Eugenics/Intellectual Discrimination (1 Viewer)

[moll.]

Financially, in terms of the burden on our health system, our carers system, the money given to carers and the facilities.. Its quite good.

Morally, its intolerable.
Every life thats being lived is valuable. Some of the most beautiful people I've ever met have been intellectually handicapped. They make me smile, make me realise beauty.

I agree.
But i'm not advocating the destruction of these people once they're born, Final Solution style. I'm just talking about the prevention of them being born in the first place.

 

[sonyaleeisapixi]

I second that. We had a discussion about this in legal studies, and while I'd love to get rid of those who are stupid beyond comprehension, its just plain unethical.

We discussed it in terms of WW2.
It makes people very uncomfortable.

My problem is defining it as economically useful is..
Well, what about the people who've incurred intellectual damage as a result of a stroke? What about those with behavioural disorders, hell lets go off on a whim and talk about the depressed too..
They all strain the system financially. Are we targetting the severely mentally handicapped because they can't argue us back in court?

The system is there to provide for those in need. I much rather my tax dollars going to the betterment of a life than roadwork on a piece of perfectly fine highway

 

[veloc1ty]

I'm just talking about the prevention of them being born in the first place.

You want to do this because of the negative effects they have on society upon being born. However, how can we blame them for being born into poor circumstances? We have a responsibility to fix those circumstances rather than deny people the chance to live because of things they can't control.

 

[sonyaleeisapixi]

I agree.
But i'm not advocating the destruction of these people once they're born, Final Solution style. I'm just talking about the prevention of them being born in the first place.

But what about those who incurr a intellectual handicap as the result of a stroke, or some other accident?

Women now have a choice. The chef at my work, his wife was pregnant, had some tests done early in pregnancy and revealed an abnormality that would have prevented it from intellectually and physically reaching its full capacity, so they had it aborted. Ultimately, if a parent is willing to live with bring the child into the world, then power to them
I couldn't.

 

[moll.]

Why dont we just kill all "dumb" people while were at it...



OH RIGHT BECAUSE ITS UNETHICAL. [and also against the law]

Laws are relative and change with the views of society.

And the poll and my starting post clearly specifies and differentiates between killing all of the dumb people alive or just preventing their life in the first place.

 

[moll.]

But what about those who incurr a intellectual handicap as the result of a stroke, or some other accident?

Women now have a choice. The chef at my work, his wife was pregnant, had some tests done early in pregnancy and revealed an abnormality that would have prevented it from intellectually and physically reaching its full capacity, so they had it aborted. Ultimately, if a parent is willing to live with bring the child into the world, then power to them
I couldn't.

Well obviously they're still alive, so i'm not advocating killing them. That would just be murder.

 

[sonyaleeisapixi]

Well obviously they're still alive, so i'm not advocating killing them. That would just be murder.

But financially they have the same burden on the system
And the burdening of the system would be the only real means by which to initiate such a process.

 

[moll.]

You want to do this because of the negative effects they have on society upon being born. However, how can we blame them for being born into poor circumstances? We have a responsibility to fix those circumstances rather than deny people the chance to live because of things they can't control.

We're not blaming them. Because they don't exist. Sorry, i should have clarified my position:
I'm not advocating or talking about the forced abortion of fetuses, like they do in China. I'm simply talking about putting financial pressure upon a couple to prevent them from conceiving in the first place.

 

[squeenie]

We discussed it in terms of today's society. My legal studies teacher supports things like euthanasia (both voluntary and involuntary), and the death penalty because they are 'resource effective'.

To be honest, I don't know where I stand on these issues. Sometimes, the most practical choice is not always the most ethical choice, and so we have to make a balance between both - and that's what the aim of the legal system is.

But if intellectual discrimination is a path that the human race must take in order to progress, should we take it, or should we stay where we are for the sake of morality? Its a difficult decision, and I don't think there ever will be a straight answer to these types of questions.

Moll, you should have included an 'undecided' option on this poll...

 

[moll.]

But financially they have the same burden on the system
And the burdening of the system would be the only real means by which to initiate such a process.

True, but they are rare cases, and the overall burden on the system would be far less than if the policy were not in place.

