Fed up with the 'you must have children' propaganda

[Kulindahr]

That child could've just as easily been debilitated by a car accident too. Should we kill all handicapped people? When you dictate procreation along some sort of genetic guideline, you are opening a whole Pandora's box of grief. If you try to irradicate genetic "defects", the word defect will become subjective by many different groups. And like it or not, homosexuality is genetic, isn't it? But this is a gay forum, so of course homosexuality is an acceptable genetic defect. Silly me. Yeah, this reeks of supremacy and a master race.

"Many different groups" are irrelevant. Only the medical profession is relevant.

It's sad that you would condemn future generations to continue to suffer things we have the capability to get rid of. Shall we stop fighting regular disease, too?

 

[Kulindahr]

That child could've just as easily been debilitated by a car accident too. Should we kill all handicapped people? When you dictate procreation along some sort of genetic guideline, you are opening a whole Pandora's box of grief. If you try to irradicate genetic "defects", the word defect will become subjective by many different groups. And like it or not, homosexuality is genetic, isn't it? But this is a gay forum, so of course homosexuality is an acceptable genetic defect. Silly me. Yeah, this reeks of supremacy and a master race.

Oh, BTW, car accidents aren't genetic.

And no one is talking about killing people except you.

 

[Kulindahr]

Homosexuality is genetic only according to SOME research.

There is research that claims that it has much more to do with exposure to certain hormones in the womb, as the hormones influence the development of the brain.

Yes -- the genetic aspect accounts for only a minority of cases. And it would be hard to find a medical consensus that it's a "defect" anyway.

 

[xbuzzerx]

That child could've just as easily been debilitated by a car accident too. Should we kill all handicapped people? When you dictate procreation along some sort of genetic guideline, you are opening a whole Pandora's box of grief. If you try to irradicate genetic "defects", the word defect will become subjective by many different groups. And like it or not, homosexuality is genetic, isn't it? But this is a gay forum, so of course homosexuality is an acceptable genetic defect. Silly me. Yeah, this reeks of supremacy and a master race.

You're slippery sloping. Your parents already take measures to prevent you from needlessly suffering, it's called doctors visits and vaccinations.

You can twist it any way you like but if a medical option existed to stop a painful, debilitating disease that created lifelong suffering, there would be no compelling reason not to do it, and it would not logically follow that the next step is to eliminate all but blond hair.

 

[mikey3000]

http://www.reddisability.org/famous-disabled/DisFamScience.htm

QUOTE=xbuzzerx;9512492]You're slippery sloping. Your parents already take measures to prevent you from needlessly suffering, it's called doctors visits and vaccinations.

You can twist it any way you like but if a medical option existed to stop a painful, debilitating disease that created lifelong suffering, there would be no compelling reason not to do it, and it would not logically follow that the next step is to eliminate all but blond hair.[/QUOTE]
And yet we still have sickness and disease. Even if you can eradicate genetic maladys, you can't erase all illness, thus my example of the car accident victim. My original point being that anyone who is not perfection personified, either from birth or otherwise, still has value in society. Where woukd we be without Stephen Hawking?

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.reddisability.org/famous-disabled/DisFamScience.htm

QUOTE=xbuzzerx;9512492]You're slippery sloping. Your parents already take measures to prevent you from needlessly suffering, it's called doctors visits and vaccinations.

You can twist it any way you like but if a medical option existed to stop a painful, debilitating disease that created lifelong suffering, there would be no compelling reason not to do it, and it would not logically follow that the next step is to eliminate all but blond hair.[/QUOTE]

And yet we still have sickness and disease. Even if you can eradicate genetic maladys, you can't erase all illness, thus my example of the car accident victim. My original point being that anyone who is not perfection personified, either from birth or otherwise, still has value in society. Where woukd we be without Stephen Hawking?

 

[xbuzzerx]

And yet we still have sickness and disease. Even if you can eradicate genetic maladys, you can't erase all illness, thus my example of the car accident victim. My original point being that anyone who is not perfection personified, either from birth or otherwise, still has value in society. Where woukd we be without Stephen Hawking?

Why vaccinate your kids? They're going to get colds or other diseases anyway. They might as well get measles, mumps and rubella as well.

That's your argument. Wanna stick by that?

 

[ElmosToe]

Gattaca is an awesome movie.

 

[pat grimshaw]

...Where woukd we be without Stephen Hawking?

….Where woukd we be without Stephen Hawking?

I don't know. Blackbelt might know

 

[mikey3000]

Why vaccinate your kids? They're going to get colds or other diseases anyway. They might as well get measles, mumps and rubella as well.

That's your argument. Wanna stick by that?

Yup. MMR are communicable diseases, not genetic disorders. You can't erase them by genetic manipulation. That's why. Nice try though.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Yup. MMR are communicable diseases, not genetic disorders. You can't erase them by genetic manipulation. That's why. Nice try though.

You are artificially altering body chemistry when you vaccinate a child, to prevent them from suffering from potentially dangerous illnesses.

It was a far more appropriate comparison than your bizarre statement that someone might get into a car crash and suffer injuries.

And I don't expect you to admit you're wrong here, because I've never known you to recognize when your position is completely illogical, but you are.

