Severely retarded people

Russ723 said:
No amount of natural selection will eliminate congenital retardation. There will always be random mutation.
Click to expand...
You hit the nail right on the head. Baron, pay attention to this guy and fucking learn something.
Like he said, there will always be a random mutation, an anomaly, that caused retardation. You can't get rid of it through eugenics, which is a stupid and genocidal process anyway.
 
"You can't get rid of it through eugenics"

Yes, but you can always try and reduce it.
 
Eugenics is a stupid process, though. Dammit, it's what the nazis did. Why the fuck would you want the emulate the fucking nazis?
What the hell is w r o n g with you?
 
There's lot's wrong with me. And don't attack me for having a fucking opinion. Shall I just be a good little girl and keep my mouth shut next time?

Anyway, the Nazi's may have done it, but it can have it's benefits if done the right way.
 
Well, sorry...I will just keep my shit opinions to myself next time, because obviously they are the wrong opinions. I mean what would I know...
 
Hapsburg said:
Eugenics is a stupid process, though. Dammit, it's what the nazis did. Why the fuck would you want the emulate the fucking nazis?
What the hell is w r o n g with you?
Click to expand...
eugenics: The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000

Everyone who has ever had sex with someone they find attractive (or tried to) with the purpose of having a child has practiced eugenics.

What the Nazi's did was take it to it's absurd extreme.

That's kind of like saying, "You believe in Christ? How the hell could you want to emulate Torquemada?"
 
one_raven said:
That's kind of like saying, "You believe in Christ? How the hell could you want to emulate Torquemada?"
Click to expand...
Good point.
Nevermind then.
 
If they are in situ that has been originally described if the condition is caught early enough Genome Testing then abortion should be an option to be explored. However upon Birth, I would go with Sterilization to preven procreation. This although against my religious beliefs tend toward my humanist beliefs. These two often come into conflict and I am hard pressed to come to conclusions on these. I ultimately have to go on the premise what is good for the many versus what is good for the one.
 
I don't believe that I said anything about eugenics! What I DID say was that people who have children should take care of them ....and if they can't care for them, then they should NOT have those children. That is NOT eugenics!!

That also has nothing to do with random mutations ....if the couple has a severely retarted child, they should care for it (or drown it?).

No one should be permitted to breed children if they can't afford to care for it. How can you argue against that????

Baron Max
 
You still haven't answered a very simple question, barren. When did you have kids? How much did you (and your wife) make at that time?
 
Cottontop3000 said:
You still haven't answered a very simple question, barren. When did you have kids? How much did you (and your wife) make at that time?
Click to expand...

And what does that have to do with anything in this discussion????? Or is this just your way of deflecting the topic of discussion?

Tell me, Cotton, should a couple have children if they can't afford to care for it? That's a pretty simple question ....that even YOU might be able to answer! ...LOL!

Baron Max
 
I hear from B. Max that we've had scads of kids currently they are employed in a sweat shop so I can affor my internet connection...or...I still Live at home with my momma but I impregnate every woman I can and run from the responsibiliy just like I'm(B. Max) evading answering the question by cottontop.

Me, I've had none and don't want any. Taking care of the 2 that I do as a medical caregiver is more then enough for me.
 
No one should be permitted to breed children if they can't afford to care for it. How can you argue against that??

Baron Max
 
Oh B. Max, I do agree with that statement, what I don't agree with is your dodging the question, a valid one, by cottontop. I openly will say that I am a neo-eugenicist (voluntary eugenics) which varies a lot from eugenics in methodology, yet holds the concept of a better humanity thru genetics whether it be selective breeding or engineering. No coersion(sp) or force is to be used in neo-eugenics
 
Baron Max said:
How can you argue against that??
Click to expand...
Propagation of the species. The more children you have, the higher likeliness of grandchildren, and therefore the higher chance of the species growing in population. Propagate of the Species.
 
Hapsburg said:
Propagation of the species. The more children you have, the higher likeliness of grandchildren, and therefore the higher chance of the species growing in population.
Click to expand...

Even if you can't care for them? ...and they die without outside help? ...just keep pumpin' 'em out and let someone else take care of them? And what if others don't want to care for them? THAT is propagation of the species???

Baron Max
 
abyssoft said:
..., what I don't agree with is your dodging the question, a valid one, by cottontop.
Click to expand...

Questions about my personal life is a valid question in a discussion? How do you figure that?

Baron Max
 
in this instance to see if your a bigot or not( practicing what you preach or not). I for one will never have children due to the number inheritable genetic defects i possess, thereby abiding by means of non-procreation my neoeugenic beliefs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top