Yes, though it will be interesting to see how you avoid doing this after the collapse. I can see being a marginal forager in the aftermath and avoid universalizing one’s preferences. But if you set up anything after, any kind of group at all, to organize that group, you will need to do this very thing. If you all remain without rules, you will be overrun by groups that organize, just as the Romans took over all tribal groups that were more anarchic. Unfortunately mechanical, life denying, machine like armies and bureaucracies win out in conflicts and in conflicts after the fall, these will start up again rapidly and in some places - for example some military bases - that way of organizing will maintain its power.
I don’t understand the problem. If we have the technology to prevent the chromosome responsible for downs from being passed/copied, and every sensible human being agrees that nobody wants to be retarded, least of all you own kids, then what’s the problem. Is this another “it’s wrong to tamper with genetics” and “downs are people just like you and me!” issue? It’s got to be if Dawkins is involved.
Genetic mutations or abnormalities happen and are natural. This is just eugenics masquerading through morality trying to utilize the state to encroach upon people’s personal lives which it views that it has every right to rule over.
It won’t stop here as it will expand into other things…
Carleas,
So a tumor is human? A tumor is no more the human than a growth on a tree is the tree.
We destroy tumors. We do not try to destroy the human being because of the growth on the human. We destroy the cancerous cells.
This may be why it is so easy to destroy and embryo or a fetus. They are thought of as no more than tumors or even cancerous cells to some.
Carleas, with that argument, all immoral humans would be aborted ~~ and immoral ~~ is in the eye of the beholder for many. Isn’t this why there is a legal system?
There are still many states which don’t carry out capital punishment for “immoral” people.
Do we destroy an embryo or fetus simply because it hasn’t reached the degree of consciousness which it takes in order to “become” moral or compassionate, empathetic, altruistic?
Do we destroy all processes? The age of reason (for a child) isn’t until about 6 or 7 years old. For some adults, that age never comes.
Forms which are small can still have great value and potential.
We would sooner throw the above away than the below…
I wouldn’t consider throwing either away. One is beautiful human potential in small form and the other is also beautiful potential in small form.
You missed my point joker. If there is the technology to either prevent or know in advance the gene mutation will occur, why would any sensible couple still want to conceive? (unless they could still conceive without the mutation happening)
We must educate the people. They must be willing to forfeit the privilege of reproducing if they know in advance they would only make a downs baby. The people must understand that nobody wants to be retarded. A law should be passed by Congress making it illegal to have retarded babies.
I think you are all being silly.
Down’s aren’t the only retards in society. Society is, by and large, composed of mainly retards. I mean, how else can you explain the idiocy worldwide?
It’s as Jesus said, remove the log from thy own eye, and stop focusing on specks. Removing downies won’t improve your society much at all, since the main body of your population are sociable idiots.
Suppose for a moment that people with downs can experience and understand what it feels like to be inferior to everyone else. Would you want, then, to create a possibility like that by having a baby with downs?
Secondly, as arb i think it was mentioned, people with Dow s require far more time, effort, and resources than do people who can live independently. In every way they are a liability, although I do admit that it’s not like there are hundreds of millions of retarded people. What’s the ratio…One in every fifty people is retarded or something like that.
And then what? What abuse follows that?
I told you to stop reading Mein-Kampf, didn’t I?
Id say 4 out 5 people are retarded. Downies dont seem lazier than any other kids, most kids these days are too lazy to do their chores anyway. Downies are higher maintance for schooling, since they are educationally handicapped teaching them things is a bigger burden than the other retards.
Fine, we’ll add a clause in the amendment. If your retarded child requires any more tax financed social services than a homeless person, you will have to pay penalty fines equal to the amount of money spent on the retarded kid. And if you do that, it becomes redundant to use public social services for your retarded kid because you’ll pay that much out of your pocket anyway in the fines. It’s Obama care logic; you might as well buy the insurance because you’re gonna pay that much in penalties if you dont.
This same incentive should be provided for would-be parents of retarded kids.
And I’ve never read about Hitler’s kamph. I’ve got my own kamph to worry about.
Zoot Allures
Many things are possible in this life. But that doesn’t mean that it necessarily has to be that way, especially when parents raise these children with a good and beautiful sense of who they are or can be, and educate them into the ways and thinking of the true “retards” - those who would condemn these children and adults for being “different”.
So, would you also do away with people who are mentally ill? Those who would NOT abort or abandon their special needs children BECAUSE they love them are more than happy to give that time and effort. There are resources out them.
And let’s face it, these DS adults sometimes live more independently, both physically and psychologically then some so-called “normal” adults, men and women, who still live at home.