 

[mikey3000]

It's ok man. Go ahead and attack. Typical m/o. If it makes you feel better, you are always right, on every topic. Yes sir, you are.

 

[ElmosToe]

Um, no. Genetic counseling is not eugenics in the Nazi sense at all. Eugenics is imposed, dictating what characteristics are allowed; genetic counseling allows prospective parents to protect against having children with known genetic disorders.

^we're already there and people are already doing this and have been doing this for years.


this below statement however, is implying something you have mentioned more blatantly before elsewhere on this board many times and I find what you are implying incredibly disturbing.

We're pretty much at the point where genetic guidelines can be implemented, so we stop passing on defects, and that would be a good place to start.

This discussion is quite disturbing.

Calling Hitler....Eugenics is back.


disgusting.

You were saying...?

 

[zoltanspawn]

It doesn't work that way. For his argument to have substance, he has to have a definition of pain and pleasure. His is binary: pleasure, or pain, no scale of either, just one or the other.

And non-existence cannot be "preferable", because there's no one there to "prefer" it. Preference applies only once you exist. Pain and pleasure only apply once you exist, so there's no value at all to non-existence, it's a null.

It's nothing but a sophomoric mind game.

His conclusion demonstrates net harm in existence in spite of your objection.

The party that prefers to not inflict existence on people is, of course, us.

We don't prize anything "for being absent" -- we can only prize things that exist. What we prize is not the absence of something, but the conditions which pertain in its absence.

Speaking of mind games, this^ is certainly one. We prize all sorts of harmful things for being absent: cancer, murder, genocide, suicide, rape, slavery, on and on and on. We prize it when there is not a rape; we may also prize it when conditions don't give rise to rape.

The "logic" is a mind game. No one has kids in order to make them suffer, which is what has to be considered if we're talking about real people. But he isn't talking about real people, he's talking about aetherial philosophy which has no connection to the human condition.

Existence brings the possibility of joy. Non-existence brings nothing. That's what you get when you look at a "very practical, real, sensible consequence (a human life)".

If you really believed that, you'd end your own life, because the future prospect of continued existence can be measured by the same "asymmetry".

Whether or not people inflict existence on children without intending to do them harm, the result is always the same in the case of every human life: there is still suffering.

On the other hand, there is no suffering in denying the "possibility of joy" to a non-existent person.

The suggestion that I should harm myself because I don't want to inflict harm on others, is illogical.

No, because your "asymmetry" argument applies to your future just as much as to the future of hypothetical people. Your own approval of the "asymmetry" argument means you should end your life.

That you have not done so demonstrates that you don't really believe the argument.

Again, there is no harm done to non-existent people by not inflicting existence on them. But, in suicide, there would be harm done to me.

More broadly, consider this: the end I'm arguing for right now is the extinction of the human species. That may be achieved through different means. The means I'm advocating is one which wouldn't harm anyone.

 

[zoltanspawn]

I would be happy if you did, but of course I do not wish to force this on you.

Well I would if I had the power, but I do not.

You would be happy if I killed myself.^

You would force me to kill myself if you had the power.^

What's wrong with you?

 

[zoltanspawn]

Also, keep in mind that heterosexuality is a mutation, and the original "normal" behaviour was homosexuality. This all got screwed up when a second gender entered the picture.

You're that guy that used to have the rabbit avatar, aren't you?

But who cares. This is genuinely bizarre^. You are referring to the Biblical Adam, no? Before Eve entered the picture, who was Adam "homosexual" for? That hunk Yahweh?

 

[mikey3000]

"Many different groups" are irrelevant. Only the medical profession is relevant.

It's sad that you would condemn future generations to continue to suffer things we have the capability to get rid of. Shall we stop fighting regular disease, too?

Only the medical profession is relevant? Yes, big pharma has only our best interests at heart. Science can't even cure the common cold, and you'd trust them to mess around with human DNA? Wow. We don't even fight regular disease now, only manage it. Remember, there is no $$ in curing disease. Why would they want to eradicate their livelihood?

 

[ElmosToe]

Yes....this conversation is QUITE disturbing.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Only the medical profession is relevant? Yes, big pharma has only our best interests at heart. Science can't even cure the common cold, and you'd trust them to mess around with human DNA? Wow. We don't even fight regular disease now, only manage it. Remember, there is no $$ in curing disease. Why would they want to eradicate their livelihood?

When science detects a birth defect in the heart of a fetus in utero, there are many surgical options that exist to intervene and save the child's life. Almost undoubtedly you have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever. -If- a single gene defect was proven to conclusively cause birth defects in the heart requiring surgery and could be replaced before the defect formed, that would be immoral, though?

Totally makes sense.

 

[mikey3000]

If if if... You are comparing reparative surgery on one individual to altering human DNA clear down the line, hardly the same thing. But thanks for answering my other points though.

 

[xbuzzerx]

If if if... You are comparing reparative surgery on one individual to altering human DNA clear down the line, hardly the same thing. But thanks for answering my other points though.

Whether we can do it now, tomorrow or in 5 years makes utterly no difference whatsoever if what you're saying is "it would be wrong to do anyway." Grasp onto more irrelevant tangents.