Quote:

---

spud said: I do believe, however,

---

Quote:

---

Paradigm said:
Yes. There's no need to legislate what natural selection can take care of on its own.

---

Quote:

---

Ravus said:

Quote:

---

Paradigm said:
Yes.  There's no need to legislate what natural selection can take care of on its own.

---

Exactly what I was thinking. Natural selection will eventually take care of it anyway, so there's no need to ruin someone's life when nature will do it to their descendents the natural way.

---

I totally agree with this. I think its Nature's job to decide who continues and who doesn't. Thats why I'm against suicide and murder. I don't think we decide the death date. Of course this is fate, it isn't natural though.

Nature knows its ways to choose how things are to be with disease and such. Plus I don't think any of us have any lesser rights when we have a disease or a disability. We aren't more deserving of life's happiness by having a healthy body. 

Quote:

---

Ravus said:
In the wild, murder is an essential part of natural selection. The weakest prey will not be able to escape the predator, and will therefore become food; two fighting wolves will continue until one murders the other. So to say murder is unnatural goes against the observations in nature.

Suicide is another story. I haven't seen any records of multicellular conscious mammals other than humans committing suicide, but on a smaller scale, cells commit suicide all the time as a way to help the survival of the organism on the whole. I don't necessarily think suicide is unnatural, as I do believe humans are just partially following their instinct- the main difference is that we have the means and the conscious thought to be able to commit suicide, while other mammals don't.

Of course, this is debatable, and in the end will boil down to the argument over how natural humans really are. Humans are naturally developed animals after all, so would the suicide of one of these animals also be as natural as the suicide of a cell? Would murder with a gun be as natural as murder in the wolf's jaws?

---

Quote:

---

Yeah murder for survival purposes is perfectly 'natural'.

---

Quote:

---

In my oppinion cells are committing suicide based on the DNA's unconcious direction, not emotions.

---

Quote:

---

moog said:
How would they be stopped from reproducing? Constant monitoring? Forced sterilization?

---

Quote:

---

Ravus said:
In nature, it's not always for direct survival purposes; sometimes it's simply for one organism to expand. If another organism is in its way, oftentimes the more successful one will murder the weaker one. And is this unnatural? It is done in more cases than with humanity, yet when humanity does it we give it a category of its own.

---

Quote:

---

The potential for emotions is created by DNA. And even so, emotions are completely natural, so would the emotions of sadness or frustration that drive some humans to suicide be considered unnatural? Evidently not; they are naturally created. So why is the act of suicide then considered unnatural, when it's really just a cause and effect?

---

Emotions are created by DNA but cells aren't created to run by emotions. They run by basic links of ribosomes and whatnot. Humans have emotion which I think give the ability of suicide but go against it. We may commit suicide but we aren't willing to do it. It isn't natural because it isn't easy or benefiting on the society as a whole.

I'll exchange more with you tomorrow, I'm going to bed cause I have to wake up early. This is fun cause its opening up my mind to other possibilities. Hope its the same for you.

Peace. 

Quote:

---

About natural selection. Mankind has evolved through natural selection for many years and it still affects us. But man created society as a way to replace some of the natural aspects of life. Reproduction is a natural aspect controlled, in part, by society, therefore saying that natural selection will take care of things is a one sided view of the whole reproductive aspect. Society plays an important role when it comes to protect, sustain, educate and control a new generation.

---

Quote:

---

trendal said:
have a profound schizophrenic aunt, she's 50 years old now. After living a part of my life with her, i concluded that she never had and will never have the capacity to raise a child. She's not responsible enough to do it, it's the kind of case which the handicap affects her beyond the capability of having a child.

Being of sound mental and physical health doesn't mean one is able to raise children properly...


What about people of below-average intelligence? Should those of us with above-average intelligence be able to prevent all the "dummies" from reproducing?

---

Quote:

---

Who are you to say that they shouldn't even be given the chance to do so?

---

Quote:

---

Ravus said:
Why so? Schizophrenic people are just human as anyone else, and want to reproduce like anyone else.

---

Quote:

---

spud said:

Quote:

---

Ravus said:
Why so? Schizophrenic people are just human as anyone else, and want to reproduce like anyone else.

---

That doesn't even make sense. How do you measure one's "human"?

---

Quote:

---

Ravus said:
I meant "just as human" but missed that omission when I read it over.

Simply because they have a mental condition, does that take away their natural instinct to reproduce and continue their genetic line? You say it's selfish because it's not good for the kid, but what about people with genetic predispositions to becoming obese or having cancer? Should we call them selfish for wanting kids and stop them from reproducing?

---

Didn't you know? We only allow perfect people to reproduce now

Quote:

---

spud said:
Yes or no? Please give support backing up your opinion.

---

Quote:

---

spud said:
The top priority of my concern is an innocent, loving child having to live a life with a horrible disease such as schizophrenia due to selfish and inconsiderate parents.

