Mortal Monkey on 5/11/2006 at 04:41
Quote Posted by Lucky Hand of Glory
I wish they could detect severe handicaps way before the thing becomes a being capable of surviving outside the mothers body.
From an evolutionary angle, part of the problem is the invention of life support systems. Unfortunately for future generations, mankind is far too impatient to let evolution fix our flaws.
Turtle on 5/11/2006 at 05:10
OH NO GUYS, MY BABY IS BLACK.
WHAT CAN I DO??
pavlovscat on 5/11/2006 at 05:22
It seems I'm on a roll with pissing everybody off tonight, so why stop a winning streak?
Humans are the only animals that perpetuate non-viable genetic faults. We have eliminated the idea of survival of the fittest. Using modern medicine and science, we nuture and protect individuals that would die out in any non-domesticated species. Before you wail & gnash your teeth & call me names, stay with me a bit longer. An animal which cannot feed itself will die. Many disabilities would preclude a person's continued survival if they had to provide for themselves. This also means these genetic traits would be less likely to be perpetuated because animals that can't eat, can't breed. So, we have removed nature's control for eliminating non-productive genetic mutations. Therefore, humans reproduce virtually uncontrolled and weaken the whole species. This parallels the problems with purebred animals. We breed selectively for single traits, not the well being of the entire breed. It is well known that particular breeds suffer predictable health problems due to inbreeding and selective breeding which promotes "ideal" appearances or temperments rather than healthy animals. We won't help Fido & Fluffy, but will we help ourselves? I doubt it. Too many people think that any life is better than no life, nevermind quality of life or the individual's preference. I would rather die than be confined to a bed on a ventilator for the rest of my life. That's my preference. Too often when people get seriously ill, they are kept alive by machines. Once the machines are hooked up, it becomes a criminal act to turn them off. But what if I didn't want the machines in the first place. I would be denied my right of free choice to die. Just because someone is alive, doesn't mean they should be forced to stay beyond their body or brain's ability to function. Of course, if you deny the basic truth that humans are just very fancy animals, you probably think I'm nuts. But, that's OK. I probably am.
Mortal Monkey on 5/11/2006 at 05:28
QUICKLY, DO THE MICHAEL JACKSON
Also, if you're dead you can't feel like you've been wronged.
Renegen on 5/11/2006 at 05:30
I don't agree, mutations happen all the time, the disabled people don't reproduce from the most part, especially not the heavily disabled. The disabled babies come from healthy mothers. Of course the natural selection argument is a controversial one, but to what end? In part society does create a kind of natural selection, and I think being human we are allowed to go beyond natural selection.
MM kinda bugs me..
Mortal Monkey on 5/11/2006 at 05:32
Yes. Unfortunately being fat is not always a genetic disorder. Oh, and we need to ban alcohol for it to actually work.
Edit: And Stitch.
pavlovscat on 5/11/2006 at 05:52
I agree that severly disabled people don't neccessarily reproduce. But what about the only moderately disabled? Why would someone want to be born with any disability? I have willingly removed myself from the gene pool , thankfully before I had children, because I am genetically defective. Chances are 1 in 75 of passing on MS. Genes alone do not determine the onset of MS, but why take a chance with another life? Many lesser disabilities leave people able to reproduce, but should they? I say no, but others disagree.
The natural selection argument is controversial because it goes hand in hand with the theory of evolution. That slides over into religious beliefs & not even I am going there-at least not tonight. I don't agree that society is a device of natural selection. The strong protect the weak. And, we try to save every life no matter whose. I would like to think humans are intelligent enough to successfully circumvent natural selection, but even though I have yet to see proof of it, I still hope we can one day.
Crion on 5/11/2006 at 06:03
Quote Posted by Turtle
OH NO GUYS, MY BABY IS BLACK.
WHAT CAN I DO??
Use a zucchini.
Quote Posted by Renegen
Of course the natural selection argument is a controversial one, but to what end? In part society does create a kind of natural selection, and I think being human we are allowed to go beyond natural selection.
A bit of a contradiction, yes?
In our society, people can take drugs to fight off heart disease. They can get surgery to remove blockages as well. Look at Cheney. What was that last thing he had, a multiple bypass? Maybe it's nature's way to remove them genes by making his daughter a lezzy. :p
And, look at diabetes or, at least, not the one caused by stuffing your face (Type-II?). You're not disabled but probably wouldn't live out the "average" lifespan at any time under, what, the 1900s.
Anyway, what about stupidity? Frankly, too many stupid people are living longer and making babies because they're not dying from being stupid and are too stupid to use birth control. And what do we get? Stupid babies which is why there's warnings on plastic bags and buckets warning of suffication and drowning.
GAH!
Turtle on 5/11/2006 at 06:13
So let's let the disabled babies be and remove the retard warnings from consumer goods.
Aerothorn on 5/11/2006 at 06:14
Wipe them out. All of them.
