Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Should be able to squeeze you in for a Highly Commended though.
Vote UKIP if you want to kill disable babies.
GK Chesterton put him in his place
otherwise something something something your mum
sterilised 63,000 people - mostly women
Churchill drafted 'sterilisation of the feeble minded' into the Mental Deficiency Act 1913 but campaigning from GK Chesterton meant that this plan was dropped, though the Act passed
which is very illuminating
or there's a free audiobook download if you'd rather
...I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make.
was within a whisker of the compulsory termination of the mentally ill thanks to one of its Great Heroes
I'm not an advocate of eugenics or UKIP or Churchill or Sweden's compulsory sterilisation program
just pointing out some historical information
...but fair enough. I fail to see how it's that relevant, mind.
before your time
Your understanding of google (though not the subject matter at hand) is older than I thought.
a big source of shame too as the Govt. finally negotiated a frankly derisory system to pay out damages after years of campaigning
most Swedes were completely unaware of the whole programme
I'm surprised you don't know much more about it ... what with it being the archetypal darkside to Nordic Social Democracy
OP posts seeming political hot potato, lights lynching torch
nah mate One Of The Greatest Ever Britons tried that 100 years ago
Someone else, who was British and in a position of political power, drafted something into eugenics into a bill about 80 years ago which never actually came to pass. How is that in anyway relevant to what this chap is saying? Aside from it giving you an excuse to crowbar in a bit of glib old Tory bashing, of course...
Of course, your meandering into such territory is the fault of the OP for starting a non-thread about a non-subject. One has to keep oneself amused somehow, I suppose...
what's wrong with that? When is historical perspective ever shudderingly irrelevant?
Eugenics was a popular concept/pseudoscience for much of the 20th century right and left of the political divide
coming to the conclusion that I was Tory-bashing is way wide of the mark and seems a bit needlessly defensive
...why didn't you engage with CG's point about the Fabians, assuming that historical perspective is what you were seeking (hopefully from a balanced perspective)?
As in kill them?
Wasn't he famously a sufferer of depression?
and the people seen as feeble-minded or lunatics who were institutionalised in Britain until relatively recently.
The party should be doing a fuck a lot more to slap him down if they want to be taken seriously though.
gave up being taken seriously when they made Farage leader.
Saying that, the Tories may have Boris as leader someday...
Farage is exactly the kind of politician whose career would crumble under any kind of media scrutiny. He can only get UKIP so far before he becomes a massive liability. I shall continue to underestimate him.
not killing or aborting those with features we don't like, but allowing parents (e.g those who undergo IVF) to select embryos that don't have traits for particular diseases. In fact I believe IVF clinics already reject certain embryos on grounds of them not being likely to implant or to result in serious deformity.
If it's simply 'planned changes designed to improve the gene pool', then liberal eugenics would be a situation where such changes were allowed, but not compulsory.
I don't think parents should be free to choose any trait for their children. But I'd happily advocate them being able to select against serious diseases and for general positive traits (e.g. higher intelligence).
(I'm not claiming it's possible to select for intelligence just yet, btw)
but it's probably best to forego the conversation on whether or not 'higher intelligence' is a 'positive trait', as well as whether or not it is a quality that could be achieved by any eugenic practice, altogether and just ask a question that you have the frame of reference to answer- in what sense would a eugenics that strived to select intelligence be liberal?
I guess in the same way that women who are pregnant are advised to take folic acid supplements and not drink alcohol whilst pregnant in order to avoid doing neurological harm to the embryo, but are not forced to.
To me liberal involves respecting and facilitating the freedom of others. Which is hard to do when you've denied their right to exist in the first place.
are defined entirely by those conditions and that they are happy when other people are born with those conditions.
What if they agree that it's better that people are born without certain conditions?