---

Quote:

---

trendal said:
A great example of how in this world, arbitrary numbers such as IQ determine A LOT. Even whether or not you will be legally executed.

I thought this was supposed to be a "timeless ethics" discussion...not a "regurgitation of current law"

---

Quote:

---

trendal said:


Then you have nothing against someone taking away your freedom?

---

I am a competent being, so I have do indeed have something against it.

If someone chooses to take away my freedom of raping children, I won't complain too much. 

Any who, I'm late for class. Been fun chattin'!

Quote:

---

Ravus said:
We evolved to have the potential to create government, and those who utilized the power of government have survived until we get where we are today. By that logic, government is useful to our survival, not by some abstract means but because by using it we are still here.

---

Quote:

---

However, we have not used eugenics, nor stopped those with disabilities from reproducing, and yet we are also still here and very successful.

---

Your two statements in seperate quotes here contradict one another when one considers the fact that these things have occured in our past, especially in our more primitive times, especially infanticide, which was utilized as population control, to remove babies with visible defects, etc. Your first statement, in concrete means, justifies this as a necessary means for our survival. It was even Roman law at one point in time, to kill off a baby if it was defected. Families facing harsh economic factors would kill off their babies... this has been documented in tons of ancient cultures.

Here we are, still here and successful.. thanks to infanticide, which propagated our evolution!


Peace.

Quote:

---

Your two statements in seperate quotes here contradict one another when one considers the fact that these things have occured in our past

---

Quote:

---

gettinjiggywithit said:
How did infanticide propagate our evolution in your eyes?

---

Beyond the fact that every single interaction that our species participates in propagates our evolution?

Perhaps you missed my sarcastic tone or my point in that statement up there...


Peace.

Quote:

---

trendal Preventing parents from even trying to raise children is preventing them from making "mistakes" that they haven't made yet and may never actually make.

---

Quote:

---

irradiated_fecesOh and saying that nature will take care of inheritable disabilities is kind of bullshit, because we don't let nature take care of anything anymore. Our seniors are hooked up to machines keeping them alive. Medical science will keep these people around also and that is not natural.

---

Its not natural for the human mind to be curious and strive to better its world through letting others live? It is natural to love your seniors and let them be on this earth longer so you can enjoy them. I think you should work in a nursing home for awhile to understand this.

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
While I agree that laws should never interfere in people's personal lives, there's a bigger issue.

What if the child to be isn't just destined for disability. What if that child is destined for a short life of deformity, mental retardation, and constant intractable pain before death at, say, age 10 and this can be shown through genetic analysis that it is a certainty?

Now should the law prevent the parents from conceiving?

---

Quote:

---

trendal said:
Also, diploid was being inclusive to healthy people. He was just stating IF you knew ahead of time that the couple would produce such off spring, regardless of their current health, should we allow them to reproduce?

I would let them decide if they want to have the child or not, but I wouldn't force them not to. I can't justify taking away their freedoms.

---

Quote:

---

Do you have a single shred of evidence supporting this?

In my own experience: I have never met a parent of a disabled child who was, themselves, disabled. I don't doubt that the risk is much higher for people who are themselves disabled...but obviously (to me) healthy parents having disabled children is not uncommon.

"It should be noted the majority of birth defects occur in parents with no problems and are perfectly healthy."
http://www.anguillian.com/article/articleview/2562/1/133/

That's just from a quick google search...

---

Quote:

---

trendal said:
I think the difference between you and I is that you are a sadist and I'm not.

I think the difference between you and I is that you are a fascist and I'm not.

How do you know the child, however badly deformed and in pain, will not cherish every moment of his/her life? Yes such an outlook may be unlikely, but you do not know for sure.

---

Quote:

---

Take away the child's freedom to chose if they want to live or die?

---

Quote:

---

Also, your constant referal to child rape/molestation has me a little worried, but is also a well-known dirty debate tactic: "the lunatic edge". By attempting to link my argument with rape, molestation, and sadism, you are attempting to remove the focus from my actual argument. It indicates that you have no real argument against it

---

I call it my OTD sense of humor.
I like the sound of "the lunatic edge" though. I think I'll use that for now on.

Oh, and lastly, "referal" isn't a word. 

Quote:

---

trendal said:
Oh, and lastly, "referal" isn't a word.

W
As for this whole discussion, you've moved it away from

"Should people with serious inheritable disabilities be allowed to reproduce?"

to "should a pregnant couple who have just had a DNA test determine, without a doubt, that their child will be deformed and in pain be allowed to have the birth?"

Why did you need to make it so specific?

---

Quote:

---

What parent would bring such a child into the world, given the choice?

---

Quote:

---

Do you think we should start checking the DNA of every pregnancy, to catch the deformed-in-pain ones?

---

Quote:

---

Does a genetic condition with the effects Diploid listed even exist???

---

Quote:

---

trendal said:

Where does it end, spud? Where do you stop the line, once you've drawn a line through freedom?

---