September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« Some Encouragement from History | Main | Withholding Conclusions »

January 27, 2009

Comments

Reduce breast cancer by annihilating the carrier? Natural Selection at its most alarming.

This type of selective screening is absurd even if we do not take into account the moral/ethical issues, which we should. Just because you filter out one disease potential, does not mean that you eliminate all. So, who is to say that some worse disease could be ushered in as a result of ignoring other factors while excessively focusing on just this one. Mankind will never be any good at playing God. Let's just all stay within our pay grade. Look at what happened to the last creature that tried to go beyond it, and draw a lesson from Lucifer. This is a very dangerous game to play.

I wonder what those on the left would say if someone selectively 'discarded' embryos with genes for gayness -- assuming they exist.

If we can do this with embryos, why stop there? Why not just 'selectively discard' the diseased?

It sure would save a lot of health care costs and would be better for the species, as the diseased would be unable to propagate their bad genes.

LOL

the commentary on this post is stunning

Hi Louis when I read your "above his pay grade" comment, I thought surely you were referring to Obama since he's certainly making a lot of decisions surrounding the specific area that he admitted was above his own pay grade.

This idea is not new. It is almost a hundred years old. I recommend reading Eugenics and Other Evils an argument against a scientifically organized society by G.K. Chesterton. The particulars are a little different but the results are the same. The same buzz words, the same "compassion" the same bad logic. It is a fascinating read.It will equip one to deal with the upcoming debates and policies that are likely to happen here in the near future.
D.

Near future? I think you mean present ;).

I think this blog may be conflating eugenics with abortion. Would the author be against the mother's selectivity if she could run the tests before conception and pick an ideal egg and sperm to combine? The ethics of IVF and eugenics are (mostly) separate.

Ben Winchester said: "Would the author be against the mother's selectivity if she could run the tests before conception and pick an ideal egg and sperm to combine?"

Ben, I'm not sure your example supports your claim that eugenics and abortion are being improperly conflated. Cannot the goal of eugenics be accomplished through abortion? If so, (and I think it can) then eugenics and abortion are not being improperly conflated.

The scenario you describe achieves the goals of eugenics, but does so prior to conception.

Do you agree?

“I wonder what those on the left would say if someone selectively 'discarded' embryos with genes for gayness -- assuming they exist.” Michael

This hypothetical scenario was debated on another blog-spot a few months ago (Lashawn Barber’s Corner) and the homosexual I debated stated that any doctor that would perform such a procedure would be unethical (and I agreed with him.) Of course, he never responded to the question asked by another poster, “what is the difference between this form of abortion and any other abortion?”

Sorry for the late reply, Shaun. While abortion can be used as a form of eugenics, the objections the author seemed to be about discarding viable embryos. I guess I was having a hard time telling if the author was against eugenics for eugenics' sake, or just against that method.

The comments to this entry are closed.