I used to be pro-choice, after all it's the woman's body, there seems to be many cases where abortion is permissible, and anyway, fetuses probably aren't even human. But then I read the Pope's argument (actually it was JPII's argument, but I'm assuming Benny 16 agrees with it) regarding the Catholic pro-life stance. That piece made me realise the brilliant potential of the pro-life stance, specifically the Catholic pro-life stance.
The main argument is that fetuses are potential people, and therefore the fetus has a right to life, much the same as any other person. But really, when you consider it, every time a women of child bearing age, isn't either pregnant or fucking, then a potential human is being denied existence. If you consider the possibility of twins or triplets, then several human beings are being denied their right to life. If abortion is murder, this could be considered triple homicide.
On the topic of multiple babies, it seems to me that in order to ensure that the maximum number of people are given their basic right of life, then fertility medication, and perhaps even other fertility treatments, should be mandatory. In fact, to not do so could be considered discrimination against people who are a result of multiple births.
Okay, so far, it may seem like we'll just end up with a hell of a lot of humans, and this 'brilliant potential' I mentioned, amounts to nothing more than overpopulation, and possible extinction of the species. But that is where the second part of the plan comes into play.
Ok, so far I've only examined the role of women in ensuring that people get their right to life, however, as Monty Python put so succinctly, "every sperm is sacred", thus any plan that truly guarantees the right to life for everyone, must include provisions for the male population. To ensure that as little sperm as possible is wasted, I suggest castrating around 95% of the male population.
The great result of this, is not only do we stop the unnecessary production of sperm, we are provided with an excellent opportunity for genetic selection. By picking the 5% with the best possible genes we can help strengthen the human gene pool. Through genetic selection we can create a race that is smarter, and uses resources more efficiently, thus helping us cope with the massive overpopulation problem. A smarter population will allow us to develop better energy and food production, hope us to cure many diseases, and eventually allow us to colonise other planets, thus giving us even more space to grow as a species.
All these measures will not only ensure that everyone is given the right to life they deserve, but it helps us achieve the perfection that God originally intended, and helps to spread the Lord's message all over the world, and even throughout the universe.
FOR THE GREATER GOOD AND THE LORD
You first.
The primary argument isn't that a fetus is a potential person, but that a fetus actually is a person.
The position of The First Church of the Wrath of Baby Jesus is that a fetus is a fetus until it's out of the house.
Quote from: GA on September 22, 2009, 02:59:56 AM
The primary argument isn't that a fetus is a potential person, but that a fetus actually is a person.
Well aware of that, but I was in the mood to misconstrue something.
For a man, everytime you jerkoff, its the death of millions of potential lives... even if you ejaculate into a woman everytime you have sex, there will also be the "loser" sperm that die off that had "potential" to live... so you should jerkoff into a petri dish, and save them up, and do artificial insemination with every single one of them!
Your idea for the best 5% males to be the only ones to reproduce fails at the most basic issue... who decides? and under which criteria? even if you come up with criteria... can you find those males?
Colonize other planets? are you kidding me?
And yes, you first.
Quote from: JohNyx on September 22, 2009, 03:33:13 AM
are you kidding me?
Yes, yes I was.
Maybe I was coming off too much like DK or Daruko
A FETUS ISN'T A PERSON IF IT'S RAPE.
Quote from: Rumckle on September 22, 2009, 02:48:22 AM
Okay, so far, it may seem like we'll just end up with a hell of a lot of humans, and this 'brilliant potential' I mentioned, amounts to nothing more than overpopulation, and possible extinction of the species.
Actually, it amounts to more righteousness in the world. Uh, because of all the Catholics.
I'm not sure how "more altar boys to molest" translates into righteousness, but that is why I am not the (Catholic) Pope.
(http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/life/i-2-spm2.jpg)
the narrowing of the genepool by effectively killing 95% of the males would have negative effects far greater than the potential benefits of increased intelligence.
especially since gene-related intelligence is nearly impossible to effectively select for.
also,
This is great for trolling pro-lifers and choicers alike.
Quote from: Regret on September 29, 2009, 11:29:33 PM
the narrowing of the genepool by effectively killing 95% of the males would have negative effects far greater than the potential benefits of increased intelligence.
especially since gene-related intelligence is nearly impossible to effectively select for.
also,
This is great for trolling pro-lifers and choicers alike.
Looking for a use other than trolling. Selecting for anything can't have good results. Pressure towards a more feral state might favor intelligence and strength and other raw talents, but society couldn't have as many members, as closely packed.
Not that society's anywhere near it's appropriate size or properties.
Quote from: yhnmzw on September 29, 2009, 11:52:54 PM
Looking for a use other than trolling. Selecting for anything can't have good results. Pressure towards a more feral state might favor intelligence and strength and other raw talents, but society couldn't have as many members, as closely packed.
