Genetic Cleansing

Remove all ads!

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=93982004

Anyone for some Naturalish Selection?

 

Pity we didn't think of this earlier. Humanity might not have been burdened with the likes of Steven Hawking and FDR.

What a twat.

 

Yeah it is better that we treat people with defects in their genepool so we can accumulate worse and worse genes in the gene pool of our offspring, hence finally digging our own evolutionary grave, failing to make the healthiest surive. At last The dolphins shall rule the world!

On a more serious note.
Killing babies just seems wrong to me... But the abortion discussion of when something turns human or can be considered human is extremely outdebated. The only possible answer is that after the first cell division a potential baby is growing and hence abortion is murder. Any other definition of when abortion isn't "murder" is arbitrary, Like When a baby can survive without its mother, then it is human... depends mostly on medical science. And humanity Vs Cruelty is purely subjective.

Who is a better judge in all this than the mother? Even that can be disputed with her lack of objectivity in the stressed situation of child birth...

 

Oh? And I suppose you'll want mothers who miscarry charged with involuntary manslaughter?

 

That is why ethics based on culture is *often* the carrying factor when it comes to laws and guidelines and not numbers from scientists. Which is good. Imaging the added cruelty to the world if you and I were just numbers in a matrix... heh

 

Not to support the guy's idea, but what I think he is trying to say is that if a baby was born with a condition that would cause it to suffer later in life, then it would be more merciful to end it right away. Just like pulling the plug on life support for a suffering person I suppose.

Of course, I could never do it or advocate doing it. I find the idea morally reprehensible.

 

The plug should be pulled if a child was born with such a defect as to render him/her unable to survive in society.

It's only merciful. Of course, such judgments are difficult to make and terribly prone to abuse.

I'm all for it, provided a suitable set of guidelines can be drawn up in its execution.

Side note: My stance on abortion is pro-choice.

 

I agree with Shura on that note. If the baby is deemed unable to fend for itself in later life then it should be 'put down'. I personally would prefer death that having to live my life dependant of another and know that my existance is costing society a fair amount of money and I'm doing nothing in return.

Of course there will need to be a rather interesting set of guidelines and rules as to what is deemed 'shall be unable beyond reasonable doubt to fend for self after appropriate age'. For example a blind and deaf person is definatly that type of material whereas a blind or deaf person is not.

 

It is always the question what an unbearable defect is. A thumb too much? A hare-lip? A moderate IQ qualifying you for a dishwashwer career at best? Brown eyes and hair and not blonde hair and blue eyes? Contagan defects with grotesquely crippled arms? Be hairless? ...

In the 1920s and 30s US eugenicists followed a policy to sterilize the unfit, or what they thought to be so, to purify the genetic pool. In their eyes teenage pregnancy for example was one criterium. Another article on that book - and even when you just read the article and not the book your stomach is turning.
The same practice of eugenics and sterilisation became very popular in germany, denmark and sweden and a number of other countries.
Later in the war the Nazis went a step further and declared menthally handicaped, like mongoloids or cretins, "life unworthy of living" and exterminated them and only stopped after massive catholic protests (reason enough to keep the holocaust more secret - lessons learned).

Not to their defense it has to be stressed: People like Mengele thought they'd so mankind a favor by accelerating evolution, and of course, they thought to spare those poor unfit a miserable life.

What I mean is that: Modern biological science, the progress in genetics especially, the isolation of genes thought to be responsible for genetic defects, and the analysis of the human genome in context with "aided reproduction" amplify that basic problem.
"We have to kill these defectives because they cost money and their life is not worth living anyway ... just imagine ... <emotional appeal to healthy listeners how silly it must be to have that effect> ..." Arguments of that sort are aimed on giving a modern, scientific argument for a killing. The chain of argument hasn't changed at all since the 1920s, the older arguments have been replaced by new ones at the state of science.

In all these cases you have to walk a fine ethical line and it's easy loose path. It is better not to open Pandora's box and allow disposition about worthyness and unworthyness of life.
Human life is sacred, even when flawed. Euthanasia - never again!

[ January 29, 2004, 12:16: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Hence the need for an extremely well thought out set of guidelines to define an 'unbearable' defect.

Of course, it is easier said than done.

 

Scary. scary ... could it be that I have eventually found a topic where I and Dubya basically might share a point of view ??!

