(+)Eugenics, Yea or Nay?

[PatekPhilippe]

Fucking GATTICA!!!!!!!!!

 

[syrenn]

Hey Allie ive asked you this two times now, what to go for a third?

question AB

If you just found out you were pregnant and that it had a sever disorder, you also had the chance to change the gene to correct the problem would you?

Would you take the choice of having a normal healthy baby or an impaired one?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Here's an essay on the ethics of gene therapy. I thought it may provide food for thought:
Ethical aspects of gene therapy

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is the evidence for evolution?

DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Allele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genetic engineering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heritability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Prove that they don't follow the scientific method.


Eugenics is an umbrella term applying to the application of a number of fields, much as 'physics' actually refers to a number of fields, from astronomical physics to classical relativity, to quantum mechanics.

But you've gone 13 pages without overcoming your functional illiteracy; why expect you to change now?


You've already admitted that you'd, in all likelihood, come crawling to he doors of the eugenicists when it's your child's well-being we're dealing with.


That you're stupid enough that you can't tell a bullet from penicillin is not my problem.


Hey... what Einstein was doing was it pseudoscience before the schools started quoting him?

Eugenics is a term that is used for breeding human beings like we breed cattle, and you are trying to clean it up and make it look scientific by claiming that all sorts of science is actually eugenics.

If I am wrong, prove it.

The fact that you keep trying to deflect the problem back to my lack of understanding of your superior intelligence is the amazing part of this whole discussion. If you were really smarter than me, you would simply post all your evidence and arguments, and leave me stuttering to find a coherent reply. The fact that you so obviously outclassed my education and brain would soon be obvious as I degenerated and kept pointing to the same thing in an effort to prove I am not as dumb as you think I am, and that I am actually smarter than you are because I already proved my point, despite not being able to answer a simple challenge.

Does that sound like anyone on this board at this moment?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

All quotes taken from your Britannica link cited above JB.

WOW, JB. Did you even READ your Britannica link?!?! That supported windbags assertion quite well.

the selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations, typically in reference to humans.

However, it ultimately failed as a science in the 1930s and ’40s, when the assumptions of eugenicists became heavily criticized and the Nazis used eugenics to support the extermination of entire races.

I would also note JB that your definition is WRONG as cited in your own article:

A language pertaining to reproduction and eugenics developed, leading to terms such as positive eugenics, defined as promoting the proliferation of “good stock,” and negative eugenics, defined as prohibiting marriage and breeding between “defective stock.”

Eugenics = breeding. It is NOT genetics, that is a totally different aspect of controlling the human form. You seem to be operating under 2 separate definitions and are both of you are too hot headed after 13 pages to come to a simple agreement. YES to genetic engineering (what you actually support with your argument JB) and NO to eugenics, the incredible sadistic act of selective breeding. This is rather simple and I am surprised that it has come to 13 pages.

Why would he bother to read? He might actually have to admit he is wrong if he did.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is rather simple and I am surprised that it has come to 13 pages.

I tried that and it didn't work

Semantics boys.

How about the term positive gene therapy instead of positive eugenics? That gets rid of QW's bit about breading programs and culling. AND it allows for genetic choices to be made by parents.

Guilty, but only because I don't see the need for the qualifier in front of gene therapy.

 

[JBeukema]

It is NOT genetics, that is a totally different aspect of controlling the human form.

Lol

Google: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

Genetics is another aspect of eugenics, and many institutions involved in genetics were a part of, or derived from, those involved in genetics. As the science improved, eugenics came to include newer methods, such as modern genetics. Eugenics is an umbrella term, you dolt.

. YES to genetic engineering (what you actually support with your argument JB) and NO to eugenics, the incredible sadistic act of selective breeding.

Lol

genetic engineering is simply the newer and more effective means of achieving the same ends as selective breeding. Both are branches in the tree that is eugenics.

Loot at the words on the roots of the logo used by Cold Spring Harbor

 

[JBeukema]

Eugenics is a term that is used for breeding human beings like we breed cattle

Among other things. Eugenics refers to an end more than anything else, and different eugenicists have advocated a number of policies and methods. These are broadly organized as positive and negative eugenics, as iIve explained earlier. I made clear in the OP which positive eugenic policies this thread is about and I have repeatedly torn apart a certain user for advocating negative eugenics in this thread.

If I am wrong, prove it.

Go read some history books. recommend the books by Edwin Black for starting material.

You and Corndog simply ignore all facts you don't like.

 

[syrenn]

This is rather simple and I am surprised that it has come to 13 pages.

I tried that and it didn't work

Semantics boys.

How about the term positive gene therapy instead of positive eugenics? That gets rid of QW's bit about breading programs and culling. AND it allows for genetic choices to be made by parents.

Guilty, but only because I don't see the need for the qualifier in front of gene therapy.

Because like anything there can be negative gene therapies. I am PRO positive gene therapies, as in the breast cancer example.