Not that society's anywhere near it's appropriate size or properties.
what is the appropriate size for society? and what are its most appropriate property's ? there used to be a group that said blond hair and blue eyes were, and they took action to adjust the size of society as well, if i recall correctly..
Eugenics. All of it. Disgusting.
On the other hand, I'm all for random sterilizations. Me first!
Ugh, I hate it when discussions on eugenics succumb to Godwin's law.
Just because the Nazis where pro-eugenics doesn't make the entire system bad.
Also Kai, it isn't random if you volunteer
You can volunteer to be part of a group to be randomly sterilized ;)
I'm of the opinion that genetics surveys should be freely (or cheaply) available to potential parents, along with a pamphlet helpfully reminding them of the hundreds of thousands of cute orphans who want to be adopted. Then, if they don't like the odds of their child having whatever genetic condition they can adjust their childbearing plans accordingly. If they don't care or don't choose to take take the survey, no big deal.
Something something humans acting rationally given sufficient information something. :lol:
Okay, we'd probably end up overall selecting for something worthless as far as survival and quality of life goes, but at least it would be democratic.
Quote from: Rumckle on September 30, 2009, 12:43:04 AM
Ugh, I hate it when discussions on eugenics succumb to Godwin's law.
Just because the Nazis where pro-eugenics doesn't make the entire system bad.
This should be good.
Do go on.
Okay so who determined who the top 5% are? Who designs the survey, assessment, evaluation, whatever, that determines who fits into this elite category?
And then lets think about another thing. When we gather this Elite Club of 5 Percenters, are we measuring their EQ along with their IQ? Are we factoring social markers into the formula? Because it would be rather comical if you get this clan of smarties together and find out their a bunch of fucking squares who sweat and buckle at the idea of talking to the opposite sex, nevermind getting them in the sack and deciding to start a family.
Oh, whether Nazis did this or no, what you propose is horrifically awful.
well, if you're going to be like that, you're not getting in either.
Somehow I suspect the puns and the nose flute would disqualify me immediately.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 30, 2009, 02:11:19 PM
Okay so who determined who the top 5% are? Who designs the survey, assessment, evaluation, whatever, that determines who fits into this elite category?
And then lets think about another thing. When we gather this Elite Club of 5 Percenters, are we measuring their EQ along with their IQ? Are we factoring social markers into the formula? Because it would be rather comical if you get this clan of smarties together and find out their a bunch of fucking squares who sweat and buckle at the idea of talking to the opposite sex, nevermind getting them in the sack and deciding to start a family.
Oh, whether Nazis did this or no, what you propose is horrifically awful.
Quote from: Rumckle on September 22, 2009, 03:41:13 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on September 22, 2009, 03:33:13 AM
are you kidding me?
Yes, yes I was.
Quote from: LMNO on September 30, 2009, 01:07:39 PM
Quote from: Rumckle on September 30, 2009, 12:43:04 AM
Ugh, I hate it when discussions on eugenics succumb to Godwin's law.
Just because the Nazis where pro-eugenics doesn't make the entire system bad.
This should be good. Do go on.
Ok, apart from me being pissed off when
any argument descends to the level of "the Nazis did it therefore it is bad".
Now, I just want to clarify my knowledge of genetics isn't that great, so I may make some mistakes.
Huntington's disease is genetic (I believe), so, say we can do a test, when the fetus is only a small number of cells to test for it. Then we can alter the genes of each cell to alter the gene in question (as at this stage there is a small number of genes) to get rid of the disease if the fetus has it. Surely this is a positive application of eugenics.
Quoteeu⋅gen⋅ics
/yuˈdʒɛnɪks/ [yoo-jen-iks]
–noun (used with a singular verb)
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)
Quote
Medical Genetics is the specialty of medicine that involves the diagnosis and management of hereditary disorders. Medical genetics differs from Human genetics in that human genetics is a field of scientific research that may or may not apply to medicine, but medical genetics refers to the application of genetics to medical care.
Quote
Medical genetics was a late developer, emerging largely after the close of World War II (1945) when the eugenics movement had fallen into disrepute. The Nazi misuse of eugenics sounded its death knell. Shorn of eugenics, a scientific approach could be used and was applied to human and medical genetics. Medical genetics saw an increasingly rapid rise in the second half of the 20th century and continues in the 21st century.
i am not an expert and i had to grab the medical genetics definition from wikipidia (resident experts can correct) but you seem to be confusing eugenics and medical genetics,
Perhaps, I've mostly seen any purposeful genetic selection or alteration as eugenics (though sometimes I am careful to distinguish new eugenics and old eugenics).
However, I have taken a 100 level philosophy course and therefore know everything about everything, so stfu.
(that above statement is intended in jest, just pointing that out seeing as though I seem to be misunderstood a lot lately)
No WE MUST HAVE RANDOM STERILIZATIONS.
Quote from: JohNyx on September 30, 2009, 12:56:52 AM
You can volunteer to be part of a group to be randomly sterilized ;)
^This.^