 

I believe Hitler advocated a "pure" race. No Euthanasia

 

The euthnasia-programm of 1939 was the beginning of it all. Disabled persons where the first mass-murder victims. Uncurable persons should be given the mercy of death.

 

I can't believe what I'm reading in here. I can't believe there are real people who openly advocate the murder of children (and save your breath, I'm not talking about abortion), regardless of the handicap. Should be able to 'fend for itself.' What the f*** does that mean? I can imagine circumstances in which not a single person in this thread could fend for themselves. Not a single newborn homo sapiens can fend for itself. Can Ray Charles fend for himself? Can Steven Hawking? Could Helen Keller? FDR?

I was going to find links that list the disabled contributors to human history, but that would be beside the point. I take comfort in knowing that the people advocating this kind of b.s. are the people who jerk off in front of their pc's rather than those who actually make policy.

Some of the remarks in here are reprehensible. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Start flaming me on this and I'll send this page to these people , and you can have it out with them.

[ January 29, 2004, 17:44: Message edited by: Gonzago ]

 

Not to enflame you there man, and trying to maintain neutrality in this matter, but what if that person was going to die, a slow and painful death over a period of a few years? Could you condone letting them suffer?

I think that the topic was taken a little away from the first article. I don't think he was talking about "purifying the gene pool" nor killing off the disabled. I think he was speaking of ending the suffering of those who were going to die painfully.

At least, I hope that is what he meant. If he just wanted to kill of those who weren't "the norm", then that would be wrong.

So, just to clarify my thoughts, if a child is going to die a long and painful death with no hope whatsoever of recovery, then I believe that skilled and trained professionals should be allowed to end their suffering.

 

Well, since most of us are going to die a slow and painful death anyway (Life is, after all, a terminal disease), I really don't see the justification in preemptively executing people, particularly children.

And as far as "guidelines" are concerned, who in the f*** is capable of determining what qualifies as an "unacceptable" level of suffering? Someone "normal," presumably. (Slice it and dice it any way you like, it's always about complying to the norm.) Someone "normal" who could not possibly, who is not equipped to, understand someone else's suffering. The most accomplished doctor on the planet, or a panel comprised of the most accomplished doctors on the planet, may very well know what they can or cannot do about a given illness/defect/handicap/disease, but unless they themselves are afflicted, they cannot possibly know how it feels.

If a child is born with a debilitating and/or possibly life threatening birth defect, then that will be *their* norm. What it always, always, always boils down to is not whether the level of suffering is acceptable to the afflicted, but the level of discomfort felt by the "normal" people looking on. When discomfort dresses itself up as "mercy," and the result is murder, that is both unconscionable and inhuman.

The only person capable of determining the acceptability of suffering is the person afflicted. Anything else is poorly disguised egotism.

 

Jaguar,
maybe that that life, despite the suffering has some moments of joy that make it worth it for them? You cannot predict that, and you mustn't deny them that chance.

It's not your choice. You're not entitled, no one is, to make that choice for another human being. A child isn't a horse you bring to the knacker, or a dog you put to sleep.

 

@Gonzago

Saying that life is a terminal disease is taking it a little to far. All I am saying is that if I was dying from birth (and I don't mean the fact that we are all dying as soon as we are born), I would want someone to make that call.

I am done in the thread, just because discussing this makes me feel uncomfortable.I just wanted to pose a couple questions.

 

I notice the guy said he thought it might be ok to kill some infants. He didn't really say when. The title suggests the purpose is some type of racial purification program - I didn't get that from the article. In fact, the most notable aspect of the article was how unenlightening it was.

With that said, I may see where the bioethicist is coming from in a couple of respects. First, he may think that the right to life doesn't attach at birth. A pretty well known Australian philosopher has argued that the right to life attaches to persons and infants may not meet those requirements. So, the guy from the article might be saying simply, it isn't necessarily wrong to euthanize an infant.

Now, some respond - Stephen Hawking etc. However, he never said that Stephen Hawking would be a candidate. There ARE some truly nasty diseases out there. Take Tay Sachs:

http://www.healthcentral.com/peds/top/001417.cfm

I have been told by a doc that Tay Sachs might be the most painful existence we know. So, a child is born and will be lucky to survive three years and those three years will be filled with blindness, deafness, dementia, and excruciating pain. I can see how in cases like this one might think euthenasia might be a kindness.

It certainly isn't quite the black and white situation I think it might be tempting to view it as. And the article tells us nothing of why the ethicist has said what he has reportedly said.