They're still effectively making decisions about whether disabled people deserve to life, regardless of how good their intentions are. And I'm not convinced there's a liberal way to decide whether disabled people deserve life. I'd say it's the start of slippery slope but it's a pretty abhorrent notion in itself regardless of where it leads to..
on deliberating selecting embyros with (what for convenience rather than any underlying sentiment I'll refer to as) disabilities?
I mean obviously disabilities and health problems aren't desirable things but I think it'd be wrong to deny people a chance of life and a loss for diversity/range of knowledge and experiences in society if we actively attempted to stop people with disabilities from existing.
not actually forcing someone to have an abortion, or actively killing existing disabled people.
It's not about whether disabled people deserve life; it's whether being disabled is good or bad for individuals, society and for families. Some disabilities and diseases are only bad *because* of the way society is structured or treats disabilities, but some will be harder to live with regardless of this. And some diseases, frankly, are fucking awful.
A real-life example. Tay-Sachs disease. It's common in Jewish populations. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is used to select embryos that don't have it. Have a read of the symptoms and let me know whether you think they're wrong to do so:
So why force parents to deal with this? If parents are ignorant about a particular disability, we should do our best to inform them and they may realise that actually they can have enjoy their family life regardless of their kids disability. But what if they still don't want to?
then presumably you would also oppose abortion of embryos if the abortion was solely for the same reason as the selection.
I suppose there is always the possibility of giving up the baby for adoption.
I'm not following this at all- it's not an answer to the question I asked.
Given that many genetic/inherited disabilities, illnesses and conditions can be diagnosed prenatally and that the law allows women to terminate pregnacies after the standard cut-off point in cases where there is a substantial risk of disability, 'forcing' parents to 'deal with' disabled children is not an issue at all.
I was jumping ahead and arguing that if you were being consistent then by opposing selection of embryos/traits, you should also oppose abortions that also allow such selections. Which would be forcing it on parents.
But that's a bit like saying a law allowing people to take revenge on people who've perpetrated crimes against them is nicer than a law which compels them to do so. It doesn't change the fact it'd be a damn sight 'nicer' and more ethical to outright not have such laws in the first place.
I think it's more ethical to have a society with less suffering and disease.
people who have Down's Syndrome need more care and support but often live happy, healthy and productive lives. I'm not sure there's a convincing argument that eugenicism against Down's Syndrome reduces suffering per se...
As I said above, "Some disabilities and diseases are only bad *because* of the way society is structured or treats disabilities, but some will be harder to live with regardless of this. And some diseases, frankly, are fucking awful."
So in the case of Down's and no doubt many other disabilities, there is not necessarily any extra suffering from the point view of a disabled kid vs a non-disabled kid. And if it can be pointed out to the parents that many other parents of disabled kids are getting on fine, then maybe they will decide they can be happy with a disabled kid too.
But that doesn't counter the fact that there are certain diseases that inherently cause serious suffering, both to the individual concerned and their family. These diseases are worth eliminating.
There are plenty of people who think Down's is genetically undesirable. Who decides what's an acceptable level of suffering and what's "worth eliminating"?
As they currently do for certain conditions.
I don't think parents will always get things right; in fact I will no doubt often disagree with individual decisions, but what are the alternatives? Ban all abortions for any disease/disability, even ones such as Tay-Sachs? Or have the state compile a list of conditions that must always be prevented (basically apparently like this UKIP suggestion)?
eugenics vs overpopulation debate
Overpopulation is nowhere near the top of the list of Things Humanity in the 21st Century Should Be Worried About.
it already is a problem
but if theyre going to stops uggos falling out their mas fanny then I'm all for it.
Not quickly enough for sure but it's good that public pressure prevailed.
basically anyone can stick on a badge and run for them, so you end up with some right arseholes (even bigger than their usual arseholes) running in some crappy council ward somewhere coming up with all manner of horsecrap. They then kick them out and have to defend themselves, and on it goes. Oddly they would go mental if some Labour person in a similar position was quoted saying something vaguely supporting communism, but there you go.