Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
And this is EXACTLY what Zero and his "czars" will implement in the United States.
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
“...but also to the grave suffering foreseen in the future.”
I forsee grave suffering in the future for bitch buiting. Guess we’d better perform a retroactive abortion on her pronto.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
BUMP
“Useless Eaters”, based on an article by Mark Mostert:
http://www.regent.edu/acad/schedu/uselesseaters/
CBF here is part of what Mark was alluding to, the ultimate in ‘contraception’ - post-partum abortions. In Europe.
We are fast approaching the point where we will be morally justified in...I better not say it on here.
It’s important to focus not just on “negative eugenics”, but the failures of “positive eugenics” as well. And do not underestimate either, because there is some considerable “natural sensibility” in eugenics.
To start with, eugenics is the flip side of natural selection. All living things cooperate and compete with all other living things, especially in their species, to determine which will survive and reproduce. But this is full of all sorts of ups and downs, and terribly complex.
However, humans in nature do not particularly like all the contests that are foisted on us by disease, parasites, the weather, etc., so we seek to overcome them. This means that we bias the system, so that some who were supposed to lose, win, and some who would have otherwise die, live.
So, in a manner of speaking, medical care, agriculture, clothing, fire, etc., all go against natural selection. And this has long term consequences, not all of which are bad.
But we focus on the bad consequences. We understand that there are people who are born with severely ill health and mental incapacity, and that they are expensive and difficult to keep alive. So the question is, at first, should such people have children, if they will likewise be public charges?
And quickly this becomes the new question: Why is the public paying to keep these people alive? Here is where “negative eugenics” arises.
But there are also many people who want their children to not just survive, but to excel, in the contest of natural selection. This is based on the observation that both plants and animals can be selectively bred to produce a “better” variety of plant and animal. And this is quite true.
However, people are not skilled at selectively breeding ourselves. This means that the teenage girl whose body tells her that a particular boy is attractive, is actually far more likely than any amount of genetic calculation made by scientists, to produce a superior offspring.
How she reaches this conclusion is mysterious, but teenage girls do it all the time. And this is not unique to humans, because this selection is seen throughout the animal kingdom, in a great contest between males and females to produce the best offspring.
And even a farmer who has a gift at cross breeding animals will likely do much better than scientists in picking the best pair to mate.
So even “positive eugenics” is way over our heads, and almost certain to fail.
