Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Not really, but as a slight spin-off, how do some of you feel about eugenics? If scientists perfect it, is it something you'd be for or against? What about growing a child in a lab environment outside the body?

I think it's a slippery slope.

89Hen wrote:I think it's a slippery slope.

Racist.

89Hen wrote:I think it's a slippery slope.

Growing a human outside of the body? Doesn't sound like a good idea...

89Hen wrote:I think it's a slippery slope.

So that is a slippery slope but Gun Control isn't?

In my opinion nanotechnology and biotech will make it a moot point before eugenics could be perfected.

∞∞∞ wrote:Not really, but as a slight spin-off, how do some of you feel about eugenics? If scientists perfect it, is it something you'd be for or against? What about growing a child in a lab environment outside the body?

The minute people start seriously talking eugenics, those that disagree with them immediately conjure up Hitler, and that depth charges the whole discussion.

I don't think there's anything wrong with it as long as it's not compelled and as long as aborting people just because they don't meet standards is part of it.

But say someone who is smart, capable, etc., wants to select a mate based on IQ, capability, etc. That's fine.

What about growing a child in a lab environment outside the body?

Well now you're getting back to the abortion debate because a key aspect of jurisprudence surrounding the idea of letting women have their progeny killed at will is "viability." And "viability" is the point at which the unborn individual can survive outside of the woman's body.

I have always thought that is a problem for the "pro choice" crowd because we are virtually assured that as time goes on the point at which an unborn individual can survive outside of the mother's body will become earlier and earlier as technology advances.

Of course, the truth is that a healthy individual is "viable" from conception on. The individual is capable of surviving within the environment it's suited to. Saying an embryo or fetus is not "viable" because it cannot survive outside of the mother's body is like saying a fish isn't "viable" because it will die if you take it out of the water and throw it on the concrete. It's nothing but rationalization to justify killing unborn individuals in order to make life more convenient for those already born. In most cases just a way for one to escape responsibility for one's own actions at the expense of the life of another individual.

JohnStOnge wrote:I don't think there's anything wrong with it as long as it's not compelled and as long as aborting people just because they don't meet standards is part of it.

But say someone who is smart, capable, etc., wants to select a mate based on IQ, capability, etc. That's fine.

I'm talking more eugenics as in selecting the genes of your child, if it becomes scientifically and economically feasible on a large scale. Like give my baby blue eyes, brown hair, small nose, a certain skin shade, etc.

JohnStOnge wrote:I have always thought that is a problem for the "pro choice" crowd because we are virtually assured that as time goes on the point at which an unborn individual can survive outside of the mother's body will become earlier and earlier as technology advances.

That's an interesting point, but I feel like the argument would be similar to the one we have now. Certainly one argument is viability, but the most prominent question seems to center around when a fetus becomes conscious. In either a lab or womb, that time will be the same. Still, your point will definitely come into play as technology advances.

∞∞∞ wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I have always thought that is a problem for the "pro choice" crowd because we are virtually assured that as time goes on the point at which an unborn individual can survive outside of the mother's body will become earlier and earlier as technology advances.

That's an interesting point, but I feel like the argument would be similar to the one we have now. Certainly one argument is viability, but the most prominent question seems to center around when a fetus becomes conscious. In either a lab or womb, that time will be the same. Still, your point will definitely come into play as technology advances.

I think that "viability" is an extremely important concept in jurisprudence. I don't think the question of when a fetus becomes "conscious" is as important in that realm. However, it should be noted that there is no sense of self-awareness...of true consciousness...until well after birth. Think back to when you became conscious of your own existence. Think back to what you remember as your first conscious moment. You may not be able to pinpoint the moment exactly. But it was well after birth.

JohnStOnge wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: That's an interesting point, but I feel like the argument would be similar to the one we have now. Certainly one argument is viability, but the most prominent question seems to center around when a fetus becomes conscious. In either a lab or womb, that time will be the same. Still, your point will definitely come into play as technology advances.

I think that "viability" is an extremely important concept in jurisprudence. I don't think the question of when a fetus becomes "conscious" is as important in that realm. However, it should be noted that there is no sense of self-awareness...of true consciousness...until well after birth. Think back to when you became conscious of your own existence. Think back to what you remember as your first conscious moment. You may not be able to pinpoint the moment exactly. But it was well after birth.

At some point in the womb we develop consciousness. Memory is something entirely different.

JohnStOnge wrote: It's nothing but rationalization to justify killing individuals and societies in order to make life more convenient for those already born with a head start in technology. In most cases just a way for one to escape responsibility for one's own actions at the expense of the life of another individual.

FIFY.

Hey, superior people deserve to live and enjoy life more so than dumb savages such as Indians, black folks, and Democrats, right?

You have no problem buying cheap goods while allowing companies to do their business however they want, despite the fact that if left to their own devices many companies would (and have) utilize child labor (almost to the point of slavery) and poison the environments in third world countries.

FVck 'em, right?

grizzaholic wrote:

89Hen wrote:I think it's a slippery slope.

So that is a slippery slope but Gun Control isn't?

Huh? I don't think I've had a single post on a gun control thread.

∞∞∞ wrote:Not really, but as a slight spin-off, how do some of you feel about eugenics? If scientists perfect it, is it something you'd be for or against? What about growing a child in a lab environment outside the body?

FWIW, I would like to see more information on eugenics before I say no.
Also, I am against ebonics too.