Which you will have to agree fits with the OP

Where eugenics is defined for the sake of this discussion as:
The use of genetic technologies that we possess or shall come to possess to enable parents to determine what genetic traits are passed on to their children, with the stated aims and goals of eliminating genetic disease, improving the human form (eg:restoring the human ability to synthesize our own vitamin C, should it prove possible to repair the damaged pseudogene), prolonging life, and improving the quality of human life.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Eugenics is a term that is used for breeding human beings like we breed cattle

Among other things. Eugenics refers to an end more than anything else, and different eugenicists have advocated a number of policies and methods. These are broadly organized as positive and negative eugenics, as iIve explained earlier. I made clear in the OP which positive eugenic policies this thread is about and I have repeatedly torn apart a certain user for advocating negative eugenics in this thread.

If I am wrong, prove it.

Go read some history books. recommend the books by Edwin Black for starting material.

You and Corndog simply ignore all facts you don't like.

My challenge is that you provide me with a list of universities that teach eugenics as part of their science or medical curriculum. If, as you contend, eugenics is a real science, it should be taught somewhere. All you have to do to prove me wrong is provide proof that eugenics is science, and all you do is point backward to when eugenics was thought to be a real science, and ignore the portions of your own links that actually prove that I am right.

Then you come back and insist that I ignore facts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I tried that and it didn't work

Guilty, but only because I don't see the need for the qualifier in front of gene therapy.

Because like anything there can be negative gene therapies. I am PRO positive gene therapies, as in the breast cancer example.

Which you will have to agree fits with the OP

Where eugenics is defined for the sake of this discussion as:
The use of genetic technologies that we possess or shall come to possess to enable parents to determine what genetic traits are passed on to their children, with the stated aims and goals of eliminating genetic disease, improving the human form (eg:restoring the human ability to synthesize our own vitamin C, should it prove possible to repair the damaged pseudogene), prolonging life, and improving the quality of human life.

It fits with the OP if I ignore the fact that what the OP is describing is not eugenics, it is describing gene therapy or genetics. Eugenics is about breeding humans, period, and it is psuedo-science. The fact that JB keeps trying to claim that I am wrong, even when his own links prove I am right, more than makes that point.

 

[AllieBaba]

Hey Allie ive asked you this two times now, what to go for a third?

question AB

If you just found out you were pregnant and that it had a sever disorder, you also had the chance to change the gene to correct the problem would you?

Would you take the choice of having a normal healthy baby or an impaired one?

I don't split hairs when it comes to eugenics.
Eugenics, i.e., forced sterilizations (or encouraged, or rewarded sterilization), abortion, selective breeding, funded and supported by the state, I will never in a support.

I would not abort an impaired baby. I'd love to know what procedure corrects genes when you're pregnant. As far as I know, that doesn't happen and isn't likely to in the near future.

As far as gene research, HELL YEAH I think gene research is fascinating, and if it allows us to understand and prevent illnesses and defects that's great. That's medicine and mathematics, however. It's not eugenics. Genetic research isn't eugenics, nor is treating hereditary and genetic disorders. Unless you use aborted fetuses for the research and have some sort of goal of "doing away with" all "inferior" humans. You can't work for perfection without having a clear vision of what is "undesirable" and that is what is wrong with eugenics.

 

[syrenn]

Hey Allie ive asked you this two times now, what to go for a third?

question AB

If you just found out you were pregnant and that it had a sever disorder, you also had the chance to change the gene to correct the problem would you?

Would you take the choice of having a normal healthy baby or an impaired one?

I don't split hairs when it comes to eugenics.
Eugenics, i.e., forced sterilizations (or encouraged, or rewarded sterilization), abortion, selective breeding, funded and supported by the state, I will never in a support.

I would not abort an impaired baby. I'd love to know what procedure corrects genes when you're pregnant. As far as I know, that doesn't happen and isn't likely to in the near future.

As far as gene research, HELL YEAH I think gene research is fascinating, and if it allows us to understand and prevent illnesses and defects that's great. That's medicine and mathematics, however. It's not eugenics. Genetic research isn't eugenics, nor is treating hereditary and genetic disorders. Unless you use aborted fetuses for the research and have some sort of goal of "doing away with" all "inferior" humans. You can't work for perfection without having a clear vision of what is "undesirable" and that is what is wrong with eugenics.

You didn't exactly answer the question.

If you could fix the problem would you?

Let me rephrase the question.

If you KNOW you carry genitic defects. Pick what ever you want in terms of the defect, but a devestating one. And you want to become pregnant.

Would you choose to fix the problem or not?

 

[FA_Q2]

I think that was a yes. Not to the point but it does seem to be a yes.

It is NOT genetics, that is a totally different aspect of controlling the human form.

Lol

Google: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

Genetics is another aspect of eugenics, and many institutions involved in genetics were a part of, or derived from, those involved in genetics. As the science improved, eugenics came to include newer methods, such as modern genetics. Eugenics is an umbrella term, you dolt.

. YES to genetic engineering (what you actually support with your argument JB) and NO to eugenics, the incredible sadistic act of selective breeding.

Lol

genetic engineering is simply the newer and more effective means of achieving the same ends as selective breeding. Both are branches in the tree that is eugenics.

