Posted on 07/27/2024 9:24:07 PM PDT by TexasKamaAina
Increasingly, studies suggest we can therapeutically target aging. This means our cognitive function could remain robust throughout our lifespan. And it means in future presidential debates, we may watch the sharpest-ever candidates in history, since they’d benefit from both wisdom and mental acuity.
(Excerpt) Read more at bioethicstoday.org ...
Because when the world talks about age meaning something, they mean it eugenically.
Sarah Palin was mocked. But she was right. The Left is all about death panels. Dr Ezekiel Emanuel (Chicago mayor Rahm’s brother) even said anyone over 75 should be refused medical treatment, and be left to die.
Funny how the media concentrated on mocking Palin, but ignored what Dr Emanuel had to say.
Oh, and one more thing. You can bet that age 75+ politicians would be exempt from that rule.
Many Democrats are proof that wisdom doesn’t necessarily come with age.
“And it means in future presidential debates, we may watch the sharpest-ever candidates in history, since they’d benefit from both wisdom and mental acuity.”
A geriatric AOC?? But sharp as a tack??
When their questioning ‘what is a woman,’ don’t expect them acknowledge age.
Could you please clarify your thoughts for us? What you wrote here doesn't seem to make any sense.
On the whole, the question of "old people reproducing" or it being "detrimental to the gene pool for old people to reproduce" isn't really the issue here.
Regards,
The left does not value human life because it exists. It places value on human life as to its ability to contribute to society.
That is why you hear many on the left talk about encouraging senior citizens to end their lives prematurely. That is the presumed reason why China created covid, to reduce its share of the senior citizen population.
exactly
And what is the cut off? 65 years old? 40 years old?
they want us dead
You are (correctly) referring to euthanasia, and the Left's love for it.
Yet in your initial post, you (mistakenly) referred to eugenics, which is different, and which certainly has no place in any discussion of "old age" or the supposed "burden" that the elderly might impose upon society.
Some proponents of euthanasia might argue that it might be (also) effective in "culling" certain elements of our society who would otherwise reproduce, thus proliferating "bad" genes. At present, no one in the world is doing that (at least not publicly); the Left certainly is not (publicly).
Conversely, some proponents of eugenics might encourage the use of euthanasia as another tool in the toolbox to achieve their ends - but they usually don't, preferring instead to advocate only surgical sterilization and the like.
These two words are sometimes used in the same context, but they have very, very different meanings.
Regards,
Hey, only when it's convenient.
But seriously, the impact of aging is widely variant. My family was blessed with lots of folks who lived into their 80s, 90s, and a few who passed the century mark. All but one (and she wasn't a blood relative) had siblings and/or parents who died relatively young.
I on the other hand feel like I'm done right now. :^)
Eugenics simply means gearing society to being the most fit society. It’s one of the commandments of the Georgia Guidestones.
To my way of thinking, as the left applies it, as long as you are a contributing member of society then you get to live. As you become useless, it is your obligation to die.
Over the generations, as people are sifted between life and death, in accordance to their ability to be productive, you will end up with older people who can be very productive. They might be 75 years, but they will have the productive level of somebody in their 50’s.
That is eugenics, in principle. So I don’t think I am misapplying the word according to what it means.
No I am not.
The definition of eugenics is “The study or practice of attempting to improve the human gene pool by encouraging the reproduction of people considered to have desirable traits and discouraging or preventing the reproduction of people considered to have undesirable traits”
If you kill off those who are unproductive at an earlier age, you should over time result in a more fit population that can be productive at later ages. Any quality that you can use to define the human race and you kill off those with that quality that you do not desire, you will have a population in time without that desire.
An example would be Iceland. Iceland has almost no Down Syndrome children, because they killed off every fetus that had that extra chromosome and they now have a population that is devoid of that chromosome.
The same would happen if you favoured people with higher productivity. Over time, you’ll have a population capable of being more productive then usual.
Age is meaningless! Unless you are wine, cheese, or that container in the back of the refrigerator...
Sorry, but this simply does not correspond to the dictionary definition.
Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population. Historically, eugenicists have altered various human gene frequencies by inhibiting the fertility of people and groups purported to be inferior or promoting that of those purported to be superior.
-Wikipedia
Has nothing to do with the euthanasia of people based on age (either by denying them needed medical attention, or actively killing them).
Regards,
I gave you the dictionary definition.
The study or practice of attempting to improve the human gene pool by encouraging the reproduction of people considered to have desirable traits and discouraging or preventing the reproduction of people considered to have undesirable traits.
https://www.wordnik.com/words/eugenics
As an application, by encouraging desireable traits, people adopt those traits as values. So, if you desire a highly productive population, you reward unduly productive people.
Yes - But that concept is entirely irrelevant to a discussion of "age as a meaningful number" and the side-issue (or "derived topic") of "euthanasia." The headline and excerpt were about age.
I know that one could, conceivably use euthanasia as a means to achieve eugenics - namely, by murdering people of perceived inferior genetic stock who would otherwise reproduce. But in the context of the issue today, NO ONE advocates that. It is simply NOT ON THE TABLE, and your conflating "eugenics" and "euthanasia" is simply not helpful.
You genuinely seemed - at first - to not recognize that those were two separate issues.
The topic of "age as a meaningful number" or the odious argument that "old people are a burden on society" should be strictly separated from any discussion of "eugenics," which is an entirely different matter.
Your post #2 - "Because when the world talks about age meaning something, they mean it eugenically." - is thus a classic Red Herring, distraction, and non sequitur.
I don't think that you were deliberately attempting to derail the conversation, but rather were merely confused.
I congratulate you on having since looked up the word and educated yourself, but you should gracefully admit to having initially side-tracked the discussion.
Regards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.