TRUTH: Down syndrome is the most commonly occurring chromosomal condition. One in every 691 babies in the United States is born with Down syndrome, or around 6,000 births per year. Today, there approximately 400,000 people with Down syndrome living in the United States.
Perhaps a general observation can be made about the right to life issue, based on the trend of the way perceptions and legislation are changing it.
Population increase, the vaning of religious intolerance has effected both ends, at the entry point, abortion has made incredible advances in extending the definition of what constitutes as a viable human fetus, and at what stage and conditions can euphenasia be used to exit life. Both of these ends are argued and justified mainly by those who are considered functional life bearers, because it is usually the courts, which decide he issue. The
majority opinion rules at the top level, and the silent minority looses a hearing.
The weakness in this system is obvious to those, who
do not consider majority rule to be binding on the minority. There are far reaching reasons for this, and
they may be beyond the scope of this argument.
When the Bill of Rights was drawn up, the intent of
the founders, as far as the rights to life , liberty, and
happiness was considered, there as no qualification as to who may participate in these rights.
Recent legislature regarding the execution of mentally retarded people, show a reversal of this trend, where there are numerous states struggling with these sorts of issues, meaning it is far from
being settled.
Minus consensus, the deregation from and to objectivity presents a hollowness prime target for political football, and very little else.
I’d say 691 out of 1 chinese babies has down syndrome. Have ever heard them when they try to spea ahenglish?
As for down syndromes, I say keep em. they can be easily brainwashed and can actually enjoy menial degrading jobs like washing dishes, factory jobs and janitorial duties, whereas other people do it but don’t actually enjoy those jobs (since they are highly intellectual, functioning beings.)
Sources: Knew one in real life.
Yes, this is basically the part that I try to convey to moreno on another thread. If folks choose to interact with others in a particular community then there must be rules of behavior that either prescribe or proscribe what they might choose to do.
The part about the law. The part about politics.
But how would someone then go about demonstrating [both philosophically and “for all practical purposes”] that their own “recommendations” [legal, moral] are not just rooted largely in dasein, but do, instead, reflect the most rational manner in which to assess the moral obligation of men and women who wish to be thought of as both rational and virtuous?
And what of those who argue that, in a world sans God, morality revolves solely around that which they perceive to be in their own best interests? How would a philosopher demonstrate that this frame of mind is necessarily irrational? The part that revolves around the assumption that in the absence of God all things can be rationalized.
No, my point revolves more around those on both sides of the abortion conflagration who insist that it is their own moral agenda [derived either from philosophy or science or God] that ought to be mandated. And then the extent to which scientists/ethicists are able to assess which of these conflicted mandates truly does reflect “the right thing to do”.
Now, if this can in fact be assessed philosophically or scientifically would it not be foolish to rely instead on democracy to “resolve” it politically year in and year out. After all, if we can know for certain what the moral/legal obligation actually is for rational human beings why on earth would we allow folks to just vote on it?
In other words, if it is your daughter, mother, wife etc., that is faced with the predicament [even the anguish] of an unwanted pregnancy, you will want the answer [tidy or not] to reflect your own sense of, for example, justice?
Right?
Arcturus descendus. I understand what you are saying and you make good points. I suppose I should offer a formula then. If it is not a bad thing to not reproduce if it is known in advance a downs baby will be born, and it is also possible for a downs baby to live a severely debilitated life, it wouldn’t be an irrational decision to avoid reproducing. A simple enough formula. Has nothing to do with infringing on rights and being judgemental. It’s just common sense. There are plenty of kids that need to be adopted. Parents of a would-be downs baby can just adopt if they want a kid.
Critical mass? Like so ,much meat?
Maybe we should just abort all those that could be proven to have a tendency to not believe in God; or those whose mathematical ability tends to make them suicidal; or those deemed more likely to be criminals, gay, trans ; what’re the criteria?
It’s only cross ignorance and stupidity that has focussed on Downs.
I have no problem with birth control, especially in light of these possibilities though truth to tell there still might be some people who are willing to take a chance of conceiving a child with Downe Syndrome as long as they can be told that there is a strong possibility that that child can still lead a life where there is quality to that life, because of all of the progress and knowledge which has been gained about children with Down Syndrome.
But we are not talking about birth control - we’re talking about abortion after the fact. I don’t hold birth control to be the same as abortion.
So, your formula will only work before conception - not after.
Organizing upon mutual interests without morality and ethics is quite easy when people’s selfishness is involved.
Like any effective power base you execute and kill all of your competitors.
In past history you would of been correct however we are witnessing the entropy and collapse of 2500 years worth of traditional social order which there will be no quick recovery of.
Human beings make a mockery of eugenics trying to become its master. That right and privilege belongs to nature alone.
Nature is more effective at eugenics than human beings. Its methods are more effective and less proned to error.