 

[moll.]

Im not talking about the law im talking about ethics and morals. Law, I assume, is derived by morals and ethics.

Ah but morals and ethics change over time as well.
Look at society's attitude to sex outside of marriage.
Homosexuality.
Ethnic Australians.
Abortion.
Women in the workplace.
Environmental change.

Morals and ethics are entirely malleable to the society in which they are formed and develop.

 

[veloc1ty]

We're not blaming them. Because they don't exist. Sorry, i should have clarified my position:
I'm not advocating or talking about the forced abortion of fetuses, like they do in China. I'm simply talking about putting financial pressure upon a couple to prevent them from conceiving in the first place.

Yes, I know your position: those couple who can't afford a new baby, can we blame them entirely for their circumstances and prevent them from having children? Your premise of the rich being generally smart is ridiculous in itself.

But if intellectual discrimination is a path that the human race must take in order to progress, should we take it, or should we stay where we are for the sake of morality? Its a difficult decision, and I don't think there ever will be a straight answer to these types of questions.

Who defines progress? Progress could include intellectual diversity, in which case intellectual eugenics would be counterprogressive.

 

[squeenie]

Im not talking about the law im talking about ethics and morals. Law, I assume, is derived by morals and ethics.

The main aim of the legal system is to make a balance between the interests of society, and the interests of the individual, and also between what is practical, and what is ethical.

These are the kinds of debates you find in the fields philosophy, law and ethics. Maybe someone in those fields could answer this question in more detail...

 

[moll.]

Moll, you should have included an 'undecided' option on this poll...

Damn.
You're right.
And i can't change it.

 

[sonyaleeisapixi]

True, but they are rare cases, and the overall burden on the system would be far less than if the policy were not in place.

So the basis for the policy is the prevention and abortion of handicapped fetuses to prevent financial burden on the health and social services systems.

Rather than the prevention and removal of all cases of handicapped individuals, fetus or otherwise for the same reason

Yeahh

 

[moll.]

Yes, I know your position: those couple who can't afford a new baby, can we blame them entirely for their circumstances and prevent them from having children? Your premise of the rich being generally smart is ridiculous in itself.

Yeah, it's a generalisation, but it's one that can be backed up with statistics and fact. Surely you don't fully disagree with me there?
And the gov't could offer exceptions on a case-by-case basis for those who can't afford it, because there are indeed some smart people who aren't well off enough to afford it.

 

[squeenie]

Who defines progress? Progress could include intellectual diversity, in which case intellectual eugenics would be counterprogressive.

You have a very good point there. I was thinking of progress in terms of the development and improvement of new technologies, but forgot about social progression as well.

So I'm guessing that we'd need to make a balance between social and scientific/technological progress here.

 

[moll.]

So the basis for the policy is the prevention and abortion of handicapped fetuses to prevent financial burden on the health and social services systems.

Rather than the prevention and removal of all cases of handicapped individuals, fetus or otherwise for the same reason

Yeahh

No, just the prevention of these fetuses being created in the first place, not their abortion.
Actually, it wouldn't work if we included the handicapped in this, because they have to be conceived first, in order to identify any physical problems, which defeats my previous suggestions.

 

[sonyaleeisapixi]

No, just the prevention of these fetuses being created in the first place, not their abortion.
Actually, it wouldn't work if we included the handicapped in this, because they have to be conceived first, in order to identify any physical problems, which defeats my previous suggestions.

I'm using handicapped as a sweeping generalisation, sorry.

 

[veloc1ty]

Yeah, it's a generalisation, but it's one that can be backed up with statistics and fact. Surely you don't fully disagree with me there? And the gov't could offer exceptions on a case-by-case basis for those who can't afford it, because there are indeed some smart people who aren't well off enough to afford it.

You identify a major problem with your proposal just there.

The intelligence of the population is not evenly distributed with income, so even if it is weighted towards the high income side (whether by correlation or causation it doesn't matter) it will not be very fair or effective. Then you try and patch it up with these case-by-case exceptions, which would use so much tax money to process any net benefit would cease to exist.

I feel you know your idea is faulty in many aspects yet you're just arguing for the sake of it.