I know I should feel bad for agreeing with you on this. It's strange but my other journal has a similar conversation currently running. I find it interesting how many people will cite various famous people as evidence that Eugenics is UNIVERSALLY bad. Who's to say that zygote number 6, without whatever major defect, wouldn't have accomplished as good of things as zygote number 3?
I've always been really annoyed by that argument, especially in reference to abortion. "What if Martin Luther King Jr. had been an abortion?" or some such drivel. Well what if Hitler HAD been an abortion, eh? Or maybe even the Boston Strangler? How about that? (I was tempted to say the Unabomber, but I'm not convinced he wasn't a patsy for meddling time-travelers! Heh heh)
I'm of the opinion that the general improvement in human capacity trumps any sort of individual accomplishment. Also, who's to say that if one person didn't do something another person wouldn't have come right along and filled the void?
But back to the topic: That's a shaky excuse to saddle a potential human being with a crappy genetic malfunction.
Sounds like you might have some fascinating things going on over there. Maybe. ;)
I've always liked, "What if YOU had been an abortion?" because it has a very clear-cut answer: Then I never would have developed the mental faculties to give a damn about it!
Maybe it's because I think of life as more of an out-of-hand chemical reaction than a miracle, and believe that nurture is what makes a person, but I think it's a terrible thing to knowingly bring someone into the world who's going to have significant difficulties with daily life (or contend with significant medical issues until s/he dies painfully at a young age). It's not a person yet. Roll the dice again before it is. There's no sperm or egg shortage.
[ridiculous emotional logic]By bringing a defective person into the world, you're denying their would-be replacement the right to LIFE![/ridiculous emotional logic]
Comments 4
Reply
I'm of the opinion that the general improvement in human capacity trumps any sort of individual accomplishment. Also, who's to say that if one person didn't do something another person wouldn't have come right along and filled the void?
But back to the topic: That's a shaky excuse to saddle a potential human being with a crappy genetic malfunction.
Sounds like you might have some fascinating things going on over there. Maybe. ;)
PS: Why should you feel bad for agreeing?
Reply
Maybe it's because I think of life as more of an out-of-hand chemical reaction than a miracle, and believe that nurture is what makes a person, but I think it's a terrible thing to knowingly bring someone into the world who's going to have significant difficulties with daily life (or contend with significant medical issues until s/he dies painfully at a young age). It's not a person yet. Roll the dice again before it is. There's no sperm or egg shortage.
[ridiculous emotional logic]By bringing a defective person into the world, you're denying their would-be replacement the right to LIFE![/ridiculous emotional logic]
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment