Forced sterilization?

[Jimmy_Jam]

There is no noble intention of eugenics. The purpose of eugenics is to establish a standard and breed only to that standard.

That is an unfortunate inherent flaw with eugenics, but the concept is a lot more complicated than that. What I am trying to do is encourage an honest dialogue and perhaps a more cooperative discussion rather than the same old line drawn in the sand with people hurling flames at one another. That may be the norm at US Message Board, but it doesn't have to be an absolute, nor does every topic have to be an absolute. Hopefully you will regard my posts above in that spirit. I am opposed to eugenics policies by default, but I am not opposed to certain components of the concept, such as birth control and elimination of the child tax credit, and that's coming from somebody with three kids.

 

[koshergrl]

Civilized discourse does not require both sides recognize the validity of any argument of the opposing side.

Yes, we agree..the inherent problem with eugenics is that ultimely, it's about breeding to a standard, and culling all those who do not meet the standard.

It's one thing to choose your own mate with that in mind..it's another to force that standard upon others. And that is exactly what forced sterilization is. Forcing a eugenic standard upon people whether they agree or not, and it has never in the history of mankind been anything but a deplorable and disgusting mess when any group has attempted to do that, in any degree.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Civilized discourse does not require both sides recognize the validity of any argument of the opposing side.

Yes, we agree..the inherent problem with eugenics is that ultimely, it's about breeding to a standard, and culling all those who do not meet the standard.

It's one thing to choose your own mate with that in mind..it's another to force that standard upon others. And that is exactly what forced sterilization is. Forcing a eugenic standard upon people whether they agree or not, and it has never in the history of mankind been anything but a deplorable and disgusting mess when any group has attempted to do that, in any degree.

You're right. Civilized discourse does not require that. However, to assume that all who advocate some form of eugenics have nefarious intentions is not exactly conducive to civil discourse either, and that is what you are suggesting. Birth control as a means to discourage unwanted pregnancies and decrease the number of babies born to unfit parents is something I advocate, and which eugenicists advocate for the same reason. While that doesn't make me a eugenicist, nor mean that I advocate state enforcement of forced sterilization, it does mean that I share something with eugenicists, and I must concede that eugenicists have at least some motive for good. If I simply dismiss eugenics and those that hold some belief in the concept as evil or ignoble, or assume only the worst of intentions, there is nothing to be gained. There is nothing civil in assuming that somebody who advocates some form of eugenics is a Nazi.

 

[varelse]

I will add one other point of consideration, since we are discussing eugenics. I know the OP is not talking about this specifically, but it is at least somewhat relevant to talk about Tay-Sachs disease. This is a serious genetic disease that is prevalent among Jews, Cajuns, and French Canadians. If the intent of eugenics is to strengthen the genetic health of the population, then it stands to reason that it would aim to minimize genetic diseases and disorders. Wouldn't it stand to reason that a eugenics policy would discourage marriages and procreation by Jews, Cajuns, and French Canadians?

Nope. Only of carriers and the afflicted

 

[Katzndogz]

I will add one other point of consideration, since we are discussing eugenics. I know the OP is not talking about this specifically, but it is at least somewhat relevant to talk about Tay-Sachs disease. This is a serious genetic disease that is prevalent among Jews, Cajuns, and French Canadians. If the intent of eugenics is to strengthen the genetic health of the population, then it stands to reason that it would aim to minimize genetic diseases and disorders. Wouldn't it stand to reason that a eugenics policy would discourage marriages and procreation by Jews, Cajuns, and French Canadians?

Nope. Only of carriers and the afflicted

You do understand that the point was that discouraging procreation among Jews, Cajuns and French Canadians is to ultimately end in genocide of these ethnicities?

No suggestion that blacks be discouraged from marrying or procreating despite the genetic defect of sickle cell anemia. No. That would be racist.

 

[koshergrl]

Civilized discourse does not require both sides recognize the validity of any argument of the opposing side.

Yes, we agree..the inherent problem with eugenics is that ultimely, it's about breeding to a standard, and culling all those who do not meet the standard.

It's one thing to choose your own mate with that in mind..it's another to force that standard upon others. And that is exactly what forced sterilization is. Forcing a eugenic standard upon people whether they agree or not, and it has never in the history of mankind been anything but a deplorable and disgusting mess when any group has attempted to do that, in any degree.

You're right. Civilized discourse does not require that. However, to assume that all who advocate some form of eugenics have nefarious intentions is not exactly conducive to civil discourse either, and that is what you are suggesting. Birth control as a means to discourage unwanted pregnancies and decrease the number of babies born to unfit parents is something I advocate, and which eugenicists advocate for the same reason. While that doesn't make me a eugenicist, nor mean that I advocate state enforcement of forced sterilization, it does mean that I share something with eugenicists, and I must concede that eugenicists have at least some motive for good. If I simply dismiss eugenics and those that hold some belief in the concept as evil or ignoble, or assume only the worst of intentions, there is nothing to be gained. There is nothing civil in assuming that somebody who advocates some form of eugenics is a Nazi.

Eugenics in an of itself IS nefarious. You can make excuses all you like about how civilized the proponents of it are, and how "noble" the concept is, but you are wrong, of course. Eugenics has ALWAYS had proponents declaring that the concept is sound. But the truth of the matter is, the concept ISN'T sound, not for humans. The concept is appalling, and applying negative eugenics to others is always a violation of human rights. You cannot recognize that human rights exist and should be defended, and at the same time parse words and support, but not support, negative eugenics.

The most oppressive tyrannical despots have depended upon the *civilized* and *scientific* community to support them in their application of negative eugenics, and they still do. Perhaps you don't have nefarious motives...but I promise you, the people who will benefit from the abuse of this *civilized* and *noble* method of culling despised populations, do.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I will add one other point of consideration, since we are discussing eugenics. I know the OP is not talking about this specifically, but it is at least somewhat relevant to talk about Tay-Sachs disease. This is a serious genetic disease that is prevalent among Jews, Cajuns, and French Canadians. If the intent of eugenics is to strengthen the genetic health of the population, then it stands to reason that it would aim to minimize genetic diseases and disorders. Wouldn't it stand to reason that a eugenics policy would discourage marriages and procreation by Jews, Cajuns, and French Canadians?

Nope. Only of carriers and the afflicted

Given that almost all that suffer the disorder die before they could ever procreate, the latter is not really a concern. However, those that test positive for being a carrier have a certain chance of their offspring have the disease. It if 25% is both parents are carriers. I'm not sure what the rate is for one. Are you suggesting that Tay-Sachs carriers be subject to compulsory sterilization by the government? If so, how do you propose enforcing that? How do you deal with the cultural backlash? Or is Tay-Sachs not sufficient enough to warrant compulsory sterilization? If not, then what gets defined as sufficient for forced sterilization and what does not? These are fair questions to ask.

This is exactly why forced sterilization as a government policy is a mess. I have enough doubt in my mind that our government has the capability of carrying out such a policy reliably and justly that whatever good intentions there may be are irrelevant.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Civilized discourse does not require both sides recognize the validity of any argument of the opposing side.

Yes, we agree..the inherent problem with eugenics is that ultimely, it's about breeding to a standard, and culling all those who do not meet the standard.

It's one thing to choose your own mate with that in mind..it's another to force that standard upon others. And that is exactly what forced sterilization is. Forcing a eugenic standard upon people whether they agree or not, and it has never in the history of mankind been anything but a deplorable and disgusting mess when any group has attempted to do that, in any degree.

You're right. Civilized discourse does not require that. However, to assume that all who advocate some form of eugenics have nefarious intentions is not exactly conducive to civil discourse either, and that is what you are suggesting. Birth control as a means to discourage unwanted pregnancies and decrease the number of babies born to unfit parents is something I advocate, and which eugenicists advocate for the same reason. While that doesn't make me a eugenicist, nor mean that I advocate state enforcement of forced sterilization, it does mean that I share something with eugenicists, and I must concede that eugenicists have at least some motive for good. If I simply dismiss eugenics and those that hold some belief in the concept as evil or ignoble, or assume only the worst of intentions, there is nothing to be gained. There is nothing civil in assuming that somebody who advocates some form of eugenics is a Nazi.

Eugenics in an of itself IS nefarious. You can make excuses all you like about how civilized the proponents of it are, and how "noble" the concept is, but you are wrong, of course. Eugenics has ALWAYS had proponents declaring that the concept is sound. But the truth of the matter is, the concept ISN'T sound, not for humans. The concept is appalling, and applying negative eugenics to others is always a violation of human rights. You cannot recognize that human rights exist and should be defended, and at the same time parse words and support, but not support, negative eugenics.

The most oppressive tyrannical despots have depended upon the *civilized* and *scientific* community to support them in their application of negative eugenics, and they still do. Perhaps you don't have nefarious motives...but I promise you, the people who will benefit from the abuse of this *civilized* and *noble* method of culling despised populations, do.

I agreed with you all along that the concept is not sound. That was my point. I also never said that the concept was noble, only that the intentions of some can be. I don't in the slightest want you to alter your opinion on the matter. Quite the contrary. We simply differ on methodology. You seem to think it is civil and productive to call eugenicists Nazis, and I do not. I don't think it's necessary to fight about it.

 

[koshergrl]

I don't recall calling all eugenecists Nazis, yet you keep claiming I have.

I do remind people that Nazis were eugenecists, and that negative eugenics applied is the reason "Nazi" is a dirty word worldwide. If you think I've ever maintained that all eugenecists are nazis, you are sadly mistaken. But I will continue to remind people of the disgusting monsters through the ages who have used negative eugenics, and also remind them that the #1 abhorred characteristic was their application of negative eugenics.

