that the condition exists allows the parents to prepare themselves for raising a non-traditional child and allows specialists to be contacted and ready to deal with the special problems which exist in a child with a congenital defect. Spina bifida, trisomy 18, trisomy 21...these babies aren't kids that can just be discharged from the hospital and brought to their pediatrician for standard visits.

The decision to keep a baby with a congenital defect when that defect is discovered pre-term is entirely personal. I have less of a problem with federally mandated testing than I would if the government tried to mandate a solution (like early termination) for the "undesirables".

I don't believe that most physicians recommend early termination of these pregnancies because they are proponents of eugenics. There are so many difficulties that arise from raising a handicapped child that the option should be there for families who participate in pregancy screening exams. My friend's brother is handicapped and when her parents are no longer able to care for him, he becomes her responsibility. It takes an incredible amount of dedication, personal strength, and money to care for the handicapped. That's why, as a future physician, I would recommend a family consider the options...termination versus delivery. It's not that I advocate abortion, but I do advocate the right to choose.

As for sterilization/termination/isolation of post term babies, children, or adults who are handicapped, I think that is a completely different situation. I think that is something we should strive to keep from happening in our present day society. And I believe we should do everything in our power to avoid situations which may lead to genocide.

I don't see preterm screenings as being much different than government mandated newborn screenings for PKU and G6PD. There is a benefit to early awareness.

Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic.
-Salvador Dali

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

That's my point. It's what Hitler did - only he followed through via force, and not through soft suggestion...

I'm reading a book on this by Edwin Black. Eugenics started catching around 1900 at a lab in Cold Spring Harbor. Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Inst got behind this $$. Here is the C R E E P Y part: The idea was to systematically eliminate bad human breeds (marrige prohibition/sterilize/camps/euthanization). The blond blueyed Nordic race was believed to be superior. ..... this didn't catch on so fast and the farthest they got in the U.S. were sterilization programs and stuff like that (laws that past in certain states) But then hitler got exited about this and just went into fast forward.

I wonder how far we would have taken this on our own. ???

[billvon 3,132]

>I wonder how far we would have taken this on our own?

Much farther than we actually did, that's for sure! The idea of eugenics (which is basically directed human evolution) was supported by Alexander Graham Bell, George Bernard Shaw, Winston Churchill, and Margaret Sanger to name just a few. Indeed, forced eugenics were a big thing just before WWII; the US sterilized 64,000 people in the first half of the 20th century, and many of our immigration policies were set up to exclude 'undesireable' races. Just before WWII broke out, one american eugenics advocate complained that "the Germans are beating us at our own game!"

WWII changed all that; no one wanted to be associated with Hitler, and all the eugenics programs came to a grinding halt.

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

Alexander Graham Bell, George Bernard Shaw, Winston Churchill, and Margaret Sanger

don't know for sure but they couldn't have all been pretty blue-eyed blonds.

What do they do in China? isn't there a limit to how many girls you can have or something?



.

[Remster 30]

Quote

don't know for sure but they couldn't have all been pretty blue-eyed blonds

Did you ever look at a picture of Hitler?

Remster

[Andrewwhyte 1]

There is nothing new about eugenics. Rape as the natural spoils of war is just that. Remember the "first night" policy in Braveheart? I don't know if that was actually practiced in medieval Scotland, but I wouldn't be surprised. The practice of agriculture is the same thing. The natural attraction we have for people who are healthy is the same thing at its core. The only thing that is new is the application of modern scientific technology to the practice. When that happens we get a moral dilemma that requires us to painstakingly redefine our moral code. Finding a good husband for your daughter is fine; sterilizing everyone less than five feet tall is not (or is it?).
I believe this is the main reason we are having such a hard time controlling health care costs. There was a time not that long ago when "do everything you can" was a reasonable proposition; the science of medicine had very real limits. Throwing money at many of the problems would be of little use. Today the science is advancing so fast that for just a few more percent of GNP we can continuously have positive returns. We have to make the hard decisions both in a micro and macro sense based on economics and not on compassion. Our moral norms are not well equipped for this.

[happythoughts 0]

Did you ever see the original movie Rollerball with James Caan?

It had a scene where his friend had been determined to be essentially brain dead. The doctor told him that the cost of keeping him alive had been exceeded the allowed amount. They wanted him to sign the papers to kill him.

Back in the day... everyone was shocked at such a prospect.

They were killing adults because they were no longer cost effective to support.

This is the reverse. Killing infants before they are born because of the cost. (...probably other issues also, such as quality of life, etc)

Eventually, they'll do it by legislation.
Here is the way... they'll cut off the funding that pays for the medical care that keeps you alive.
You will have $x for a condition. If you aren't better at the end of the money, you are on your own.

"Sorry about Grandmas oxygen tank..."

[Remster 30]

Quote

Remember the "first night" policy in Braveheart? I don't know if that was actually practiced in medieval Scotland,

Very commun in Medieval france, and I can only assume the rest of Europe, called "cuisselage" (from putting them on your lap - lap=cuisse) where a lord had the right to sleep with any girl in his fiefdom when they turned 16 I think.

Remster

[billvon 3,132]

>Rape as the natural spoils of war is just that.

Indeed. Genetically, one of the most successful humans ever was Genghis Khan. He impregnated thousands of women around the world, and as a result .5% of the males in the world today (16 million) carry his Y-chromosome.