Loot at the words on the roots of the logo used by Cold Spring Harbor

Well, if you are so obtuse as to not read your own links and then refute those links that include the encyclopedia Britannica with the always correct .jpg image then you are too idiotic to continue with.

 

[syrenn]

Guilty, but only because I don't see the need for the qualifier in front of gene therapy.

Because like anything there can be negative gene therapies. I am PRO positive gene therapies, as in the breast cancer example.

Which you will have to agree fits with the OP

Where eugenics is defined for the sake of this discussion as:
The use of genetic technologies that we possess or shall come to possess to enable parents to determine what genetic traits are passed on to their children, with the stated aims and goals of eliminating genetic disease, improving the human form (eg:restoring the human ability to synthesize our own vitamin C, should it prove possible to repair the damaged pseudogene), prolonging life, and improving the quality of human life.

It fits with the OP if I ignore the fact that what the OP is describing is not eugenics, it is genetics. Eugenics is about breeding humans, period, and it is psuedo-science. The fact that JB keeps trying to claim that I am wrong, even when his own links prove I am right, more than makes that point.

The problem is you are ignoring the bolded part. Other then what you two went off the rails about, the OP is asking about a discussion of positive uses for gene therapy.

Again: Semitics.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

You proponents of eugenics are in good company....
Dr. Karl Brandt
Dr. Gerta Oberheuser
Dr. Carl Clauberg
and who could forget Dr. Joseph Mengele....
all proponents of eugenics

 

[DavidS]

I need beer.

 

[AllieBaba]

Hey Allie ive asked you this two times now, what to go for a third?

question AB

If you just found out you were pregnant and that it had a sever disorder, you also had the chance to change the gene to correct the problem would you?

Would you take the choice of having a normal healthy baby or an impaired one?

I don't split hairs when it comes to eugenics.
Eugenics, i.e., forced sterilizations (or encouraged, or rewarded sterilization), abortion, selective breeding, funded and supported by the state, I will never in a support.

I would not abort an impaired baby. I'd love to know what procedure corrects genes when you're pregnant. As far as I know, that doesn't happen and isn't likely to in the near future.

As far as gene research, HELL YEAH I think gene research is fascinating, and if it allows us to understand and prevent illnesses and defects that's great. That's medicine and mathematics, however. It's not eugenics. Genetic research isn't eugenics, nor is treating hereditary and genetic disorders. Unless you use aborted fetuses for the research and have some sort of goal of "doing away with" all "inferior" humans. You can't work for perfection without having a clear vision of what is "undesirable" and that is what is wrong with eugenics.

You didn't exactly answer the question.

If you could fix the problem would you?

Let me rephrase the question.

If you KNOW you carry genitic defects. Pick what ever you want in terms of the defect, but a devestating one. And you want to become pregnant.

Would you choose to fix the problem or not?

It's a stupid question. First of all, because it's not possible. And second, because it's not eugenics to apply medical knowledge. But sure, if I had a baby with a genetic disorder and we could fix it, that would be great.

That's not eugenics, however. Eugenics is preventing it from happening in the first place, and culling when it does.

 

[JBeukema]

Genetics is Eugenics. Cold Spring Harbor and others who led the eugenics movement became the leaders in genetics and the goals of improving the human form remain unchanged. The only difference beyond re-branding, is improved methodology- that is, genetics replaces breeding as the primary methodology used to achieve the aims of eugenics.

As I told you before, Edwin Black explores the history of the matter in this book

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Weak-Eugenics-Americas/dp/0914153064]Amazon.com: War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign…[/ame]

That's medicine and mathematics

You mean like Mendel?

Unless you use aborted fetuses for the research and have some sort of goal of "doing away with" all "inferior" humans

Uh, what do you think treating genetic disorders/enetic engineering is? It is, by definition, the culling of inferior or damaged genetic lineages and encouraging and aiding the proliferation of superior genetic material and/or the creation of new and superior lineages. It is a superior methodology to the ancient practice selective breeding, yet the aims are exactly the same. They are two different means of achieving eugenic ends.

You can't work for perfection without having a clear vision of what is "undesirable" and that is what is wrong with eugenics.

We have a clear view of what is undesirable: Tay Sachs, Down's, Haemophilia, the lost ability to synthesize vitamin C...

And what is desirable: heterozygous advantage, the ability to synthesize vitamin c, increased resilience to senescence and illness...

 

[JBeukema]

Because like anything there can be negative gene therapies. I am PRO positive gene therapies, as in the breast cancer example.

Which you will have to agree fits with the OP

It fits with the OP if I ignore the fact that what the OP is describing is not eugenics, it is genetics. Eugenics is about breeding humans, period, and it is psuedo-science. The fact that JB keeps trying to claim that I am wrong, even when his own links prove I am right, more than makes that point.

The problem is you are ignoring the bolded part. Other then what you two went off the rails about, the OP is asking about a discussion of positive uses for gene therapy.

Again: Semitics.

I think you mean semantics, not Semitics...