If it weren't for people like me reminding people that the Nazis were monsters, then probably nazis would get a white wash as well as those who just promote their most revolting policies. I point out that Nazis were eugenecists because the excuse that "people who believe in applied negative eugenics are just nice people" has been said before.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I don't recall calling all eugenecists Nazis, yet you keep claiming I have.

I do remind people that Nazis were eugenecists, and that negative eugenics applied is the reason "Nazi" is a dirty word worldwide. If you think I've ever maintained that all eugenecists are nazis, you are sadly mistaken, and that assumption didn't come from anything I've ever said. But I will continue to remind people of the disgusting monsters through the ages who have used negative eugenics.

If it weren't for people like me reminding people that the Nazis were monsters, then probably nazis would get a white wash as well as those who just promote their most revolting policies. I point out that Nazis were eugenecists because the excuse that "people who believe in applied negative eugenics are just nice people" has been said before.

No, you didn't, but your overall language suggests it. If you feel inclined to remind us that the Nazis were eugenicists, you are suggesting a corollary that establishes that all eugenicists are monsters. Whatever, I don't really feel like fighting over it anymore. I appreciate your stance and your belief.

 

[varelse]

Eugenics in an of itself IS nefarious.

What is nefarious about wanting healthy babies for yourself and others?

 

[koshergrl]

No, I am not suggesting any such thing, as I already explained. I have stated that I understand perfectly that all those who support eugenics are not monsters...but I maintain that the practice itself is without exception monstrous.

I'm sorry you feel compelled to fight an argument I never made.

 

[koshergrl]

Eugenics in an of itself IS nefarious.

What is nefarious about wanting healthy babies for yourself and others?

There's nothing at all nefarious about wanting healthy babies for the whole world.

What is nefarious is compelling others to adhere to your standard, regardless of whether they agree with it or not.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Eugenics in an of itself IS nefarious.

What is nefarious about wanting healthy babies for yourself and others?

There's nothing at all nefarious about wanting healthy babies for the whole world.

What is nefarious is compelling others to adhere to your standard, regardless of whether they agree with it or not.

That is the key issue that really makes all justifications for eugenics pretty much irrelevant. Somebody has to define the standards, and who is that going to be? The state itself? No thank you. The people? I am not qualified to make that call, and I am more educated than most. Am I supposed to trust such a thing to a democratic appeal? Not a chance.

 

[paravani]

That is the key issue that really makes all justifications for eugenics pretty much irrelevant. Somebody has to define the standards, and who is that going to be? The state itself? No thank you. The people? I am not qualified to make that call, and I am more educated than most. Am I supposed to trust such a thing to a democratic appeal? Not a chance.

So Jimmy... what if the people who made the choice were the individuals who wanted children? What if, in fact, every child were a choice, and nobody could have a child without first planning for one?

I'm talking about the concept of universal birth control, "UBC", whereby a harmless contraceptive would be administered to the entire population in the public water supplies. To counteract its effect, a healthy couple who wished to have a child would only need to stop drinking city water and eating food prepared with it.

Imagine... every child a choice, a planned choice, and no one making that choice except the parents involved...

That's "positive" eugenics.

-- Paravani

 

[koshergrl]

Planned whether you want to or not.

No children, unless you get approval.

Disgusting.

 

[paravani]

Please don't go putting words into my mouth.

Planned whether you want to or not.

No children, unless you get approval.

Disgusting.

That's NOT what I said.

I said:

Imagine... every child a choice, a planned choice, and no one making that choice except the parents involved...

The beauty of UBC (universal birth control) is that no approval is necessary to choose to have children -- and water-based UBC is impossible for the government to completely control because water is ubiquitous. Bottled water, rainwater, well water, and filtered water from lakes, rivers, and streams are all easily available.

Any couple that wants to have children simply begins to watch what they eat or drink to avoid consuming public water. That's all -- no approval needed, and many folks nowadays already drink and cook with only bottled water, using city water exclusively for washing.

As I said, UBC is positive eugenics. There's no downside to it.

-- Paravani

 

[koshergrl]

There's no beauty to drugging the water for an entire population.

 

[paravani]

There's no beauty to drugging the water for an entire population.

So... what do you think of fluoride?

Sorry, Kgal, the precedent has already been set. As long as there are no negative effects on the general populace, we will very likely willingly accept contraceptives in our water as the price of ending abortion, accidental teen pregnancy, and drug-addicted babies.

Not to mention, it would also bring an end to the forced sterilization of mentally disabled people.

-- Paravani

 

[varelse]

No, I am not suggesting any such thing, as I already explained. I have stated that I understand perfectly that all those who support eugenics are not monsters...but I maintain that the practice itself is without exception monstrous.

I'm sorry you feel compelled to fight an argument I never made.

Yes you are. If eugenics is evil in practice, then eugenics- efforts to ensure the health and fitness of one's progeny- are e I'll
Or 'nefarious' as you phrase it. You're trying to have it both ways because you are not willing to stand by your own statements